Sayer Ji, Founder
September 27, 2011
To most of us, the word “drug” conjures varied, if not diametrically opposed images and connotations. On the one hand, “drugs” are illegal substances, associated with addiction, bodily harm, crime, and other unpleasant experiences. These drugs include cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana and heroin, and are generally not considered to have medicinal effects
On the other hand, prescribed or over the counter “drugs” are associated with treating or preventing disease, regulated by the FDA and administered legally to the public in carefully meted doses by doctors. No matter which way you slice it, Americans have the most voracious appetite for drugs on the planet, consuming approximately 700 billion dollars worth of prescribed, over-the-counter and illegal drugs, annually.
The distinction between these two meanings of the word drug may hold hard and fast from the perspective of politics, the law, media imaging and ordinary parlance, but not necessarily from the perspective of biology and pharmacology. Take amphetamine, for instance. Although amphetamine is one of the most addictive and metabolically poisonous drugs found on the street today and responsible for thousands of deaths a year, it is approved by the FDA for the treatment of attention deficit disorder, weight loss, depression and narcolepsy in branded forms such as Adderall, Ritalin and Dexedrine.
Marijuana, on the other hand, which has an extraordinary safety profile, and which has been studied for decades for its extensive medical applications, remains illegal throughout the United States and is not approved for prescription as medicine. Politics, economics and social prejudices are the primary reason why certain substances attain approval or disapproval as drugs, not the inherent nature of the substance itself, as one would expect in a civilized society.
The difference between a “good” and a “bad” drug can depend entirely upon the social context within which a chemical like amphetamine is ingested. If acquired on the street within the context of the drug dealer/junky relationship it is a “fix” (albeit self-medication, no matter how misguided). If ingested upon a doctor’s request for a diagnosable disorder, it is considered “medicine.” The former context is socially sanctified; the latter is socially vilified.
Ultimately, neither situation can transcend the fact that amphetamine will only offer temporary relief from whatever emptiness or imbalance the drug was supposed to fix or cover up. Nothing within the amphetamine itself will address the underlying food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, emotional issues that may be causing the deficit in attention, sluggish metabolism, inability to sleep or depressive emotional state. In fact, long term amphetamine use is notorious for causing the very thing that it would temporarily remedy: suicidal depression, exhaustion to the point of sudden death, inability to focus, etc.
In some cases the street form of a drug is actually safer than its prescribed form. For instance, the synthetic opioid known in prescription form as Fentanyl is 40 times MORE powerful/addictive than heroin. However the main point of this article is not to decompose the rather essential boundaries that exist between “good” and “bad” drugs, as without them, society as we know it today would drift into greater chaos. Rather, we are going to focus on the way in which the positive sense of the word drug as medicine has been effectively removed from the grasp of foods and dietary supplements – as far as the FDA is concerned – forever.
According to the FDA’s legal definition of a drug, anything that “diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease” is defined as a drug. The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances, as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven to mitigate, prevent and in some cases CURE disease, and which CAN NOT be called DRUGS according to the FDA.
How can this be? Well, the FDA has Godlike power insofar as it has to grant a healing substance its official approval for it to be considered to have legitimate application in the treatment of disease. And historically the FDA has required very expensive clinical studies (approximately $100 million per drug) which are out of the grasp of any interest who might want to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-patentable and therefore unprofitable herb, food or spice.
“If Hippocrates, the founder of modern medicine, were alive today, he would be forced to qualify himself by saying: “Seek FDA approval for permission to let food be thy medicine.”
The common kitchen spice turmeric is a perfect example of this extraordinary hypocrisy. Although one can find over 400 biomedical citations on PubMed (pubmed.gov) discussing turmeric’s ability to cause apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells, it has not received the FDA’s approval as a drug in the treatment of cancer.
With over a million cases of cancer diagnosed annually in America, wouldn’t it be sensible for the FDA to approve the use of a substance with such extraordinary scientific backing and consensus on its effectiveness AND safety? And if not as a primary chemotoxic treatment, than at the very least as an adjunctive therapy? Sadly, the likely reason this miraculous substance has not been made available to cancer sufferers today is because it can be grown in one’s back yard for free!
Here we have the fundamental point. The FDA’s definition of a drug is not descriptive, but is a persuasive definition which purports to describe the “true” or “commonly accepted” meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating a meaning that serves only the interests of the drug companies it so spinelessly serves. If an herb can not be converted into a proprietary, profitable, patentable commodity, it will forever be barred from attaining the legitimacy of a “drug,” no matter how effective it is at treating disease.
