Видео

Good

what if my Ca and Phos - are both elevated?

Can i add boron If I eat my hair mineral analysis tablets??

I only had like 61 mg calcium, but stil felt so bad with alot of dry mouth, lips , blisters in mouth, anxiety sleep problems, hair loss, and spasm all The time in The body, but i also struggle with candida for 6 years maybe thats why it felt so bad even when i only had 61. I stil have spasm i have to buy vitamin k2 mk7 and take more magnesium

how to use GHK-cu for hair growth on the scalp and do you have to use another peptide to enhance the growth.

Thankyou for such good information. Is it significant when only one eye changes color?

Thanks for posting this.

Absolutely please a must

Could you please tells something about calcium shell when person is dairy free for 10+ years?

Thank you for this in-service. I appreciated the review

hi I would like to know if it's possible to get a copy of the book Free the inner child?

@Jason Madden!!! Great seeing you in this presentation! Thank you.

This is fantastic! Thank you very much appreciated.

Well done, how can I participate on line course please? God bless

Thank You 😊

The big question is : Real Milk raw from a healthy animal, and meet from cows and animals that are outside, eat their natural diet organically and outside than should not make us sick right? Is all the transform stuff does make us sick.

All dis-Ease is epigenetic

What’s the URL for the farm? Can we order direct from the farm????

Doctors are mixing peptides for weightless where I live- Sounds dodgy for me

Where do we get the charts from?

Nobody is copper toxic

Would love to have the slides if possible, thanks

+1 for the algo. Learning bp157 is effective orally was worth the price of admission. I'm taking action on that detail now. Thank you.

Great presentation. Can you provide the name of that Harvard School study? I have not been able to find it. Thank you!

Great presentation, I keep coming back to it when in doubt about anxiety, sleep supplements. Thanks 👍

Great presentation, I keep coming back to it when in doubt about anxiety, sleep supplements. Thanks 👍

Is this lady a doctor ?

BPC definitely made me anxious and agitated.

I have to comment on "Glyphosate was recently condemned by the World Health Organization as a possible carcinogen". This is so similar to a true statement, yet conveys the exact opposite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is an organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. It's role is to investigate chemicals, practices, anything to see if it can, in any way, cause cancer. And it makes its report to the World Health Organization. When WHO got the IARC report about how glyphosate could possible cause cancer, WHO rejected it - REJECTED IT!!!! And next, she quickly goes after Bt crops, exploding stomachs and leaky guts. Is she going to mention that Bt bacteria have been used for about 100 years by organic farmers, have been shown to be harmless to anything but caterpillars. The part of the Bt bacteria that harms the moths is a protein called "cry" and for everything else it is a nutrient - as most proteins are. I first learned about BT in 1962. Can anyone remember Rachel Carson, and the book Silent Spring, which was the beginning of the public movement to be much more cautious about insecticides than before. I met her before Silent Spring was published. When the book came out, she signed my copy. The last chapter of that book gives many examples of how crop pests can be controlled by using knowledge about their biology, and the Bt bacteria are one of the methods in that last chapter. And many of the scientists working on GMO crops decided to do that because they were inspired by Carson.

