Delta Variant Derangement

Prepare to be triggered.

Could we please do some actual RESEARCH? Let’s step back and review. We have been gaslighting the people injured by Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J products for the better part of the last year while NOT COLLECTING DATA APPROPRIATELY. It is mind boggling that nurses and doctors still do not know VAERS or its use. VAERS is written all over the EUA disclosures for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J. How have these professions become willfully ignorant to this whole process? How has the medical community allowed such propaganda to permeate their systems?

Since the U.S. cannot collect data and share it openly with the public, let’s look across the pond for those “variant” trends… Though I’d really like to see overall hospital and emergency care admitting diagnoses broken down like this so we can compare severity of illness; however, the death category will do.

You’re fully capable of making up your own mind.
Cases = contagion. Death = lethality.

By now, most people recognize that Israel is the most vaccinated population due to their early deal with Pfizer. So, how does that data stack up against South Korea with their early treatment strategy and our U.S. floundering? Is there a trend? Or maybe its multifaceted, since contact tracing and isolation were heavily used. We do not quite know what the long-term outcome will be of their early success stories… Some virologists believe that isolated countries painted themselves into a corner and will now be subject to the most lethal variant instead of the first one that did not have a chance to mutate, yet confers broad immunity.

Now let’s review the cases, shall we?

Perhaps, the biologics are not as glamorous as the media touts? The U.S. had a downward trend before the mass campaigns with a little upswing commencing just as the nation’s biggest corporations and health systems are mulling around the idea of mandated medicine. Not so great when you consider man-made antigenic shift.

And, Israel and South Korea’s death data is almost identical regardless of population uptake of these biologics with that little bump right around the time of their jab campaigns. So where is the efficacy? Must all be a coincidence. I am curious to see if we will ever get passed ignoring VAERS data? You can clearly see red flags from the size of the files. Can we please fast-forward to the part when we admit pharmaceutical failure? No, it is not “breakthrough” cases. IT IS FAILURE. Call it like it is and stop with the doublespeak.

Scientists did not know whether these biologics would stop transmission but they concluded that your symptoms would be “less severe” when they deployed it back in November 2020. Wait. Think about that. Making someone’s symptoms LESS SEVERE just breached a huge defense mechanism in humans. When your symptoms are “severe,” you tend to stay home and take extra care of yourself without exposing others to whatever you have… most times. If, now, you don’t feel so bad then you are more likely to go about your day exposing everyone else (plus, not taking extra measures to boost your own health). This biologic, at the very least, just made YOU the oh-so-silent spreader of that virus. Think it through. Do not shift blame to those with a normally functioning immune system in response to this particular illness, if it really is “more severe” for them. Further, most people do not see temporary illness as worst case. You cannot be free of illness as a member of this ecosystem.

If you want your symptoms to be less, be our guest. Let’s just make crystal clear that you are not some virtuous human saver as compared to other humans who chose the precautionary principle. You are not allowed to force your emotions on others or treat them differently because they did not want to subject themselves to these products. That’s called DISCRIMINATION and it has no place in a free society. Health-related passports are a slippery slope, just like mandated medicine. We should ALL be alarmed that any human being has lesser rights based on what governments/institutions say, eh?

If we learned at least one thing from Nazi Medical Experiments (and others!), I hope it was that informed consent is the cornerstone of medicine. You cannot take someone’s free will and bodily autonomy from them and force them into experimentation. Period. There are also consent bounds when it comes to routine procedures and medical care. Where there are risks there must always be freedom of choice.

Shalom, light, and love…

Plandemic Perspective: Part I

**Originally posted April 23, 2020**

NEWSFLASH: The leading cause of death for this millenium has been cardiovascular diseases!

If they “cared” about your health…
>>They would MANDATE WATER INTAKE and outlaw sodas and artificially flavored beverages.
>>They would ban sugar-laden, shelf-stable products and MANDATE FRESH PRODUCE.
>>They would ban industrial pollution and MANDATE CLEAN AIR.
>>They would ban the media and MANDATE WHOLESOME INTERACTIONS.

This is how you care for physical and mental health. Now, do you think “they” care about your health or what? 🧐 Time to reevaluate your diet and lifestyle, folks! The media won’t tell you that, as their pockets are lined with those in it to profit off of YOU.

