recent image
Government Assisted Suicide Programs
Octaveoctave
 February 13 2024 at 10:26 pm
more_horiz
These government assisted suicide programs have existed in Belgium and some other European jurisdictions for some time. But the last few years have seen the introduction of the MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) program in Canada and the VAD (Voluntary Assistance in Dying) program in Australia. I am not as aware of what is going on with these programs in Belgium and Australia. However, being of Canadian origin, I am following the evolution of MAID in Canada. And at least to me, it looks like it is going off the rails. It is being pushed aggressively by the Canadian Federal Government, and it is constantly expanding. Will there be any limits to this program? When will common sense and ethics and basic decency and morals and good judgement prevail? It was initially sold as a painless easy convenient way for the terminally ill to pass away peacefully. But that was just the start. More than 60% of the people who apply for MAID are approved for termination, with very little oversight or vetting or restrictions. At this point, tens of thousands of Canadians have been eliminated through the MAID program. Because Canada has a smaller population than the US, the number who have been exterminated in Canada is equivalent to about half a million people being killed in the US. The MAID program is now advertised constantly in the Canadian media (and almost all the media are completely controlled by the government in Canada, now). It is being implemented and recommended for injured veterans, so that the government does not have to support them any longer. It is being pushed for the homeless and the addicted and the unemployed. There is a massive effort now to extend the MAID program to children and the depressed and anyone mentally ill. How long before those who are demented or just elderly will be pushed into committing suicide? What about someone with a contrary political opinion, like Jordan Peterson? That is what used to happen in the USSR. If someone had a different political opinion, they were deemed mentally ill in the USSR. And then they were locked up in asylums, in horrible conditions. The Canadian government and some provincial governments are now encouraging addiction by essentially legalizing methamphetamines and fentanyl and other toxic addictive substances in many jurisdictions, and in some cases, providing them. Of course, the overdose rates have sky-rocketed upwards, as well as killings associated with drug dealing. [1] So the government has no problem getting the citizens addicted, even children without their parent's approval or permission, and then to cope with the situation, the government also has no problem effectively executing the people whose lives they have destroyed. This is sort of startling considering that there is and has been a widespread discomfort with capital punishment in Canada, for many years. What on earth is going on? No one seems to be asking many questions since the Canadian Federal Government seems to be evolving into an effective totalitarian dictatorship of sorts. Can anyone question it? Can anyone question anything ? You see what happened to Jordan Peterson when he questioned these woke Canadian policies. Prime Minister Trudeau has spoken admiringly about the Cuban Government and the Chinese Communist Party and has said repeatedly he wants to impose that style of government in Canada by force. Canadian doctors have objected for the last 2 years to Canadian Federal Government plans to start executing the mentally ill. So, in response, the Canadian Federal government is going to implement a 3 year retraining period to force Canadian doctors to start killing the mentally ill. This is somewhat analogous to the retraining program that is being forced on Jordan Peterson. This is particularly problematic because there are no standards for who can recover from mental illness. Many people can recover, given time. But will they just be killed to speed up the process and for "efficiency"? Over 40% of Canadians are chronic users of anti-depressants. Will they all be deemed mentally ill so they can be slaughtered wholesale? What about the trans community, which has a very high suicide rate and depression rate? The Canadian government is aggressively pushing trans surgeries on the population, particularly young people. But if the surgeries go wrong, or the patients are not satisfied with the outcomes of the trans treatments, will they just be put to death? Perhaps even requesting transitioning would be enough to get you classified as mentally ill, so they would not even go ahead with the medications and surgeries, but just put those requesting a transition to death right away. It is much more cost effective and more efficient that way, right? There are rumors that the government wants to use MAID to exterminate the indigenous peoples of Canada. It would be convenient, from some points of view. They just cause a lot of problems, after all. And it can't be classified as racist because the Federal government is doing it, and they are super woke and compassionate and tolerant, you see? Looking North across the border, it is difficult for me to understand what is going on, exactly. It looks pretty out of control, to me. [2] Notes [1] This reminds me of a quote by George Soros, a few years ago. Soros expressed displeasure at the peacefulness of Canada. He said he wanted to spend some money to encourage a higher murder rate in Canada. Is some of this due to Soros? I know Trudeau pretty much does anything the World Economic Forum in Davos wants, and Soros has a lot of influence with the WEF and their leader Klaus Schwab. Soros and Schwab are both unrepentant Nazis, and Trudeau has had more than a few scandals with Nazis during his time in power. [2] An interesting discussion can be found at: Canada’s doctors REVOLT against Justin Trudeau’s MAID program, what’s next? | Redacted News https://unitedrepublicnews.com/todaysnews/canadas-doctors-revolt-against-justin-trudeaus-maid-program-whats-next-redacted-news/