Oh dear, last week I watched another presentation by Institute of Holistic Nutrition, also about DNA, and the presenter, Sarah Dobec, also talked about a fish gene in a tomato called Flavr SavR. That presentation was full of errors. I'm going to pause for a while and find my comment on the other presentation, and paste it in here if this lady makes the same error. Well, it's a little different. She's mentioning the fish allergy, without mentioning that all GMO transgenes are tested in multiple ways to make sure that allergies don't happen. It was part of the testing for the FlavR SavR tomato, and it didn't happen. There wasn't even a fish gene at all. It was a gene from the very same variety of tomato, but turned around. As a result, it didn't make any substance in the tomato, but prevented an unwanted substance from being formed. Now I am going to paste in my comment from the earlier video: start: OK, I am at 3:55 and Dobec is telling us about the fish gene in a tomato. Yes this was done as an experiment. The GMO plant was created, was planted in a greenhouse, and was exposed to a temperature colder than a normal tomato could survive, and the GMO tomato plant died, exactly as a normal tomato would have. In other words, IT DIDN'T WORK! The plant never got to the point of making a fruit, never even a flower. And yet, in a sense, the plant lives on, in junk presentations like this, and in Greenpeace street theater posters of tomatoes with fins, etc. "The tomato didn't taste very good". Here's a terrible indictment of the quality of her authority. She has mixed up two completely different experiments. The cold tolerant tomato experiment (fish tomato) was a simple experiment that never got very far. The tomato she is now talking about, as if they were the same, was an actual product that reached the market, but it had nothing to do with cold tolerance. It had an extra gene (actually a normal tomato gene turned upside down) which was intended to make the tomato, after being fully ripe, stay ripe for a long time instead of quickly turning over-ripe. You probably know that the tomatoes you find in a supermarket are picked BEFORE they are ripe, so that they can ripen while they are being shipped. But anyone who has grown a backyard garden tomato, picked when it was ripe, knows that it tastes much better. "They didn't taste very good" was not the issue. They didn't hold together when they were shipped. But maybe "They didn't taste very good" is just an opinion. IT was a different tomato, made at a different time, by a company, not a few amateur scientists, it actually made tomatoes, where as the "fish-tomato didn't ever exist", and Ms. Dobec didn't research her presentation beyond just reading and misunderstanding the anti-GMO propaganda! end

I have to make a critical comment about the non-GMO Project Verified icon. I think it could be useful for a consumer who is convinced that all GMO foods are, in some way, best avoided AND that it is OK to avoid some perfectly fine foods just to be sure. But for someone who has taken the time to research some GMO foods, and to form separate judgements for each type, that non-GMO Project Verified icon has serious drawbacks. 1) They have a very strict definition of what is a GMO food, perhaps including foods you would not call GMO. a) meat from an animal who ate GMO food b) a food that is chemically identical to an equivalent non-GMO food (like sugar, cooking oil, starch, vitamins) c) a food that is GMO free except that it is made in a facility where other foods are made that might include GMO ingredients d) a food whose manufacturer paid the non-GMO Project for the right to use the icon. 2) Under category 1d, a food that is really and truly non-GMO but for which no GMO alternative exists. So, for example, there are no GMO olives, and olive oil has no other ingredients. So the non-GMO Project icon never does anything good for such foods, and if some other olive oil brand has NOT paid to use the label, you might be tempted to buy the labeled brand for no good reason. There are many many other examples of foods with that useless feature.

About cancer: "There are some studies ...." has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are anti-GMO groups that do studies that are carefully designed to make something look bad, and just as other groups carefully design other studies to make something look good. I'm not qualified to judge a study of carcinogenicity. But I do something else. When I see a new study that claims to show a GMO food causes cancer, I look for information about the author of the study. If, before the study happened, he has declared his views about GMO food safety and he was 100% opposed, I consider him biased. If he was of mixed opinion, I consider him not biased. If he never expressed an anti-GMO opinion that I could find, I would have to take an anti-GMO study seriously. That happened only once, when Dr. Árpád Pusztai studied a GMO potato with an added poison, and considered that the poisonous potato was worse than a potato and the poison separately. It had nothing to do with cancer. The most frequently cited anti-GMO-cancer-in-rats paper is by Gilles Eric Seralini, who was the director of an institute whose very name indicates that it is intended to prove GMOs dangerous, and who praises every anti-GMO claim, even AFTER a case in which the study's author found a mistake and withdrew the study! Besides the studies, I often see in comments on RUclips or other websites, something like this: "Cancers are increasing exponentially". The implication is that these cancers are a result of GMO food. But the very best data set on cancer, in the whole world, is the US National Cancer Institute SEER data set, which is available on line. Part of that data set is a count of the number of new cancer diagnoses per year per 100,000 people, age adjusted. It's updated every year. It started in 1975 at 400 and increased every year, until 1992, when it reached 511. But there was absolutely no GMO food in the world's food supply in or before 1992. Every year after 1992, the number of new cancer diagnoses decreased. By 2010, it had fallen to 457, about 1% per year, and it continues to fall, even as GMO food consumption continues to increase. Let's be very clear. "Cancer is increasing exponentially" is worse than nonsense. It is DECREASING. Of course, these numbers don't make a conclusive case for safety. Maybe it's because people are smoking less, or not being exposed to asbestos, etc. But is sure as heck makes the GMO cancer link need a lot more proof than just someone's intuition. I have no idea what "ingesting ... at a molecular level" even means. All our food is supposed to be checked for various agricultural residues to a certain tolerance. The tolerances are set significantly below the levels that are thought to cause harm. In the specific case of glyphosate, I see anti-GMO scare claims that it is detected at certain levels in urine, which are meant to be scary. But I think that's just the opposite of scary. It means that the body is NOT accumulating the glyphosate!

