DNA Monthly (Vol. 10, No. 6)
November-December 2014 (Vol. 10, No. 6)
Hungry for an Enlightening & Entertaining Metaphysical Novel? Try Snooze
Back in the day, as I was digesting the handful of palatable books that make up the anorexic canon of noteworthy new age novels, I remember reading James Redfield’s The Celestine Prophesy and experiencing utterly contradictory emotions.
On the one hand, I was thrilled that someone had written an actually interesting, even epic, tale about ascension and enlightenment—of all bloody unimaginable things in the spiritual wasteland of mainstream fiction.
To use a contemporary analogy, it was as if I’d been touring the country in search of nutritious road food only to be offered McDonald’s at every stop—and now suddenly I could choose Chipotle! Baby, I was lovin’ it!
On the other hand, while digesting Redfield’s mythic tale that changed publishing forever by proving that indie books—even extremely alternative ones—can make it big (and even be made into movies), I often felt vaguely nauseated by his sloppy prose and clunky plot devices proving that the author knew more about metaphysics than fiction writing.
Depending on such factors as the reader’s spiritual appetite, literary pretensions, humility and humanity, reviews of this classic work of speculative fiction range from the cloying praise of purely heartfelt “love and light” to rationally blasting it all the way to Shambhala and back, tact be damned.
Last year, when I set out to write my own spiritual myth in the form of a novel, I ruminated a lot on the schizoid quality of most new age fictions, whose form and content often wildly diverge. If you’re anything like me, there are probably a lot of things you would rather do—visit the dentist, do hard labor, watch CNN—than read contemporary esoteric novels.
My humble, sincere hope is that Snooze: A Story of Awakening will change that for you.
Snooze is a spiritual adventure centered on a psychically gifted boy named Max Diver, who uses his lucid dreaming abilities to travel to a parallel reality to rescue his astronaut father.
I’ve written two articles that shed light on how Snooze, while billing itself as a young adult (YA) sci-fi fantasy novel, is for more than just young readers and constitutes far more than merely a sci-fi fantasy.
In the first article, Exploring Human Potential through Lucid Dreams, Paranormal Abilities, Parallel Universes & … Bigfoot, I map out the general metaphysical territory covered by Snooze, with an emphasis on the book’s central motif of lucid dreaming.
The second article, Initiation, Totem Animals, Sacred Masculinity & Sound Healing, prefaces an excerpt while touching on the novel’s exploration of personal initiation; activating our innate paranormal powers; the right use of the Sacred Masculine; the evolution of human consciousness; totem animals and animal medicine; sensing and working with subtle energy; the role of the heart in healing and transformation; and the oneness of creation.
Even while conveying so much information of a philosophical nature, Snooze—which received an Honorable Mention in the 2014 Beach Book Festival prize competition—has been repeatedly acknowledged to be a respectable work of literature, if I do say so myself.
But I don’t have to say so myself. I’ll let the book’s reviews speak for themselves.
Thanks for reading—and sweet dreams!
FEATURED IN THE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2014 ISSUE OF DNA MONTHLY
1. “Beyond Deterministic Genes: The Morphogenetic Field” by Christina Sarich
2. “The Ebola Hoax: Questions, Answers & the False Belief in the ‘One It’” by Jon Rappoport
3. “Why It’s Imperative to Release Judgments Based on Dietary Preference” by Michael Forrester
4. “What’s the Matter with Antimatter? Newly Discovered ‘Particle’ Said to Contain Both” by Sol Luckman
5. “Connect with the Consciousness of the Universe” by Jed Shlackman
Featured Videos … Bursting the Bubble on Genes & Ebola Vaccine Commercial
1. Beyond Deterministic Genes: The Morphogenetic Field
Our genes have long been ballyhooed as either a death sentence or the Midas touch of genius, bestowing upon us pristine health and an agile mind, or the deterministic outcome of cancer, neurological disease, or various other birth defects. But what if there was something else helping to determine our fate?
What if our genes were merely building blocks, and a greater intelligence was in charge of whether we can throw a basketball from the free throw line and get nothing but net every time, or die at the age of 46 like every other person in our family’s history, due to a genetic predisposition for cardiac arrest?
Do Genes Make the Man—Entirely?
Genetic determinism is the idea that genes, to the exclusion of environment or the field of our awareness and experience, determine how an organism turns out. You could call it the extreme version of nature vs. nurture, wherein our DNA tells us everything about what something will be.
The aforementioned idea decides that generational programming accounts for everything. We’ve become so obsessed with genes, in fact, that we test for everything—from BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes for breast or ovarian cancer, to simply testing our DNA for clues into our ancestral roots. It isn’t as though this information isn’t useful, or even fun, but it can be deceptively limiting.
While we can learn if our great-great grandparents were likely to fish or have red hair, we can also find less savory “genes” that foreshadow more somber outcomes.
One of the biggest intellectual roadblocks to overcome in healing ourselves, or even understanding the Universe fully, is based on this assumption: that our genes determine our reality, or the likelihood our lives and health will follow a predetermined path. This assumption is based on yet another erroneous fallacy—that we are just a combination of mechanical, chemical, and hormonal interactions—what Newtonian science would call “modern medicine.”
