And why they tell you the sun causes skin cancer. If that were true the human race would have died out centuries ago. Now check out how many carcinogens are in sun screen.
Then they blame the sun for causing cancer not the chemicals. Same as vaccines and autism. mRNA. Log covd. Chronic illness vs food and environmental chemical. Notice a pattern. ‘The narrative’
The doctors/demons tell you the other way around, so you know when they tell do not do this you better do it because it is beneficial for you and the same when not, don’t do it.
Different chemicals affect different organisms in unique ways. Cacao causes hepatic failure in dogs and benefits humans by increasing endogenous Nitric Oxide production in humans.
NOT TRUE. Sweet 'n Low has been my daily sweetener since about 1975. I am still here and let me tell you why it is OK.
I remember when Sodium Saccharine sweetner first came out. It was in the soft drink called 'TAB'. It was the only soft drink without sugar. As a young athlete, I began drinking that instead of Coke or other soft drinks.
This new non-sugar sweetener caused the sugar companies to be immediately on the defense, worried its success would interfere with their profits.
So, they paid for a large 'study' where they fed the lab animals excessive amounts that no human would ever ingest. The equivalent of 56 diet sodas a day, if I remember correctly. These lab animals grew tumors, allegedly. 'Cancer!' they said. The wealthy sugar industry spread these 'study findings' far and wide, generating fear and rejection of the alternative sweetener for many decades.
This injured the Sweet 'n Low/Sodium Saccharine manufacturers for many years, but they hung in there and I continued to use it, not just drinking TAB soft drink, but using the pink packets in my daily brewed tea and coffee.
Years later, Sweet 'n Low encouraged an independent study with no 'financial influence'. The University of Florida did it.
When the study was published in March 2015, they disclosed that it was funded through public research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, the European Union, and the Australian Research Council, and the lead University of Florida Health researchers explicitly stated that none of this work was sponsored, influenced, or supported by the artificial sweetener industry.
THESE WERE THEIR RESULTS:
University of Florida (UF) researchers have notably studied saccharin as an enzyme inhibitor to fight aggressive cancers and as an agricultural aid for crops.
1. Cancer Research (Enzyme Inhibition)
The Mechanism:
Researchers in the UF College of Medicine discovered that saccharin can impede the activity of carbonic anhydrase IX, an enzyme often overproduced in highly aggressive cancers (such as breast, liver, prostate, kidney, and pancreas) that helps tumor cells survive and spread.
The Findings:
By testing the artificial sweetener on cancer cells, the UF team observed that saccharin successfully inhibited this enzyme's cancer-promoting functions potentially opening the door to new anti-cancer drugs.
2. Agricultural Benefits (Soybean Defense)
The Mechanism:
Researchers in UF's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) explored saccharin's ability to trigger systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in plants.
The Findings:
Lab tests indicated that treating soybean plants with saccharin can help them ward off Asian soybean rust, a highly invasive and destructive fungal disease.
"A Sweet Combination": Developing Saccharin and Acesulfame K Structures for Selectively Targeting the Tumor-Associated Carbonic Anhydrases IX and XIhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794211/
For me personally, your statement of "Your wrong" is not an argument, it is a proclamation of your dogma. Dogma doesn't fly for me, and it doesn't fly for anyone. It is the WORST WAY to influence a person, especially if that person has arguments against the position (as I do and will show).
If you have argument and evidence to provide (which you do), all you have to do is show the argument and supporting evidence. No proclamations as a direct attack are necessary. Such absolutes create an environment that will push people into the OPPOSITE of the intended persuasive argument.
When the study was published in March 2015, they disclosed that it was funded through public research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, the European Union, and the Australian Research Council, and the lead University of Florida Health
I can provide overwhelming evidence that every entity on your list (and indeed, every single entity in our medical, educational, and scientific system, and it's "watch dog" associated systems (like the CDC, FDA, "Public Health", literally EVERYTHING even slightly related to that domain) are 100% controlled. In other words, by my assertion, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be "independent," even if any particular researcher thinks they are.