Disease is NOT Normal

STOP NORMALIZING asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, food/seasonal allergies, and neurocognitive delays. What are we doing to our immune systems that is causing these OVER-REACTIONS in our children?

Vaccines contain adjuvants that are designed to create an immune RESPONSE. Perhaps these doses of adjuvants are creating an OVER response? With any pharmaceutical there is a possibility of overt action…

》too much blood pressure medication = low BP
》too much insulin = low sugar
》too much antibiotic = bye-bye biome balance, hello opportunistic virulent and resistant organisms
》too much immune system suppression = no immune response, risk for illness

What about too much immune system stimulation? What happens when your immune system is on high alert and you eat an allergenic food at the same time? What happens when you’re given this stimulation repeatedly as a newborn with an IMMATURE immune system that still prioritizes Th2 (inflammatory) response over a Th1 (antibody) response?

That sounds like chronic inflammation. Alike… asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, and food/seasonal allergies. The neurologic disorders may be a byproduct of heavy metal exposure (we see this with Alzheimers and aluminum in brain tissues as well as brain disorders with Cobalt hips). There is potential here, too!

Newborn immune systems lack memory and are tolerant of antigens for a reason. Babies are born sterile. They are still learning boundaries and creating the flora in their bowels that will become a major component of their immune system for their lifetime. If their body created a Th1 response to every foreign substance, they wouldn’t survive in this world… as we live in symbiosis with the microbes on our skin, in our airway, and in our bowels. Newborns must be colonized with these organisms and build up those systems. How does chronic stimulation of the immune system fit into this matrix?

It does not make sense. Vaccines are given in several doses to “create antibodies” though we know that more are added because they are ineffective in doing that in the first 2-3 doses… probably due to lack of the Th1 response, eh? So, now we give these tiny bodies several doses of adjuvant along with a fragment of a genetic component or microbe without considering what complexes are made between those simultaneous IM exposures, nor do we even study them.

The ACIP, advisory council for immunization practices, does not perform nor require adequate studies! They STATE that fact in these meetings.

So, if you still think that the voice of several thousand concerned mothers and fathers is horsebalogna, your cognitive dissonance is strong. We don’t do this to create drama. We do this to create safer practices for future generations. Mothers and fathers should not have to prove that these practices are harmful. Robust scientific evidence (not industry jargon) should prove interventions to be SAFE before subjecting our most vulnerable populations to them. Concerns should be addressed with valid studies (again, not industry jargon).

Pharmaceutical studies are done on adult populations and medications are recalled for adverse events… I think it is time for a recall, but “biologics” are not considered ‘medications’ for that exact reason…

Are we trading short-term infection for long-term disease?

Are we damaging immune systems by overstimulating them in their development?

When do we start paying attention to the parents that witness their children’s struggle to breathe, eat, and feel well? A normal child should not battle painful skin, constant stomach disturbances, nor frequent episodes of intense ear infections. This was not our (parents born before 1995) reality of childhood and must be questioned.

Shalom, light, and love.

Vaccine Studies… “the science is settled” and the evidence cannot be denied

There is nothing more important than protecting our population, especially the most vulnerable, from risks. If there is a risk, there must be a choice. Vaccines (lab-created biologics) are not without their risks. The statement “Vaccines are safe and effective” is simply unfounded. Protection of informed consent is essential in a free society, but that is threatened today.

Independent bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration, which is considered Level I hierarchy of medical evidence, are unable to determine if vaccination prevents primary disease and reports safety issues. This is a lot of information, so it is broken down by the vaccine. I have thoroughly covered measles and chickenpox, so they are not included in this post. You can find those here and here. Quotes below are directly obtained from studies.



In 2012, Bar-On, Goldberg, Hellman, & Leibovici evaluated DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines. Overall, they reported “Data for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking” and reported increased bias within performed studies. There was a reassessment of this in 2017, and those authors were unable to perform the study.



Mathew, El Dib, Mathew, Boxall, & Brok evaluated Hepatitis B in 2009 and stated “Twelve trials were eligible. All had high risk of bias and reporting was inconsistent.” They went on further to state:

“In people not previously exposed to hepatitis B, vaccination has unclear effect on the risk of developing infection, as compared to no vaccination. The risk of lacking protective antibody levels as well as serious and non-serious adverse events appear comparable among recipients and non-recipients of hepatitis B vaccine.”

