
“If a child gets all of the vaccines in the entire schedule, they get almost 13,000 micrograms of aluminium … 600 micrograms of mercury, plus over 200 different chemicals.
That’s why they’ve never been proven to be safe.”
-Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness

“If a child gets all of the vaccines in the entire schedule, they get almost 13,000 micrograms of aluminium … 600 micrograms of mercury, plus over 200 different chemicals.
That’s why they’ve never been proven to be safe.”
-Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

My brilliant co-author Jenna just lit up Substack with a hilarious and savage takedown of the pre-written hit-piece factory at ProPublica, a.k.a. “modern journalism.” – Pierre Kory
https://open.substack.com/pub/jennamccarthy/p/pre-written-narratives-and-premature

The FDA’s removal of hormone therapy warnings after 23 years validates what many women suspected.
“Was I misled?”
That’s the question I hear most from my patients lately—asked with anger, exhaustion, and the quiet devastation of women who wonder if they lost years of their lives to menopause symptoms they were told were untreatable.
The answer came earlier this month when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it would remove “black box” warnings from hormone therapy products after 23 years. For many women, the reversal is an admission that arrives decades too late.
What Happened in 2002
In July 2002, preliminary data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) were published in JAMA, showing that combined hormone therapy (estrogen and progestin) increased the risk of breast cancer, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Major media outlets interpreted early signals from the study as definitive danger, and the announcement led to an instant and dramatic decline in the use of hormone therapy.
Women who had been sleeping well for the first time in years suddenly poured their medications into the trash. Pharmacies fielded calls from panicked patients demanding immediate discontinuation. Primary care doctors, most of whom had never been trained deeply in menopause management, told their patients to “stop now and ask questions later.”
Women did stop, and many suffered in silence for the next 20 years.
The FDA’s Historic Reversal
On Nov. 10, the FDA announced that it is initiating the removal of broad “black box” warnings referencing risks of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and probable dementia from hormone replacement therapy products for menopause.
When FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary spoke publicly about the shift, he didn’t mince words. He said the media had frightened women away from a potentially life-changing therapy, and he noted the difference between estrogen-only therapy and synthetic combination regimens. He acknowledged, openly, that the “fear machine” had begun long before the scientific data had been fully understood.
He also said something that struck many women deeply: “After 23 years of dogma, the FDA is stopping the fear that has steered women away from this life-saving treatment.”
For many of my patients, that sentence felt like a validation they had waited half a lifetime to hear.
The Devil Is in the Details
The details that matter most sat quietly in the medical literature for years—in the 2002 article and the two follow-up studies published in 2011 and 2020 in JAMA.
The Study Population Was Older
Women recruited in the WHI study were all postmenopausal, aged 50 to 79 years, with an average age of 63—more than a decade past the onset of menopause. Most had not used hormones before, and many had cardiovascular risk factors.
The Hormones Were Synthetic
The adverse results found among older women taking combined conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate—both older, synthetic formulations developed in a different era—were generalized to all hormone therapy types and all age groups.
Estrogen-Only Therapy Showed Different Results
The estrogen-only group in the WHI study—women who had hysterectomies and therefore received estrogen without synthetic progestins—had a lower rate of breast cancer.
In the storm of fear that followed, no one wanted to hear nuance.
The Critical Factor
Yet even in the early 2000s, there were physicians who paused, confused because something about the reporting didn’t align with what they were seeing clinically. The hormones used in the WHI study weren’t the bioidentical estradiol and progesterone that many clinicians were already prescribing with good results. More importantly, the women who seemed to benefit most from hormone therapy were those who began it near menopause—not in older age.
Timing is critical. The body responds to estrogen very differently pre-menopause versus a decade post-menopause. After years of low estrogen, the blood vessels lose their flexibility, plaque accumulates, and metabolic changes settle in. The risk-benefit balance is fundamentally different for women who initiate hormone therapy at different ages.
This is what we in medicine now call the “timing hypothesis”—a concept that should have been central to every headline but was lost entirely.
And for two decades, women lived inside that headline and endured the consequences of fear and misinformation.
What Women Lost
The point is not that hormone therapy is perfect or appropriate for everyone. It’s that women were never given the chance to make an informed choice.
Women who begin hormone therapy earlier—ideally within 10 years of menopause—tend to experience improved sleep, reduced anxiety and irritability, and protection against bone loss.
Many report better cognition, improved cardiovascular markers, and enhanced sexual health and relationship well-being. Although spoken about more quietly, perhaps the most profound benefit is the simplest one: the return of themselves.
Takeaways
The new FDA guidelines do not signal a new fad or a sudden reversal. They mark a return to evidence-based medicine—the kind that millions of women should have received all along.
Hormone therapy is not appropriate for every woman, and it is not a cure-all. However, it is a powerful tool, and for the right woman at the right moment, it can restore a quality of life she thought she’d lost forever.
Our job now—as clinicians, as journalists, as a society—is to give women back what fear took from them: clarity, choice, and control.
Everything that follows in this series of columns will build on that mission.
On December 2nd the Washington Post ran a panicked story headlined, “RFK Jr.’s vaccine advisers plan biggest change yet to childhood schedule.” Kirk Milhoan, newly appointed chair of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee, ominously announced, “Not enough attention is being paid to risk.”
Dr. Milhoan, who replaced former committee chair Marty Makary, is a pediatric cardiologist, ivermectin proponent, and long-time critic of covid vaccines. You can imagine how much the media likes him. Yesterday, Dr. Milhoan announced that committee members, meeting tomorrow and Friday, will “broadly scrutinize” the entire pediatric vaccine schedule. You could hear a pin drop.
The “discussions on the timing of vaccines and ingredients could signal major changes to how children in the United States are vaccinated,” the Post reported despairingly. Tomorrow, the committee will formally vote on scrapping the hepatitis B vaccine for babies at birth, so long as their mothers test negative for the virus. (Hep B is usually acquired through sex and illegal drug use.)
Furthermore, and even more encouraging, the committee is “looking at what may be causing some of the long-term changes we’re seeing in population data in children, specifically things such as asthma and eczema and other autoimmune diseases,” Milhoan said in an interview Monday.
Then he dropped the hammer. Milhoan said, “What we’re trying to do is figure out if there are factors within vaccines” that could be causing these problems, instantly terrifying every reporter within earshot and sending ice shooting through their veins (at least, the ones not punctured by needle holes).
Currently, and specifically, the committee is considering aluminum, which is added to over a dozen scheduled vaccines, intended to shock recipients’ immune systems into working even better than without aluminum.
“Public health and medical experts have raised alarms that the panel is moving toward recommending that only vaccines without aluminum adjuvants be used,” the Post said. “ Vaccine industry officials said that removing aluminum adjuvants from vaccines would cost billions of dollars and that finding a replacement would take years,” it explained.
The bowtied brigades can feel the walls closing in. Last week, the CDC revised its website to remove the claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. On Friday, the nation’s top vaccine regulator, Dr. Vinay Prasad, announced more stringent approaches to approving vaccines, citing research showing at least ten kids had been killed by the covid shots. Now this.
Government is glacially slow, which is probably a good thing in most cases. By any sane measure, RFK’s team is moving at lightspeed. This is terrific progress.
Source: https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/coon-capers-wednesday-december-3?utm_campaign=post
A memo leaked from the FDA over the weekend that admits a point long known among the dissidents. It plainly states that the Covid shot likely killed more children than it saved. So far, with just a minimalist examination, the FDA has found 10 dead kids but cautions there are many more.
This is one of the greatest scandals of our time. Not even the mainstream media could suppress the news, which clearly connects with everyone’s intuitions.
It was left to a new hire at the FDA, Dr. Vinay Prasad, to explain all of this to a nervous legacy bureaucracy. There is much more to come, including the release of all available data on shot safety. The coming weeks are going to be wild.
Brownstone Institute