I could go on, on each member of your list, but I'll show just a couple. Indeed, I've written an entire book on this topic, chock full of the receipts that show it beyond a reasonable doubt; sufficient to win any argument in any court because it is shown in complete and unassailable primary evidence, and all the money trails are unquestionable.
The first example is the NIH since you started there. The NIH became an effective research system in 1913 by implementing Rockefeller's grant system (bought and paid for through the Rockefeller Foundation). In the 1940s, Rockefeller's Main Man, a Mr. Vannevar Bush (and several associated Rockefeller agents, most on the RF's Board of Directors) built the NSF, and literally everything related to science and research (including DARPA, the Manhattan Project (and all of their associated entities) a remodel of the NIH, the National Cancer Institute, and countless others. Mr. Bush was quite prolific.
It doesn't really matter about Bush though, because EVERYONE related to any system remotely close to education, science, or medicine (the institutions, the laws, all money flows, private or public, what you're allowed to research, etc.) was 100% controlled by the same people. In America that was mostly Rockefeller, but associated groups controlled the whole world using the same models. It was (and is) all interwoven by a network of Board of Directors and "international laws". The whole concept of a "grant" was created by Rockefeller (et al). The whole concept of "peer review" was created and fully controlled (and still is, with some recent caveats). What you're allowed to research, teach, or even learn is 100% controlled by those systems, started in the 1880s, and fully controlled by 1900(+/-).
The Manhattan Project is particularly important because it shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. It was completely conceived of, built, funded, controlled by Rockefeller, including all of the nuclear tests and even it's implementation (Nagasaki e.g.).. One of the most important pieces of that effort was the legal structure put in place that ensures no one is allowed to research anything that effects "National Security" (which can apply to literally anything) and, most importantly, includes the economy. In other words ,if research or an invention can effectively alter America's economy, it is illegal and potentially punishable by death. Since a huge percentage of our economy is tied to cancer (by more than 10% of GDP if you look into it with a bit of research), that makes "curing cancer" strictly illegal because it would have to much impact on our economy. Because it all legally falls into the domain of "National Security," they can control "anti-cancer efforts" without any path for legal oversight. It is a black hole form which none can escape (with slight caveats because of the Q effort).
I've posted on this cancer control - legal fuckery before, though it's been a while. I can provide details if you want, though it's not actually difficult to find for any reasonably skilled researcher. This is not an "American" thing. These control mechanisms are world wide, all created and controlled by the same group of people (Bilderberger's e.g., etc.). As one example, if you look you can find that it is illegal to cure cancer, or even research a cure for cancer, in the UK. You can find that being "debunked" (required because it literally says that it's illegal in the law), but that "debunking" says that it is only illegal if you try to do that outside of the "allowed systems." Of course who are the "allowed systems?" It's not too difficult to figure it out, or if you dig, find out who created them, and control them still (controlling all law, politics, and money).
If you understand how bad it really is, you appreciate that "independent research" is a crock of shit in the most gut punching way possible. I know, because I used to be one of those "independent researchers," and the gut punch I received put me out for a very long time. That was part of why I started writing and investigating.
Having said that, it's not all bullshit. The mechanism are, but some things are allowed (encouraged to be pushed) as controlled opposition. Plus, most of the actual researchers are clueless of the small to large scale machinations (though not all, especially at the top of the field). I mean, most of the researchers are aware of the machinations, but they think it's just "bureaucratic bullshit" and you just need to learn to work "within the system." They don't realize there really IS a System, in the most brutal dystopian way imaginable.
Science of course is still science. It's just science in a box. That boundaries of that box are completely controlled, but most of the stuff allowed in that box is mostly "free." By "free" I mean, it's all still completely controlled by funding, and academic promotions, "peer review," and the media (especially the journals, Cell e.g.), etc. etc..