Even after mapping out 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA in the human genome project, we were no closer to figuring out how to heal aberrant DNA for one reason. While many scientists were looking at the four single letters in a protein recipe and how they carry out bodily functions, they forgot to make room for consciousness.
Consciousness, Thoughts & Intentions
Instead of our lives being determined by our genes, they are more likely determined by what science now calls epigenetics. Our genes grow in a soup of resonant fields created by thoughts and intentions. Rupert Sheldrake, the noted biologist and author of over eighty scientific papers on the subject, has been railing against mainstream science, trying to break through its dogma on the subject for decades:
“Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past.
“And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.”
Sheldrake calls this field “the extended mind.” He has defended his theory over and over again from people who call him a crackpot or a whack job. His latest book, Science Set Free, discusses his theory to great extent, but for now, we can discuss it summarily.
Dr. Bruce Lipton, a controversial biologist, has pointed out that one set of gene blueprints can result in over 30,000 different possible outcomes. In multiple adoption studies conducted in the 1880s and 1990s, it was found that children in the same family have an important causal role in gene expression, regardless of their biological origins.
Genes Are Only a Piece of the Puzzle
Researchers found that even children who did not have particular gene combinations that would predispose them to certain types of cancer—but were adopted into families that had attitudes or prevalent emotions that resulted in this health outcome—also often developed the same cancers as their host families did. Social context also played a significant role in whether these adopted children developed a disease. It was surprisingly uncommon for the genes themselves to play out deterministic health scenarios.
Genes are not locked into a specific code. Gene activity can change on a daily basis, and does. The heretofore accepted scientific paradigm of genetic determinacy is being turned on its head. As Lipton explains in a lecture:
“The name protein means ‘primary element’ (proteios, Gr.) for proteins are the primary components of all plant and animal cells. A human is made of ~100,000 different proteins. Proteins are linear ‘chains,’ whose molecular ‘links’ are [composed] of amino acid molecules. Each of the 20 different amino acids has a unique shape, so that when linked together in a chain, the resulting proteins fold into elaborate 3-dimensional ‘wire sculptures.’ The protein sculpture’s pattern is determined by the sequence of its amino acid links.
“The balancing of electromagnetic charges along the protein’s chain serves to control the ‘final’ shape of the sculpture. The unique shape of a protein sculpture is referred to as its ‘conformation.’ In the manner of a lock and key, protein sculptures compliment the shape of environmental molecules (which include other proteins). When proteins interlock with the complementary environmental molecules, they assemble into complex structures (similar to the way cogged ‘gears’ intermesh to make a watch).”
This and other discoveries made in the last hundred years have allowed scientists willing to go against the mainstream to understand that the “primary components” of life are still orchestrated by something more.
Bound Together, Appearing Separate
Morphic resonance theory postulates that we are bound together even though we appear separate, and it is in this field that communication (among cells, DNA, particles, etc.) takes place. While Newtonian science explained the theory of gravitation, outlining the invisible force which holds all things together, the same scientific reasoning also tended to divide everything into separate, mechanistic, material categories. Why is an apple different than a tomato, or a bee different from a persimmon flower? How does the DNA know to make a tree or an ant? A human being or a salamander?
The word morphic comes from the Greek meaning “form,” and the morphogentic field determines how things take form. It doesn’t just organize living things, but also inanimate, non-sentient matter. While genes play an important part in organizing us into things, they don’t explain how the organization itself happens. After all, apes and humans, fruit flies and worms are all very similar, genetically.
The theory of morphogenesis supposes that something imposes a pattern of organization on a field—producing specific outcomes in matter. These fields are not fixed; they evolve. This is part of the reason you can see a child that doesn’t have cancer in her genes develop cancer when she is exposed to a “field” which consistently creates the disease. It is also why some people with cancer-causing genes don’t get cancer at all. Sheldrake thinks these messages in the field are passed down through a “non-local” resonance, but ancients called this consciousness.
In another interesting experiment conducted recently, two bilaterally symmetric eyes arise from the anterior neural plate in vertebrate embryos. This poses an interesting question—did both eyes share a common developmental origin or did they originate separately? Does all of nature spring forward in a “Big Bang” moment, or does it exist as merely a possibility in a metaphysical realm waiting to become “real”?
Whatever is discovered to be the underlying cause, or pattern of development, it has been noted that morphic fields of social groups connect group members—even when they are far away—and provide channels of communication through which organisms can communicate at a distance, affecting the genome. This is also the foundation of distance healing, and may even possibly explain how entire forests communicate beyond the network of fungi found on a forest floor. In more than sixty-one studies on distance healing along with 120 additional randomized controlled studies involving thousands of miles of geographic distance, DNA changes as well as spontaneous healings occurred repeatedly.
DNA May Be Fixed, but the Epigenome Is Flexible
It turns out that our DNA code is fixed for life, but the epigenome is flexible. Epigenomes react to signals from the outside world, such as diet and stress. Even in differentiated cells, signals fine-tune cell functions through changes in gene expression. A flexible epigenome allows us to adjust to changes in the world around us, and to learn from our experiences. This happens both singularly and collectively.
