I remember doing a book report on tetanus when I was in 9th grade.
Also, I forgot to mention that taking a very good probiotic (fermented foods or supplwments) will help immensely to get your gut flora balance back to normal. Our gut flora is incredibly important for keeping unwanted bugs and parasites at bay. Symptoms can actually continue if it you don't have healthy gut flora.
Another name for Herxheimer reactions is detox crisis. Basically it's detoxing too fast. Those who don't eat clean or practice detoxing on a regular basis are more susceptible to them, and they can be scary, unless you're expecting them. It's too bad you weren't warned ahead of time so you could've expected them. Drinking lots of water will help the most.
Boobs are fake.
Not mine though 😋
💯 X 1000000%
How is it that we've been so invisible for so long??
Please please please 🙏 🙏🙏
UGH the only reason we are living here is because of family!!
Here's some more Fun With Words
Sounds like Moses - "Let my people GO!"
20 years ago I homeschooling my son for kindergarten and used a program called Calvert School. I liked it because it came with everything needed. I don't know if they have changed since then or not, but you might want to see if they would be a good option.
This should be marked Required Reading!!
I missed this post when it came out and I'm so glad you referenced it another post today. I'm saving it for future reference!
Favoriting this!
Agree! Theere is so much available in the plant world. And their cells are sos similar to ours, it stands to reason that they help us so much!!! Its a horrible shame that big pharma has stolen their knowledge from us.
This reminds me of my son. When he was about 10 he was getting sick and I told him to eat a garlic Clove. I didn't think he'd do it but he did. He never got sick. And he still does it now when he feels a big coming on. He'll be 25 in April.
I've never heard of cayenne for sore throat but I have heard of it for ulcers and have seen it work for that for my brother-in -law. I'll be using it for sore throat from now on, thank you for the advice!!
Raise my hand for doTerra also.
Just please make sure that you don't buy a cheaper version on Amazon. Please buy from a friend or someone you know trustworthy.
Doterra is based people over profit. Some folks will take advantage of that by aldulterating the oils. You want to make sure you are getting 100% pure, which is what doTerra prides itself on. If you dont know an independent distributor, I am here. Not trying to sell, I just don't want anyone to be taken advantage of.
Editing to add my own experiences with essential oils! : I've used multiple oils for emotional reasons mostly but also to prevent/combat sickness. I love Blue Tansy for fighting procrastination. I love Melissa and Frankincense and Wildo Orange for fighting depression. I can't even tell you how some oils have helped me with digestion. When I'm overwhelmed Balance has saved my sanity.. And a blend called Zendocrine makes me wake up in a good mood when I roll it on my feet at night.
There's so many more.
I want to downvote but I won't.
Do your research. Both sea salt and iodine have nutritional value and are required for specific parts of the body to function properly.
Sea salt for minerals for all of your organs, and iodine specifically for thyroid function. Did you know sea salt is beneficial for getting your digestive system up and running in the morning? Did you know that iodine can help if you have chronic dry skin or brain fog (which are symptoms of thyroid disfunction)?
I put sea salt in my coffee every morning. If i dont, I get constipation. Yes I also eat fruit and take digestive enzymes, but the salt helps alot and gently.
I take 3 drops of iodine in water every morning. If I don't, the skin on my legs is extremely dry.
Find what works for you. One thing might not work for you the same way that it works for me. Don't just tell people that one thing doesn't work. Do your own research!
I am subscribed to National Write Your Congressman. It's a great way to voice your opinion to your elected leaders, and they've been making a big difference lately.
Anyway, I don't think you'd be able to see the article if I just posted a link to it, so I've pasted it into a separate comment.
Here are the links from the article if anyone is interested:
In the mid-1980s, both agencies promulgated a definition of “waters of the United States.
Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States.
The 2015 Clean Water Rule was repealed by the 2019 Rule
Navigable Waters Protection Rule
published in the Federal Register
More information about the final rule is available here.
Learn more about the agencies' current implementation of "waters of the United States."
Supreme Court Rulings Related to “Waters of the United States” -- Supreme Court decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense et al. – January 22, 2018 -- Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. - June 19, 2006 -- Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps - January 9, 2001 -- Supreme Court decision in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. - December 4, 1985
H.J.Res.27, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'".
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) Press Release
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer (R-NC) introduced a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) on the Biden Administration’s flawed and burdensome “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. [They argue] this rule will lead to sweeping changes to the federal government’s authority to regulate what is considered a navigable water, with enormous impacts on small businesses, manufacturers, farmers, home and infrastructure builders, local communities, water districts, and private property owners.
“As American families and businesses continue suffering under the economic crises caused by the disastrous Biden policies of the last two years, this Administration has inexplicably decided to move the country back toward the costly and burdensome WOTUS regulations of the past,” said Graves. “In an unnecessary drain on federal resources, the Administration clumsily put forward its rule before the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the Sackett case, which will affect and alter what the Administration has put forward. Congress has the authority and responsibility to review onerous rules like this one handed down from the Executive Branch, and I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join in this effort to preserve regulatory clarity and prevent overzealous, unnecessary, and broadly defined federal power.”
“The Biden Administration’s WOTUS rule is both poor policy and badly timed,” said Rouzer. “It will once again place overly burdensome regulations on farm families, small businesses, infrastructure projects, and entire communities – further harming our already struggling economy. Rushing to issue a new rule despite the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision is not wise. It will only create additional confusion and uncertainty. This new EPA rule needs to be rescinded so that Americans across the country are protected from subjective regulatory overreach. Utilization of the Congressional Review Act is the best and most appropriate way for the House to make its collective voice heard and push back. I’m proud to lead my colleagues in Congress as we work to terminate onerous rules like this one.”
The House Joint Resolution introduced would terminate the Biden WOTUS rulemaking utilizing the CRA, which provides a mechanism for Congress to overturn certain final agency actions.
On January 18, 2023, the Environmental Protection Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published the Administration’s long-expected WOTUS rule, which:
Voids the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, a rule that had provided much-needed clarity and certainty for the regulated community throughout the Nation; Reverts back to the Obama Administration’s era of greater uncertainty and expansive federal jurisdiction to regulate navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, including wetlands, ephemeral streams, and ditches; Moves the federal government towards a regulatory regime under which agency bureaucrats decide what is regulated, rather than working with those who will be affected, at a time when the Supreme Court has yet to issue an opinion on a pending WOTUS case (Sackett) that will directly impact the rule. In Support of the EPA WOTUS Rule:
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) are finalizing a rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. In developing this rule, the agencies considered the text of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, the scientific record, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies' experience and technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 regulations defining “waters of the United States.”
This final rule advances the objective of the Clean Water Act and ensures critical protections for the nation's vital water resources, which support public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth across the United States."
DO YOU THINK CONGRESS SHOULD PASS H.J.RES.27, TO DISAPPROVE OF THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE? About Waters of the United States What are "Waters of the United States"? The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act established federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as the “waters of the United States” (CWA Section 502(7)). Many Clean Water Act programs apply only to “waters of the United States.” The Clean Water Act provides authority for EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) to define “waters of the United States” in regulations.
History of "Waters of the United States" “Waters of the United States” is a threshold term in the Clean Water Act and establishes the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Act. Clean Water Act programs, including Water Quality Standards, TMDLs, and sections 311, 402, and 404 address “navigable waters,” defined in the statute as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”
The Clean Water Act does not define “waters of the United States”; rather, it provides authority for EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army to define “waters of the United States” in regulations.
Since the 1970s, EPA and the Department of the Army have defined “waters of the United States” by regulation. In the mid-1980s, both agencies promulgated a definition of “waters of the United States.”
Three Supreme Court decisions have addressed the definition of “waters of the United States.” In 1985, in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court deferred to the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to a traditional navigable water, stating that adjacent wetlands may be regulated as "waters of the United States" because they are ‘‘inseparably bound up’’ with navigable waters and ‘‘in the majority of cases’’ have ‘‘significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem’’ in those waters.
In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) in 2001, a 5-4 Court held that the use of "nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters" by migratory birds was not by itself a sufficient basis for the exercise of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. SWANCC, 531 U.S. at 172. The Court noted that in Riverside Bayview, it had "found that Congress' concern for the protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems indicated its intent to regulate wetlands 'inseparably bound up with the "waters" of the United States'" and that "[i]t was the significant nexus between the wetlands and 'navigable waters' that informed [the Court's] reading of the Clean Water Act" in that case. Id. at 167. In 2001 and again in 2003, the agencies developed guidance to address the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act following the SWANCC decision.
The Court most recently interpreted the term ‘‘waters of the United States’’ in Rapanos v. United States in 2006. A four-Justice plurality stated that ‘‘waters of the United States’’ ‘‘include[ ] only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes,’” and ‘‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection’’ to a ‘‘relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.’’ In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy took a different approach, concluding that ‘‘to constitute ‘navigable waters’ under the Act, a water or wetland must possess a ‘significant nexus’ to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.’’ He stated that adjacent wetlands possess the requisite significant nexus if the wetlands ‘‘either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’’’ The four dissenting Justices, who would have affirmed the court of appeals' application of the agencies' existing regulation, concluded that the term "waters of the United States" encompasses all tributaries and wetlands that satisfy either the plurality's standard or Justice Kennedy's. Following Rapanos, in 2007 and again in 2008, the agencies developed additional guidance for implementing the "waters of the United States" definition.
The agencies amended their regulations defining “waters of the United States” in 2015 in the Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States."
The 2015 Clean Water Rule was repealed by the 2019 Rule, which reinstated the 1980s regulations, implemented consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court cases and applicable guidance.
The agencies replaced the 2019 Rule with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in 2020. The agencies are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted implementation of the NWPR nationwide and are interpreting "waters of the United States" consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime.
For additional information, see the History of the Effects of Litigation Over Recent Definitions of "Waters of the United States" (pdf) (66.74 KB)
On December 30, 2022, the agencies announced the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule. On January 18, 2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register; the rule will be effective on March 20, 2023. More information about the final rule is available here.
Current Implementation of “Waters of the United States” The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("the agencies") are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s August 30, 2021, order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted implementation of the NWPR nationwide and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime.
On December 30, 2022, the agencies announced the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule. On January 18, 2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register
; the rule will be effective on March 20, 2023. The agencies developed this rule with consideration of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies’ technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 “waters of the United States” framework. This rule also considers the best available science and extensive public comment to establish a definition of “waters of the United States” that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. More information about the final rule is available here.
If a state, tribe, or an entity has specific questions about a pending jurisdictional determination or permit, please contact a local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District office or EPA.
I read a story a few years back about Kris Kristopherson. They had diagnosed him with Parkinsons, and he was treated for it for a few years. Then another doctor suspected Lyme and they changed treatments and he improved immediately.
Why would they call it a village? Sounds like they are putting on a skit to quiet the peasants.
This all smells weird to me. It all feels contrived, like a soap opera. I'm not sure what to think about it.
I've had it twice, once when I was about 7 after stepping on a safety pin in a yard, and once when I was 30 after a bad car accident. I don't remember what color either of them were but they both made me feel like I was going to faint and they gave me orange juice and I felt fine.