A review evaluating Hepatitis B booster vaccination conducted in 2016 reported, “There were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of this review.”

In 2017, Eke, Eleje, Eke, Xia, & Liu performed a study evaluating the Hepatitis B vaccine on newborns of seropositive women, and they stated:

“Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.”



In 2014, Zhang, Prietsch, Axelsson, & Halperin reported in a tetanus study that:

“Ethical barriers to the inclusion of a placebo group, combined with the evidence that whole-cell vaccines are not uniformly effective, will create problems for future efficacy studies. Such studies will need to include a self-selected, non-immunised and potentially biased control group, in order to provide an estimate of absolute vaccine efficacy. Further, analyses of the data from existing placebo-controlled studies, with the aim of determining characteristics of participants and their environment which affect vaccine efficacy, will permit future studies to improve these estimates of absolute efficacy by adjusting for such factors.

Finally, the lack of a laboratory correlate of efficacy means that the testing of new acellular pertussis vaccines currently requires prolonged and expensive clinical trials. Research into determining such a laboratory correlate should be a priority.”

In 2015, Demicheli, Barale, & Rivetti evaluated the studies on effects of TDaP vaccines in pregnant women concluding, “For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.” They went on to elaborate on two chosen trials and said:

“One study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with influenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths.

Another study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses.”

These two studies qualified to be evaluated, and both studies do not have true saline-placebo controls as the ‘placebo arm’ was administered a vaccine including adjuvanted components.



In 2012, review by Moberley, Holden, Tatham, & Andrews on a Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine (PPV) they report:

“PPV was not associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 69%). Vaccine efficacy against primary outcomes appeared poorer in adults with chronic illness. Non-RCTs provided evidence for protection against IPD in populations for whom the vaccine is currently utilised (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 31%). This review did not consider adverse events as it was outside the scope of the review.”

In a 2015 review of evidence for the use of pneumococcal vaccines in pregnancy, Chaithongwongwatthana, Yamasmit, Limpongsanurak, Lumbiganon, & Tolosa reports:

“The overall quality of evidence is low for primary outcomes. Most outcomes had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and most of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events which led to downgrading evidence for imprecision of findings.

There is insufficient evidence to assess whether pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy could reduce infant infections.”



In the 2010 review by Soares-Weiser, Goldberg, Tamimi, Leibovici, & Pitan on rotavirus in preventing diarrhea, the study reported:

“Evidence about safety, and about mortality or prevention of severe outcomes, is scarce and inconclusive… Rotavirus vaccines can prevent diarrhoea caused by rotavirus, but we are still not clear about safety and whether they prevent deaths.”

Because the vaccine evaluated in the above study was taken off the market due to intussusception, there was an updated review conducted in 2012. Soares-Weiser, MacLehose, Bergman, Ben-Aharon, Nagpal, Goldberg, Pitan, & Cunliffe conclude:

“Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination.

The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Of the 41 RCTs analysed in this review, 25 (61%) reported an adequate generation of allocation sequence, while the method of assignment was unclear in the remaining studies. The methods used to conceal allocation were considered adequate in 19 trials (46%), and unclear in the remaining studies.

Incomplete outcome data was adequately addressed in 28 studies (68%), unclear in 12 studies, and was not addressed adequately in one study. Sixteen trials were free from selective reporting bias, eight were not, and the remaining trials were unclear. Most trials were sponsored by the industry and it was not possible to assess if they were free of other biases; two recent trials performed in Africa were considered free from other biases.”



In 2018, Jefferson, Rivetti, Di Pietrantonj, and Demicheli reported in an influenza vaccine study in healthy children that, “Only a few studies were well designed and conducted, and the impact of studies at high risk of bias varied across the outcomes evaluated.”

The 2018 study on influenza vaccination in adults conducted by Demicheli, Jefferson, Ferroni, Rivetti, & Di Pietrantonj, they report:

“We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).”

In the 2018 study performed by Demicheli, Jefferson, Di Pietrantonj, Ferroni, Thorning, Thomas, & Rivetti regarding influenza vaccination in older adults, they concluded:

“The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.”