Epigenome signaling can happen from inside a cell, from neighboring cells, or from the environment entirely outside the cell.
- In early life, our mother’s nutrition and state of mind helps to develop the epigenome. If she is flooded with stress hormones, or eats lots of kale and spinach, this will affect the genes.
- As life continues, a wider variety of environmental influences shape the epigenome, from social interactions, physical activity, diet, and emotional reactions to stimulus.
- Progressing into old age, and throughout life, epigenomic activity is triggered by what is happening in the outside world, shutting down or activating certain sets of genes.
To summarize: eat right, create a loving, peaceful environment, and challenge your societal assumptions if they don’t serve you. Your genes could very well be changed in the process.
Copyright © Christina Sarich. All Rights Reserved.
This article, republished with permission, originally appeared at www.naturalsociety.com.
Christina Sarich is a writer for Natural Society.
2. The Ebola Hoax: Questions, Answers & the False Belief in the “One It”
“The Reality Manufacturing Company doesn’t just sell ‘fake paintings’ that are easy to spot. No. They also sell images that are geared to mesh with people’s deeply held instincts and thereby produce rigid false beliefs. People are sure that if they gave up such beliefs, their world would fall apart and blow away in the wind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Q: Among intelligent people, what’s the biggest barrier to understanding hoaxes pertaining to viruses?
A: Many people will tell you they see through the lies of consensus reality. They know all about them. But when you bring up a virus, and you say there is no reason to suspect a so-called outbreak is caused by a virus, they back away. They can’t imagine that kind of lie. They can’t conceive that such a lie is being told.
A: They accept, as fact, what medical authorities tell them on that subject. Some people connect “the killer virus” with what they already know about high-level elites who are out to control and diminish and debilitate populations. So “killer virus” and “spreading destruction” fit that picture. Therefore, they automatically buy “the virus.”
In fact, and this is odd, there are people who categorically reject almost everything doctors and medical authorities tell them—but they choose to accept this one: the virus. They choose to believe that when the authorities say, “We have an outbreak and it’s caused by the Ebola virus,” it must be true. Very strange.
Q: The word “outbreak” is strong.
A: Yes. People, again, automatically, associate it with a virus. Movies play a role there. But when you stop and think about it, “outbreak” just means, if it means anything at all, that a number of people in the same general geo-area have become sick. A toxic chemical, for example, could cause that. A vaccine campaign could cause that.
Q: When a number of people who, say, live together become ill, the assumption is there must be a transmission of a virus from person to person.
A: Right. But that isn’t necessarily the case. It isn’t person A, then person B, then person C—it’s all of them being exposed to the same conditions. For instance, if you had 42 people all living in filth with no hope, no money, no job, and they were also exposed to a toxic chemical, and their bodies were breaking down from starvation, and they all became ill, would you call that “transmission?” Of course not.
Q: Considering US and European and African Ebola patients as a whole, don’t they prove that Ebola is caused by a virus and these patients caught the virus?
A: No. As I’ve demonstrated before, the most widely used diagnostic tests for Ebola (antibody and PCR) are unreliable, useless, and irrelevant. Therefore, to assume these patients have Ebola is unwarranted.
To say a patient has Ebola MEANS he tested positive on a reliable and relevant diagnostic procedure. It doesn’t mean anything else.
Q: What made the US and European Ebola patients sick?
A: That can only be answered by a comprehensive examination done on each patient, by an honest and competent researcher, who can, if necessary, go outside conventional assessments and consider, for example, exposure to toxic chemicals, prior treatment with toxic drugs, and other factors that most doctors ignore. The point is, you don’t discover why somebody became sick or died by saying, “What else could it be? It must be Ebola.” That question and answer reveal a titanic lack of understanding.
Q: You’re saying these US European and US patients, and some health workers, may not have been previously healthy?
A: Right. But why speculate? Why not dig in and find out in each case?
When I was writing AIDS Inc., I studied a CDC report on the “first five cases of AIDS” in Los Angeles hospitals. All five men purportedly had no immune systems left. They were called “previously healthy,” and the conclusion was there must have been a virus that wrecked their immune systems and killed them. This conclusion was widely accepted. The doctors and researchers said, “What else could it be?”
But in reading over the report, I found a number of non-viral reasons. It was easy to see that these men were far from “previously healthy.” For instance, a history of dosing with toxic medical and/or street drugs was a huge red flag. Those drugs are immunosuppressive. The rush to judgment—claiming a virus had killed them—was totally unwarranted.
Q: It’s rather mind-boggling to consider that the diagnostic tests for Ebola are irrelevant and useless.
A: Without a reliable diagnostic test, there is no reason to say a person has Ebola. And of course, once an “Ebola” patient is in doctors’ hands, we don’t know what treatments he’s getting. The drugs, some of them experimental, could be highly toxic. Then the patient gets very sick, and the doctors say, “It’s Ebola.”
Q: The link between Ebola patients in West Africa and the Ebola patients in the US and Europe—that’s an important factor, isn’t it?
