In this newsletter:

• Fall Workshop November 7-10.
• Weird things in the Blood
• Biomedx AI Project
• The Genesis of Turbo Cancers
• Sterilizing vs. Non-sterilizing Vaccines
• Court Cases You Need to Know
• VIP Online Sessions

A fall Microscope and Health Foundations Workshop has been set for November 7-10.

The summer class was wildly successful and as always, a lot of ground was covered and new things were learned by everyone, including me.

One of the great things about doing live workshops is the group sharing and camaraderie, and of course all the fun we have using tools to look at blood, urine and saliva in unconventional ways challenging us to always look anew at what health is and what health does.

Hope you can join us in November for this last workshop that is on the calendar. There is a short registration window so if you want to come, hop to it.

More Info and Register Here!

Weird Things in the Blood

I’ve been asked more than once, ‘what is this crazy stuff we are seeing in the blood these days?’

Most in this field are aware of people in the online world talking about hydrogels, graphene, nano-bots, self-assembling polymers, circuit board patterns, etc. that are making an appearance in blood.  

In some respects, some of the items being discussed have been seen in blood for years, well before the latest mRNA experimentation began on people.

Geoengineering aerial spraying – the better living through chemistry jet vapor clouds appearing in the skies overhead - has been exposing all of us to weird chemistry for quite a while now.

But since the covid event was unleashed, it is being acknowledged by many who have been observing blood for years that today blood is starting to show some unusual things.  

Precise discernment of some of that morphology becomes difficult when only a qualitative microscopic image is present. Yet, if you're looking at blood,

 You do want the best microscope for the job.

With the flip of a wheel, our microscopes can show these elements in bright field, dark field, plus phase and modulation contrast both. Easy peasy. (If you haven't seen these beautiful microscopes, visit our microscope page online!)

All these lighting modes are needed for the greatest morphological discernment.

For example, you need modulation contrast to give you a 3D view to discern tube like structures where you might see tubes inside of tubes in some blood elements.

Upon seeing this, you might say to yourself, “ah ha, this is not a digitally programmed graphene oxide liquid crystalline hybrid hydrogel that has formed through sheared blood micro-lithography. No. It’s probably just a remnant of a Bong Han vessel!”

You might laugh, but both are real possibilities, and for it all, we do need discernment as looks can be deceiving.

That said, further inferences to what we are seeing can begin to be made if one digs into the research and experimentation that has been going on in corporate and academic labs doing the latest in biological experimentation.  

With voluminous levels of research both public and private covering all manner of materials science applications in biological technology, synthesizing it all is quite the task.

To help in that endeavor,

Biomedx has begun an AI project.

And just to clarify, AI, or artificial intelligence, is not intelligence at all. You can only get out of an AI engine what it has been trained upon. Today many AI models are being trained by corporatists with strong left-leaning mindsets who have no qualms about engaging in censorship.

That is a one reason to build our own engine. Plus the core content of what we’ve been teaching for years is unlikely to ever be included in any mainstream AI.

We also have a research associate who has spent untold thousands of hours assimilating and accumulating vast amounts of research data and microscopic imaging of the “weird things in the blood,” a good bit of which is way beyond the discussions occurring on various Substack and Rumble feeds.   

As aspects of this project are fleshed out, my intent is to get it onto our EDU online platform for members to access and contribute. I think it will prove to be a very exciting project.

One thing for sure, assimilating the disparate pieces of research begins to put a picture in place that frankly, puts one into a world of seeming science fiction. It beckons one’s reason and begs the question,

What are these people thinking?

Without getting too far out there, just look at the chemistry aspect and what was done with experimental mRNA technology.

One component of RNA is an amino acid, uridine. When covid shots were put together, it was discovered that the mRNA material with uridine was quickly identified by the body’s immune system as not-self, and it was destroyed.

To get around this, uridine was substituted out for a synthetic pseudo-uridine (N1-methyl-pseudouridine), and while the cell sees it as uridine for transcription purposes, being inert, the immune systems is incapable of destroying it.

This pseudo-uridine was chosen specifically for this reason so the immune system would be incapable of tagging it and taking it out. If it did, the mRNA material would never get delivered into the cells in sufficient quantity to produce enough spike protein to elicit a response.

Karl Denninger at Market-Ticker had an interesting post on this (since deleted) and related it to asbestos.