There you have it! Of the available studies about vaccines, this is the available analysis…

  • Lack of
  • Limited by bias
  • Low-quality
  • Low-certainty
  • Uncertain
  • High-risk of bias
  • Inconclusive
  • Insufficient

Don’t believe me? Go have a look for yourself. These evaluations were made by medical doctors of an independent, non-profit organization that are free from conflicts of interest. This demonstrates that there is no evidence of safety, nor efficacy, of these vaccines. Further, evaluating the use of several vaccines at the same time is absent from the literature. We need to create an independent council that can evaluate the overall safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. We also need the ability to evaluate vaccines for all ages, as mandatory vaccine laws are entertained in legislative houses today.

The good news is that the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group has proposed a systematic review on the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines this year (2019). This is going to be a monumental study that has implications for the entire vaccine schedule as most vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants. I eagerly await the results.

HEAR THIS WELL: Your rights to medical freedom and informed consent are being threatened TODAY. These are current vaccinations that are being tested.

Vaccine Trial Tracker

Maybe you don’t care about the childhood vaccine schedule. Maybe you don’t have children and never plan to do so. Maybe you believe in your heart of hearts that vaccines are for the greater good. That is fine. That is YOUR choice (for now). However, if a mandatory vaccination law is passed, there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines that are authorized to be injected into YOU, an adult.

What happens if it is no longer your choice? What happens when Stage 4 of the clinical trial (use in populations and post-marketing studies) determines that a new vaccine causes harm and you did not have a choice? Well, by that point it does not matter. You have NO CONTROL over your health. You have NO CONTROL over what goes into your body at the discretion of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Then what? Public health officials can essentially go door-to-door to mass vaccinate communities. Is this what you want? Because if you do not stand up now, this is what you will get. It has been done before and it can be done again.

Your voice must be heard. Informed consent must be protected. A law mandating a medical intervention eliminates informed consent, as you no longer have the choice and therefore do not need to know the risks. Last year (2018), HEPLISAV-B was approved for the adult vaccination schedule. Just look up ACIP vote last year on this issue and how exactly they voted this vaccine through, here is one link. Certainly, that brings you to pause. Still feel like lining up for the future HIV vaccine?

Above all, we need to focus on safety. Even if you are a proponent for mandatory vaccines, you should be able to prove their safety and efficacy. You should be 100% confident in what an unbiased safety council will find when evaluating these biologics. So why not prove it? This easily accessed petition will help squander this debate.

You can find state-specific information on vaccine laws here. But in the meantime, #IDoNotConsent. A society that touts personal liberty should be free from coercion. Informed consent, body autonomy, individualized care, and evidence-based practice are cornerstones to today’s medical practice; without these things, we can expect higher profits for pharmaceutical/medical technology and insurance companies, higher risks, and worsening health outcomes. Stand up for yourself (and future generations), before you’re forced to sit down and blindly accept medical interventions.

Shalom, Light, and Love.


Sites To Consider:

Eke, A. C., Eleje G.U., Eke, U.A., Xia Y., & Liu J. (2017). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Bar-On, E. S., Goldberg, E., Hellman, S., & Leibovici, L. (2012). Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).

Chaithongwongwatthana, S., Yamasmit, W., Limpongsanurak, S., Lumbiganon, P., Tolosa, J. E. (2015). Pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy for preventing infant infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Demicheli, V., Barale, A., & Rivetti, A. (2015). Vaccines for women for preventing neonatal tetanus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Ferroni, E., Rivetti, A., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Di Pietrantonj, C., Ferroni, E., Thorning, S., Thomas, R. E., & Rivetti, A. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., Di Pietrantonj, C., & Demicheli, V. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Mathew, J. L., El Dib, R., Mathew, P.J., Boxall, E.H., & Brok, J. (2009). Hepatitis B immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B or with unknown exposure status. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Moberley, S., Holden, J., Tatham, D. P., Andrews, R.M. (2012). Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Soares-Weiser, K., Goldberg, E., Tamimi, G., Leibovici, L., & Pitan, F. (2010). Rotavirus vaccine for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Soares-Weiser, K., MacLehose, H., Bergman, H., Ben-Aharon, I., Nagpal, S., Goldberg, E., Pitan, F., & Cunliffe, N. (2012). Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).

