…One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerves and brain), and prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, as I showed in this article, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature—including many identical to what are seen in modern day autism.
In turn, what many do not know, is that it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.”
A new paper published last week in the Journal of Theoretical Biology mapped out what actually happens in your stomach when you eat processed meat, and offers something practical you can do about it.
Cured meats contain sodium nitrite, added as a preservative and to fix the pink color. In your stomach, that nitrite meets stomach acid and turns into a reactive form. That reactive form attacks proteins from the meal and produces a class of compounds called nitrosamines. NDMA, NDEA, and NMBA are the most studied. They are the same compounds that triggered the FDA recalls of valsartan, ranitidine, and metformin in recent years. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies them as probable human carcinogens, and they are a leading hypothesis for why processed meat consumption tracks with elevated risk of stomach and colorectal cancer in large epidemiologic studies.
Vitamin C disarms this reaction. It converts the reactive nitrite compound back into nitric oxide, which is harmless and diffuses away. This chemistry has been known since the 1970s, which is why the meat industry already adds ascorbic acid during processing. The question is whether you can do anything on your end, after the meat is already in your gut. That is what the new model addressed.
McNicol, Basu, and Layton at the University of Waterloo built a mathematical model that tracks how nitrite, vitamin C, and the resulting chemistry move through saliva, stomach, and intestine over the hours after a meal. They ran simulations across realistic dietary patterns and found two things.
First, when vitamin C is naturally present in the meal, as it is in leafy greens and most fruits and vegetables, the protective effect is substantial. The vitamin C is right there when the chemistry happens. This is likely why dietary nitrate from vegetables does not track with cancer risk the way nitrite from processed meats does.
Second, for meals where vitamin C is not naturally present, like a bacon sandwich or a charcuterie board, taking vitamin C after the meal produced a moderate predicted reduction in nitrosamine formation. Not transformative. Measurable.
A few important things to know. This is a modeling study, not a clinical trial. The model is calibrated against decades of published chemistry, but no trial has yet measured nitrosamine biomarkers in people randomized to take vitamin C after meals versus placebo. Treat the predicted effect as a reasonable hypothesis backed by mechanism, not as proven outcome.
Practical version. If you regularly eat vegetables with your meals, the vitamin C is already there and you are doing most of the work. If you eat cured meats without vegetables in the same sitting, taking 200 to 500 mg of vitamin C with water 30 to 60 minutes after the meal has a defensible mechanistic basis and a modest predicted effect. The dose matters less than the timing. Above about 200 mg in a single oral dose, absorption efficiency drops sharply, so megadoses are not the answer.
The bigger idea is that a meal is a chemical environment you can shape. The same food can be a problem or a non-event depending on what else is in the gut at the same time, and when.
McNicol et al., J Theor Biol, 2026 Tannenbaum & Wishnok, Am J Clin Nutr, 1991 Hord, Tang & Bryan, Am J Clin Nutr, 2009
This mixed methods study examined the real-world experiences of living with developmental prosopagnosia (face blindness), a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition that severely affects the ability to recognise faces despite otherwise normal vision, IQ and memory. Twenty-nine UK based adults with confirmed face recognition difficulties completed an online survey describing and quantifying their experiences of living with poor face recognition. Although the majority (62%) of participants reported being able to recognise their immediate family, e.g., parent, partner, or child, strikingly 35% reported being unable to reliably recognise their immediate family members out of context. Even fewer (45%), reported always being able to recognise their three closest friends when encountering them unexpectedly, highlighting that DP commonly affects the recognition of highly familiar faces with whom individuals have close emotional relationships. Furthermore, participants who reported being able or unable to recognise their immediate family showed no significant difference in objective face memory ability. More than two thirds of participants (65.5%) reported being able to recognise fewer than 10 familiar faces (with the most common response being none), far below typical abilities. Thematic framework analysis highlighted how low public, professional, and employer awareness of developmental prosopagnosia [DP] presented challenges across multiple domains including seeking diagnosis, social and family relationships and workplaces. Driven largely by concerns about negative evaluation by others, most participants employed a range of highly effortful, though error prone, strategies to disguise and compensate for their face recognition difficulties. Some of the strategies described may help explain why many individuals can perform within typical norms on laboratory face processing tests despite their clear difficulties in everyday life and highlight the need for ecologically valid tests. Participants’ highest priorities for future research were improved awareness of developmental prosopagnosia and interventions to improve their face recognition ability.
