Dangers of Statin Drugs

 Dangers of Statin Drugs

Covid Film Reveals All, part 1

 Watch it while you can; download it while you can (you'll see the download link under the video while watching it on YouTube). This video is nearly 10 hours long!

This is the first part of my master class revolving around the so-called "science," medical, pharmaceutical, corporate and governmental structure that promotes an industry of harm and death to the general population. We cannot fight what we do not know, and we cannot treat a disease while the very government that funded it's lab-grown creation lies to us daily about is origin. In Wagging The Dog Part 1: Creating The Chimera, we look at duel use, gain of function research and its devastatingly frightening implications on life and life as we know it. 

Herein is definitive proof of not only the manmade origin of SARS-1, MERS, and now SARS-2, but of every other viral disease known and unknown to man. Science and its methodology has been replaced by a religious cult called scientism, and their sociopathic agenda crosses over into what in my own lifetime was only imaginable in the most dystopia science fiction movies. Futurism, immortality, transhumanism, and eugenics (today called as genetics) are just the surface of what is being funded by your government and its institutions, from military to health to DARPA. 

This is a must watch for those that seek the truth about the who, what, where, why, and when surrounding this current outbreak of Covid-19, and to prepare you for what is without a doubt coming next. Please feel free to share, repost, and create your own documentary clips from this movie. It is and always will be not for profit and for educational, critique, and other lawfully protected intent. Find me at: Realitybloger.wordpress.com

Dystopia In The Schools

The Covid-secure classroom is taking a big toll on pupils

'My water bottle has leaked in my bag!' The 11-year-old girl was distraught. It was her first week at secondary school. Her neatly titled exercise books – hitherto in pristine condition - were dripping wet; was she in trouble? What would become of her?

That happened in my wife’s class. She is also a teacher and has seen most things in her career. Flooded bags are a regular mishap. Usually, upset children are easily calmed when their teacher takes charge to put things right. But September 2020 has been a very different experience in schools. Socially distanced from the class, Stephanie was unable to offer any more than verbal instructions to her young pupil. Twenty minutes later the poor girl was still wiping out her bag.

That is just one vignette from the Covid-secure classroom. We may be back in school, but we are teaching with our hands tied behind our backs.

At least the children can see our faces. Masks are not mandated in classrooms – yet – though many schools require them in corridors. So much of what we took for granted – the quizzical looks on pupils’ faces, the encouraging smiles, normal interactions between human beings on their way from one lesson to another – are now obscured behind pieces of cloth. We are coping for now, but the cumulative impact on our mental health cannot be understated.

The change hits us every morning as soon as we come through the door. The first interaction of the day is the machine that measures our temperature. Come forward to be measured, the disembodied voice insists. She sounds like the voice from Logan’s Run and, like the inhabitants of that dystopian future, I do as I am told. Dutifully I get into position. A red dot flashes on my forehead and – every morning so far – I have been declared fit for work.

But it is not work as we knew it. Everything has changed, even the educational jargon that permeates the school. Year groups are now 'bubbled' in different zones within the school, while teachers are itinerant. Up and down stairs I go between lessons, leaving one class and hurrying to another bubble to teach the next. I cart all my resources with me, and pray that any equipment I had left strategically at my destination is still there and still working. Anything I’ve forgotten I will have to do without. While I could maybe still send a pupil on an errand to collect it, they could not hand it to me without the risk of cross contamination.

Physically it is hard; emotionally it is perhaps even harder. I have closer contact with the thermometer machine than I do with any of my colleagues. Conversations in corridors are now muffled behind masks. But with one-way systems in place, and a capacity limit of 14 in the staff room, we see much less of each other in any case.

But this is not principally about teachers. We are professionals and we will make this work. These are strange times, but we expect that they will pass.

Not so for children, for whom every year is different. Water bottle girl and her classmates started secondary school only once. They will never now experience the settling routines of any of their predecessors. Further up the school, Year 11 and Year 13 students are embarking on their one and only opportunity to prepare for the GCSE and A-Level exams that will determine their futures.