When drug companies do manage to produce an extract of a whole herb, they almost invariably make the same fatal error: they equate the healing force of the whole plant with only certain decomposed isolates or ‘mono-chemicals’ found within this living, infinitely complex totality. Even worse, they tinker with these isolates to ensure that they are unique enough to derive a patent, with the unfortunate outcome that the new chemical analog is now biologically unprecedented.
This folly results in profound side effects and toxicity, and serves only one objective: to ensure the 20 year market exclusivity that a FDA awarded patent affords. One can play God by isolating and reproducing facsimiles of a component of a complex living organism such as turmeric.
But the isolate will never compare to the safety and healing power of the whole herb, produced by other nature herself; rather, it is more likely to behave like Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, with uncontrollable and violent side effects.
And this is another key point: Mother Nature does not grant patents, even though her formulas are proprietary. She will never lend herself to rampant profit making and outlandish claims, nor will she make the mechanism of her healing perfectly intelligible vis-à-vis the scientific method. It is commodity and profit driven medicine, with its underlying emphasis on perverting the scientific method to serve economic objectives that concerns itself with patent exclusivities, hyperbolic claims and profit as an end unto itself. Rather than lament this fact, I have decided to celebrate it.
If whole food supplements, herbs and vitamins are forever exiled from the would-be legitimacy of the allopathic pharmacopeia, then so be it! This can not obviate the healing gifts that issue prolifically and freely from the lap of Nature herself; nor does it negate that birthright of health which we all participate in, knowingly and unknowingly.
Rather, this exclusion of what works and is right, and good, from the compass and concern of orthodox medical principle and practice, is an indication of a complete failure in credibility of the allopathic system as a whole, and which has earned it its disgraceful nickname: the Disestablishment.
Until food is allowed to be considered medicine once again, orthodox medical can not rightly claim to be interested in healing disease. Thomas Edison left us with a sage premonition of a possible future that may still remain within our grasp, when he wrote:
The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of human disease.
“© [September 27, 2011] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
February 4, 2020
I’m constantly amazed at the information that people email to me, but this one is a whopper doozie spotted by V.S. I’ve already blogged about the arrest of Dr. Charles Lieber of Harvard, and about this strange tie to the Wuhan University of Technology. But there’s more lurking in the background of that Harvard connection than meets the eye, and I just have to share this one:
tldr: Epstein gave exorbitant amounts of money, at least $9 million (pledged $30 million) to researchers funded by DoD, DARPA, IARPA, and NIH at Harvard University with the expertise and technology to genetically engineer and improve bacteria and viruses. One of Harvard’s most prominent scientists who received $18 million from DoD and NIH was arrested and charged for operating a secret lab in Wuhan China just hours ago – This researcher was given over $1.5 million dollars to do so, in secret, by Chinese institutions. Meanwhile, the area where the new coronavirus emerged (Wuhan) recently opened a biosafety level 4 lab (the only one in China, a country with 1.4 billion people) where researchers were actually studying and experimenting with the genetics of coronaviruses over the past few years before the emergence of this new strain. Whether these things are linked or not remains to be see, but each of these independent statements are in fact true.
In a way this post contains two distinct conspiracy theories, that I suspect may be linked together, hence my post.
A few years ago, I attended a private government research conference where Dr. George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT, was describing how his lab systematically altered the genome of a bacterial cell using synthetic biology and genetic engineering to make cells resistant to viruses. There was some brief discussion of how these techniques could be used for the opposite purpose (to engineer viruses to improve them or make them less recognizable by the host, thus delaying the immune response). Immediately following Dr. Church’s presentation, other researchers and myself had a discussion about how frightening these technological capabilities were. Over the years, this concern has always remained in the back of my mind and I’ve discussed it with others that didn’t attend the talk on various occasions. It is worth noting that a lot of George Church’s recent research also involves the study and engineering of viruses. Most recently in his career, Dr. Church has been funded by DARPA and IARPA, with the most recently funded grant titled, ‘Functional Genomic and Computational Assessment of Threats’ (by IARPA).
The description of this grant solicitation, if you search for it, starts with:
“The biological sciences have experienced extraordinary growth over the past decade. Technological advances in DNA synthesis, sequencing, large gene construction, and data analysis are expanding biological research and the bioeconomy, and are likely to enable revolutionary advances in medicine, agriculture, and materials. At the same time, these advances have intensified security concerns around the accidental or deliberate misuse of biotechnologies. One special concern regards DNA synthesis technologies that can be used to create novel organisms.”