recent image
Changing Our Beliefs
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 January 30 2024 at 04:16 am
more_horiz
post image
Changing our minds is tough, especially when we're bombarded with endless streams of information online. It's interesting how we often stop questioning the beliefs that have comfortably nestled in our minds. Yet, it's in the face of new, challenging information that true growth happens. This isn't just theory; I've experienced it myself, reshaping my views through interactions with our Healthy & Awake Community. It's about being open, even when it's uncomfortable, and learning to weigh our words, realizing their impact can be far-reaching online. At Red Pill Health & Wellness, we encourage this introspection and reevaluation of beliefs. It's not about discarding your entire belief system but about refining it, making it resilient and adaptable in the face of new facts. How do you navigate the ever-changing landscape of information and beliefs? In what ways has your interaction with diverse viewpoints challenged or reinforced your understanding of the world? _________________________________________________________________ 🧠 "Collaborative Critical Thinking" Unleashed: As a Board-Certified Health Coach, I guide you through personalized strategies for optimal health and awareness. Explore more at www.redpillhealthandwellness.com. ⏳ Check out "Creating Time Wealth" Early Bird Presale: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/creating-time-wealth-landing-page 👓 Get the stylish BonCharge Glasses I wear—15% off with code 'healthy-and-awake'. https://bit.ly/3ZtPFPv 🛒 🌐 Your one-stop hub for all things Healthy & Awake: www.mikevera.com 🍏 Elevate your health with my coaching and online programs: www.redpillhealthandwellness.com 📚 Books for critical thinkers—Healthy & Awake Book List: https://bit.ly/3PNN7Js 💌 Get weekly health insights and podcast updates: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/newsletter 📢 Heads up: The links in the episode's show notes are affiliate links. Making a purchase through these links is a great way to support the show—at no extra cost to you! Twitter: https://twitter.com/red_pill_health Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/healthyandawakepodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/healthyandawakepodcast/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@healthyandawakepodcast Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3481244 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelfvera/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@red_pill_health New Healthy & Awake Telegram Community: https://t.me/healthyandawake
recent image
Coitus interruptus
Bettina Arndt
 February 03 2024 at 03:09 am
more_horiz
post image
Frozen, Disney’s highly successful animation series, captivated little girls across the world. So too, the feminists have had huge success in promoting their own version of “frozen” – instilling in criminal courts everywhere the notion that rape victims often suffer a physiological state known as “tonic immobility” which renders them incapable of resisting their plight. No matter that the science behind this theory is problematic – as Emily Yoffe explained in her article on bad science supporting prosecution of sexual assault. “I froze” has become the uniform description covering every oddity in the rape victim’s behaviour and flawed memory of events – a description that’s invariably accepted, totally unchallenged. But men’s physiology is seen as irrelevant. There’s zero interest in examining men’s capacity for response in varied sexual situations let alone any pressure for science on male bodily processes to be considered in criminal investigations and proceedings. Yet this issue is central to determining guilt or innocence in a critical area of criminal law – the issue of revoked consent. With the introduction of affirmative consent laws, not only is consent required throughout sexual activity, but women have the right to pull the plug whenever they feel like it. And men are expected to immediately snap to attention and withdraw. Easier said than done, you might say. Well, that’s the issue. Most judges seem to assume that there’s no problem in expecting an immediate retreat from the male in response to the female red flag. Never any consideration of whether he even noticed the flag, or realised what it was, or whether she was waving it clearly, or maybe that he might have been frozen, rendered immobile due to surprise and shock. There’s a fascinating article on the legal issues at play here - Consent Interruptus: Rape Law and Cases of Initial Consent, by University of Western Australia law lecturer, Theodore Bennett. He spells out the legal arguments resisting any notion of allowing a reasonable time to withdraw after revoked consent, with feminists objecting that this “primal urge’ argument perpetuates the myth of the unstoppable male who can’t be responsible for his rampant sexuality. Kansas State feminist scholar Lois Pineau says the claim that men don’t have immediate control is “factually unfounded.” Not so fast, says an expert in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) – which is the science of how humans behave and interact with each other in various environmental contexts. I’ll call this Australian expert “Anton Crabtree” – unfortunately he’s decided he needs to disguise his identity due to the tricky ideological climate in today’s academic world. Dr Crabtree also has expertise in aviation medicine which is precisely the area we usually associate with HFE, given its vital role in investigations of human error in situations like plane crashes. Crabtree makes a compelling case that this type of examination of neurocognitive and physiological limitations also has bearing on whether men crash and burn in the bedroom. “The absence of the rigorous assessment and well-established scientific