Their teachers may be in the room, but they are not alongside them. We stay within our respective zones, marked out with yellow-and-black tape, and separated by an exclusion zone. The child who is stuck on their work needs to decide between staying stuck or asking for help across the divide, as the rest of the class listens in. Those gentle words of encouragement between teacher and pupil – moments that can be potentially life changing – are neither quiet nor very personal when projected from one side of the room to the other.

But relationships between teachers and children are maintained to a degree. Not so the interactions between year groups who are kept apart in time and space. Bubbles are isolated from each other with military precision so that children do not mix. Between lessons they stay in their zones, separated by partitions, with profound implications on extra-curricular activities. Gone even are the lunchtime conversations around tables because – like every classroom in the school – children now must sit in rows to reduce the risk of transmitting the virus.

Ventilation – we are told – is crucial so windows must be left wide open. Winter will be interesting – perhaps not in a good way – but so far room temperatures have held up. September though is wasp season and when they fly into the room they ignore all social distancing rules, and divert everyone’s attention in the process. Imprisoned within the zone at the front of the classroom, teachers are also prevented from going on the customary wasp hunt: an activity that was probably overlooked in any of the guidelines produced by government for schools to follow.

Schools are working as best we can, but teachers and – I suspect – children are already worn out. We cannot go on like this indefinitely. The physical impact is huge but, in the long run, the impact on their mental health may be even greater as they are kept at arm’s length – a two-metre arm to be precise – from the adults who care for them. We are social beings and social isolation has consequences.

My biggest concern is the lack of any exit strategy. While the world hopes for a vaccine, none of the four already familiar coronaviruses that cause common colds have succumbed to a vaccine. While SARS-CoV-2 may be different, children deserve better than promises that may never be delivered.

It is true that previous generations of young people have suffered. In wartime, conscripts gave up their lives to protect liberty. In a perverse twist, children today are supposedly giving up their liberty to protect lives but – and this is important – not their lives. The irony, of course, being that children who catch Covid-19 tend to suffer only mild symptoms and face an infection fatality ratio close to zero. 

Chicken pox – another nasty disease – also has a rising fatality rate. It increases from 0.003 per cent of cases in the under 5s, to 0.7 per cent in the over 65s. However, chicken pox is familiar and, as such, children have been subjected to chicken pox play dates for generations. Covid-19 is new, but maybe the same approach would be more appropriate at least for the young. Even for me as a teacher, my chances at 52 are still much better than they will be when I am 72.

Maybe, if this isn’t going away then it’s better for us to catch it now and presumably develop a degree of immunity than wait another 20 years when we will be older and more vulnerable. But that is matter for debate. What is clear is that children – who in the main seem to suffer few symptoms – are suffering the brunt of the restrictions. If we are to protect them and their mental health, then maybe adults need to stop trying to run away from Covid-19 and learn to live with it.

Source: The Spectator, UK

Where Is The Virus?

 Where Is The Virus?

Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA...”

The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.

Click here for more.

Could A Tracing App Be Required To Enter Society?

 Could A Tracing App Be Required To Enter Society?

It already started in Ireland. Is your country next? Fight back - force for force! Click here to learn more.

 Stop Equating Fascism With Communism

Some people who should know better in the alternative media when talking about the current situation, such as covid-19, say things such as: 

• This is what the Nazis did
• This is fascism
• This is what the fascist did

Think about it, it's really stupid and also historically wrong to equate the covid laws with the nazis or fascist. True, they do mention the Communist but more often the equate what is going on today to the big, bad fascists. Well, is that true?

They are wrong for a couple of reasons. If they want to equate what the so-called leaders are doing today, they should equate it to THEMSELVES! Why? Because they are the ones doing it! You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. So, if you want to give a label to a political party, give  it to the “great democracy.”

Second, it should be equated to the Communist also – not to the big bad Nazis. Why? Because these lock downs, the contract tracing all start in Communist China – not in Hitler's Germany and not in Mussolini's Italy! 

These rulings, laws etc., about social distancing, tract and trace, face masks is a result of what our Edomite leaders are doing today!

Why is this mislabelling going on? I think it's because it prevents people looking to the laws of another nation that created a better society than what we have today. And since the NS and Fascism is the opposite of what  democracy and Communism and NOT it's twin brother, that is the reason. It's all part of 'controlled opposition'!