Hence, Dr. Church is obviously involved in the area of applying advanced techniques (lab based and computational) to engineer organisms to make them resistant to viruses (and potentially vice-versa, to engineer viruses), and is involved in the efforts to combat the risks involved.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Church was one of the scientists most involved with Jeffrey Epstein. He received funding from Epstein for the purposes of ‘cutting edge science & education’ from 2005 to 2007 (the funding was apparently unrestricted). Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008. Following his conviction, Dr. Church and Epstein continued to meet. According to an NBC report, “he had six phone calls and meetings with Epstein in 2014, as shown in Church’s online calendar (he has posted one every year since 1999). Sample entry: “Jun 21, 2014 Lunch w/ Jeffrey Epstein, 12-1:30, Martin Nowak’s Institute.” (Nowak, a Harvard biologist/mathematician, is also a Brockman client and Edge participant.) He also met with Epstein “several times” each year since, Church said.”
These meetings were often between Church, Epstein, and Church’s colleague Dr. Martin Nowak, Harvard Professor of Biology and Mathematics and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. At the get-togethers with Nowak, Church said, “Epstein seemed interested in the science of life’s origins and mathematically modeling the evolution of viruses”. Epstein had also previously given a whopping $6.5 million dollars in research money to Dr. Nowak’s lab at Harvard in 2003. Apparently, Epstein had actually pledged a total of $30 million dollars (which is an incredible amount of money for a university professor to receive for research; large government funded grants usually top out at $2-3 million over several years) to Dr. Nowak’s program. I was not able to find additional information on what these talks in 2014 and beyond ultimately led to, or if more money was pledged to or received by these prominent scientific figures. Another thing to add is that Nowak also has a record of studying and writing about viruses, such as his first book publication in 2000 titled, Virus Dynamics: Mathematical Principles of Immunology and Virology.
Jumping to a slightly different topic of discussion. There are other two other posts that stood out to me in this sub.
This post describes a few things. First, Wuhan, China, the 7th most populated city in a country with 1.4 billion has a biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory that was recently established in 2015. It is apparently one out of 70 or so in the entire world (number was given by OP of the post linked above; my own search only turned up 52), and it is the only BLS-4 lab in the ENTIRE country of China. For those unfamiliar with what BLS-4 refers to, they are labs involving the study of the greatest biological threats and have the highest level of biosafety precautions. It is the sort of lab where researchers would attempt to study and perhaps modify something like a coronavirus. As the other redditor pointed out (and is also outlined in other r/conspiracy posts), there are lead scientists, such as Xing-Ye Ge, that study coronaviruses based out of Wuhan. These studies are often carried out by a team of 5-20 researchers, usually across institutions.
If you look up the Wuhan scientists research profile, you’ll be able to find that this individual and his fellow researchers also publish studies on adenoviruses in bats (similar to Dr. Church’s own virus-focused work on adeno-associated viruses, which are similar to adenoviruses and have similar applications; there is considerable overlap here). Further searching indicates that adenoviruses and adeno-associated viruses hold potential to serve as a vaccine for coronaviruses, and there are several studies on this. Dr. Church’s own work is related to this, as he studies adeno-associated viruses mostly in the context of delivering it as a sort of gene therapy for diseases. To be fair, however, these topics are outside my own area of expertise.
Now on to another recent reddit post:
In the last 24 hours, a colleague of Dr. Church and Dr. Nowak, Dr. Charles Lieber, Professor and Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested and criminally charged over a contract he made with a foreign university. Where? In Wuhan, China. As a side note, it’s worth pointing out to those unaware that all three of these people are some of the highest-ranking academic officials at Harvard and are revolutionary scientists in their respective fields. They would not at all be considered just minor or just moderately important figures at Harvard.
According to the Justice Department: “Lieber, 60, lied about his contact with the Chinese program known as the Thousand Talents Plan, which the U.S. has previously flagged as a serious intelligence concern. He also is accused of lying about about a lucrative contract he signed with China’s Wuhan University of Technology.”
Apparently, amongst other things, Lieber established a secret research lab at the Wuhan university and was given $1.5 million dollars by the Chinese (in addition to salary and living expenses) to do so. Meanwhile “Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.” So, Dept. of Defense… NIH…
For those that are unfamiliar with academia, you may be wondering “how often does a leading, well-funded academic scientist from the most prestigious university in the country set up a secret lab with a foreign government?” This probably never happens, and it is extraordinarily – and I mean extraordinarily – odd and suspicious. Researchers are sometimes solicited by foreign governments and will leak or share info, but set up another lab somewhere else under the radar? Maybe a minor scientist would, but a major one? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Some other redditor mentioned that Lieber’s research seems to be mostly focused on nanotechnology rather than bioweapons research, and this is true. However, he has been involved in previous research to use nanotechnology to detect small viral particles in humans. Most oddly though, if you try to search Charles Lieber’s Google Scholar page (basically a page where you can find all scientific articles and books authored by a researcher), his page just went dark. It shows up in the Google search results, but says ‘No information available for this page’. I kid you not, his Google Scholar page went down as I was writing this post. When you try to click on it, it strangely links you to the Google Scholar page of some completely different person.