A: It’s important for one reason. It convinces the public that the so-called viral epidemic is real, it travels, and it is a threat, globally. It’s the capper. It sways people’s minds. But think about it. If, in Africa and the US and Europe, you have the same useless diagnostic tests being run, what do you really have? Assumptions, propaganda, and fearmongering. And you also have a cover story (the virus) for corporate and government and pharmaceutical crimes.
Q: OK. What are the two useless and irrelevant diagnostic tests being done on people, to see whether they have Ebola?
A: Let’s start with the antibody test. Two problems. First, the test is notorious for what’s called “cross-reactions.” That means the test isn’t really registering, in this case, the presence of Ebola virus. It’s registering one of a whole host of other factors. For example, in the past the patient received a vaccine, and that triggers a falsely positive reading now.
Q: What’s the second problem?
A: The antibody test doesn’t say whether a person was sick, is sick, or will get sick. At best, if there are no cross-reactions, it merely says the person had contact with the virus in question. So a positive antibody test for Ebola is far from saying “this person has Ebola disease.” That’s a lie. In fact, before 1985, the general conclusion from positive antibody tests was: this is a good sign; the patient’s immune system contacted the germ and threw it off, defeated it.
Q: What about the PCR test for Ebola?
A: This test is prone to many mistakes, starting with the tiny, tiny sample of material taken from the patient. Is it really genetic material, and is that material really a piece of a virus, or is it just a piece of general and irrelevant debris? The test itself takes that tiny sample and amplifies it millions of times so it can be observed. Assuming it is actually Ebola virus, or a fragment of Ebola virus, there is no indication there is enough of the virus in the patient’s body to make him sick. There have to be millions upon millions of active virus in the patient’s body to begin to say that virus is causing problems. The PCR test says nothing about that. In fact, why was it necessary to do the PCR test at all? If the patient had enough Ebola virus in his body to cause illness, there was no need to search for a tiny fragment of a hoped-for Ebola virus, to start the PCR test. The virus would have been everywhere.
Q: People who use the PCR say it is “quantitative.” In other words, it can not only reveal whether a particular virus is in a person’s body, it can reveal “viral load,” meaning how much of the virus is in the body.
A: Yes, I know what they say. However, the inventor of the PCR, Kary Mullis, puts it succinctly: quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. The test isn’t geared to detect quantity. For an analogy, imagine someone comes into your home and notices you are watching a This Old House rerun. He suddenly infers that 500,000 people are also watching it at this moment.
Q: What are some of the non-virus reasons people in West Africa are dying?
A: First of all, you need to know that these non-virus causes can create the symptoms that are attributed to Ebola. Fever, fatigue, sweating, bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea.
In West Africa, you’re simultaneously looking at severe malnutrition, starvation, massive displacement by war, grinding poverty, lack of basic sanitation, open sewage, overcrowding in living quarters, highly toxic organophosphate pesticides in growing fields and indoors (spraying against mosquitos in homes and clinics—which causes bleeding), vast overuse of antibiotics (shreds digestive systems and causes hemorrhaging), other toxic unrefrigerated medical drugs, toxic industrial pollution, vaccine campaigns that push immune systems already on the edge over the cliff.
Q: What about the non-virus factors that have made health workers sick and killed them in West Africa?
A: Again, you need to analyze every case uniquely. But health workers are wearing hazmat suits sealed off from the outside, and they’re taking one-and-two hour shifts in those boiling suits, losing an astonishing five liters of body fluid in an hour. Then they come out, take off the suits, rehydrate, douse themselves with toxic disinfectants, and go back in soon for another shift and lose more body fluids. In one case, a doctor stated toxic chlorine was actually inside his haz-mat suit with him while he worked. What I’m describing here could cause anyone to collapse.
If we can believe the scattered reports that many health workers in West Africa are dying at a very, very high rate, then I have to say something is wrong with those reports.
A: Because if we were talking about a real viral outbreak as the cause, at that rate of death among health workers, the rest of West Africa would be seeing hundreds of thousands of deaths by now. So either the reports of deaths among health workers are false, or if they’re true, somebody or something which is non-viral is killing them. It’s that simple.
Q: What do you have to say about charges that the Ebola virus has been worked on, to weaponize it as an instrument of biowar?
A: People have to realize that, for quite some time, researchers in the US and other countries have been working on many germs, trying to weaponize them. The act of trying is not the same as the act of succeeding. It isn’t a walk in the park. You don’t just get a grant, stick your hand into a pile of viruses and massage them. Biowar researchers are no different from other medical researchers. They inflate their results, they promise breakthroughs, they lie about progress, they say and do anything to keep the research money flowing in their direction.
Let me give you an example from the field of cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health. Forty, fifty years ago, virologists were desperate to prove that a certain class of viruses cause cancer. It was their field. They were working with monkeys. So they radiated the monkeys, they poisoned them with chemicals, they injected them with all sorts of germs that were irrelevant to the specific research at hand. Why did they do all this, and more? Because they wanted to destroy the monkeys’ immune systems and render them as vulnerable as possible. THEN they injected them with the viruses that were supposed to cause cancer. That’s what these “researchers” did. And they called it science. And even then, they failed miserably, and the whole cancer project was shut down.
So when you read an article about possible biowar research on Ebola in West Africa, don’t automatically assume, if it took place, that it was successful.