26:09 I dealt with the allergen fallacy in an earlier post. The corn tortilla tale has nothing to do with GMO corn. If a person was allergic to corn meal tortillas before there were GMOs, she will still be allergic to tortillas now. If she was not allergic to corn tortillas before, she will not be allergic to them now. If she is allergic to them now, she won't help herself by switching back to non-GMO corn. And before you come up with a supposed counter example, it is quite possible to develop an allergy to something you used to tolerate and it has no relationship to GMO food.

Super weeds - That is a name that makes such weeds seem pretty scary. What does the term actually mean? In the GMO context, it means a weed that you can't kill with the same herbicide you have been spraying to kill other weeds, a herbicide which won't kill your crop at the same time. But that "superweed" is just the same weed you had to deal with before the existence of GMO herbicide tolerant crops. It's not a weed that is super in the sense of breaking your equipment, as in the cute little picture at 25:40. Of course, there are some weeds that are big, even huge. But they are not bigger that they were before they became immune to glyphosate. There's another fact that belongs in the discussion. There are crops that are immune to other herbicides and that existed before there were any GMO plants. Let's take corn, which is the most grown crop in North America. It is immune, as God made it, to the herbicide atrazine. Mostly for that reason, before there were GMO crops, atrazine was the most used herbicide in the world. When GMO herbicide tolerant crops became available, atrazine fell back to 4th place and glyphosate (Roundup) became first. A lot of the growth of glyphosate use was by replacing atrazine on cornfields. But atrazine is much more toxic than glyphosate so every corn farmer who switched to GMO herbicide tolerant corn made the environment better. Besides toxicity, glyphosate is sticky, so it doesn't easily flow into rivers or ground water. Atrazine is not at all sticky and there is no good way to keep it from flowing into water sources.

A tiny careful comment about Monsanto's dominance: 1) 23% of the world's commercial seed market in 2007. - There are other markets with much more concentration. Boeing currently maintains a 40.6% market share, while Airbus dominates the other 60.4% of the industry. China makes 36,000 tons of aluminum each year, out of a total of 64000 tons. For smartphones and other mobile devices, Android leads with 71.67% market share, and Apple's iOS has 27.73%. For desktop computers and laptops, Microsoft Windows is the most used at 71.47%, followed by Apple's macOS at 15.45%, desktop Linux at 4.55%, and Google's ChromeOS at 1.73%. 2) Owns the seed planted on 90% of the GE crop area of the world. No, it doesn't own any seed after someone buys that seed. 3) Sells the top selling herbicide, Roundup. But Roundup is off patent, so anyone can make and sell it. Yes Monsanto sells Roundup, but other suppliers sell much more than Monsanto does. Suppose I own a chicken and sell the eggs. Would it be an indication of my market dominance to write that I sell the largest selling bird egg? 4) 5th largest agricultural company - but that means that there are four bigger ones. Nine years later than when you made the video, Monsanto has been absorbed by Bayer.