In my mind, these are a series of very strange coincidences that seem to be interconnected. As the redditor of the first link I posted put it, what are the odds that the new coronavirus that is now making world news just so happened to come out of the same place that the Chinese just set up their first BLS-4 lab a few years ago that also just so happens to be a place where researchers are studying coronaviruses? What are the odds that, again, just in the last several hours, one of the most prominent scientists at Harvard was arrested for setting up a secret lab in Wuhan, China? Also, why was Jeffrey Epstein giving heaps and heaps of money to researchers at Harvard studying synthetic biology and genetic engineering, who had the means to systematically alter cells or viruses – people receiving money from secret defense agencies such as DARPA and IARPA – and stated himself he was interested in modeling the evolution of viruses.
We need to look into these things further. Even if the Epstein-Church-Nowak part of the conspiracy doesn’t link to the Lieber-Wuhan Coronavirus portion, these two segments stand well on their own and I feel that despite having more of a background in nanotech instead of bioweapons, Liebers arrest for secret lab in Wuhan while the coronavirus problem continues to explode is just too much of a coincidence. Why would someone getting $10 million plus from U.S. funding agencies go through the hassle of setting up a secret lab in another country and risk his entire life’s work for less money. What was he doing there exactly? I eagerly wait for more details to come out.
edit: One more thing, it keeps getting better. Another Redditor made this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/evikbw/wuhan_institute_of_virology_an_ad_posted_2_months/ It’s unclear who all is involved (such as Lieber or others), but this seems to be shaping up to be one of the better conspiracies I’ve seen on this board in a while.
There you have it. So it’s important to review what this article is saying: Dr. Lieber worked at the same university as Drs Church and Nowak, both known associates of Jeffrey Epstein and recipients of his largesse. Given the nature of their work, it strains credibility to assume that Lieber was unaware of their work or they of his. They are, after all, all faculty members working in more or less the same broad discipline. As they article makes clear, all were working in aspects of modifying biology and doing genetic engineering, all areas of obvious biowarfare implications. All of this raises some intriguing high octane speculations and questions:
1) Why would professors, who are recipients of government funds for research, also take private funding in the millions from Epstein? Did they need it? And was Epstein in fact laundering money for other interests in sponsoring this research? And does that mean that their are private interests trying to obtain a biowarfare capability? Their taking of Epstein money on an individual basis was quite probably entirely innocent. But it’s the overall pattern of a Harvard connection that I find highly odd.
2) Do these questions in their turn indicate that all of China is being turned into a biowarfare, economic warfare, and social engineering experiment?
In respect to these questions, the article itself asks a highly pertinent question regarding Dr. Lieber toward the end of the piece:
Why would someone (Lieber) getting $10 million plus from the U.S. funding agencies go through the hassle of setting up a secret lab in another country and risk his entire life’s work for less money. What was he doing there exactly?
Indeed, and for whom was he really doing it? China? Harvard? Some private international interest?
Like the author of the article, I eagerly await for more details to come out. In the connection to the idea of some private international interest however, I’m reminded of a detail that occurred prior to 9/11, when Russian economist Dr. Tatiana Koryagina mentioned in Pravda, prior to the events of 9/11, that the US would shortly be attacked on its own soil by a private group with assets in the trillions of dollars. Recently, Harvard took its funding entirely black, and I have to wonder, in the light of this article, if it is one of the crucial “fronts” or “nodes” for some sort of private network. Would it be involved in such activities as a massive social engineering experiment?
Well, as I detailed with co-author Gary Lawrence in our book Rotten to the (Common) Core, another Harvard chemist – indeed, a former president of the institution – comes to mind: Dr. James Conant Bryant, and with him, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. [Bold Emphasis Added]
About Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Dr. Kelly Brogan
Holistic Psychiatrist & Author Of A Mind Of Your Own
February 4, 2020
Nine months after the birth of my first daughter, I felt off. Flatness, forgetfulness, cold, and tired. If I hadn’t discovered my formal diagnosis of an autoimmune thyroid condition, I could easily have been offered an antidepressant. Instead, I delved into the complex physiology of the immune system and its relationship to seemingly unrelated areas like the gut and brain. I learned pathways and the role of nutrients in their optimization. I changed my lifestyle, and my life changed as a result. What if this diagnosis wasn’t just a result of chemical exposure, lack of sleep, and a horrendous diet? What if it meant something, specific, to me, for me, and about me?