I have this condition, but can come to recognize people sort of OK after interacting with them 3-7 times. Two points: 1) many people who have prosopagnosia do not know it; and 2) people with a singular appearance or who wear something distinctive, like the same hat all the time, are much easier for people with DP to recognize. I did not fully understand my own condition until well into middle age, and even then my understanding was not so good. One aspect of this condition I have not seen recognized is it greatly disturbs initial socialization with colleagues, neighbors, or potential friends. For example, my actual, innate internal warmth toward others does not activate on time toward people I have only interacted with a few times. A friendly exchange today somehow has been lost in me a week later when I see that same person again. Even if they tell me who they are and are sympathetic to prosopagnosia, an important piece of human connection has been lost in me; it as if I were talking to them for the first time again. This can easily be misunderstood by the other person as I do not like them or am cold or moody, which I am not. More people are aware of face-blindness than in the past, but the subtle social overtones of the condition—the lag in normal progress toward camaraderie, for example—may not be clear to most, including even those who have this condition. If many of your best friends, whom you took to quickly, have unique features or dress unusually, these may be signs you have DP. ABN
The consuming craving: nicotine pouches from the popular tobacco-free product Zyn, an oral substance that poses itself as a healthier alternative than chewing tobacco.
The sleek disk-like containers are ubiquitous throughout the administration. Employees across the various departments have been partaking, noting the pouches’ mentally invigorating effects.
From the White House to the Department of Commerce and beyond, staffers can be seen carrying the tins close for whenever they need a dose.
They are so popular that even Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr swears by them.
‘Nicotine pouches are probably the safest way to consume nicotine,’ he told a Brazilian radio host last year.
Ha, I love it! I myself am a big fan of reasonable use of nicotine. If Big Pharma came up with a pill that confers the benefits nicotine does, it would be splashed across all media and tens of millions of Americans would start using it. You can do your own research and find that nicotine prevents dementia and Alzheimer’s, sharpens the mind and even wards off viruses and bacterial pathogens. I do not use Zyn, but do use a 7mg nicotine patch fairly often. I also occasionally use a small piece of organic tobacco leaf, not so much as chew but rather as nibble. Ground organic tobacco mixed with high quality cannabinoids (emphasis on high quality, 3rd-party lab tested cannabinoids, especially CBG and CBD) can be used as occasional snuff. This mixture has helped me a great deal with a case of mild vertigo that would not go away. I see tobacco as a natural herb, which if used wisely, does much more good than harm. (BTW, I had my first exposure to cigarettes when I was four years old and loved it.) Tobacco and nicotine are not for everyone. I am not advising anyone to do anything. Definitely not promoting smoking anything. Just saying what has worked for me. ABN
The EXPLOSION of lifelong allergies in our kids: ALUMINUM ADJUVANTS in VACCINES.
Aluminum doesn’t “boost” immunity — it provokes a permanent allergic response to ANY protein it’s injected with.
Vaccines are loaded with proteins from:
Egg
Beef
Pork
Dairy (casein)
Mix those with ALUMINUM… and you get lifelong allergies to those exact foods.
They’ve even done it deliberately in labs: aluminum from the Hep B vaccine + latex molecule = rats with permanent latex allergy. Same with peanuts, dairy — you name it.
Even worse? Whatever is floating in the environment the day your child gets the shot becomes a lifelong trigger. Pollen. Dust. Mold. Pet dander. Peanut particles in the air. It doesn’t matter. Aluminum locks it in.
This is why we suddenly have a generation of kids allergic to everything. The studies RFK Jr. cites show vaccinated kids have 30X higher rates of allergic rhinitis. The food allergy epidemic tracks exactly with the rollout of aluminum-containing shots.
We’ve been conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on our children — and the result is an entire generation hooked on EpiPens, inhalers, and avoidance diets.
If you are still pro-vaccine, you are anti-science because the truth is out.
The allergy explosion isn’t random. It was engineered into the shots.
Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.
Serotonin was first named “enteramine” in 1935 meaning “an amino acid derivative present in the gut.”
It was named “serotonin” in 1948, meaning “substance in the blood (sero- for serum) that increases vasoconstriction (-tonin for vascular tone).
In 1952, it was established that entermaine and serotonin were the same compound.
Had serotonin research not been completely perverted by Pharma, it would have become rapidly apparent that these are deeply connected: serotonin’s one role in the entire body is to coordinate mitochondrial function in response to variation in the supply and demand of oxygen. It regulates motility in the gut to prevent local hypoxia. It coordinates blood flow to maximize efficiency of oxygen delivery.