You have crafted a compelling argument, and I will look into your provided evidence. I have reasonable doubts however, and I suggest your assertion of "NOT TRUE" is almost certainly at least insufficient, because you don't address the control mechanisms, instead lauding them as you are intended to do (pro hominins and a lack of understanding of funding systems). The Sweet and Low lobby (controlled by Big Sugar, as controlled opposition) is real, and incentivized. And they are controlled by the same people that control research (there's only One Single Corporation in the world (Megacorp). But again, it's not all bullshit. And most researchers are in earnest, even though their funding sources and reporting sources absolutely aren't, and the peer review system is a mixed bag, but ultimately completely fubar.
Vitamin D3 has been shown to be safe up to 50,000 IU daily for most people. I personally take 5,000 IU daily when not sick, and 10,000 IU daily when I have a cold or any other illness. My wife is taking 10,000 IU daily as part of her cancer treatment protocol. Neither of us has had any negative side effects.
The metabolic pathways by which the body metabolizes Vitamin D3 require magnesium, so taking a Vitamin D3 supplement will deplete your magnesium levels. You should always take a good magnesium supplement along with your Vitamin D3 and include magnesium-rich foods in your diet.
Welcome to the concept of dosage. Nearly anything in large enough quantities will kill you. Drink 6 gallons of water in a day and it will poison your liver.
I had seen a similar Reddit post by someone (sadly I can't find it) who posted an xray showing calcification in their fingers after taking high doses of vitamin D, and at the time I considered it disinformation... until I started developing the same thing after taking 10k units of Vitamin D. Luckily it eventually returned to normal after stopping it and taking 1 gram of Vitamin C daily, which I have now stopped as well.
The metabolic pathways by which the body metabolizes Vitamin D3 require magnesium, so taking a Vitamin D3 supplement WILL deplete your magnesium levels. You should always take a good magnesium supplement along with your Vitamin D3 and include magnesium-rich foods in your diet. Magnesium Oxide (most of what you'll find on store shelves) is NOT a good supplement because the body cannot absorb it well (approximately 3% absorption rate).
Vitamin K2 regulates blood clotting, but also ensures that calcium is moved to parts of the body where it is needed (bones, muscles, teeth, etc) and does not build up too much in any one area like you experienced. Most arterial blockages are made up primarily of calcium due to high levels of calcium in the bloodstream. You should always take K2 if you are taking D3 or calcium (should take it anyway).
Oral Vitamin C is extremely limited in its ability to be absorbed. Anything over 1,000-2,000 mg will likely not be absorbed because the body cannot absorb it fast enough as it passes through your digestive system. You were taking 50-100 times that amount and probably experienced toxicity from overdosing. High Vitamin C doses like that have to be given intravenously directly into the bloodstream to experience the potential benefits and avoid toxicity.
I am not a doctor or medical professional. All of this information is readily available on the internet, and using a good AI means it takes just seconds to search for all of it. You should research all of this for yourself instead of believing everything you see on a YouTube video.
I haven’t taking any meds in long time just antibiotics and supplements and I already stopped the vitamins D3 and K. It is done, I don’t trust the evildoers of this world., probably same demons doing the medications are the same doing the supplements. It is rather poison but small amounts killing us little by little. I am drinking Organic milk 4% but I was bloated last night, but I will keep drinking it; btw my sister just told me NOT to tell her anything that someday we will die, can you believe this? I will not tell her anything ever again. I tried to save some people but they refuse to know. God bless everyone here.
😬 they want you as a perpetual customer in the doctors office
For sure. Money is the key, drug dealers that’s what they are. These demons call themselves “doctors” better yet I will call them poisoners.
Guess I’m just going to get my Vitamin D from good ol’ sunshine from now on.
And this is why Fauci told people to not go outside. First doctor ever to say fresh air and sunlight are bad for you. Absolute clown.
And why they tell you the sun causes skin cancer. If that were true the human race would have died out centuries ago. Now check out how many carcinogens are in sun screen.
Then they blame the sun for causing cancer not the chemicals. Same as vaccines and autism. mRNA. Log covd. Chronic illness vs food and environmental chemical. Notice a pattern. ‘The narrative’
The doctors/demons tell you the other way around, so you know when they tell do not do this you better do it because it is beneficial for you and the same when not, don’t do it.