Asbestos was thought to be a great thing when it was discovered.  It did not burn, evaporate, dissolve or undergo material chemical reactions with nearly anything. Problem was, if it got into you, it turned out to be not so great. And you could never get rid of it.

Because asbestos is chemically inert, the immune system cannot destroy it. Seeing it as non-self but continually trying to destroy it and failing in the process, it sets up continual inflammation while sidetracking the immune system. While inflammation and a weakened immune system does not cause cancer, it does promote it.

There was a paper written about this, “Review: N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ): Friend or foe of cancer?”

When that came out the mis-information press was out in front stating how this does not cause cancer. This is true because inert things cannot cause cancer. But they neglected to say how it can promote cancer.

One doesn’t need to wonder where today’s turbo cancers are coming from as the answer lies in what they did. And what they did they injected into people.

So What Do We Do About It?

First, core principles of health need to be ever kept in mind when addressing these issues, like

1) blood is a colloidal suspension under the control of Zeta Potential,

2) a toxin in the body is anything with which the body does not have an inherently high enough zeta potential to either overcome or utilize,

3) the positive charge characteristics of toxic elements need appropriate dissolution with anionic surfactant therapies and the negative charge characteristics of blood proteins, like albumin, is the body’s first line of defense against toxic assaults,

4) when toxic assaults take place and the immune system engages, the bodies lipid defense mechanism can engage as well and what you see in the blood picture can be the result of this engagement.

What was just said embraces the work of old dead guys who contributed mightily to our knowledge of physiology, in this case, that would be Thomas Riddick and Emanuel Revici.

While their brilliant contributions are nowhere to be found or taught in traditional health academia, it is core to our workshops and is now elemental information for training our own AI engine.

To say anymore would take more than I can write at this time, but regarding what do we do about this situation,

This needs to be said:

Never volunteer to have any mRNA pharma concoction injected into you, ever.

Ditto other related things they might cook up in a lab with intent to inject.

And with that, I will segue to a very important topic, the issue of

Sterilizing vs Non-sterilizing Vaccines and

Court Decisions You Need to Know

Before the government health services changed the definition of vaccine in support their corporate pharmaceutical brethren, a vaccine was a substance that would give one lasting and durable immunity from a disease and thereafter one could not transmit the disease. If such is the case, the vaccine is sterilizing.

If a vaccine does not do this, it is classified as non-sterilizing. As such, it should not even be called a vaccine but they still use that word.

Along the way in vaccine development, processes were altered for various reasons, and non-sterilizing vaccines entered the market. DTaP is one example of a non-sterilizing vaccine that replaced the DTP sterilizing version.

What are common non-sterilizing vaccines?

DTaP as mentioned, plus all your flu, Hep-B, RSV, rotavirus, varicella, meningococcal shots and so on.

So in reality, based on the older, more proper definition of a vaccine, these are vaccines in name only for marketing purposes and it gets them onto the 'standard of care' agenda of our corrupt medical system.

But what has the highest court in our land said about vaccines and medical treatments?

Well, back in 1905, (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11), the court held that in relationship to the smallpox vaccine, which is sterilizing and once received, one could neither acquire nor transmit infection, that despite a person refusing to take the vaccine, they could be fined if they refused.

That was it. Fined. Not jailed. Not confined to their home. Not masked in public. Not prevented from shopping. Not deprived of work or worship. Just an assessment of a one-time non-confiscatory fine. 

In 1997 (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702) the court held that the “right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment” was “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” in light of “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.”        

These cases were brought to light by a recent lawsuit where the Los Angeles United School District attempted to mandate the covid shot. (Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Alberto Carvalho, 22-55908)

Plaintiff argued that the FDA, CDC and others perverted the long-standing definition of vaccine when back in September 2021 they struck the word immunity from their definition and made statements that the (covid) vaccine does not prevent transmission.

Bingo. On appeal the court brought up the prior cases and those Supreme Court cases are clear.

Taking any form of medical treatment is a personal choice. Vaccine or otherwise. To be forced, is to be battered. And that is a crime.

This is big. These cases should be stuck up the nose of anyone that wants to batter you with any form of medical treatment you do not approve.

That’s enough for now.

Please make some time and join us in November. We're going to learn a lot and have fun doing it.

Steve

1-206-577-0037

Oh, forgot, I am working on a streaming event schedule to go deeper into these and other topics. Dates will post on the events tab at biomedx.com and the event links will be found on your streaming tab at edu.biomedx.com if you’ve got access to that. And if you don’t, what are you waiting for? Go there and get involved.