Author: TomsWrite

I came across this data from a web site recommending various nutrients to protect against chemtrails. You may already be aware that I put fulvic minerals in my top bars and powders. You may not be aware that I also sell it as a product in its own right. It is very well received by those who try it.
If you are not taking my powder or eating my bars, check this out.
Is one of the richest sources of electrolytes known, which helps to maintain electrochemical balance, pH balance and maintain electrical conductivity within the body.
Fulvic acid also helps to catalyze enzymatic activity, transport vitamins and minerals into the cell, stimulate the breakdown and safe elimination of herbicides and pesticides, increases the absorption rate of nutrients in the cell, enhances healthy cell division, increases the DNA contents within cells and increases the synthesis rate of RNA in cells.
Additionally important in relation to chemtrails is how fulvic acid deals with radioactive elements and harmful metals. First, with heavy metals, fulvic acid transforms them into ionic form which means they become bio-available and absorbable forms of the metallic minerals. Thus, it is said fulvic acid is “nature’s way of chelating metallic minerals” and making them usable by the body. Quite an impressive feat.
http://fulvicminerals.com.au/

Dr. Andrew Wakefield discusses the health outcomes of vaccinated children vs unvaccinated children based on a peer reviewed study of homeschooled children, parent observations, his clinical observations and the CDC’s data that was deliberately hidden from the public. His conclusion is that unvaccinated children are far healthier than vaccinated children, unvaccinated children do not pose a threat to society, unvaccinated children recover quickly from illness, while vaccinated children are not only more unhealthy than vaccine free children, but also suffer at a much higher percentage rate from autism, neurological disorders and other ongoing chronic health problems. If the CDC were to ever conduct a long range wide scale health outcome study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, the entire vaccine industry would come to a crashing halt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NkcF-dicmY

A SUCCESSION of Australian governments has been trying to develop a centralised digital health record system for years.
The My Health Records Act commenced back in 2012 and since then 6 million Australians have signed up, but now, unless you decide to opt out within three months, you will automatically have a My Health Record generated.
I have been cautiously enthusiastic about the potential of a centralised health record particularly for older people with complex chronic health conditions and multiple medications because of its potential to reduce confusion and improve communication between health practitioners.
The concerns raised caused me to go back to the legislation to see what the fuss was about. It left me worried.
Then a couple of days ago Bill Bowtell called me from Amsterdam, where he is attending the 22nd International AIDS Conference, to let me know how worried he and other international public health experts are about the legislation governing the My Health Record.
He was an architect of Australia’s world-leading response to HIV and AIDS when he was senior adviser to Health Minister Neal Blewett in the 1980s. Between 1994 and 1996 Bill was senior political adviser to Prime Minister Paul Keating. When Bill is worried, I pay attention.
“I was involved in the precursor to the My Health Record and I recall that you came along to meetings to offer advice and views,” Bowtell told me.
“At that time, it was strongly held that such a change could only be brought about on the basis of absolute trust as between clinicians and patients, and that centralised records could only be accessed by health professionals … and that no other external agencies could access the system for any reason. Somewhere along the way, however, the police and other agencies including the ATO have decided that they must have warrantless access to this treasure trove of data.
“These provisions break the bond between clinician and patient. The idea that police and security agencies, and the ATO and other agencies could trawl these databases at will is abhorrent. To its great shame, the Parliament passed these provisions.”
Could this be true? In the original legislation, Section 70 of the Act, there it is:
“The System Operator is authorised to use or disclose health information included in a healthcare recipient’s My Health Record if the System Operator reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary for one or more of the following things done by, or on behalf of, an enforcement body:
(a) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of criminal offences, breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction or breaches of a prescribed law;
(b) the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime;
(c) the protection of the public revenue;
(d) the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of seriously improper conduct or prescribed conduct;
(e) the preparation for, or conduct of, proceedings before any court or tribunal, or implementation of the orders of a court or tribunal.”
Excuse me? What could “protection of public revenue” possibly have to do with enhancing the healthcare of an individual, or protecting public health? Rhetorical question I know, but to avoid any confusion, the answer is: nothing.
Any court or tribunal? That could mean domestic violence cases, family court, employment disputes. What could that possibly have to do with the rights of the individual whose health record is to be disclosed without a warrant or court order? Again … nothing.
Under current legislation, the information in My Health Record could be disclosed for a number of reasons. Tim Kelsey, Chief Executive of the Australian Digital Health Agency says that while the legislation allows for warrantless disclosure of health information, the operating policy of the “System Operator” (i.e. the Australian Digital Health Agency) is to require a court order for the release of information. In a statement, he said: “No documents have been released in the last six years and none will be released in the future without a court order/coronial or similar order. Additionally, no other Government agencies have direct access to the My Health Record system, other than the system operator.”
The problem is that a policy is not law, and can be changed at any time with the stroke of a keyboard. Can we really trust a future “System Operator” not to change its policy of requiring a court order for disclosure if the legislation allows for it?
While there are many people whose healthcare could be enhanced by having this type of record, it is essential that we look at some of the potential adverse effects on healthcare.
The impact on women who have terminations could be profound. Abortion is still illegal in Queensland, and the other states are all over the shop. Can it seriously be assumed that law enforcement officers and fundamentalist politicians could be trusted with a list of women who have had illegal abortions?
The same applies to STIs, especially HIV/AIDS. As Bowtell puts it: “Had this pernicious regime applied in the 1980s when we were confronted with HIV/AIDS, no trust could have been built between clinicians and those with or at risk of HIV.
“Gay men, injecting drug users, sex workers were all law-breakers in one way or another. The data bases would have been trawled for “law breakers” and after that would have come sanction, isolation and quarantine. Having HIV or AIDS would have become a fact known to the police. In those days, we tested everyone who wanted it, and many gave false names; we did not care. We funded needle and syringe exchanges — helping to evade or break the law. It could not be done under this new set up.
“Such a system would have meant that many more thousands of young people would have been infected with HIV and dead from AIDS.”
Highlighting the cyber security concerns is the breach of Singapore’s government health database, which saw the information of about 1.5 million people hacked, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) need to qualify their support for My Health Record and demand that the legislation be amended so that disclosure of personal health information be confined to healthcare practitioners with the patient’s permission only, and for the patient’s benefit only.
The Government needs to extend the opt-out period so that the Australian people can have more time to work out if is in their personal interest to upload their health record, or not.
Then the Government needs to revisit the whole of Section 70 of the My Health Records Act 2012 and return to the original principles, so that; centralised records only be accessed by health professionals, all access be only with the patient’s permission and be visible to the patients, and no other external agencies be able access the system for any reason
It’s not too late to reverse course on warrantless access to your health record. Any future success of My Health Record depends on it.
Kerryn Phelps is a doctor, and past president of the AMA.
This is the link to the opt-out page:
https://optout.myhealthrecord.gov.au/pext/optoutextweb/views/getStarted.xhtml
This is the link to the article:
https://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/as-a-doctor-heres-why-my-health-record-worries-me/news-story/0584c4b6ff55f2936fe4e84f3985bdb6
This is the link to the opt-out page: https://optout.myhealthrecord.gov.au/pext/optoutextweb/views/getStarted.xhtml
https://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/as-a-doctor-heres-why-my-health-record-worries-me/news-story/0584c4b6ff55f2936fe4e84f3985bdb6