Yep, Fauxi
That’s they way I am going to do it.
Different chemicals affect different organisms in unique ways. Cacao causes hepatic failure in dogs and benefits humans by increasing endogenous Nitric Oxide production in humans.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-vitamin-d-paradox-what-they-dont?r=lo15j&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Sorry do research.
It kills rats but it is safe to consume by humans.
Did you know substitute sugar like Sweet and Low kills ants and rats?
To be fair, Sweet and Low kills humans too, even if more slowly.
NOT TRUE. Sweet 'n Low has been my daily sweetener since about 1975. I am still here and let me tell you why it is OK.
I remember when Sodium Saccharine sweetner first came out. It was in the soft drink called 'TAB'. It was the only soft drink without sugar. As a young athlete, I began drinking that instead of Coke or other soft drinks.
This new non-sugar sweetener caused the sugar companies to be immediately on the defense, worried its success would interfere with their profits.
So, they paid for a large 'study' where they fed the lab animals excessive amounts that no human would ever ingest. The equivalent of 56 diet sodas a day, if I remember correctly. These lab animals grew tumors, allegedly. 'Cancer!' they said. The wealthy sugar industry spread these 'study findings' far and wide, generating fear and rejection of the alternative sweetener for many decades.
This injured the Sweet 'n Low/Sodium Saccharine manufacturers for many years, but they hung in there and I continued to use it, not just drinking TAB soft drink, but using the pink packets in my daily brewed tea and coffee.
Years later, Sweet 'n Low encouraged an independent study with no 'financial influence'. The University of Florida did it.
When the study was published in March 2015, they disclosed that it was funded through public research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, the European Union, and the Australian Research Council, and the lead University of Florida Health researchers explicitly stated that none of this work was sponsored, influenced, or supported by the artificial sweetener industry.
THESE WERE THEIR RESULTS:
University of Florida (UF) researchers have notably studied saccharin as an enzyme inhibitor to fight aggressive cancers and as an agricultural aid for crops.
1. Cancer Research (Enzyme Inhibition)
The Mechanism:
Researchers in the UF College of Medicine discovered that saccharin can impede the activity of carbonic anhydrase IX, an enzyme often overproduced in highly aggressive cancers (such as breast, liver, prostate, kidney, and pancreas) that helps tumor cells survive and spread.
The Findings:
By testing the artificial sweetener on cancer cells, the UF team observed that saccharin successfully inhibited this enzyme's cancer-promoting functions potentially opening the door to new anti-cancer drugs.
2. Agricultural Benefits (Soybean Defense)
The Mechanism:
Researchers in UF's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) explored saccharin's ability to trigger systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in plants.
The Findings:
Lab tests indicated that treating soybean plants with saccharin can help them ward off Asian soybean rust, a highly invasive and destructive fungal disease.
SOURCES:
Saccharin shows promise as cancer inhibitor, researchers find https://ufhealth.org/news/2015/saccharin-shows-promise-cancer-inhibitor-researchers-find
"A Sweet Combination": Developing Saccharin and Acesulfame K Structures for Selectively Targeting the Tumor-Associated Carbonic Anhydrases IX and XI https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794211/
UF study: Saccharin, once believed to cause cancer, may fight it https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2015/03/24/uf-study-saccharin-once-believed/31880273007/
For me personally, your statement of "Your wrong" is not an argument, it is a proclamation of your dogma. Dogma doesn't fly for me, and it doesn't fly for anyone. It is the WORST WAY to influence a person, especially if that person has arguments against the position (as I do and will show).
If you have argument and evidence to provide (which you do), all you have to do is show the argument and supporting evidence. No proclamations as a direct attack are necessary. Such absolutes create an environment that will push people into the OPPOSITE of the intended persuasive argument.
I can provide overwhelming evidence that every entity on your list (and indeed, every single entity in our medical, educational, and scientific system, and it's "watch dog" associated systems (like the CDC, FDA, "Public Health", literally EVERYTHING even slightly related to that domain) are 100% controlled. In other words, by my assertion, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be "independent," even if any particular researcher thinks they are.