OK, we are on the next topic, terminator seeds. I'm going to skip over listening, because I know the story. THERE ARE NO SUCH SEEDS. There is only a patent for such seeds, and it's more than twenty years old, so it has expired. The company that developed the patent was Delta and Pine Land Cotton seeds, and I looked at its annual stockholder's report, year after year. It kept saying that they hoped to license the technology, but they thought it was seven years away, and it stayed seven years away until the year they gave up. Nobody ever put it into practice!!! A farmer in Indiana, who grew soybeans regularly from Monsanto, wanted to sow a second crop but he understood that he was taking a risk that winter would come too soon and freeze his crop, so he wanted to cut his costs. So he bought seeds from a grain elevator, seeds meant as food, not meant for planting. Of course, he knew nearly all the farmers growing soybeans were Monsanto customers. An honest man, he told Monsanto what he was doing, and Monsanto sued him to protect their patent rights. It is easy to look up Bowman vs. Monsanto because the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. You don't have to agree with the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision, favoring Monsanto. But ask yourself whether this would have been an issue at all, if the seeds he bought were "terminator seeds". OK, sorry, I said I would know the story. But I never thought she would say that there is a danger of plants with sterile seeds crossing with plants with normal seeds and making them sterile. Think carefully about that and see if you can figure out why it can't happen.

15:50 She's talking about Bt plants, which do NOT have added bacteria. The bacteria, species Bacillus thuringiencis, were discovered more than 100 years ago, to kill silkworm moths' caterpillars. Soon it was discovered that they would also kill all kinds of caterpilllars. Organic farmers used the bacteria as an insecticide. I first read about this in the last chapter of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. That was in 1962. By then, we knew that the "poison" in the bacteria was a protein called "cry" and that is was harmless, actually a nutrient, for everything else tested except caterpillars. You can buy the powdered cry protein today a an organic insecticide. Ms Dobec asks, on her slide, what effect the bacteria added to the GMO genome will have on bacteria in our intestines. But there are no bacteria added to the GMO genome. What is added is the gene to make the cry protein, which is not poisonous, except for caterpillars. It doesn't harm any bacteria that we know of, Baccilus thuringiensis is found in ordinary soil, making its living by digesting the moth larvae that it kills. I've listened further to 16:03 where she says "It didn't work!", referring to farmers in India. Talk about badly researched. There is exactly one GMO crop allowed to be grown in India, and it is a Bt crop, Bt cotton. It did work, so well that India went from the world's biggest cotton importer to a cotton exporter, and out of a total of seven million Indian cotton farmers before Bt cotton was allowed, there are now eight million Indian cotton farmers, almost all of them growing Bt cotton.

OK, I'm at 11:56. She is about to talk about farmers who get sued because a patented GMO plant shows up in his field by accident. I know she's going to be talking about Percy Schmeiser, because she said that it was a canola farmer. But, while Schmeiser claimed the GMO canola got into his field by accident, when he was sued, in court he explained the "accident", as follows. Some canola plants genetically modified to be immune to a herbicide showed up in a corner of one of his fields, perhaps because some seeds fell from a passing truck. He didn't know what variety of canola they were, but he didn't want canola plants there, so he had one of his workers spray that corner with the herbicide Roundup. When the plants didn't die, he knew the canola plants were Monsanto's patented GMO canola plants, and he saved the seeds and planted them in one of his proper fields, and the following year he planted seeds from that crop in many of his other fields. By the time Monsanto found out that he was growing the patented crop without paying the patent fee, his fields were almost entirely the patented crop. (This was his own testimony in his court case, which I found on his own website - the court case transcript.) Outside of court, he kept saying that it was accidental. He lost the case, and appealed the decision to the Canadian Supreme Court, but in the appeal, he didn't try to claim that it was an accident. He said that he considered the patent invalid. There has never been a lawsuit brought against a farmer for accidentally having a GMO crop in his field. I know that because there was a court case brought AGAINST Monsanto by an Organic Seed Growers association, demanding that Monsanto never sue farmers for an accidental presence. Monsanto agreed to that, but they were sued anyway, and in court, the judge asked the plaintiff's lawyer to give an example of such a lawsuit. He couldn't. The judge dismissed the case. But the plaintiff appealed, and the appeals court not only upheld the dismissal but also said that such lawsuits would be illegal and that, for all practical purposes, is the law in the United States.

At 10:18 "three common allergens, the corn and soy especially" Come on, the allergens in corn and soy affect some people, but they are allergens in natural corn and natural soy. Genetically modifying corn and soy never caused an allergy that wasn't there before. If you are allergic to something and you don't know it, labeling the GMO-ness isn't going to help you. But I am for labeling anyway. It's nine years later and GMO labeling has been required in the US since January 2022, but the labeling doesn't bother to tell you which ingredient prompted the label. So if you have decided (for any reason) to try to avoid, say, genetically modified sugar, you might be needlessly scared away from a food that has nothing you want to avoid, like perhaps an added vitamin.