Poisoned, Not Infected (Part 2): How a post-pandemic mystery illness may be hiding widespread toxic and vaccine-induced harm – and why recognizing the difference is critical.
(Tom: There are so many valuable datums in this article that rather than extract the important excerpts I encourage you to read it in its entirety.)
Finish reading: https://sayerji.substack.com/p/poisoned-not-infected-part-2-unmasking
First of all, in a leaked recording, it was revealed that the soups contained lab-grown meat – or “chicken that came from a 3-D printer.” Campbell’s strenuously refutes this comment, though the company does use genetically modified ingredients such as canola, corn, soybeans, and sugar beets.
And, just in case that accusation wasn’t enough to make your guts gurgle, it isn’t even the worst thing on that recording.
Robert Garza, a cybersecurity analyst for the company, was meeting at a restaurant with Martin Bally, one of Campbell’s vice presidents, to discuss his salary.
He secretly recorded statements made by the VP and chief information security officer during a November 2024 meeting. In a rant that lasted over an hour, here are some of the things captured on the recording.
Local 4 News in Detroit broadcast portions of the recording. In it, a speaker identified as Bally is heard saying, “We have s**t for f***king poor people. Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**‘s in it.”
He also referenced “bioengineered meat,” saying, “I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/campbells-vp-admits-soup-st-fking-poor-people-chicken-3d-printer
(Tom: Jack Lalanne famously said, “If man made it, don’t eat it.” The longer I live the more examples I see of the truth of what Jack said and the more I value what I make myself.)