And again, if people were dosed with “a biowar form of Ebola,” it would be possible to do a straightforward test to see if these people have enough of the virus in their bodies to cause disease. But the workable tests aren’t being done, so claiming all these people are dying of Ebola is a completely and utterly insupportable assertion.
A strong and healthy person’s immune system is remarkably resilient and capable. Saying, “Oh well, I’m sure they designed a virus that can slip past the body’s defense system,” just like that, poof, is simply a random opinion.
Yes, people should continue to research the possibility that Ebola has been weaponized successfully. Again, just remember: “worked on in a lab” doesn’t automatically equal “they succeeded.” And also remember, the “chemical” part of biological-chemical warfare is much, much easier to do. It’s far more effective and predictable.
Q: You’re saying that the image of a single killer virus infecting people and spreading all over the globe can be an illusion.
A: Of course. In the case of Ebola, the epidemic is completely unproven.
Q: What about the possibility that prior vaccine campaigns in West Africa are the real cause of what’s being called Ebola?
A: As I’ve indicated, when you give standard vaccines to people whose immune systems are already on the verge of collapse, for the reasons I’ve listed above, a vaccine can apply the death blow. But in that case, it’s not just the vaccine. Trying to explain why people are dying in West Africa from just one cause is the wrong approach. They were dying already from the combination of immune-suppressing factors.
Q: There is always the chance that an extra toxic element was added to a vaccine.
A: Yes. And every vaccine that has been given in West Africa in the last ten years should be analyzed very carefully. But don’t expect medical officials to make that happen. It would have to be done independently.
Q: There is a kind of fixation on attributing one cause and one cause only to a situation where people are ill and dying in a given region.
A: That’s part of a larger human tendency, and it’s not a good one. It’s a self-deceiving instinct.
For many centuries, organized religions, constructed by elites bent on control of the masses, have built whole cosmologies on the basis of the “single good cause” vs. the “single evil cause.” It’s worked, too, because people tend to fall in line behind that formulation.
And how many nations have been taken into misery and suffering behind the notion that The One, the great leader, has emerged to rule the people.
If you read the US Constitution and earlier documents based on the idea of individual freedom, you see that The One is firmly rejected. Those documents are all about decentralization of power.
The problem is, not enough people are ready for the decentralized “many”; they prefer to look for, and attach themselves to, The One.
Q: The notion of the single germ-cause illustrates this?
A: It’s yet another case in which people, unthinkingly, attach themselves to The One. They have to have it. They need it, like a drug. They believe it so deeply, they absolutely refuse to consider any other possibility. I’ve received emails from people who say, “Your articles are very interesting, but of course I know this is an epidemic caused by the Ebola virus.” They don’t know. They believe. They accept what they’re being told.
Q: Just to be clear, you’re saying we shouldn’t accept the premise that the US and European “Ebola cases” really have the Ebola virus.
A: Not unless, in each case, the actual virus is found and extracted from their bodies and isolated. That’s step one. Step two is, the virus is found in great quantity in the person.
Q: Why is quantity important?
A: Because you need millions and millions of an active virus to even begin to say that virus is causing disease in a person.
Q: Are you saying that this so-called outbreak is just a natural event, and no one is at fault?
A: Hell no. All those horrendous killer conditions that exist in West Africa? They’re MAINTAINED, to keep people weak and unable to resist the corporate and financial takeover of their resource-rich countries. And the virus is the “blame-free” cover story, behind which that takeover is accelerating.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to invent the false reality of a viral epidemic? You want a conspiracy theory? Imagine this. You’ve already got huge numbers of people dying in West Africa, for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. Bad actors just need a relatively small bump, to claim there is an “outbreak.”
Toxic chemical. They seed a few areas with a chemical. Undetectable, unless you’re looking for it. Ups the death rate.
“Outbreak! Outbreak!” “The killer virus!” “We need a (toxic) vaccine!” “We need quarantines!” “Fear the virus!” “It can spread anywhere!” “Seal the borders!” “Bring in American troops—new staging area for US Africom!” “Fear in the US!” “Quarantines!” “Economic losses everywhere—tourism, air travel.” “Bring the IMF to West Africa—new deal—millions in loans to fight Ebola, in return for selling your country wholesale (again) to elite financiers and corporations.” “Poison some health workers and a few people traveling to the US and Europe, call it the virus.” “Pandemic! The virus can be spread anywhere!”
The bad actors already know the standard tests will falsely come up positive for Ebola—no problem there.
It’s that simple. Creating the appearance of an epidemic is that simple.
Q: Is that what was done with SARS?
A: As one WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, innocently revealed (he wasn’t clued in on the script), the so-called coronavirus, the reputed cause of SARS, couldn’t even be found in most of the patients diagnosed with SARS. The cause wasn’t even there. Didn’t stop the WHO or the CDC from continuing to promote SARS as a deadly epidemic. And people still clung to the idea of The One—the virus.
Q: What about HIV?
A: Never proved to cause any human disease. The same antibody tests were used there. As journalist Christine Johnson brilliantly documented, there were at least 60 reasons why the HIV blood test came up positive, and none of them had anything to do with HIV.