I could go on, on each member of your list, but I'll show just a couple. Indeed, I've written an entire book on this topic, chock full of the receipts that show it beyond a reasonable doubt; sufficient to win any argument in any court because it is shown in complete and unassailable primary evidence, and all the money trails are unquestionable.
The first example is the NIH since you started there. The NIH became an effective research system in 1913 by implementing Rockefeller's grant system (bought and paid for through the Rockefeller Foundation). In the 1940s, Rockefeller's Main Man, a Mr. Vannevar Bush (and several associated Rockefeller agents, most on the RF's Board of Directors) built the NSF, and literally everything related to science and research (including DARPA, the Manhattan Project (and all of their associated entities) a remodel of the NIH, the National Cancer Institute, and countless others. Mr. Bush was quite prolific.
It doesn't really matter about Bush though, because EVERYONE related to any system remotely close to education, science, or medicine (the institutions, the laws, all money flows, private or public, what you're allowed to research, etc.) was 100% controlled by the same people. In America that was mostly Rockefeller, but associated groups controlled the whole world using the same models. It was (and is) all interwoven by a network of Board of Directors and "international laws". The whole concept of a "grant" was created by Rockefeller (et al). The whole concept of "peer review" was created and fully controlled (and still is, with some recent caveats). What you're allowed to research, teach, or even learn is 100% controlled by those systems, started in the 1880s, and fully controlled by 1900(+/-).
The Manhattan Project is particularly important because it shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. It was completely conceived of, built, funded, controlled by Rockefeller, including all of the nuclear tests and even it's implementation (Nagasaki e.g.).. One of the most important pieces of that effort was the legal structure put in place that ensures no one is allowed to research anything that effects "National Security" (which can apply to literally anything) and, most importantly, includes the economy. In other words ,if research or an invention can effectively alter America's economy, it is illegal and potentially punishable by death. Since a huge percentage of our economy is tied to cancer (by more than 10% of GDP if you look into it with a bit of research), that makes "curing cancer" strictly illegal because it would have to much impact on our economy. Because it all legally falls into the domain of "National Security," they can control "anti-cancer efforts" without any path for legal oversight. It is a black hole form which none can escape (with slight caveats because of the Q effort).
I've posted on this cancer control - legal fuckery before, though it's been a while. I can provide details if you want, though it's not actually difficult to find for any reasonably skilled researcher. This is not an "American" thing. These control mechanisms are world wide, all created and controlled by the same group of people (Bilderberger's e.g., etc.). As one example, if you look you can find that it is illegal to cure cancer, or even research a cure for cancer, in the UK. You can find that being "debunked" (required because it literally says that it's illegal in the law), but that "debunking" says that it is only illegal if you try to do that outside of the "allowed systems." Of course who are the "allowed systems?" It's not too difficult to figure it out, or if you dig, find out who created them, and control them still (controlling all law, politics, and money).
If you understand how bad it really is, you appreciate that "independent research" is a crock of shit in the most gut punching way possible. I know, because I used to be one of those "independent researchers," and the gut punch I received put me out for a very long time. That was part of why I started writing and investigating.
Having said that, it's not all bullshit. The mechanism are, but some things are allowed (encouraged to be pushed) as controlled opposition. Plus, most of the actual researchers are clueless of the small to large scale machinations (though not all, especially at the top of the field). I mean, most of the researchers are aware of the machinations, but they think it's just "bureaucratic bullshit" and you just need to learn to work "within the system." They don't realize there really IS a System, in the most brutal dystopian way imaginable.
Science of course is still science. It's just science in a box. That boundaries of that box are completely controlled, but most of the stuff allowed in that box is mostly "free." By "free" I mean, it's all still completely controlled by funding, and academic promotions, "peer review," and the media (especially the journals, Cell e.g.), etc. etc..