But when SSRIs were released in 1986, Pharma solidified the destruction of these lines of inquiry by selecting a thread started by the influence of LSD in the 1950s that claimed serotonin was a lever to be pulled to manipulate the state of the brain.
The “R” in SSRIs is an insidious lie.
It implies that SSRIs specifically inhibit “reuptake” of serotonin, a phenomenon only relevant to the first neuron of a synapse.
This created the total mythology that the one thing they do is keep serotonin in the synapse longer to have greater activity on the receiving neuron.
They knew this was false.
They knew these are generic inhibitors of the serotonin transporter, which is not primarily found in the brain and is not primarily found in neurons.
Its has tremendous expression in the gut, lungs, and reproductive organs.
It’s found inside cells, most likely mediating the established direct transport of serotonin into mitochondria.
On a cellular basis the highest expression is in enterocytes, not in enteric neurons, and in the placenta.
The word “SSRI” is pure propaganda meant to cut out almost all of the relevant serotonin research in the way that Stalin cut out Trotsky from all the pictures of the two of them with Lenin to paint himself as Lenin’s true successor.
They are “serotonin transporter inhibitors.”
Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.
While Brian Harpool attempts to use “lawfare” to silence the investigation by suing@RealCandaceO for defamation, we are putting the actual footage of September 10th up against the standard of medical science.
One of the central claims in Harpool’s defamation suit is the allegation that he did perform first aid on Charlie Kirk. But “performing first aid” isn’t a subjective opinioN—it is a medical procedure.
We’ve juxtaposed the footage from that day with an expert emergency medical instructor to show you what should have happened versus what actually did.
The Medical Standard:The Injury: Charlie’s carotid artery was hit. As the instructor explains, carotid blood is bright red and spurts. Without immediate intervention, a person goes unconscious in 20 seconds and dies within 60 seconds.
The Fix: The only way to stop a carotid bleed is to create a gauze “ball,” squish the vessel down, pack the wound, and wrap it in plastic to prevent air bubbles (air embolisms) from entering the bloodstream and stopping the lungs.
The Reality: When you watch the footage of Brian Harpool and the inner circle around Charlie, you don’t see wound packing. You don’t see the specific, high-pressure “squish” required to hold back a carotid spurt. You see a bunch of buffoons who’s main priority seemed to be getting him out of the public eye and chucking him into the back their suv like a sack of luggage. ZERO attempt at first aid.
The Most damning of all is the footage showing the actual EMTs on scene being refused access to Charlie. Why why would they prevent professionals with the proper equipment—gauze, clamps, and plastic seals—from taking over?
The Truth Isn’t Defamation Brian Harpool can sue all he wants, but he can’t sue the anatomy of the human neck. If the carotid was hit, and the protocol shown by the medical instructor was not followed, then “first aid” was not performed. TPUSA is trying to use the legal system to rewrite what our own eyes saw on that video. They want to punish the “noticing” community for pointing out that the people closest to Charlie did the exact opposite of what was needed to save his life.
If a man is spurting bright red blood from the neck, and you spend 60 seconds blocking the medics instead of packing the wound, that isn’t “first aid”—it’s a choice.
RT to demand the full, unedited medical examiner’s report. They can’t sue the facts.
I have wondered about their claim of doing first-aid. Is the spelling Harpool deliberate? I am a world-class, extremely bad speller, so can understand. ABN
“Soluble vs insoluble” is one of the most enduring oversimplifications in nutrition. Two fibers in the same label bucket can do completely opposite things in your body.
Fiber has at least four properties that vary independently:
Solubility (does it dissolve in water?)
Viscosity (does it form a gel?)
Fermentability (do colon bacteria eat it?)
Physical structure (intact or particulate?) Each property drives a different outcome. The label binary collapses all four into one.
β-Glucan (oats, barley). Soluble, highly viscous, moderately fermented. Lowers LDL via bile acid sequestration. The FDA-approved oat health claim is built on this property.
Psyllium. Soluble, highly viscous, poorly fermented. Survives intact through the colon. Lowers LDL. Normalizes stool (works for both constipation and diarrhea).
Inulin / FOS (chicory, onions, garlic). Soluble but non-viscous. Highly fermentable. Bifidobacteria use it as substrate to produce SCFAs. Minimal LDL effect. Can bloat.
Resistant starch (cooked-cooled potato, green banana). Insoluble but highly fermentable. Produces butyrate, the primary fuel for colonocytes (~70% of their ATP).