Of course, the people who were diagnosed positive were then fed an insanely toxic drug, AZT, a failed chemo drug that attacked all cells of the body and had a special affinity for attacking cells of the immune system—the very system that HIV was supposedly attacking. AZT. Killer, killer drug.
The Perth Group of researchers has made an astonishing case for saying that HIV was never even proved to exist.
Just as I’ve done in detailing chronic conditions in West Africa that cause death and disease, in the case of AIDS I’ve laid out (in my book, AIDS, Inc.) how, for every so-called high-risk group, there are ample non-virus factors that account for all the immune-system suppression called AIDS. In Haitians, IV drug users, hemophiliacs, gay men, Africans, blood-transfusion recipients.
So I’ve been around this block before.
Since 1987, I’ve watched untold numbers of people buy into the one-virus, one-cause idea, thinking they know what they’re talking about. HIV, West Nile, bird flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola. All false. All ops designed for specific reasons.
Modern medicine depends on fake epidemics to condition the masses to following orders, complying, living in fear, ingesting toxic medical drugs and vaccines, from cradle to grave.
That makes populations give in—toxified, they’re too weak and confused and debilitated and sick to resist the top-down takeover of their societies.
Q: One more time, can you discuss the toxic effects of modern medicine?
A: I’ve mentioned this in many of articles, chapter and verse. There is the Starfield review. Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public-health expert, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. On July 26, 2000, her review was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”
Her conclusion? Every year in the US, like clockwork, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 119,000 in hospitals, and 106,000 from FDA-approved medical drugs.
That’s 2.25 MILLION medically-caused deaths per decade. Just in the US. And that doesn’t count severe non-fatal adverse reactions to the drugs, of which there are millions more, every year.
As for vaccines, the whole system of reporting severe adverse reactions, in the US, is broken. Barbara Loe Fisher, of the National Vaccine Information Center, has done the best estimates: between 100,000 and 1.2 million serious adverse consequences from vaccines, every year, in the US.
Fake epidemics breed unthinking fear and loyalty, from cradle to grave … loyalty to THIS system of medical death.
Copyright © Jon Rappoport. All Rights Reserved.
The author of three explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed, Exit From the Matrix and Power Outside the Matrix, Jon Rappoport was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for thirty years, writing articles on politics, medicine and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, SPIN Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com.
3. Why It's Imperative to Release Judgements Based on Dietary Preference
Whether you choose raw, vegan, vegetarian, fishitarian, paleo, processed or any other dietary lifestyle, it’s time to release judgement on what others choose to eat. Is any one of these methods superior to another for every person on the planet? Absolutely not, because all of them can cause health problems if there is no awareness of how we are transferring energy between our food and ourselves.
I’ve witnessed so much animosity between different groups who insist their version of sustenance is the correct one to prevent disease. They only share one commonality. They all think they are right. However, there is not one universally correct way to prevent disease in pursuing your truth about your health, especially relating to your diet. It’s time to move on from the path of antagonism, rebellion and even hatred for the choices others make about the foods they consume.
When people eat healthy it becomes difficult for them to observe the unhealthy choices others make. They assume that because they have informed themselves on the path of what they interpret as responsible dietary habits, that all others should do the same. It doesn’t quite work that way.
Dietary Decisions Often Lead to Judgement of Others
The most interesting conversations I’ve had are with vegans who feel it is wrong to consume an animal. They often have a misinterpretation of what energy transfer is, especially when they realize that consuming a plant (considered a lower form of consciousness) is really no different than consuming an animal. Plants exhibits many of the same senses as animals, including sight, touch, smell, taste and even hearing. It is only perspective that enforces a principle and boundary that many vegans refuse to cross.
All forms of predation exist on planet Earth. Whether you consume plants or animals, you are still pursing a biological interaction for an exchange of energy. Many of the animals on our planet are predatory because we are. Planet Earth would not inhabit lifeforms of predatory nature if its dominant lifeforms were not predatory themselves. It is the cycle of life here. We do not live in world of symbiosis … not yet anyway. Until that time, we must be predatory in some respects to exchange energy through our creation.
For many animals, their experience is not what we think it is. They have agreed to experience a life where they know ultimately that they will be consumed. They understand that they are eternal beings and are deeply connected to collective consciousness relating to their kind of expression. When we understand this perspective, there is no need to isolate ourselves to any one specific diet for any reason.
When we ignore our body consciousness and its needs, we are ignoring more than our basic needs. We are ignoring the energy necessary to allow our health to prosper. There are many vegans that fail to fully grasp this concept and suffer the health consequences after a decade or more of consuming only plants. Their health then deteriorates because they are still in an apprenticeship state that requires a certain form of sustenance. There is nothing wrong with that, but to them, they feel they are violating a specific boundary. It’s all how we perceive this relationship with our biological interactions that makes the difference. That doesn’t mean all vegans will have health problems, but the ones who do are often those who need to revert back to energy transfers involving animals.
It’s about being in gratitude and appreciation for the exchange of energy that is given to you. For example, I know of many vegans who converted back to consuming meat because of deteriorating health. They now consume organic, grass-fed and pasture raised meat from farms who care for their animals and have reputable slaughtering practices. These former vegans are now thriving. They have accepted a relationship with these animals that they are comfortable with and the exchange of energy is one conducive to their body consciousness.