considerations of Human Factors analysis is a glaring omission to any claim of a fair system of justice for persons accused of sexual assault after revoked consent. Ignoring the science inevitably risks further miscarriage of justice which can be catastrophic to individuals and families and damaging to society,” writes Dr Crabtree in an academic paper he is preparing for publication on the subject, which examines case law revealing this ongoing deficiency in our justice system. I’m including a draft of this groundbreaking research article here and hope you will help circulate it and ensure it receives proper attention – particularly in legal circles where there is such a dire need for education to address the ongoing injustice occurring in these cases. This research should also have a place in the sexual consent courses being taught in our schools and universities. The case described by Bennett which really blew me away involved a blind man (Morton) who was charged with sexual assault after being set upon by three young girls. They pulled down his pants and a seven-year-old then commenced fellatio without his consent. The judge commented: “it seems clear that the initial introduction of the accused’s penis into her mouth did not occur as the result of any voluntary act on his part”. Yet Morton was convicted because he failed to extract his penis out of the girl’s mouth quickly enough. The law deemed that this was sexual assault because he “voluntarily” allowed the act to continue “for a few seconds” by not moving. Morton testified that because of his impaired vision he tended to freeze in response to unexpected events. Crabtree comments: “In these circumstances, feeling a small mouth and sharp teeth around his penis would be a genuinely startling event and freezing is a normal non-volitional reaction to startle. Additionally, even when he had recovered sufficiently to make a neurocognitive assessment, he would be justified in his fear of his penis being bitten if he reacted in any other way than freezing. “ As Crabtree points out the startle response has been described in the literature for over 100 years. It’s well understood that the “fright fight flight or freeze response” is an involuntary reaction to a sudden, sharp, unexpected stimulus. Like a blind man feeling a small mouth gripping his penis. Or any man wallowing in the pleasure of a consensual sexual experience who is suddenly told the deal is off. He’s now having non-consensual sex. Which means rape. Which could mean prison. Dr Crabtree explains that after the initial shock, it takes time for a man’s body to be capable of the much slower cognitive assessment and decision-making process required to process that troubling message, particularly when his body is subject to the sensory overload associated with high levels of sexual arousal. He explains: “At high levels of sexual arousal, males are subject to sensory overload, where their psychological/physical resources are focused on their growing excitement. This means it may take very clear, repeated and even forceful intervention for the male to perceive consent is being revoked. It is unrealistic to assume a man at such a time is in full control of his neurocognitive processes, and physical responses. It is unrealistic to expect that cessation of the sexual act and withdrawal of the penis can occur instantaneously or near instantaneously at the time a complainant decides to revoke consent.” It is Dr Crabtree’s view, that given the serious consequences for accused men, women should be required to make sure their message revoking consent is not only sent but received and understood – “even if this requires clear repeated and escalating intense words and actions.” Yet Theodore Bennett’s summary of relevant case law mentions an alleged victim who revokes consent by saying, “Wait.” What’s that supposed to mean? Surely, she could simply be saying, “Slow down and wait for me.” There’s also a 1988 case where the complainant says, “Quick, it’s them” when she hears the sound of her mother’s car. As Theodore Bennett explains this could mean “quickly finish” rather than “quickly withdraw.” Note that there’s active discussion amongst American legal scholars regarding a legislative requirement that revoked consent must be effectively communicated, but no apparent interest in this issue in Australia’s feminist-led legal community. It received absolutely no attention from the trial and appeal judges involved in Australia’s most famous revoked consent case, involving Kevin Ibbs, a Perth man who became known as the “30 Second Rapist” because he was convicted of sexual assault after continuing for 30 seconds after his partner revoked consent. In fact, the whole ghastly business was a set-up, with Ibb’s wife arranging for her best friend to have sex with him and then revoking consent – to get him charged with rape and sent to prison, so that she could get hold of the marital home. It worked a treat - Ibbs ended up in jail. Eventually his conviction was quashed, he was acquitted and the two women were briefly imprisoned. However, by then Ibbs had lost his reputation, his business, all his assets and, eventually, his life – he committed suicide some years later. So how did the woman in this case revoke consent? By announcing very late in the proceedings that it was “not right” because Ibbs’ wife was her best friend. Get a load of this – Ibbs had already stopped once, to get the complainant to confirm with his wife that she was OK with the sexual encounter. It was, so they got back into it and then the accuser waited until he was highly aroused before complaining it was not right. In no way was this a clear statement that she was withdrawing consent. Yet the judges fluffed around with all sorts of pronouncements about the “reasonableness” of the 30 seconds he continued in the saddle, arguing about whether Ibbs response should have been “nearly instantaneous.” To my mind the whole thing was both unscientific and egregiously unfair. With affirmative consent laws only recently put in place and sexual consent courses teaching girls that they have the right to withdraw consent at any time, we can expect to see many more such cases. It’s abundantly clear that this entire system is designed simply to nail men – which means there are very different rules for women and men. Like - women freeze but men don’t. Crabtree mentions a NSW case involving a clearly manipulative 16-year-old who admitted to using sexual texting to bully the defendant, JP, before accusing him of sexual assault. The incident took place in a cramped car, where she withdrew consent while lying on top of him. JP explained that when she suddenly said “no”, he “froze”… “I basically lost control, went into a lost mind”. As she was on top, he could not withdraw. Crabtree explains that from an ergonomic point of view, it’s unlikely JP would have had the strength or room to lift the girl off him in order to withdraw his penis. JP said he did not want to “grab” her to try to remove her as he was worried about her seeing it as assault. In the end this young man was lucky. His excellent silk, Margaret Cunneen SC convinced the jury to acquit him. But many accused men aren’t so fortunate. Crabtree makes a strong case that HFE investigations should be informing the court, just as this science plays a role in determining responsibility in plane crashes and other incidents. “The most important proven principle of HFE investigations is not to jump to conclusions particularly of blame or culpability. HFE demonstrates that an approach that combines sound investigative process and proper support for victims/complainants can co-exist with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. The science has shown us that this approach combined with better understanding and education leads to better outcomes.” Better, fairer outcomes, no doubt. But in the current climate the goal appears to be to simply obtain more rape convictions. So, hang the science, unless, of course, it can be used to ensure more “victims” come out on top.
recent image
"Settled Science"
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 February 05 2024 at 05:16 pm
more_horiz
post image
Looking back at old advertisements, such as doctors endorsing cigarettes or the use of DDT as safe, offers a stark reminder of how scientific consensus can evolve. These advertised products, once rooted in the 'settled science' of their day, now serve as cautionary tales about the malleability of scientific understanding and the influence of commercial interests on public health messaging. It's important to remember that science is not a static repository of facts, but is really a dynamic, ongoing process of inquiry, debate, and revision. Scientific papers conclude with discussions and arguments for a reason: they're part of a larger dialogue, where evidence is interpreted and narratives are formed. Science, at its core, is about building and challenging these narratives based on evolving evidence. While science is a powerful tool for understanding the world, it is also susceptible to the influences of its time, including commercial and political pressures. This realization calls for a critical approach to interpreting 'settled science,' reminding us to question who benefits from these narratives and why. At Red Pill Health & Wellness, we emphasize the importance of critical thinking and healthy skepticism in navigating scientific claims, encouraging a dialogue that respects the integrity of good science while remaining vigilant about its potential misapplications. As we face today’s health and wellness claims, it’s vital to apply this lens of critical inquiry. What practices endorsed today might tomorrow's evidence overturn? And how do you discern between well-founded scientific consensus and potentially misleading narratives? PS: I know there have been calls for longer form content. It's on my list, but please bear with me for now with this shorter content. For my longer form content, which takes a great deal of time to put together, please check out my Healthy & Awake Podcast. My last episode was with Dr. Peter McCullough!Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn
recent image
Beyond Conformity
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 February 11 2024 at 05:27 am
more_horiz
post image
Remember the time when mandates were being pushed, and disagreeing with the 'experts' was shunned? It was a period that starkly highlighted a troubling trend: such environments prioritize enforcing conformity over nurturing individual free-choice. They erode our autonomy, undermining our ability to make decisions for ourselves, and impose a one-size-fits-all approach. Red Pill Health & Wellness is more than just a coaching service; it's a commitment to fostering genuine personal growth and understanding. We stand firmly against the tide of conformity, choosing instead to honor the uniqueness of each individual's health journey. By engaging in collaborative critical thinking, we create a space where diverse perspectives are not just heard but are integral to our collective growth. Our aim is to craft strategies that resonate with your personal path, challenging the norm and embracing what truly works for you. In this spirit, I actively practice what we preach. Here, we encourage open dialogue and the exchange of differing opinions. Disagreeing posts aren’t deleted; they're welcomed. This approach extends beyond just our platform to my personal life, where I consciously surround myself with a variety of viewpoints. It's a deliberate choice to strengthen intellectual resilience and foster a broader understanding of the world around us. How do you sift through the vast health information and advice to find what genuinely works for you? Have there been instances where you’ve had to question widely accepted health norms to align with your own beliefs or needs? Moreover, how do you perceive the role of engaging with opposing viewpoints in strengthening your intellectual and personal development?
recent image
Food Marketing Madness
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 January 30 2024 at 11:18 pm
more_horiz
post image
The irony in our food choices often reflects deeper contradictions in our understanding of what's 'natural' or 'healthy'. On one hand, there's a vocal opposition to cow's milk as 'unnatural,' yet many turn to almond milk, which undergoes its own 'unnatural' process. This highlights how the concept of healthiness in food is not only diverse but also deeply subjective and often debated. At Red Pill Health & Wellness, we steer clear of prescribing a 'one-size-fits-all' diet. Instead, we engage in 'collaborative critical thinking' to determine what works best for each individual. Our approach isn't about rigidly dictating food choices; it's about building a flexible, personalized lifestyle that aligns with your needs and preferences without being overly restrictive or dogmatic. As for me, I love a good steak, but I'm not shy about experimenting with my diet. It's all about balance and listening to your body. This leads to an important question: How do you assess what's right for you when it comes to food? What are your criteria for choosing your meals, and how do you balance personal enjoyment with health considerations? Struggling with consistent health habits? Click the link in my profile for guidance on creating lasting behavioral changes. _________________________________________________________________ 🧠 "Collaborative Critical Thinking" Unleashed: As a Board-Certified Health Coach, I guide you through personalized strategies for optimal health and awareness. Explore more at www.redpillhealthandwellness.com. ⏳ Check out "Creating Time Wealth" Early Bird Presale: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/creating-time-wealth-landing-page 👓 Get the stylish BonCharge Glasses I wear—15% off with code 'healthy-and-awake'. https://bit.ly/3ZtPFPv 🛒 🌐 Your one-stop hub for all things Healthy & Awake: www.mikevera.com 🍏 Elevate your health with my coaching and online programs: www.redpillhealthandwellness.com 📚 Books for critical thinkers—Healthy & Awake Book List: https://bit.ly/3PNN7Js 💌 Get weekly health insights and podcast updates: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/newsletter 📢 Heads up: The links in the episode's show notes are affiliate links. Making a purchase through these links is a great way to support the show—at no extra cost to you! Twitter: https://twitter.com/red_pill_healthFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/healthyandawakepodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/healthyandawakepodcast/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@healthyandawakepodcastRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3481244LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelfvera/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@red_pill_health New Healthy & Awake Telegram Community: https://t.me/healthyandawake
recent image
Big-Food-Industry Lies
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 January 27 2024 at 09:24 pm
more_horiz
post image
The history of companies marketing 'industrial ingredients' as safe for consumption, with a blatant disregard for public health, is a troubling occurrence. This practice goes beyond making profits, and often involves influencing scientific literature to downplay risks and exaggerate benefits. The outcome is a distorted public perception of what's healthy and what's not. Being 'healthy & awake' means being vigilant about these practices. It's about understanding how corporations have shaped our diet and health decisions, often prioritizing their well-being over ours. Take, for instance, the sugar industry's decades-long campaign to minimize the harmful effects of sugar while casting fats as the main dietary villain, significantly skewing dietary guidelines and public opinion. This pattern of manipulation prompts us to ask: What other examples of food industry manipulation can you think of? Have you encountered any food products that were later revealed to have hidden health consequences? Please share your insights and experiences, and let's raise collective awareness about the importance of scrutinizing the foods we consume. _________________________________________________________________ 🧠 "Collaborative Critical Thinking" Unleashed: As a Board-Certified Health Coach, I guide you through personalized strategies for optimal health and awareness. Explore more at www.redpillhealthandwellness.com. ⏳ Check out "Creating Time Wealth" Early Bird Presale: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/creating-time-wealth-landing-page 👓 Get the stylish BonCharge Glasses I wear—15% off with code 'healthy-and-awake'. https://bit.ly/3ZtPFPv 🛒 🌐 Your one-stop hub for all things Healthy & Awake: www.mikevera.com 🍏 Elevate your health with my coaching and online programs: www.redpillhealthandwellness.com 📚 Books for critical thinkers—Healthy & Awake Book List: https://bit.ly/3PNN7Js 💌 Get weekly health insights and podcast updates: https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/newsletter 📢 Heads up: The links in the episode's show notes are affiliate links. Making a purchase through these links is a great way to support the show—at no extra cost to you! Twitter: https://twitter.com/red_pill_health Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/healthyandawakepodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/healthyandawakepodcast/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@healthyandawakepodcast Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3481244 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelfvera/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@red_pill_health New Healthy & Awake Telegram Community: https://t.me/healthyandawake
recent image
Controversial Health Narratives + More...
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 January 27 2024 at 11:31 pm
more_horiz
post image
Hello, critical thinkers! We're on the brink of a thrilling milestone – I've been invited to an exclusive, closed-door event tailored for 'awake' podcasters. This isn't just progress; it's a quantum leap for the Healthy & Awake Podcast and Community. Your support, from spreading our mission to your engagement on social media (shoutout LinkedIn friends!), is catapulting us to unprecedented heights. My deepest gratitude for being the driving force of this journey! Details on the event are under wraps for now, but stay tuned! If you're following me on social media, keep your eyes peeled in early March – you might catch glimpses of me mingling with some of the most influential figures and fellow podcasters in our arena. This gathering is a convergence of minds that promises to ignite new ideas and collaborations, amplifying our voice and reach. Exciting developments await, and I can't wait to share them with you post-event. 🎧 Last Episode Recap: Disease X - More Than Just a Theory? In our recent episode of the Healthy & Awake Podcast, we delved deep into the captivating and somewhat controversial realm of 'Disease X'. This term, introduced by global health authorities, signifies a yet-to-be-identified pathogen with the potential to trigger a global pandemic surpassing the severity of COVID-19. Why are renowned entities like the World Health Organization (WHO), Johns Hopkins University, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) putting Disease X under the microscope? We embarked on an explorative journey to answer this and to understand the broader implications for global health. Our discussion navigated through the intricate crossroads of public health policy and the realm of conspiracy theories. Is the conversation surrounding Disease X a prudent exercise in foresight by global health leaders, or is there an untold narrative beneath the surface? As we piece together various narratives, this episode serves as a platform for critical thinking and spirited dialogue, examining the complexities of Disease X and its potential impact on health and global politics. Join us in this thought-provoking exploration. Click the HERE to watch on Rumble! Or listen on Apple/Spotify.🎙️ Up Next: A Deep Dive into Vaccine Narratives In preparation for a groundbreaking conversation with our upcoming guest – a notable medical doctor with a significant presence on social media and notable appearances, including on the Joe Rogan podcast – our next episode will tackle the complex and multifaceted subject of vaccines. Many of you have already made some sharp guesses about our guest's identity following the big hint in our last episode on 'Disease X'. This next episode is dedicated to exploring the diverse narratives surrounding vaccines, a topic often echoed with a singular perspective in mainstream discourse. While vaccines have been hailed as the holy grail of modern medicine, there's another side to this story that's seldom heard. We'll delve into these less explored narratives, not to dispute but to understand and discuss the broader context. As your host, I'm no medical doctor, but I am committed to asking critical questions and uncovering insights. This is an episode I've pondered over for quite some time, given the extensive notes and viewpoints I've gathered. We'll aim to keep it concise yet informative, but don't be surprised if this evolves into a two-part series to fully do justice to this topic.👀 Top Post Spotlight Check out this week's top-performing post on LinkedIn and join the engaging conversation by clicking HERE. Read the full article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-allotment-increase My commentary: "The headlines discouraging people from growing their own food raises eyebrows and questions. As always, our focus here is on the narratives, and it's hard not to sense an undercurrent of big food corporate propaganda. If we entertain the thought that the climate concerns, often cited in these arguments, might be exaggerated, it opens up a realm of other possible motivations for discouraging home gardening. Being 'healthy & awake' involves critically examining these narratives. Why might there be an effort to dissuade individuals from cultivating their own food? Could it be a tactic to maintain dependency on large food corporations? Or perhaps there are economic interests at play, aimed at keeping consumers within the commercial food supply chain? What are your thoughts on this issue? Can you think of any other reasons why growing your own food might be discouraged? Let's uncover the layers behind these headlines and discuss the implications for our food choices and independence." As always... Stay healthy & awake, Mike Vera https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com/links