Landmark analysis identifies 12 natural compounds with broad anti-cancer activity, consistently targeting core pathways such as cell death, immune evasion, metabolic dysfunction, and metastasis.
A landmark 2025 review titled, Natural anti-cancer products: insights from herbal medicine, published in Chinese Medicine, pulled together more than 1,100 scientific studies and uncovered something extraordinary: across cell, animal, and multi-omics research, 12 natural compounds repeatedly showed potent anti-cancer activity—triggering cancer cell death, blocking metastasis, cutting off tumor blood supply, disrupting tumor metabolism, and reversing drug resistance. Notably, the vast majority of this evidence comes from studies published since 2019, reflecting a rapid surge of new research in this field.
Landmark analysis identifies 12 natural compounds with broad anti-cancer activity, consistently targeting core pathways such as cell death, immune evasion, metabolic dysfunction, and metastasis.
Helps immune cells detect tumors (reduces PD-L1)
Slows growth signals inside cancer cells (inhibits PI3K/AKT, EGFR, ERK)
Improves chemotherapy responsiveness (reduces MDR1/P-gp activity)
Limits tissue invasion (suppresses NF-?B, MMP-2/9)
Induces cell death through several pathways (apoptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis)
Generates oxidative stress inside tumors (ROS, lipid peroxidation)
Restricts blood vessel formation (anti-angiogenic)
Slows cancer cell movement (reduces vimentin, N-cadherin)
Helps counter drug resistance (affects STAT3, AKT, HSP90)
Shows activity across many animal tumor models
Disrupts major growth pathways (PI3K/AKT, HER2, TGF-ß)
Reduces tumor-fueling inflammation (NF-?B)
Helps reverse drug resistance (P-gp, MRP1, NRF2)
Lowers immune evasion signals (PD-L1)
Reduces metastatic behavior (MMP-2/9)
Triggers cancer cell death (apoptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis)
Lowers inflammation inside tumors (NF-?B, STAT3)
Blocks blood vessel growth (VEGF inhibition)
Helps reverse chemotherapy resistance (P-gp, BCRP)
Reduces invasive behavior (Twist1, MMP-9, EMT markers)
Interferes with cancer cell communication (Wnt/ß-catenin, STAT3, NF-?B)
Initiates several types of cell death (necroptosis, ferroptosis)
Disrupts cancer metabolism (GLUT1 reduction)
Limits spread by reducing enzymes that break tissue barriers (MMP-2/9)
Helps counter drug resistance (P-gp, GST)
Slows growth by interrupting major pathways (PI3K/AKT/mTOR)
Promotes programmed cell death (Bax?, Bcl-2?)
Reduces inflammation (STAT3)
Inhibits invasion and angiogenesis (MMP-2/9, VEGF)
Decreases drug resistance (P-gp suppression)
Reduce metastatic behavior (EMT inhibition, MMP suppression)
Improve immune responses (STAT3 downregulation)
Promote cancer cell death (caspase activation)
Help restore normal growth regulation (p53, PTEN)
Some forms influence gut microbiota related to tumor microenvironments
Support immune recognition of tumors (CD8+ T cells, CXCL9/10)
Reduce PD-L1 (a key shield tumors use to hide)
Inhibit tumor growth signals (PI3K/AKT)
Counteract chemotherapy resistance (P-gp, MRP1)
Improve cell adhesion and reduce invasiveness (E-cadherin upregulation)
Activates protective genes (p53)
Reduces inflammation (NF-?B)
Slows invasive behavior (vimentin?, EMT?)
Initiates multiple cell death pathways (apoptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis)
Shows synergy with conventional treatments
Slows growth signals (mTOR, STAT3)
Reduces tumor blood vessel development (anti-angiogenic)
Limits spread (Wnt/ß-catenin inhibition)
Supports mitochondrial function
Decreases PD-L1 expression
Very potent at low concentrations (nanomolar range)
Blocks multiple tumor-promoting pathways (NF-?B, STAT3, AKT/mTOR)
Lowers immune evasion signals (PD-L1, CD47)
Promotes apoptosis and cell-cycle arrest
Promotes cell death pathways (p53, ROS)
Slows tumor growth (AKT/mTOR inhibition)
Limits metastatic movement (CXCL12, FN1)
Helps reduce drug resistance
Activates stress pathways related to ferroptosis (NRF2 suppression)
Although the review does not provide detailed clinical trial outcomes, it assembles one of the most comprehensive collections of preclinical evidence ever compiled on how natural compounds act on cancer. Across cell studies, xenograft models, orthotopic tumors, and multi-omics analyses, the findings converge on a striking pattern: these molecules consistently disrupt the same core pathways that fuel tumor growth, immune evasion, metastasis, and treatment resistance.
Importantly, several of these compounds—such as curcumin, artemisinin derivatives, ginsenosides, icaritin, silibinin, and resveratrol—are no longer confined to laboratory research. Multiple early-stage and mid-stage clinical trials are already underway, and in the case of icaritin and certain ginsenosides, Phase II and Phase III studies are actively progressing. The scientific community is clearly beginning to take notice.
With cancer rates rising worldwide, these well-tolerated, multi-pathway natural compounds should be advanced into rigorous clinical testing to fully determine their therapeutic potential in human disease.
Source: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/over-1100-studies-reveal-12-natural