When we resist specific diets, the energy attached to the diets we are resisting will create blockages in our own bodies. So by strongly resisting what we most want to move away from, the attraction becomes stronger and it presents itself in ways we perceive as negative.
For example, vegans with very adamant views on their lifestyle choices may find themselves attracting experiences where they are continuously and vigorously defending their position against meat eaters. They may eventually find themselves in a perpetual state of animosity towards groups that don’t share their perspective. In this instance, their choices have become a disservice to their greater cause and goals for becoming vegan. They create anger, resentment and fear within their experiences when their initial objective was to create love.
I have found that once vegans find a spiritual relationship with many of the animals they ingest, they find it much easier to pursue this form of energy transfer, rather than committing to dietary restraints based on principle. Eating for health and tuning in to the needs of our body, rather than solely based on moral grounds, is often a more balanced approach physiologically and spiritually.
If you do follow any specific diet, you are following your perspective and truth of what you feel is the correct path of sustenance. It is important not to judge based on how others eat, especially when making comparisons to your own diet. That’s an ego trap and will only develop imbalances within your alignment to others. All forms of dietary choices should be respected. Always remember that people would not be attracted to a specific diet if it was not serving them in some way and that includes toxic junk food.
We are creating a magnificent new world. It is imperative to allow people to experience the lifestyles that will bring them closer to the lessons they require and have requested here on Earth.
Be at one with your food, but most of all, allow others to do the same.
Copyright © Michael Forrester. All Rights Reserved.
This article, republished with permission, originally appeared at www.preventdisease.com.
Michael Forrester is a spiritual counselor and is a practicing motivational speaker for corporations in Japan, Canada and the United States.
4. What’s the Matter with Antimatter? Newly Discovered “Particle” Said to Contain Both
Sol Luckman for Scientific Merkin
Ever since the so-called Enlightenment, pseudo-scientists worldwide have feverishly searched for smaller and smaller particles—seemingly oblivious to the fact that particles don’t really exist … except to the extent they’re just momentarily suspended waves in an ever-changing, vibrational, holographic sea, duh.
Now the high priests of pseudo-science, otherwise known as the religion of scientific materialism, claim to have discovered—through mathematical constructs that exist only in their brains—a particle that is so tiny it verges on the realm of nonexistence itself.
This newest figmentary particle, nicknamed the “oblivicon” by lead researcher Dr. Ben Dover of the American Institute for the Study of Meaningless Phenomena that Cost a Heck of a Lot to Study (AISMPCHLS), may, in fact, be a fiction made of two other fictions: matter and antimatter.
“The discovery of the oblivicon just blew me away,” said Dr. Dover, who, when pressed, admitted to having first intuited the existence of this “particle” during a psychedelically inspired lucid dream. “It’s, like, the biggest discovery since, like, bitcoin.”
The traditional (as in, dating back a few years) view of matter and antimatter is that the two inevitably cancel out each other upon approach. But the existence of the oblivicon, in which matter and antimatter are thought to coexist peacefully, could radically shift our understanding—not just of the universe, but of ourselves.
“It’s really quite simple,” explained Dr. Dover while humming a bar from Elvis Costello’s “(What’s So Funny ’bout) Peace, Love & Understanding?” “God is love. We are God. Therefore, we are love and have within us the ability to reconcile opposites.”
The new oblivicon “particle,” or rather its “signature,” magically appeared in a jar of Peter Pan creamy peanut butter inside a superconductor, a fancy-named substance in which other fictitious particles, known as electrons, are said to be able to move about without resistance.
Normally, peanut butter (even the smoother varieties) short-circuits superconductors, but not this time. “It was a miracle,” conceded Dr. Dover. “A tasty and nutritious gift from the Creator.”
As for the controversial finding of the oblivicon, pseudo-scientists, while conceding that only its signature has been detected so far, insist that if it isn’t the real thing, it’s a highly convincing forgery.
The finding could be useful (if this word may be permitted) in creating GMO peanut butter to feed the Third World’s starving and disease-ridden populations that Golden Rice, despite all the hype, failed to properly nourish.
Other possible uses include fabrication of quantum diapers, electrified orgy butter for use by elite pedophiles, and even more complex algorithms on Wall Street for siphoning off the wealth of the world’s middle class through fraudulent derivatives.
The oblivicon might also serve as yet another distraction created by the so-called scientific community to keep us from inventing and implementing things that really matter to anyone, anywhere.
Copyright © Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.
Sol Luckman is a prolific painter and acclaimed author whose books include the international bestselling Conscious Healing and its popular sequel, Potentiate Your DNA. His latest novel, Snooze: A Story of Awakening, is the riveting, coming-of-age tale of one extraordinary boy’s awakening to the world-changing reality of his dreams. Written with young adult and young-at-heart readers in mind, Snooze proved its literary merit by receiving an Honorable Mention in the 2014 Beach Book Festival Prize competition in the general fiction category. Follow Sol on Facebook here and learn more about his work at www.CrowRising.com.