Why the binary fails:
Inulin and psyllium are both labeled “soluble fiber.” Inulin ferments completely, produces SCFAs, has only minimal LDL effects. Psyllium passes through largely intact and lowers LDL via bile acid sequestration. They share one property and differ on every other one that matters. Practical translation. Match the fiber to the outcome:
LDL drop → viscous fibers (psyllium, β-glucan, raw guar gum)
Microbiome support → fermentable fibers (inulin, FOS, resistant starch)
Regular stools → either viscous gel-formers or coarse insoluble particles
The label binary doesn’t tell you which is which. The properties do.
This article is misleading and is dangerous to infants.
It ignores the hazards of injecting newborns with toxins such as propylene glycol, polysorbate 80, benzyl alcohol and highly neurotoxic aluminum in vitamin K shots given hours after birth.
It fails to acknowledge the high vitamin K in colostrum, available to infants as soon as born, the earliest breast milk.
It fails to acknowledge much safer vitamin K orally to the mother within the days before birth.
Blood needs to be thinner at birth, and cord-cutting needs to be delayed a few minutes so blood shunted back to the placenta in birth canal can return to the infant with the infant’s own stem cells for lifelong benefit.
But pharma-allied Pro Publica hides all that in their shameful and dangerous propaganda piece, because there is huge $$ for stealing cord blood and placenta from mother and baby, to sell for profit to the “anti-aging” industry.
This statement was finalized and adopted at the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which took place 25-26 March, 2026 in Seattle, Washington. The statement’s authors are listed below.
Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide (plant killer) typically marketed as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used pesticide. The diversity and magnitude of glyphosate uses in agriculture, in forestry and in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal settings have grown dramatically since first approval in 1974.
Humans are exposed to glyphosate through direct spraying and other skin contact, through occupational or residential proximity to sprayed areas, through exposure to dust and through consumption of food and water contaminated with glyphosate residues. Food is the main route of exposure for most people while occupational exposures are typically the highest.
National and international biomonitoring surveys detect glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined, including children.
Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) harm human health and can cause cancer. The comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion, with the strongest epidemiological evidence linking exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.
There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible.
Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion. Our understanding of glyphosate’s ability to cause these changes has developed from multiple lines of evidence in animal, human and in vitro studies.
Additional research is needed to better understand the full extent of glyphosate’s and GBH’s effects on human health and the underlying mechanisms involved, such as epigenetic alterations, microbiome disruption and endocrine effects.
The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified. Regulatory agencies in countries around the world should treat glyphosate and GBHs as hazardous, as some countries have started to do. Agencies should act without further delay to limit their use, or eliminate them if legally required, to protect public health.
Preventive measures to reduce human exposures while handling and applying glyphosate are accessible, proven effective, and inexpensive. These actions should be implemented without delay while research continues.
Safeguards must be implemented to ensure that any reduction in glyphosate use does not result in regrettable increases in the use of other equally or more harmful pesticides, for example paraquat.
Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been inadequately evaluated or regulated. The approval processes globally for all existing and new pesticides are weak and fail to protect human health, especially the health of infants and children. This system needs to be fundamentally revised. Regulatory agencies need to make pesticide approval decisions based on a more comprehensive and unbiased suite of health effects data. If pesticide use is approved, these agencies must closely monitor use, exposure data and harmful outcomes, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups. The costs of obtaining such data must be borne by the pesticide industry, but the testing must be conducted by laboratories and organizations independent of the pesticide industry and free from financial conflicts of interest (COI), defined as funding from industries and trade associations that have a financial stake in the outcome.
Risk-assessment methods and processes used to evaluate pesticides must be updated to use best-available science, including: using transparent, consistent and unbiased approaches to evaluate all the evidence; accounting for human variability and susceptible populations such as fetuses, infants and children, and highly exposed populations such as farmworkers; accounting for cumulative exposures and risks for pesticides that contribute to common adverse health outcomes; and identifying adverse health effects and risks at all exposure levels. This is clearly not the case now.
All scientific evidence used in pesticide evaluations must be publicly available, not labeled proprietary or restricted to active ingredients, and must comply with laws protecting human subjects in research. Financial COI, which do not include government funding, must be addressed throughout the research and regulatory processes, including accounting for bias from industry-funded studies, and ensuring that individuals with financial COI are barred from participating in scientific advisory panels and other bodies that formally review scientific data.
Ultimately, pesticide use must be reduced overall, and eliminated to the extent possible. This is consistent with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework global target to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030 relative to 2010–2020 and replace pesticides with safer, more sustainable pest control systems that rely more on prevention than treatment. This is imperative for the health of humans, ecosystems and future generations.
American Buddhist Net 