• • •
Psychoneuroimmunology: Gut-Brain Science
According to my credentials, I have fellowship-level expertise in Psychosomatic Medicine. What does that phrase mean to you? Undoubtedly, it conjures notions of hysteria and attention-seeking illness fabrication. Almost in an effort to escape these implications, this advanced medical training has, at some sites, been rebranded as Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, to invoke the seemingly more legitimate study of psychiatric symptoms emerging in medical and surgical patients.
Psychiatry has been seeking to scientifically substantiate itself for the better part of a century, and we have all fallen prey to the allure of the biological explanation, the organic cause, the mechanistic descriptor for a given pathology. Many a patient has felt relief at being told that they have a “chemical imbalance.” A chemical imbalance is, by definition not your fault. In fact, there’s nothing you can do about it, except, of course to fill your prescription and take it forever, like a good patient.
The Physical Origins of Mental Illness
Even with my left turn from conventional psychiatry, I have spent a decade steeped in vanguard biomedical models of depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Models that explore the contributions of various systems including endocrine, immune, and neurochemical. I have even been criticized by other psychiatry-dissenters as simply substituting one physiologic illusion for another that continues to pathologize what is appropriate human angst and response to trauma. These critics say, it’s all mind, not body.
What if there is a new conversation happening in the medical literature – one that encompasses the whole person, all at once?
Entitled Symbolic Diseases and “Mindbody” Co-Emergence. A Challenge for Psychoneuroimmunology, Broom et al take the progressive field of Psychoneuroimmunology to task and demand an even more nuanced and sophisticated approach to the human experience.
Gut-Brain: Just The Beginning
On many levels, psychoneuroimmunology is an exciting revelation simply because it decimates false boundaries between different systems and allows more cohesive assessments to be made. No longer are there many blind men feeling parts of the elephant describing a rope and a tree trunk. We begin to understand that the immune and endocrine systems appear to be mediating a dialogue – bidirectional – between the gut and the brain.
In this model, the gut influences the brain and the brain influences the gut but they are still two separate entities communicating through biochemical signals. Where are YOU in this relationship? Where are the elements of the human experience that reflect your deeply held beliefs, thoughts, and relationships? What about your history and experience of yourself up until this point? Are we still just reducing humanity to bubbles of substances?
Gut-Brain-Mind: Adding Another Dimension
The mind is invited into gut-brain physiologic conversation in the form of stress. Stress has been used as a cause-all vector of bodily illness, a perspective that still reigns in the literature including data that demonstrates that perceived stress mobilizes inflammatory immune cells in the bone marrow. But the mind is more than stress, isn’t it? Is the personal meaning of the stress relevant?
Dr. Candace Pert has confirmed as much through her discovery of the bodily opiate receptor and research on neuropeptides demonstrating that that emotions are literally encoded throughout organs and tissues. Her perspective seems to elucidate why and how one person could weep after 8 minutes of raised arms in a kundalini yoga class and another might barely find it challenging. We get closer to a more personal experience of the physical body that blurs the boundaries between mental and physical.
In fact, the interpretation of the physical by the mind can actually then lead to changes and shifts in the physical – this is called the placebo effect. An emergent phenomenon, the placebo effect is physical and mental and both in the context of your personal beliefs, history, and expectations. It is not a mental factor. It is not a physical factor. It is a totality of you brought to the experience of healing.
So if it’s not just a broken body, why do we get sick?
Since the dawn of the microbiome, exosomes, and placebo research, no longer can we hold onto the cold comfort of our genes. We weren’t simply “born with” our illnesses and struggles. They have been co-created by us in our environment. But are they meaningful beyond that? Purposeful, even? Teleology is the study of purpose as a driving force of nature. It flies in the face of the mechanistic, reductionist perspective that life is random, nature is meaningless, and that force, effort, and exactitude dictate all outcomes.
The attunement of the organism to the world is reciprocated by the action of the world on us. The world or environment is not something inert, passive, something waiting to be acted upon. – Maurita Harney
Far from being new age woo, this field is supported by burgeoning disciplines such as quantum physics and biosemiotics, non-linear exploration of top-down informational exchange in web-like matrices. The one gene-one pill-one ill model of random bad luck is a skin this snake has shed.
The Meaning of Your Illness Matters
I firmly believe that there is a personal invitation in every diagnosis, and even every symptom. It is an invitation to examine everything and anything from diet to spiritual beliefs, but could illness carry personal symbolism and meaning? Broom et al, the authors of the previous paper, suggest that:
“Some persons will represent their meanings and “stories” clearly in language, some in behavior, some in the body, and some (maybe most) in multiple ways.”
To appreciate the relevance of symbolism, the whole person must be assessed in a global view with sensitivity to the meaning for a given individual of their symptoms. They pull cases from the literature including;
“A woman developed the precancerous condition oral leukoplakia (and, later, oral cancer requiring seven surgical interventions/reconstructions) at age 33. After 22 years of disease she entered therapy, and, in the first session, it emerged that her dentist father had died by suicide when the patient was age 6 and when he was 33. At age 12, the patient had been told by her alcoholic mother that she, the daughter, had caused the father’s death because she had refused to sit on his knee! There was a profound shame at having “caused” his death. Brief therapy led to a rapid and, thus far, 15-year remission.”
This made me wonder if my postpartum thyroiditis symptoms of cloudiness and fatigue so many years ago were representative of my feeling suppressed and oppressed by my unexpressed self. Perhaps I developed exactly what it is that I needed to become more myself in this life, and that healing it rather than fighting it was the integration that rendered me one with my very personal process.
Broom et al might say yes. They propose a co-emergent framework. This is one in which mind and body are not causing effects in one another but are a part of an unbroken continuity of internal body processes and external interpersonal meanings and influences. In other words, it is a model that takes into account the person, their story, and their environment as all a part of a web that includes the body and its systems.
More Than the Sum of Our Parts
How can we can enter on all of these levels at once – body, mind, and meaning? With the launch of my course, Vital Mind Reset, I have witnessed that self-healing is possible when we escape the reductionist magic pill/magic bullet model and honor our weblike complexity. Medical meditation, examination of beliefs, engagement in community, detox, and nutritional medicine all synergize to bring about results that might not have otherwise been possible. In fact, Bloom states:
“It appears that a co-emergent framework commonly allows recovery from chronic illnesses unresponsive to biomedical treatments.”
When we use this multi-signal, personalized (by you, for you) approach, participants marvel at the simplicity of the interventions yet the robustness of the shift:
In fact, we don’t even need to know why this multilevel approach to healing works, or how. We can move beyond the chemical theories, the complex analysis, and simply be in the process of sending the bodymind a signal of safety. Safety looks like ease. Trust. Curiosity. And even surrender. It’s not a fight. It’s not a battle. It’s a cooperative exchange and an exploration. It’s becoming more of our whole selves because we are becoming less fragmented and self-evasive. We stop hiding parts of our personhood from our awareness. We embrace it all in order to heal.
I now look for the story in any physical symptoms that arise in me, and in the physiologic specifics of my patient’s conditions. Exploring these stories often reveals the key to true wellness.
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 31, 2020
Earlier this week I blogged about the mysterious coronavirus outbreak in Communist China. I pointed out that in addition to the fact that the virus may have been stolen and weaponized by Chinese spies inside of Canada’s National Micriobiology Laboratory, there is an additional “coincidence” in that the outbreak appears to have occurred during the height of the Chinese lunar new year, when many people in China travel.
But now, there’s an even more uncanny resemblance between “simulation” and “reality”, and a big thanks to all who found and shared this:
What’s disturbing here is this paragraph:
In what has to be bizarre coincidence, in just November of last year, the Gates Foundation held a simulation called “Event 201”. Event 201 simulated an outbreak of a “zoonotic “coronavirus”. “Zoonatic” would be the spread of disease through animals (vertebrates). (Italicized emphasis added, boldface emphasis in the original)
Additionally, as the article observes, the outbreak apparently began in a nearby animal marketplace in Wuhan, close to the bioweapons laboratory.
All of this raises certain questions: did the virus accidentally leak from the laboratory? The article would suggest “no,” and as we saw earlier this week, the laboratory from which the Chinese apparently obtained the virus was in Canada, where the two alleged Chinese spies were caught, and expelled.
Which brings me to my high octane speculation of the day, and I suspect you all know what it is. In Monday’s blog, I pointed out the curious coincidence that one of the alleged Chinese spies at the Canadian laboratory hailed from Tianjin, the city that suffered the enormous chemical plant explosion that left a suspiciously deep and narrow “conical” crater. Now, we have another disturbing “coincidence,” The Gates Foundation’s unusual simulation, involving precisely a coronavirus, released into the general population via animals. The simulation’s close analogue to the actual outbreak itself suggests one of two scenarios: (1) the whole thing is “fake news” and an outbreak is being reported that may, or may not be, true, and hence, the simulation is ongoing as a kind of social engineering experiment, or (2) the whole thing is real, but not the result of an accidental leak in the Wuhan biowarfare lab in China, but of a deliberate leak.
And that raises the question, who did the presumptive leaking. Well, as I’ve written before in different contexts, covert operations are a game two can play: the Chinese can spy on “us”, and “we” can spy on them. And thus far, it is China that has been the hardest hit, and as its government openly admits, it is taxing their resources. In Monday’s blog I also talked about another scenario in conjunction with the theft of the virus by the Chinese: perhaps their long term strategy was to release the virus, then announce “the cure.” But what if it is in fact the other way around? What if the “cure” already exists in western laboratories?
But either way one slices this story, nothing about it seems normal or kosher; someone is doing something to someone else… with time, perhaps, as the picture becomes clearer, we’ll know who might be engaged in biowarfare right in front of our eyes…
See you on the flip side…
About Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
“Psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests.”
– Dr. Allen Frances, author of Saving Normal
“Probably as much as 75% of the medicine of sickness is unnecessary and its cost can be avoided.”
– Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot, Author Of The Medical Mafia
February 1, 2020
Dr. Kelly Brogan’s work first became known to me when she addressed countless health issues in an article she penned years back that was shared via the website GreenMedInfo.com which is an absolutely superb website about health. From that moment forward, Brogan became one of my ‘go-to’ alternative medical doctors whose work I attempt to read as much as possible given how mental health issues are increasing significantly each year.
Bottom line: A Mind Of Your Own: The Truth About Depression And How Women Can Heal Their Bodies To Reclaim Their Lives by Kelly Brogan M.D and Kristin Loberg shows the reader many of the inherent issues within Big Pharma and Big Psych while also outlining many proactive steps individuals can take to take charge of their health in significant ways.
Not only is the reader seamlessly shown countless examples of very troublesome issues regarding medications doled out like candy by Big Pharma and doctors, but also how this health for-profit system of ‘medicine’ is set up by loose strings, which care not for people’s health rights and simply care for profits.
For example, did you know that the U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries which allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers? Prior to 1997, there was a ban in place that restricted pharmaceuticals from advertising to consumers – known as drug-to-consumer-advertising, or DTCA- but this ban was removed, to the detriment of the populace.
Why is this important? Because that law was in place to protect individuals from the highly specialized, and yet misleading advertising of all drugs.
Another point of serious concern is how the great majority of prescription drugs sold take place due to DTCA. As Dr. Kelly Brogan notes in her milestone book, which homes in on the efficiency of this specialized advertising:
“It’s been calculated that DTCA [drug-to-consumer advertising] is responsible for nearly half (49 percent) of requests for drugs. And fully seven out of ten times doctors prescribe based on appeal by patients who learned through their computers and televisions that they have an “imbalance” that must be fixed with a pill.”[Bold & Underline Emphasis Added]
Predictably, all that already-disturbing information leads to prescription drugs being doled out at 4 Billion per annum, it’s no wonder that Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death. According to a new John Hopkins study, which is covered by the Washington Post:
“Their analysis, published in the BMJ, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”[Click here to read the study named Medical Error – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US]
You, as an astute reader, might be wondering, okay, what does that have to do with psychiatry? Excellent question.
About 10% of Americans take anti-depressants, which equates to about 30 million people. With the downright disconcerting facts that Dr. Brogan brings up in her book A Mind Of Your Own, many of the people that will be railed by the medical system will be within the psychiatric field, and a significant portion of them will be children as well.
What’s disturbing about this is that, as Dr. Brogan herself cautions, most drug research is in fact, short term:
“Their patients have never consented to the long-term effects of these medications because pharmaceutical research is, by nature, short term. There is no incentive on the part of the pharmaceutical companies to take a good look at what happens to the average individual when she takes a medication for a decade or so.”[Bold & Underline Emphasis Added]
As an individual who’s had a few friends that have depression and continues to meet people with it randomly through life, and also as a person who has a great interest in all of health, the information presented within this book is paramount to understanding the larger landscape of Big Pharma and health as a whole within the United States.
One of the greatest strengths A Mind Of Your Own showcases is the fact that this book is chock-full of real verifiable data that would shock most people who haven’t begun doing their own research about what happens within Big Pharma and the psychiatric field.
Thankfully, not only is this book rather easy to comprehend, but the reader can feel the honesty and concern that have been staples of Brogan throughout her work. This is vital, because in the arena of medicine there are countless doctors who care more about prescribing pills, than they do about the welfare of the patient and actually solving the problem. This is known personally to me and my family via my many hospitalizations due to poor health, doing exactly what the doctors suggested which was always taking more pills, which never solved any problems. It was only when seeking my own solutions following nutrition, getting off of medications, and many steps that true healing began taking place for me.
On that note, this is where Dr. Brogan shines because she is doing what should be undertaken by most if not all doctors or concerned individuals within the medical establishment, which is outlining the dangers so many people are going through in respect to side effects by the overmedication of America, as well as – and arguably more important – offering solutions/alternatives to the for-profit (and not for-health) medical system.
Brogan’s book on the mental health in America is quite unique and reminiscent of the work of another author. A Mind Of Your Own reminds me of a book called Toxic Psychiatry by Peter R. Breggin M.D., who not only outlines glaring problems within the psychiatric establishment, but also, like Brogan, covers issues with medications that most people would consider safe, but aren’t as safe as they are made out to be by medical doctors.
To be precise, I’m not implying that the Dr. Brogan’s work takes from Dr. Breggin. What I am saying however is that both doctors have great concern regarding mainstream health, and seem to share very similar values in how they think patients should be treated in respect to actual solutions that don’t revolve simply around handing out prescriptions non-stop without seeking to actually solve the underlying issues.
With that said, this particular book ventures into myriad paths. It rightly gives an extensive look into the flawed theory of depression but also shows how that theory is an outright fallacy. It also covers many of the ways in which depression symptoms can manifest in people, which at times may be solved with specific vitamins, which is something that goes directly against the Big Pharma prescription medication model.
Keeping all of the above in mind, one would expect that with tens of millions of lives at stake, and with dozens of side effects to boot per medication, a more thorough process would be in place to safeguard individuals against possible iatrogenic mistakes that plague the populace en mass. But such is not the case unfortunately.
Another great notion Brogan centers in on within her book is done in her chapter called The Great Psychiatric Pretenders. Within it, Brogan details not only how the one-size-fits-all type of care that is carried out in America is inefficient, but she also provides a few of the circumstances that create bedlam within individuals and are often categorized as depression, but are incorrectly diagnosed. Please read that again.
It’s imperative to know this because people are walking around thinking a pill is the only solution to their problems when there are other possible solutions that may be possible.
Brogan also sheds light with a cursory glance at the fact that serious drug fraud has taken place in the past which is unknown to many.
Although there aren’t many doctors out there standing up for what’s right within medicine, Dr. Brogan and a growing number of others are, such as the aforementioned Dr. Peter R. Breggin, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Duzanne Humphries, Dr. Sircus, Dr. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Tetyana Obukhanych Ph.D, and more, are forming new grounds in the field of health – true health. Each of these individuals all put out very high quality information regularly and are concerned with various aspects of health. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research so you can be better informed. I cannot stress the ‘do your own research’ part enough
It is vital for individuals as a community to support these people, because they’re in it to HELP people and refuse to throw people under the bus merely for profit.
In any case, if you’ve read any of Dr. Brogan’s work, A Mind Of Your Own employs the same high quality standards of research and thoughtfulness. Brogan pulls no punches in her journey not only outlining the dangers within the prescription drugs given for depression that individuals should be concerned about, but also in offering holistic solutions that many do not realize are available.
If you’ve made it this far and are really interested in the topic, do yourself a favor and purchase this book. That, or perhaps recommend it to people that might find great value in it because they will find information that’s not only deep, but quite extensive. The information in this book can really change the course of someone’s life if they realize what’s out there. I’ve seen it happen myself with friends and recommend it any chance I get, whether the person is interested in depression, mental health in a general sense, or merely seeking a deeper understanding of pervasive issues within the pharmaceutical industry.
Anchoring down, not only does holistic psychiatrist Brogan absolutely eviscerate the Depression is a “chemical imbalance” theory with ample data and serious research, but she also gives the reader precise methods in which they can retake their health back, while also seeking to empower women in countless ways.
Now, if that’s not self-empowerment, what is?
Sources & References:
 Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Great Bird Flu Hoax, p. 39.
 Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 52.
 Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 35.
If you find value in this information, please share it. This article is free and open source. All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and BreakawayIndividual.com
About The Author:
Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, inquirer, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, and freelance writer who aims at empowering individuals while also studying and regularly mirroring subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.