Zhang, L., Prietsch, S. O. M., Axelsson, I., & Halperin, S. A. (2014). Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Measles Epidemic: This is what the numbers say

With the recent media-driven hysteria over measles, I’ve been asked by friends, co-workers, and family if I was concerned since I am an ex-vaxxer and have likely not vaccinated my littles with MMRV.

Concerned about the measles that lurks in our population? No.
Concerned about my children getting measles? No.
Concerned about how people lack the capacity to research the actual incidence of measles as related to the population density of children? Yes.
Concerned about people regurgitating the propaganda and bashing parental choice? Yes.

Why am I not concerned about the first two? You will have to see my former post here: Your Herd Immunity is a Myth

As for the rest… we have given mainstream media too much credit in our country. Let us look at the numbers. According to the U. S. Census Bureau in 2017, we estimated the total population at 325,719,178. Of this population, 23% were under the age of 18 years; this gives us roughly 39,086,301 children in the U. S. under age 18.

If I take a gross overview of the incidence of measles in the United States over the last ten years (Because that data is readily available to me. Thank you, CDC! See table.) That gives us 2,059 cases of measles across EVERY age group for ten years.


If I were to apply this number to our current population of children alone, that is an incidence of 0.0000527% of those aged <18. A minuscule percentage, even when I apply the total number over the course of a decade to the population of today. Of course, this is an innacurrate calculation as population fluctuates.

If I were to apply the recent numbers (2018 to currently) for a rate of 473 cases… that is 0.0000121% of the entire population of children alone. The incidence of measles is 1.2 in every 100,000 children! That is also known as a 12 IN A MILLION chance that your child got measles last year. What?! Why is this mainstream news?!

UPDATE: number exaggerated by CDC on actual incidence of measles-related deaths, [see image below].;theater
PIC Measles Memorandum to Senate

Do you want to know what is more critical than measles? The rate of disease in our youth that is 100% preventable by diet and lifestyle choices. The World Health Organization reports that 71% of deaths are caused by NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES worldwide! Measles is communicable. The top two killers are coronary artery disease (heart disease) and stroke; the top two in the U. S. are heart disease and cancer. (I am not going to touch cancer or autoimmune diseases right now, because that could be a blog series of its own.)

The U. S. has a population that touts 1 in 3 obese children. This incidence is tangible. This risk factor leads to early-onset diabetes and hypertension which contribute to coronary artery disease, the leading cause of death! So why aren’t we talking about the unhealthy foods marketed to our children, given to them in school, and promoted by mainstream media and big business? Because: MONEY. These things are lucrative.

There is no profit in growing your GMO-free, water and sunshine fed produce in your backyard and certainly no money in a healthy child. However, there is a lot of money in autoimmune disorders, chronic disease, and frequenting the pediatrician and the plethora of specialists we have created in the medical community for all of your sickcare needs.

Let us look at the numbers again. According to the Diabetes Report Card of 2017, in 2015 there were 193,000 new diagnoses of diabetes in those <20 years old. In one year, 0.005% of children were newly diagnosed with diabetes, not including those already diagnosed; 5 in 1,000 children were diagnosed with diabetes. They also report a 6.6% annual increase of diabetes among those <20 years of age. Diabetes is a risk factor for chronic conditions including… You guessed it! CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE.

According to the CDC, there are 1.3 million children aged 12-19 diagnosed with hypertension. For every 100 children, 3 will be diagnosed with hypertension using the CDC data. Read that again. Hypertension is also a major risk factor for that leading killer!

The U.S. spends almost $10,000 per capita in “health” care. This is double the second-highest spender, Canada. Compared to Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom we rank DEAD LAST in health outcomes. How embarrassing.

While the mainstream media is attacking parental choice and pushing government mandates, we must remind ourselves that our government does not have a track record for success in health matters, but sure spends a lot of money in the meantime. With poor health trends mimicked in our children, it is time that parents take responsibility for the health of their littles… It is time that we question mainstream practices and consult the evidence.  It is time we stand up, recognize what matters most, and identify the histerics.



Informed parents are not concerned about measles. Informed parents are not mainstream. Informed parents are often ridiculed by powerful entities. Do not be mistaken. We are educated, vigilant, and fiercly protective of our own. Ball is in your court.

Shalom, light, and love.


Sites to Consider: