Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
I had several meetings with biologist Dr. Ruth Espuny and her research team in the past days and she alerted me to this article that very well explains the lipid vesicles that I call construction sites. Here I am posting relevant sections of the article and sharing confirmatory images from my own and others research.
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/lipid-vesicle-based-molecular-robots
Here is another article that completely misses the elephant in the room with regard to stress. The single biggest cause of destructive stress (yes, there is such a thing as constructive stress, for instance exercise and hard work) is having a person antipathetic to your survival either overtly criticising and invalidating you to your face or covertly undermining you by any means they can find. Optimal health is perpetually elusive if you are being beaten over the head with an emotional baseball bat!
Probably because they fail to recognise the existence of the human spirit and that the spirit is the principle healing agent of the body.
Robert Malone writes:
We are getting close to the formal release date (October 08, 2024) for “PsyWar Enforcing the New World Order,” and I have received about thirty advance author’s copies of the book from SkyHorse Publishing, some of which I have shared with the podcasters and reviewers who wish to read, review, and to interview me about this new book.
I have also completed recording the audiobook version, and our Sound Engineer and partner in the audiobook Mr. Joao Zurzica has processed the resulting files and formatted them for audiobook upload. Joao has done a fantastic job- I am amazed at the audio clarity and purity of the resulting files.
(Tom: This sample chapter is worth a read.)
Lower your osteoporosis risk with blackcurrants and prunes!
https://alternative-doctor.com/bone-power-of-blackcurrant-and-prunes/
Just read an interesting article on the powerful benefits of vanilla in combatting some of the harms from the Spike Protein.
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/friday-hope-vanillin-quelling-viral
NIH Director Francis Collins on EcoHealth Alliance/WIV partnership: “There’s a lot more to this story than we have been able to talk about.”
by John Leake
Last night at dinner, my younger brother told me about an old Army Ranger buddy of his who did several tours in Afghanistan & Iraq, and all of the terrible things he did and saw for the U.S. government and its corporate cronies. Dawning awareness of the true horror of it caused him to go through a dark odyssey of alcohol and violence from which he may never have emerged had it not been for his exceptional mental toughness and discipline.
The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex (which now includes the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex) does not count the cost of its adventures, but moves from one to the next without any accounting or disclosure to the American people whom claims it is protecting from the big bad world. Most of the citizenry has no idea what kind of terrible things the Complex does “to keep us safe”—that is, to advance the interests of the powerful people it works for.
Sadly, the American people and their captured representatives never demand a full accounting. Over time, reports invariably emerge that our government has lied to us about its adventures, but before disciplinary action is taken, the American people have grown weary of the mess and no longer want to hear about it. The final step in consigning the truth to oblivion occurs when the U.S. government embarks on its next adventure, thereby changing the subject.
For the last four years, Dr. McCullough and I have marveled at the extraordinary fiasco of EcoHealth Alliance and its NIH grant to conduct gain-of-function work on bat coronaviruses with its partners at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While there is a mountain of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created with American biotechnology supplied to the WIV by key players at EcoHealth, somehow Congress and the Department of Justice haven’t been able to muster the will to do anything about it.
We were reminded of this bizarre story this morning when we saw an August 19, 2020 e-mail from NIH Director Francis Collins to Harold E. Varmus—a former NIH director and currently a key advisor of the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, the Department of Energy, and several other major institutions within the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.
As Collins expressed in his e-mail, he was upset with Dr. Varmus for the latter’s statements to a Wall Street Journal reporter who’d just published a report headlined NIH Presses U.S. Nonprofit for Information on Wuhan Virology Lab.
It’s important to note that any ordinary U.S. citizen (as distinct from a Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex racketeer) found the NIH demands perfectly reasonable. To quote the WSJ report:
The National Institutes of Health told a small New York-based nonprofit that it must hand over information and materials from a research partner in Wuhan, China, that is under scrutiny by the Trump administration to win back a multimillion-dollar research grant.
Among the items the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance must provide to resume funding is a sample of the new coronavirus that the Wuhan researchers used to determine its genetic sequence, according to a July 8 letter from the NIH viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
EcoHealth Alliance must also arrange for an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team that would examine the facility’s lab and records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019,” the U.S. health-research agency’s letter said.
“The NIH has received reports that the Wuhan Institute of Virology…has been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns,” read the letter, which was signed by Michael Lauer, the NIH deputy director for extramural research.
And yet, in spite of these demands being perfectly reasonable, Dr. Varmus responded to them with the following statement, quoted in the report:
The NIH’s list of conditions “is outrageous, especially when a grant has already been carefully evaluated by peer review and addresses one of the most important problems in the world right now—how viruses from animals spill over to human beings,” Harold E. Varmus, a former NIH director, said in an interview. “What could be more important at the moment?”
Dr. Varmus is one of 77 Nobel laureates who asked NIH Director Francis Collins and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar in May to review the NIH’s termination of the grant the month before.
“This whole episode is just a woeful attack on the traditional way NIH has maintained its integrity,” he said.
You may ask yourself: “What in hell is Varmus talking about?” Obviously he is part of the gang of eminent virologists who were doing everything in their power to conceal the true origin of SARS-CoV-2.
For his part, NIH Director Collins’s reproachful e-mail seems to contain a paradox. On the one hand, he seems to be telling Varmus to stop pushing back against NIH’s apparent effort to seek full transparency about what EcoHealth and WIV were doing.
On the other hand, it’s pretty clear from other FOIA released e-mails from Anthony Fauci and his virologist buddies that the NIH already knew precisely what EcoHealth and WIV were doing.
This raises my suspicion that a blunt iteration of what Collins was telling Varmus is something like the following:
It is imperative that we SEEM to give the impression that we are trying to get to the bottom of this. When you push back on me through the WSJ, you are just making my life harder. You know how this town works—that is, we conceal the reality of our terrible business from the American people while pretending to the American people be acting transparently and in good faith. While you are great at concealment, you are resisting (with your statements to the WSJ) our efforts to pretend to be transparent. We will ultimately conceal the truth, but we must first go through the motions of pretending that we are diligently trying to discover it.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/the-greatest-coverup-in-history
Some interesting responses from Chat GPT on nanobots, vaccines and the New World Order.
https://lawyerlisa.substack.com/p/chatgpt-spills-the-beans-on-nanobots
Banning of “Cancer Care” is an extremely dark moment in the history of censorship.
A few days ago I received the word that Amazon had banned Dr. Paul Marik’s book Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer. In Amazon’s words:
Hello,
We are terminating your account effective immediately because we found that you have published titles with misleading content that have the potential to mislead or defraud our customers.
You can see the violations reflected in the following title(s):
58840430 / Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer, PRI-4BJKMH3ENCP / Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer
As part of the termination process:
• We will close your account
• You’re no longer eligible to receive any outstanding royalties
• You’ll no longer have access to your accounts. This includes, editing your titles, viewing your reports and accessing any other information within your account
• All of your published titles will be removed from sale on Amazon
This action strikes me as identical to that of the Holy Office of the Inquisition excommunicating a heretic during the Counter-Reformation.
On the same day I received the news of Dr. Marik’s excommunication, I also received some photos of Dr. McCullough’s trip to Milan, Italy, including one of him standing in front of the Teatro alla Scala opera house.
These two events, happening on the same day, reminded me of Verdi’s 1867 opera, Don Carlos, based on Friedrich Schiller’s 1787 play of the same title. As the distinguished law professor, Martha Nussbaum, wrote about the play and opera in her 2022 essay, Don Carlos: Liberty or the Inquisition?
Republics sometimes die by conquest from without. But they also die by collapse from within. … Can this new … form of government depend on people to do the job? Or will weak-willed human beings give way to fear and yield their freedom to an authoritarian leader — whether religious or secular?
This question was much debated in the 18th century, when Friedrich Schiller made it central to his drama Don Carlos (1787), and it was still debated when Verdi — drawing on Schiller, but also on his own passionate involvement in the Risorgimento (a movement for Italian unity and republican self-government) — wrote his opera Don Carlos (1867).
The villain of Don Carlos is the Grand Inquisitor of Spain during the reign of Philip II. As Nussbaum points out, Verdi was drawn to Schiller’s opera not only as a historical drama, but out of his conviction that its theme of “Liberty or the Inquisition?” was still as relevant as ever in the Italy of his day.
Self-government had powerful enemies, in particular Pope Pius IX (1792-1878), who became pope in 1848, and was 75 when Don Carlos premiered. Initially sympathetic to the Risorgimento, he changed course and adopted an extreme conservative and church authoritarian posture. In 1864 he issued a “Syllabus of Errors,” an attack on all forms of liberalism, religious toleration, personal autonomy, and national self-determination which still makes chilling reading. He reversed the religious toleration laws of the Republic and reinstituted the Jewish ghetto, which he had previously opened.
As Nussbaum concluded her essay:
Here, I think, Verdi sees more deeply than Schiller: The struggle for free speech and freedom is perpetual, and it must be fought in the heart and mind of every person who loves self-government, in every generation—as love of liberty contends with superstition and fear of power. We cannot wait for God, or even history, to deal with our tyrants. Italy’s future was precarious in the 1860’s—with Pius IX lurching from liberalism to dark anti-rationalism—just as ours is today, with threats against democracy from the forces of anti-truth, and with a public culture tainted by fear of other groups and people. The ending of Don Carlos is as dark or “light” as we make it in our lives.
The Grand Inquisitor at a recent production of Don Carlos at the Met.
Today in the United States, the Democratic Party, and mainstream media, and much of the academic establishment believe in ORTHODOXY, and therefore see no reason why men like Dr. Paul Marik—one of the most published and distinguished critical care doctors in history—should be protected from censorship.
The ultimate victims of this censorship will be people dying of cancer who might have benefitted from the information presented in Dr. Marik’s book. Like the hospital administrators who deprived Dr. Marik’s intensive care patients of his repurposed drug protocol for treating advanced COVID-19—thereby consigning them to death instead of allowing them to have a fighting chance under Dr. Marik’s care—whoever compelled Amazon to ban his book apparently doesn’t want cancer patients to try repurposed drugs that could suppress tumor growth, even if conventional cancer treatments have failed to stop the disease’s advance.
Fortunately, the book is still available on the FLCCC.net website — at least for now.
Schiller and Verdi would have understood the grave danger that censorship poses to the American Republic. Sadly, people with true education, discernment, and culture have become increasingly rare in the United States. Their influence in public affairs has been crowded out by the rule of half-educated philistines—people “full of passionate intensity” as Yeats famously put it in “The Second Coming.”
International Man: The Soviet Union used the diagnosis of mental illness as a tool to silence political dissenters. It was a practice known as “psychiatric repression.”
Dissidents who spoke out against the government were often declared insane and forcibly institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals, where the government subjected them to inhumane treatment and abuses.
The diagnoses were often based on political rather than medical criteria and were used as a means of punishment and control.
What is your take on this practice?
Doug Casey: Well, before we get into what happened in the Soviet Union, and what seems to now be happening in the US, we really have to address the validity of psychiatry as a science to start with, and mental illness as being a real illness.
Dr. Thomas Szasz, who died some years ago, made the case that mental illness is not a medical concept and does not have a biological basis. He believed that what people commonly refer to as “mental illness” is actually a label used to describe deviant behavior, emotions, and thoughts that do not conform to social norms. He argued that mental illnesses are not diseases in the traditional sense, as they cannot be objectively measured or diagnosed like physical conditions such as cancer or arteriosclerosis. He wrote numerous books debunking psychiatry; I highly recommend them.
My own view is that people have always had psychological problems, worries, and aberrations. These things were once dealt with by talking to friends, counselors, or religious figures. Since the time of Sigmund Freud, however, “treating” mental conditions has been turned into the business of psychiatry.
Psychiatry has set up a priesthood of doctors who look at what people think, say, and do, and offer opinions as to whether or not it’s healthy. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with studying the way the mind works. The problem arises when a practitioner can impose his opinion on another person. If a surgeon thinks you should have a heart operation, he can’t impose that on you. But if a licensed psychiatrist thinks you should be incarcerated and subjected to various drugs and “therapies,” there may not be much you can do about it.
Coming back to what happened in the Soviet Union, State officials found psychiatry was an excellent way to keep dissidents under control. It’s one thing to be prosecuted because the government thinks you’re politically unreliable and your views are wrong, but another to be punished because a medical practitioner claims you’re insane for holding them. Psychiatry—which I view as a pseudoscience—can easily be used to give a patina of science to political views.
But by saying they were crazy, the Communists were able to attack the actual essence of a person. This is one more thing that made the Communists not just nasty and dangerous, but evil. Evil is a word that’s fallen into disrepute in recent years, perhaps because it’s been used so indiscriminately by poorly educated Bible thumpers. My own view is that many, or most, supposed psychiatric disorders are a consequence of doing evil; if a person can’t confront these things, he may act irrationally, and be viewed as neurotic or psychotic. But putting yourself under the control of a person who’s taken some courses about other doctors’ opinions is rarely a cure.
It’s funny that psychiatrists, as a group, are usually looked down upon by other members of the medical profession. They may have real medical training, but when they go into practice all they basically do is sit behind a couch and listen to people rap about their problems, then experiment with psychoactive drugs, hoping for magic to happen. It’s not a bad gig to sit and listen for several hundred dollars per hour.
In using Freudian talk therapy, psychiatrists are basically no better than a friend or counselor, and often worse. I suspect many are just voyeurs who like to hear about others’ problems, perhaps just looking to compare them with their own. In fact, it can be worse. A lot of people become psychiatrists because they themselves are troubled and they like the idea of listening to other people’s problems and bouncing their arbitrary thoughts back at them.
Worse, the public thinks that psychiatrists actually know how the mind works, and can magically know what they’re thinking. The public thinks shrinks have special powers, like modern witch doctors. That fear, ridiculous as it is, gives them genuine power. That in itself draws the wrong kind of person to psychiatry. There’s a reason why Hannibal Lecter was portrayed as a psychiatrist as opposed to an accountant or an engineer or a salesman.
The process is disguised and legitimized by classifying problems using, among other things, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (called DSM-5 in its latest edition). Unlike a real medical or surgical manual, the book is mostly guesswork and opinion, a modern version of the medieval Malleus Malificarum, which classified everything known about witchcraft.
Although most Freudian talk therapy is actually bunkum, simply allowing a troubled person a chance to talk, even for just 55 minutes, can sometimes be helpful. But the usual cure prescribed today is some type of drug affecting brain function. Most of these drugs only disguise the problem by clouding the mind. These drugs can actually alter the cells in the brain—what they do, and how you think. There are hundreds of psychiatric drugs now—Ritalin, Zoloft, Xanax, and Prozac are common ones—but there are many more that are seriously dangerous.
As a by-the-way, it turns out that FTX had a psychiatrist on the payroll at their Bahamas hangout. The shrink, one Dr. George Lerner, apparently had about 20 FTX employees as private patients at one time. Sam Bankman-Fried himself has stated that he’s been on the antidepressant Emsam for “half his adult life.” It’s a bad idea to invest in a company that has a staff psychiatrist, where lots of people are on psych drugs. What they needed wasn’t a pill pusher, but a decent human who was interested in ethics, and concepts like right and wrong.
In their belief that there’s “bad think” and that they have a right to alter it, psychiatrists have gotten into things like electroshock therapy, which physically destroys people’s brain calls, and prefrontal lobotomies performed by taking an ice pick, going through the side of the eye, and purposefully destroying part of people’s brains.
One of the most inhuman things about the Soviet Union, which was full of bad things, may have been the way it perverted medicine, endorsing psychiatry, to destroy the human spirit itself. This concept is finding its way into the US and the West. Corrupt psych specialists use pseudoscience to prove that people the government deems to have crazy political ideas are indeed crazy. “Crazy” is being defined as not believing what they believe, and saying things that are politically incorrect.
I would submit psychiatry is a phony and dangerous specialty to start with. And putting psychiatric pseudoscientists in charge of determining what’s “good think” and “bad think” is very dangerous.
Medicine shouldn’t be involved in politics, which is certainly the major takeaway of Dr. Fauci’s role in the recent COVID hysteria. And that goes double for psychiatry. Professional associations—like labor unions—are always looking to increase political power and economic wealth for themselves and their members. Bar associations do it for lawyers, the NEA for teachers, the AMA for doctors, and the American Psychiatric Association for shrinks. They’re all dangers to society. But the APA more than most.
To give you an example, I once met a prominent shrink in Washington, DC. He advocated requiring psychiatric tests for all high government officials, to keep dangerous nutcases out of office. That’s understandable. But what if the tests in question skew against certain political, economic, and philosophical beliefs? At this point, it could only play into the hands of those with power.
Remember, control freaks—people that like to control other people—aren’t interested so much in controlling the physical universe as manipulating and controlling other people. They tend to go into government. And when they go into medicine, they’re often drawn to psychiatry.
If you can disguise your desire to control and manipulate your fellow humans by claiming you have medical necessity on your side, you become much more effective and much more dangerous.
International Man: During the Covid mass psychosis, there were reports of certain medical agencies in Canada that suggested refusing the vaccine was a sign of psychiatric problems.
We’ve also seen proponents of climate change hysteria use language to describe skeptics as mentally ill.
What are the implications of this?
Doug Casey: The politicization of psychiatry—trying to control what people think—is really, really dangerous. It’s a trend that has been building for a long time, and I think it’s getting worse.
Once upon a time, somebody was deemed insane if they were manifestly irrational, walking down the streets yelling and screaming. Someone obviously unable to maintain themselves. They’ve always existed, but as a teeny-weeny portion of society. If they committed an actual tort, it was a matter for the police and the courts. If they didn’t commit an actual crime, then they were just a nuisance—and life is full of nuisances. Historically, crazy people were non-problems. Unless, of course, they got into government…
In the last 100 years, the number of diagnosable psychiatric disorders has grown like topsy. There are hundreds and hundreds of things that are now deemed psychiatric disorders. Enough that almost everybody can now be said to need a psychiatrist. Personal quirks, eccentricities, and non-mainstream beliefs have been made into psychiatric disorders, listed in the DSM, requiring a “qualified” professional to cure. They pretend to do this by bouncing their own personal opinions off of you with talk therapy, or by putting you on dangerous psychiatric drugs.
Soon I expect we’ll see public health used as an excuse to shut down beliefs which don’t suit a certain class of people. It’s very dangerous and it’s very unnecessary.
I’m not saying all psychiatrists are bad. But most are necessarily living in an echo chamber that reinforces bad tendencies. Look at it this way. Not all economists are bad, but they live in a Keynesian echo chamber in today’s world; as a result most economists wind up making bad recommendations. The same is true for psychs, even the ones who join the profession because they really want to help people.
International Man: Where is this trend going? What can the average person do about it?
Doug Casey: We’re facing a multi-front war against Western Civilization in general.
It’s not just a physical war. It’s not just an ideological war. It’s not just a political war. It’s turned into a psychological war.
One of the fronts of attack is to convince the general public—who don’t think about much outside the narrow confines of their own life and watching sports and television—that people who don’t believe a given narrative are, in fact, crazy. The psychiatric profession is very involved in the process.
In my view, this is further proof that many psychiatrists are dupes of evil people. At best.
What can you do about it?
Call out BS wherever you see it. Don’t automatically accept the opinions of people just because they’ve been granted a degree or license. Think critically, and demand logical answers to impolite questions.
Since this is a psychological war more than anything else, speak out whenever you can. Staying quiet makes you complicit in the crime by subtly agreeing with it.
https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-dangerous-trend-of-psychiatric-repression/
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/09/25/diabetes-vitamin-b6-deficiency.aspx