You have crafted a compelling argument, and I will look into your provided evidence. I have reasonable doubts however, and I suggest your assertion of "NOT TRUE" is almost certainly at least insufficient, because you don't address the control mechanisms, instead lauding them as you are intended to do (pro hominins and a lack of understanding of funding systems). The Sweet and Low lobby (controlled by Big Sugar, as controlled opposition) is real, and incentivized. And they are controlled by the same people that control research (there's only One Single Corporation in the world (Megacorp). But again, it's not all bullshit. And most researchers are in earnest, even though their funding sources and reporting sources absolutely aren't, and the peer review system is a mixed bag, but ultimately completely fubar.
I do not eat sugar
Worth a read. Thanks for posting.
Vitamin D3 has been shown to be safe up to 50,000 IU daily for most people. I personally take 5,000 IU daily when not sick, and 10,000 IU daily when I have a cold or any other illness. My wife is taking 10,000 IU daily as part of her cancer treatment protocol. Neither of us has had any negative side effects.
The metabolic pathways by which the body metabolizes Vitamin D3 require magnesium, so taking a Vitamin D3 supplement will deplete your magnesium levels. You should always take a good magnesium supplement along with your Vitamin D3 and include magnesium-rich foods in your diet.
I will not comment due to I know all made synthetic is not good. I’ll leave it like this.
And don't forget K2; a "must take" with D3.
K2 is a must take regardless.
Welcome to the concept of dosage. Nearly anything in large enough quantities will kill you. Drink 6 gallons of water in a day and it will poison your liver.
So you want smaller bullets coated with fentanyl ?
Can carry lots of 22LR.
Felix Harder breaks down Reddit post of someone who experienced tissue calcification after taking 10k IU Vitamin D
Here is where it starts talking about Vitamin D toxicity:
Redditor takes 10000IU Vitamin D for years. This happened to his bones...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECLp5NHChRs&t=379s
Basically, it depletes magnesium, so should be taken while being balanced with other nutrients.
This is the original Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Supplements/comments/v7sq09/major_side_effects_from_vitamin_d3_lost_all_faith/
I had seen a similar Reddit post by someone (sadly I can't find it) who posted an xray showing calcification in their fingers after taking high doses of vitamin D, and at the time I considered it disinformation... until I started developing the same thing after taking 10k units of Vitamin D. Luckily it eventually returned to normal after stopping it and taking 1 gram of Vitamin C daily, which I have now stopped as well.
The metabolic pathways by which the body metabolizes Vitamin D3 require magnesium, so taking a Vitamin D3 supplement WILL deplete your magnesium levels. You should always take a good magnesium supplement along with your Vitamin D3 and include magnesium-rich foods in your diet. Magnesium Oxide (most of what you'll find on store shelves) is NOT a good supplement because the body cannot absorb it well (approximately 3% absorption rate).
Vitamin K2 regulates blood clotting, but also ensures that calcium is moved to parts of the body where it is needed (bones, muscles, teeth, etc) and does not build up too much in any one area like you experienced. Most arterial blockages are made up primarily of calcium due to high levels of calcium in the bloodstream. You should always take K2 if you are taking D3 or calcium (should take it anyway).
Oral Vitamin C is extremely limited in its ability to be absorbed. Anything over 1,000-2,000 mg will likely not be absorbed because the body cannot absorb it fast enough as it passes through your digestive system. You were taking 50-100 times that amount and probably experienced toxicity from overdosing. High Vitamin C doses like that have to be given intravenously directly into the bloodstream to experience the potential benefits and avoid toxicity.
I am not a doctor or medical professional. All of this information is readily available on the internet, and using a good AI means it takes just seconds to search for all of it. You should research all of this for yourself instead of believing everything you see on a YouTube video.
I haven’t taking any meds in long time just antibiotics and supplements and I already stopped the vitamins D3 and K. It is done, I don’t trust the evildoers of this world., probably same demons doing the medications are the same doing the supplements. It is rather poison but small amounts killing us little by little. I am drinking Organic milk 4% but I was bloated last night, but I will keep drinking it; btw my sister just told me NOT to tell her anything that someday we will die, can you believe this? I will not tell her anything ever again. I tried to save some people but they refuse to know. God bless everyone here.