This is a petition to ban bee killing insecticides. Please sign it with me!
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/tell-the-australian-government-to-protect-the-bees-from-pesticide-giants/

From a Nature and Health newsletter I receive…
If you’re unsure about a woman’s age, just look at her hands – or so the saying goes. Despite the time we spend fretting over our faces, it’s our hands and nails that tend to show signs of ageing first.
“The skin on the back of your hands is much thinner and therefore more susceptible to showing signs of skin damage faster than other body parts that are more likely to be covered up more often,” explains beauty therapist Andi Butcher. “Wrinkling and age spots are far more prevalent on our hands due to lack of moisture and care.” Plus, conventional hand sanitisers probably haven’t helped the situation. “I’ve never seen so many patients with severely dry hands in all my years as a dermatologist,” says Dr Cheng Lim, of the Skin Cancer Clinic. “Some hand sanitisers contain up to 60 percent alcohol, which is why they strip the hands of their natural oils and dry them out.” So, what can you do? Try these tips:
“Use gentle, non-drying bar or liquid soaps with plenty of added vegetable glycerin,” says Butcher. “After you wash your hands, apply a good hand cream. Avoid products containing petroleum, mineral oil or silicones, as they just sit on the skin’s surface and don’t deliver that much-needed moisture to actually go within the skin. Instead, look for rich, hydrating ingredients like shea butter, cocoa butter, jojoba oil and avocado oil.”
Another couple of tricks from Butcher: “Apply your favourite hand cream before doing the washing-up, then slip on rubber gloves. “While you’re scrubbing, the warmth from the water will work to create a super-penetrating deep-moisturising treatment for your hands. Also, when it comes to putting the finishing touch on your hands with some polish, look for brands that don’t use damaging ingredients like formaldehyde and phthalates. Instead, seek out water-based polishes, which offer all the colour without the chemical smell.”

Dutch women who were given Viagra to increase the growth of their unborn child as part of a major drug trial face an anxious wait after the deaths of 11 babies.
The research, carried out at 10 hospitals across the Netherlands, involved women whose placentas had been underperforming taking sildenafil, a medication sold under the brand name Viagra.
Viagra, which dilates the blood vessels, is used for erectile dysfunction in men and is prescribed for people with high blood pressure. The hope, backed up by experimental research on rats, had been that the drug would encourage a better flow of blood through the placenta, promoting the growth of the child.
The trial was terminated last week when an independent committee overseeing the research discovered that more babies than expected were being born with lung problems.
In total, 93 women were given the drug as part of the trial, led by Amsterdam University Medical Centre. Seventeen babies developed lung problems, and 11 have since died.
Of the 90 women in a control group, who took a placebo, three developed the same lung issues and no babies died.
Between 10 and 15 women are waiting to find out if their child has been affected.
It is feared the drug caused high blood pressure in the lungs, leading to the babies receiving too little oxygen. There is nothing to suggest the trial was mishandled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NmyoXBXmE