"In 1975 the scientific community raised a red flag ..." Yes, to the credit of the scientists, they stopped all research on gene transfer while the spent a year developing safety protocols. And those safety protocols were followed, made into law, kept up to date as more variations in the technology kept improving. Are we really supposed to believe that between 1975 and 1990, these responsible and cautious scientists morphed into Frankensteins? I'll present one example, worth remembering. In the early 1990s, when genetic engineering was doable in plants, the scientists know that it was possible to transfer a gene into a plant from an organism that causes allergies. The anti-GMO community, which already existed at that time, had no idea that this was an issue, but he scientists did, and they followed some rules to prevent it from ever happening -- with complete success. One seed company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, wanted to make a variety of soybean that was rich in one of the eight essential amino acids, methionine. They found a gene in a Brazil nut, that made a protein very rich in methionine. They set out to make a GMO soybean and the established procedure for preventing allergen transfer actually found that this protein WAS an allergen, so the team stopped the project. But they also published the result of the experiment in a scientific publication. That was how the anti-GMO groups, already warning the public about hypothetical dangers, learned about a new hypothetical danger, allergies. So allergies were added to the list of dangers. Since "allergy" starts with an A, it was frequently the first danger on their list. But if you are making up scary things, it's good to have a story. Here's the story they made up. It was a lucky accident that the allergy-causing soybeans were discovered, at the last minute, just before some people got sick. A caution that had worked perfectly was presented as Frankenstein scientists risking the health of the public!

OK, I am at 3:55 and she's telling us about the fish gene in a tomato. Yes this was done as an experiment. The GMO plant was created, planted in a greenhouse, exposed to a temperature colder than a normal tomato would survive, and the GMO tomato plant died, exactly as a normal tomato would have. In other words, IT DIDN'T WORK. The plant never got to the point of making a fruit, never even a flower. And yet, in a sense, the plant lives on, in junk presentations like this, in Greenpeace street theater posters of tomatoes with fins, etc. "The tomato didn't taste very good". Here's a terrible indictment of the quality of her authority. She has mixed up two completely different experiments. The cold tolerant tomato experiment was a simple experiment that never got very far. The tomato she is now talking about as if they were the same, was an actual product that reached the market, but it had nothing to do with cold tolerance. It had an extra gene (actually a normal tomato gene turned upside down) which was intended to let the tomato, after being fully ripe, stay ripe for a long time instead of quickly turning over-ripe. You probably know that the tomatoes you find in a supermarket are picked BEFORE they are ripe, so that they can ripen while they are being shipped. But anyone who has grown a backyard garden tomato, picked when it was ripe, knows that it tastes much better. "They didn't taste very good" was not the issue. They didn't hold together when they were shipped. But maybe "They didn't taste very good" is just an opinion. IT was a different tomato, made at a different time, by a company, not a few amateur scientists, it actually made tomatoes, where as the "fish-tomato didn't ever exist", and Ms. Dobec didn't research her presentation beyond just reading and misunderstanding the anti-GMO propaganda!

The slides are bio unavailable 😂

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Please talk about woman's breast enhancements either underdeveloped or had mastectomy, injuries of any sort what peptides are helpful? Thank you.

Great webinar, although i did not follow on the Cyp1A2, which is increased activity in me (NM+) with *1F/*1F, yet here is discussed that it is the 1F is a slow activity, how can my rapport say it is increased? Has there been made a mistake?

Pseudoscience nonsense with roots in fascism.

The 1st thing to understand is “practitioners” only know a fraction of the bome and its workings.

People in ancient times according to the Bible, Hindu scriptures, and other religious books claim that people thousands of years ago lived to be hundreds of years old. So, there is a template that humans can live to be 5-0 years old for example. Therefore, Mother Nature may not be done with us at the age of 70. We just need to recover lost knowledge.

30:26 tcm damp heat

I hear there is a peptide for bph or urination at night.