 Does our body adapt to poison or does your body destroy it?

When you read this, think of what the media has been telling you about the coronavirus. We are told that there is a virus out there that you can catch. That the only cure is a vaccine that has the coronavirus in it (along with a lot of other pathogens) and that we must take this so our body can build a resistance to it.

by Herbert M. Shelton

Some confusion arose in early Hygienic circles from the mistake of considering adaptation and toleration as the same thing. Some Hygienists declared that there is a law of adaptation and others rejected the idea altogether.

The Law of Vital Accommodation is usually interpreted to mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. This the Hygienic school considers a misinterpretation of the law. As Trall said of it, this interpretation of the law "is one of the vagaries of the Dark Ages." He said that he "could as soon believe in a moral law of accommodation by which the mind or soul adapts itself to moral evils—to lying, cheating, stealing, profane swearing, Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, adultery, etc., etc.—as to believe in a physiological law of accommodation by which the vital organism so adapts itself to poisons and impurities as not to be injured by them."

Dr. Jennings did accept this interpretation of the Law of Vital Accommodation, but he went even further. He assumed that the use of noxious agents, by occasioning a "reinforcement of vitality" to a part, is actually a source of strength and invigoration. He propounded what Trall designated the "monstrous absurdity" that the very poisons which are antagonistic to life actually increase the force of life locally, at least. That this is a monstrous absurdity is shown by evidence which exists all around us.

It was notoriously true in the days when the practice of "snuffing" tobacco was in flower that, old snuff topers could fill the whole nasal cavity with the strongest and most pungent kind of snuff without being able to raise the smallest specimen of a sneeze. The merest particle of the same snuff placed in the nasal cavity of the non-user would occasion prompt and violent sneezing.

Sneezing and snuffing were in inverse ratio to each other. An examination of the nasal membranes of the habitual snuffer revealed that they were inflamed, thickened, toughened, even ulcerated. Their sensibilities were reduced to the lowest point short of actual paralysis.

It is a fact that may be easily verified that the more sound and vigorous the organism or any part of it, the more prompt and vigorous will be its action in resisting and expelling a poison of any kind—the more acutely will it feel, the more readily will it resent, and the more violently will it resist and expel the tobacco, alcohol, arsenic or other poison. Try it when, where and with whom you please, you will find no exception to this law of organic life.

We do not deny a fact that everybody knows, that the more the living organism is exposed to contact with a given poison, the less disturbance is occasioned by such contact. But this does not mean that the poison has ceased to be noxious. It means, on the contrary, that the enervation induced by such continued and repeated contact with the poison has reduced the body's power to violently resist it. The vital powers are enfeebled by the constant struggle against the poison. In resisting and expelling the poison, the powers of life are exhausted precisely in ratio to the amount and frequency of the doses of poison they have to resist. It is obvious that if the resistance is always thus violent, complete and rapid, exhaustion would soon ensue and death would soon put an end to the struggle. Hence, to conserve the forces of life, the organism brings up some of its reserve means of defense. It does throw up a kind of fortification, but this is not of a kind that adds to the powers and capacities of the fortified part. Less violent means of resistance are brought into play.

When tobacco is first taken its use is followed by vertigo, nausea, vomiting, prostration, drowsiness and stupor. Tobacco applied to a sore or placed under the arm-pits will soon poison and sicken the whole body. But if the young hopeful continues his use of tobacco, the violent symptoms of nicotine poisoning abate and, although he slowly increases the quantity taken each day, he does not realize much if any apparent evil from it. Is it, then, to be supposed that what was poison before the habit was formed, has ceased to be poisonous now that the habit has been formed? Has the relation between tobacco and the living organism changed? Is nicotine now innoxious? Instead of habituation rendering the poison less poisonous, it actually becomes more injurious.

Because the body struggles violently against the poison when it is first used and does not struggle violently against it after the poison habit is formed, are we to conclude that the organism is reconciled to it? It would be more sensible to infer that it has been overcome by the poison. We may logically infer that the signs of rebellion and resistance have ceased because the struggle has so exhausted the body that it is no longer capable of such resistance. And, as the resisting power of the body is lowered more and more by the continued use of the poison, it becomes less and less disturbed by even more grievous in- roads upon the citadel of life.

The alternatives are either a violent and heroic effort to expel the poison or, failing this, a weak compromise by pathogenetic adaptation with ultimate loss of healthy structure and function. So far from toleration being established, a mere expedient devise is exercised which barely and woefully maintains a kind of status quo. Genuine power, rapidly or slowly (depending upon the amount of indulgence), is steadily waning.

As every adaptation to inimical substances is achieved by changes in the tissues that are away from the ideal, commonly by dystrophic changes in the cells and tissue elements, they necessarily cripple the normal or legitimate functions of the altered part. We have in the instance of adaptation to arsenic eating, the building up of impediments and units which are incapable of response either to wholesome foods or to virulent poisons. Toleration is merely a slow method of dying. Instead of seeing in the phenomenon of toleration something to be sought after, it is something to seek to avoid the necessity for.

Because the organism is enervated by the continued use of the poison, the user must frequently increase the size of the dose-whether the poison is tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, arsenic, salt, pepper, or other noxious substance—if he is to continue to induce the same apparent effect.

There is but one way to preserve the integrity, functioning ability, fortitude and endurance of the vital machinery and this is to keep poisons of all kinds at as great a distance from the organism as possible. Indeed, if we never saw, touched, tasted or smelled poisons of any kind, we would be all the stronger and live all the longer for it. Every dose of the poison, every cigarette, every drink of alcohol, every particle of arsenic, every cup of coffee, reduces the powers of life by as much as the body is forced to expend its powers in resisting and expelling the poison.

To compel the body to build "toleration" against all known poisons and all known causes of disease would, indeed, insure us against disease, but it would be the security of death. For long the world has been so infatuated with this nonsensical theory of "adaptation," that it is leading the race to its destruction. Are men so incorrigibly muddled with the false philosophy and nonsensical dogmas of the ignorant past that they cannot see that their very theories and practices are at variance with every known fact of existence and opposed to every demonstrable law of nature? Are they so ingrained with life-long prejudices or so deluded and infatuated with their favorite theories that they cannot understand that their theories and practices are leading the race to destruction?

If it is true that the use of a poison "fortifies" any part against the noxious substance, then all we have to do to be fully fortified against all causes of disease is to use all of them long enough to become "fortified" against all of them. To say that tobacco, alcohol, opium, etc., are all very destructive at first, but after we get used to them, that is, after we have accommodated ourselves to them, the mischief they do is either nil or comparatively slight, is to teach, in effect, that the more poison a person takes, over a long period of time, the less damage it does him. This is to say, the more poison, the more adaptation, so that bye and bye the sum total of the accommodation should be so great that the poison would have no bad effects at all.

The law of accommodation does not mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. I doubt very much that this law should ever be applied to what we call "toleration" of poisons; for, while there may be a certain sense in which adaptation does take place, it is really a form of defense. It should not be supposed that by the power of toleration or adaptation the body is capable of rendering that which is constitutionally noxious practically innoxious or wholesome. It is only that it bends itself, like the tough but limber oak to the force of the storm, instead of standing stiffly against it only to be uprooted.

Let us once understand that it is not possible for the vital organism to adapt itself to poisons so that they are no longer harmful to it, and we will readily understand that any and every use of these substances, for any purpose whatsoever, is injurious to the body. What is known as adaptation to poisons is always and necessarily of a retrogressive character and the greater the "adaptation," the greater the retrogression. Graham was eternally right when he said that this "adaptation" occurred by virtue of physiological depravity.

Just as the body cannot adapt itself to noxious substances and render them harmless, so it cannot adapt itself to abuses of useful substances so that these abuses become harmless. Because the digestive tract of the habitual glutton has so adapted itself to the customary load of food that it no longer groans and complains, it should not be thought that the gluttony has been rendered harmless. As digestion is so vitally important to the preparation of foodstuffs for entrance into and use by the body, it should be readily seen how any impairment of the general integrity of the digestive system must in turn impair the functions of the body generally.