5. Connect with the Consciousness of the Universe
The concept of spiritual energy is as ancient as humanity, with nearly every culture having beliefs and practices related to tapping into a spiritual source for energy and well-being. Spirit refers to the essence of life, the active consciousness that flows throughout all things in the Universe.
The Taoists have referred to this prime essence as the Tao, and its expression as the energy of life as qi or chi. Yogis have understood that the energy of life they refer to as prana comes from a spiritual source. Christians engaged in spiritual healing speak of the “holy spirit” and may see the Christ as the conduit or Source of healing power. In Western occult traditions there is the idea of the 5th element or quintessence, the spiritual source from which all the perceived elements of the Universe have arisen. Hollywood producer George Lucas brought these ideas into his epic Star Wars saga as an exploration of the workings of “The Force.”
Everything in creation is a form or expression of energy … including our thoughts and feelings. Energy is guided by consciousness, so when we have different thoughts and emotions they generate waves of energy that actually influence what is occurring on the physical plane of reality.
The famous placebo effect is a great example of how thoughts guide manifestation in the realm of matter. Our beliefs affect what actually occurs in our body. When we are happy and relaxed, energy flows freely and our body is likely to remain healthy. However, when we have chronic stress and unpleasant thoughts and feelings, our energy flow becomes disturbed and disrupted, and we may develop illness. Just as an electrical appliance can’t function well if there is too weak or too strong a current of electricity, our body will have problems operating when there is an imbalance in the subtle energy flow that sustains life.
Shamans, yogis, priests, and spiritual energy masters from other traditions have employed practices that help restore healthy life force. Modern science is catching up with this ancient wisdom, exploring the electromagnetic fields around the body that reflect the state of the subtle life force energy. Acupuncture meridians, chakras, and auric fields can be perceived now using electromagnetic biofeedback instruments. Those with expanded intuitive vision may perceive the luminous “light” body of energy or halo around a living being.
Stress relief methods can help rebalance that subtle energy flow and allow the spiritual essence to flow through us in a more harmonious way. Meditation practices help slow down the conscious, thinking mind, which is where much of our stress comes from. We worry about the future, we mentally replay the past, and thus our energy is dispersed and not fully present in the “now.” Meditation is often used with the intention of enhancing one’s openness and connection to a spiritual source.
The Indian tradition of yoga is also designed to help humans unite more with their spiritual essence, providing a comprehensive system of discipline using the body, mind, and spirit. The physical disciplines used in yoga are really the beginning levels of this path toward spiritual union. Those who discover the health benefits of yoga may not even realize that the ultimate goal of yoga is related more to spiritual integration and unification than to physical fitness.
How we express our energy in life affects the balance of energy in our system. People who are very intellectual may have a lot of energetic activity around their head area but have a limited flow at the heart or lower levels of the system. Those who are very compassionate and emotionally driven may have an active heart energy center but lack clear discernment or ability to gain higher wisdom. Those who are preoccupied with power, money, sex, physical appearance, and social status may have their energy focused in the lower energy centers but lack empathy and neglect to seek greater meaning and purpose in life.
A more balanced, integrated person would awaken the energy flow in all levels of their being, addressing the needs of everyday life while also addressing humanistic and spiritual concerns. We each can reflect upon our own lives and see where we focus our energy and how we might need to shift our habits and attention to foster more balance.
Copyright © Jed Shlackman. All Rights Reserved.
Jed Shlackman, M.S. Ed., LMHC is a professional counselor, hypnotherapist and regression therapist, Reiki master and energy healer, and a sound healing musician and writer who is based in Miami, Florida. Jed has degrees in counseling and psychology from the University of Miami and has worked as a counselor and healer with thousands of clients over the past couple of decades. Jed’s website is www.phinsights.com, his facebook links are www.facebook.com/jedishamanreiki and www.facebook.com/jediholistichealing, and his meditation and music recordings are at jedishaman.bandcamp.com. Jed’s book, Consciousness, Creation & Existence: A Guide to the Grand Adventure, is available from Amazon.com and other booksellers.
Subscriptions. Simply fill out our convenient subscription form. You will receive links to our current and future issues free via email, and you can opt out at any time. If you have a spam filter, please add
to your white-list.
Mission. DNA Monthly seeks to empower readers with vital information relative to their genetic endowment: DNA. This information may range from generalized articles on DNA to news releases on breakthrough genetic research to educational materials devoted to specific DNA activation techniques and concepts. DNA Monthly is also committed to sharing articles and videos that promote healing, transformation, and awakening.
Disclaimer. The inclusion of articles, videos and other content in DNA Monthly does not necessarily denote or imply endorsement of such materials by the editors. The editors assume no responsibility, legal, medical or otherwise, for the information published as a free information service in their ezine. Articles, videos and other content appearing in DNA Monthly are not intended to provide medical claims, diagnoses, advice, or treatment.
DNA Monthly is sponsored by the Phoenix Center for Regenetics, facilitating conscious personal mastery as a bio-spiritual healing path through integrated DNA activation. For information on our unique products and services, visit www.phoenixregenetics.org.
Save with Bitcoin
* Items with tuning forks not included.