Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
Because pepper increases the absorption of turmeric by 47 fold I would add some pepper to the protocol.
Post Covid Jab Recovery Protocol
To aid those tricked/coerced into getting the jab/those suffering post exposure to the jabbed, I have done my best to compile a Jab Recovery Protocol from the various sources I have seen recently: https://www.tomgrimshaw.com/tomsblog/?p=35644
The medical profession use a procedure called double blind clinical trials to test substances against a control, often a sugar pill.
What is double blind? It is when neither the person administering the pills not the one taking them know which they are ingesting, the control or the tested substance.
Why do that? Because they understand that if a person knows what they are receiving it will affect the outcome of the trial.
How will it affect the outcome? Because many a person thinking they are taking something that will/might benefit them will be benefited from it.
Is this a case of “mind over matter”? You’re not supposed to ask that question! That is the elephant in the room the medical profession have been studiously ignoring for over 100 years now. They know the mind has an influence but have never isolated it. They persist with the obviously incorrect theory that structure governs function when it can, and has been, proven that the opposite is true, function governs structure.
Here’s an easy test you can do for yourself. Watch a portion of a horror movie until your heart palpitates and your palms go sweaty. Was there any alteration in the structure of your body that caused those two changes? Was there a change in the temperature of the room? No?
But there was in your mind. The function of your mind, engineered to respond to danger, altered the workings of the body. Function governs Structure.
Here’s another sacred cow that needs to be excommunicated from your thinking. The scientific alter of peer reviewed.
I was reading a great post from someone on the subject and commented to him that what he wrote was spot on and that I have a bunch more posted on my blog. He said he couldn’t find it so I went trawling. If you are interested, this is the list of links I sent him.
All These Destructive Things Were Peer Reviewed
Peer Review Conflict Of Interest
Medical Journals Corrupt To The Core!
“Who’s looking out for scientific integrity?”
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck
How Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine
94 Percent of Medication Not Supported by High-Quality Evidence, Harms Underreported: Study
94 Percent of Medication Not Supported by High-Quality Evidence, Harms Underreported: Study
From an article I wrote called ‘How I Arrived At My Current Viewpoint’:
Viewpoint: Do not trust a single thing that even a peer-reviewed scientific experiment claims to prove without verifiable evidence from another trusted source. Bear in mind this survey merely reports what is admitted to. The real figures are most likely much higher.
Data: “1.97% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices.
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices… …misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.”
88 Simple Truths About the Virus, the Pandemic and Everything in Between
88 Simple Truths About the Virus, the Pandemic and Everything in Between
Don’t Think For Yourself. Trust Me, I know Best.
In the process of looking for those articles I came across this one I thought to reshare with you:
This morning I received yet another example of how mainstream medicine are more and more having to acknowledge that their techniques of cutting, burning and drugging to suppress symptoms are failures. Here is an excerpt from the article.
“For more than 30 years, government health organizations and the cancer societies have pushed the idea that early detection and treatment increases your odds of surviving cancer. The messages are everywhere. They urge us to check for prostate, breast, colon, skin cancer and more.”
“Logically, it makes sense that the earlier you discover a cancer, the more likely you will be alive in five years. This has driven millions of people to their doctors’ offices for screening and it has poured billions of dollars into the coffers of the cancer industry.”
“But does it save lives? And do the risks outweigh the benefits? Apparently, the answer to both of those questions is no.”
“The studies show that people are not living longer after they get cancer. While they might live longer after their diagnosis, that is because we are diagnosing the disease much earlier. In fact, the age-adjusted mortality rates for all forms of cancer combined have steadily increased over several decades.
Orthodox medicine is losing the war on cancer.”
“In the last month, the British government’s National Health Service (NHS) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) both have stated that they are updating their public health messages regarding cancer screening.”
“For decades, these organizations were among the staunchest defenders of screening. The organizations now admit that they overstated the benefits of screening. Even worse, they intentionally downplayed the risks.”…
…“It is clear that early detection, combined with conventional cancer treatments just are not working. And this has been clear for quite some time. In May of 1986, the New England Journal of Medicine commented on the state of modern cancer treatment, stating, “The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.”
“Their report concluded, “we are losing the war against cancer” and argued for an emphasis on prevention. Here we are, nearly 25 years later and that emphasis is still not there.”
“According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer, our lifestyle and environment is the cause of up to 90% of human cancer. That clearly means that we can avoid it. Yet, less than 10% of the National Cancer Institute budget is set aside to study the environmental causes of cancer. Less than 1% is budgeted for nutrition studies.”
“Why?”
“Because treating disease is enormously profitable. Preventing it is not. And whether the “screening” involves cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, or any number of other markers and diseases, the objective is the same. The goal is not to “prevent” disease. The goal of orthodox medicine is to detect the symptoms earlier so that more “treatments” can be given.”
Copyright © 2009 Fourth Avenue Health Group, LLC, located at 245 NE 4th Avenue, Delray Beach Florida 33483, is a subsidiary of Early to Rise. All rights reserved. Total Health Breakthroughs is published weekly as a free email subscription service by Fourth Avenue Health Group, LLC.
Part of the email I received is posted here: http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/?s=Beating+Cancer%3A+Does+Early+Detection+Help%3F.
Alan Watson posts: Participants with the highest Triglycerides (TG) & lowest HDL (Q4) were 16 times more likely to have a heart attack than those with lowest TG/highest HDL (Q1). Why, then, do most MDs focus only on LDL levels that only weakly predicted risk?
Marion Holman replies: The only reason the Triglyceride:HDL ratio is a good predictor of CVD is because it is a surrogate marker for predicting Insulin Resistance. Insulin Resistance, Inflammation & Infection can induce an imbalance in glucose metabolism that generates chronic hyperglycemia, which in turn triggers oxidative stress and causes an inflammatory response that leads to cell damage. Insulin resistance can also alter systemic lipid metabolism which then leads to the development of dyslipidemia and the well-known lipid triad: HIGH levels of plasma Triglycerides, (2) LOW levels of HDL, and (3) the appearance of small dense LDL-C.
But hopefully you too desire to live in truth so, despite what I share contradicting what you may have been told, rather than be offended, you will pause to consider the possibility that a more truthful reality exists.
Jil Ross writes:
I have read and heard read this poem many times in my life. I love it, but had interpreted it differently. Never thought that it had a meaning almost exactly opposite of what I think. That’s kind of funny. What do you think?
I’ll still be a bit of the romantic and believe I’ll always take the road less traveled. Have a good day!
“The poem’s speaker tells us he “shall be telling”, at some point in the future, of how he took the road less traveled … yet he has already admitted that the two paths “equally lay / In leaves” and “the passing there / Had worn them really about the same.” So the road he will later call less traveled is actually the road equally traveled. The two roads are interchangeable.”
Frost wrote the poem as a joke for his friend Edward Thomas, who was often indecisive about which route to take when the two went walking.
“Whichever way they go, they’re sure to miss something good on the other path.” Regarding the “sigh” that is mentioned in the last stanza, it may be seen as an expression of regret or of satisfaction. However, there is significance in the difference between what the speaker has just said of the two roads, and what he will say in the future. According to Lawrence Thompson, Frost’s biographer, as Frost was once about to read the poem, he commented to his audience, “You have to be careful of that one; it’s a tricky poem—very tricky”, perhaps intending to suggest the poem’s ironic possibilities.
Thompson suggests that the poem’s narrator is “one who habitually wastes energy in regretting any choice made: belatedly but wistfully he sighs over the attractive alternative rejected.” Thompson also says that when introducing the poem in readings, Frost would say that the speaker was based on his friend Thomas. In Frost’s words, Thomas was “a person who, whichever road he went, would be sorry he didn’t go the other. He was hard on himself that way.”
CAPTAIN Shane Murdock says the air industry is ‘poised on the precipice of disaster’. A pilot for more than 40 years and a qualified air accident investigator, he has found official data that back up his claim of impending global catastrophe. He adds: ‘When correlated, the data indicate there is an enormous problem that is having, and will have, a significant impact on aviation safety worldwide. There is enough evidence to be sending out red flags.’
Pilot warns of airline industry disaster due to Covid vaccines
