Dr John Campbell is one of the more honest and expert brokers of legit scientific info we laypeople have access to. Why does the BBC (originator of "The Trusted News Initiative") continue to say utterly ridiculous things about him? Humm... maybe it's because they realize the majority of people will not actually listen to him, and judge for themselves. We may have reached the absolute nadir in critical thinking in the developed west! "Pulling the wool" has never been easier.
If you'd like a good laugh, you'll enjoy this one:
Dr Peter McCullough is one of the true heros of this pandemic, and yes, I am still, BTW, a Democrat, lol. I feel I have to say that because the pandemic has become so politicized...but I absolutely do not see it that way, not even a little bit.
People have said to me that he's been discredited, that he is speaking out as a way of seeking some kind of personal gain. These folks have clearly not spent much time "with" Dr McCullough, actually listening carefully to his messages of care for all of us. The only "gain" for him has been one of knowing he is doing the right thing. In material terms "gains" have been losses. All doctors, no matter their standing, know going against Big Pharma is professional suicide, and very few are willing to step into that breech. McCullough was stripped of at least one professorship, which are ultimately controlled by BigP, as they fund medical schools in myriad ways.
McCullough's interest is only in saving lives, and courageously doing what most doctors become doctors to do, help people maintain and gain health.
I recognize that Pharma is filled mostly with altruistic people, but there is a glaring problem at the base of what's gone wrong with BigP, and that is they mostly operate from a completely backwards model of health in that they are only focused on curing as opposed to prevention. This is the proverbial "horse already out of the barn" situation. That "horse" (health) comes very happily back into the barn with individually chosen diet and lifestyle changes, but the current medical paradigm is no help at all beyond lip service. It's not their training and not their point of view. I am happy to say however that I see young docs coming up who are really fit and healthy. They get it, many of them have gone into medicine to work toward changing the paradigm from the inside. Kudos and more power to them.
McCullough barely knew what social media was before the pandemic, now he is speaking to us through social media to counter the true source of the misinformation that has been spoon fed to all of us plugged into state controlled media. State controlled media is a term we used to speak of media in other countries, the least desirable ones. It's sad to see it here. Time to wake up the kids.
Here again is Dr McCullough in a podcast conversation, I always learn something listening to him.
I was asked what I thought the difference was between psychoanalytic group therapy in person and on zoom.
All therapy groups have in common the goal of mutual support and getting better from some injury to the self. The process is complicated by the fact some part of that "traumatic memory" will be "stored" in "the unconscious". If these traumatic experiences occur in infancy, before language memory is formed, we will have no direct memory of them. If on the other hand traumatic injury occurs after language memory is formed we may "automatically forget" the traumatic memory to some considerable extent, a phenomenon psychologists call "repression".
And since any "emotional injury" can potentially reduce our capacity for self-care and constructive functioning with others, we desire healing of the injury. This is the function of psychology and psychoanalytic therapies.
Emotional injury is essentially a disruption of the "love-bond" for self and others. We learn to love self in early childhood by being loved by others (parents, siblings, and extended family). Healing from these disruptive injuries is a function of present time interactions based in love.
If we went to a therapist, and all they did was scream at us, we'd leave, and no healing of traumatic memory would occur. Instead, we are treated kindly, and over time a "trust bond" can form, which is the foundational form of love.
Psychoanalytic therapy groups attempt to focus specifically on emotional injuries that can reduce self-love, the capacity to love others, and functioning.
So then what is the potential difference between a therapy group conducted on-line with zoom, and one conducted in person? It can be expressed a number of ways. First is tangibility: the "connection" between humans (and other "nearby" animals, dogs, cats, horses etc etc) is more "tangible" in physical proximity. There are many reasons for that, among them the potential for physical contact (usually discouraged in therapy groups), but the "potential" (positive electrical charge) is present. Many or most of these potentials exist on an unconscious level, but are present regardless.
Another form of connection exists also, related to the previous, but "larger" and more encompassing (but also one we tend to dismiss as hokum), and is the interaction between proximate nervous systems.
Basic electro-magnetic theory: transmission of electricity through a conductor generates an electromagnetic wave of specific strength and form determined by the characteristics of the specific transmission.
The nervous system is the organ of "the sixth sense", and it depends on proximity (inverse square law of wave propagation). The nervous system is a very complex "antenna" structure attuned specifically to other human nervous systems, but also extends to other mammals. Due to the proximity effect, the sending and receiving of this "radio-energy" is strongest in a hug. But it is also strong in a "proximate group", where the numbers of sending and receiving "signals" creates a more complex "electromagnetic field".
The field "enters us" on a mostly unconscious level, meaning the brain (part of the nervous system) is "processing" the "information" generated by the proximate group, but only comes to awareness "when necessary", upon activation of the instinct functions having mostly to do with threat, procreation, and food, the basic survival instincts.
What would activation of "survival instinct" in a proximate group have to do with "therapy"? Survival instinct is the basis of functioning. With better "conditional" functioning we become more "articulate" in our responsiveness to the wide variety of other humans we interact with. Conditional functioning is the more appropriate responses to the conditions in front of us from moment to moment.
And better functioning creates greater self-confidence (self love), and the capacity to love others to the appropriate degree from moment to moment. Better functioning is a larger "vocabulary of behavior", so to speak, that we can draw on as needed.
A personal example for me of becoming more aware of "electromagnetic connection" was the difference I experienced in meditation with a group in a room vs meditation alone. It seems to me a kind of "mind meld" occurs in a group, and I go deeper and more quickly into the meditative state.
There's something much bigger going on here, but many don't see this. I can think of a few reasons why this might be the case. Perhaps the primary reason is they are not aware there are thousands of accredited public health scientists from around the world who are saying "something's not right here...what the hell is going on?"
Personally I think the truth will out, as these thousands of accredited voices are persistent.
Dr. Doug Graham shares a few of his success stories from his lifetime of work as a fasting supervisor. Doug is also a life time athlete and athletic trainer who has worked with many world class athletes. This gives Doug a unique perspective in the attainment of health, regardless of where any particular individual is starting from.
I've personally attended various health retreats with Doug (including a 12 day fasting retreat) and benefited tremendously from all of them. It's difficult to express how beneficial I feel working with Doug is, in person, at any of his retreats. It's one of those things that has to be experienced to be fully understood.
Dr Steve James: "I’d sacrifice my job over vaccine mandates".
There are many many more of these sort of responses than we know about, and there are several reasons for that, but two seem to be primary.
1) Fear of retribution. I heard recently from a reliable source that many doctors who work at university research hospitals cannot say publicly what they really think of the current mRNA tech because they would never get another research grant.
2) As Dr James says in the interview linked below, for certain "cause of health" oriented medical professionals the risk benefit ratiois skewed negative for getting the vaccine.
These are intelligent, informed, and highly educated medical professionals. Threats of retribution against the exercise of informed opinion and personal body autonomy is a dangerous precedent.
Which is obvious, right?
For a balanced perspective we also must consider the influence a "medicine for profit" bias has on a narrative that is so intrinsically wrong that it has to be protected by censorship.
I was personally neutral on vaccines before this pandemic. I am cause of health oriented myself and felt I was strong enough to handle any negative impact the vaccine might have, and took the first jab. Unfortunately I had a severe reaction that lasted 6 weeks that has disabused me of that notion.
I am no longer neutral on vaccines as a result of my personal experience combined with the censorship of legitimate public debate among health scientists. Censorship is a type of lie. It reminds me of a sales pitch that is unguided by moral compass.
For profit medicine has a problem that needs to be fixed.
