Pythagorus, living in the 6th century BCE, believed that the universe was built upon numbers. Everything had a number. Not just any numbers, but the only kind he knew at the time, the whole numbers. These numbers are the kind that we know, that we deal with every day: 1, 2, 3… 10,000, and so on. Pythagorus didn’t just think lengths, widths, and things had a number. He also believed that order (4), marriage (5), perfection (10), and everything else had a corresponding number that represented its metaphysical
Any number, he vehemently believed, could be expressed as a ratio of two different numbers, every single one of them.
Then someone pointed out to him a unit square:
If a unit square – where each side is equal to 1 – is bisected with a horizontal line (in this illustration running from 0 to B), the length of that diagonal is the square root of 2. If you lay it down onto the X axis, shown above as hitting the letter P, something peculiar happens, something not simply disconcerting to Pythagorus, but revolutionary.
The length of the line from 0 to P cannot be precisely defined. Written out, it has a decimal expansion that goes on forever: 1.4142356… No matter how closely you zoom in on P, you will never find its exact value.
That may seem yawn to you, but Pythagorus found it to be not only an insult, but a demolition of his entire worldview and that of all his multitude of followers. Why? Because that meant that the length of P was not a whole number and could not be expressed as the ratio of two other whole numbers. The entire edifice of the universe built on those numbers came tumbling down.
As lore has it, when Pythagorus was told about this heresy he was outraged. In a classic example of killing the messenger, the young Greek who brought him the news was promptly taken out to sea and cast overboard.
Science has changed dramatically since that time, and yet not all that much.
——————–
In early 2020, when talk about mRNA vaccines for Covid-19 first started circulating, I had serious doubts about their safety and their potential to act as effective vaccinations. Now we know that they are not, in fact, vaccinations (i.e. they do not prevent infection or transmission), but are, at best, treatment (i.e. they reduce the severity of the disease).
I and my colleague Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT co-authored the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed paper documenting these concerns while making some ominous predictions about a wide range of health problems the shots could bring about.
Since that time my understanding of the very serious risks these shots pose has deepened considerably. Every single “possible unintended consequence” of the shot that was predicted in that paper has come to be, plus many we didn’t foresee at the time of that first publication. It was written prior to the shots being available (though not published until after the shots were implemented). Stephanie and I were not looking into a crystal ball to make our predictions. It was all there in the publicly-available scientific literature.
I have continued to publish about this because it is imperative that the public understand these risks. This information should be part of informed consent, given prior to any injection.
The shots have the potential to suppress immunity and enhance cancer progression:
The shots have the potential to cause neurological diseases, including prion-associated disease similar to mad cow disease.
The shots have the potential to induce autoimmune diseases.
The shots have the potential to cause the mRNA to get integrated into the DNA of those receiving them, potentially even being passed along to future generations:
Do the shots actually increase the risk of these things? It is too bad our health agencies seem uninterested in analyzing the data they have at their disposal to answer these questions. In fact, they have actively stifled those investigations.
——————–
We would like to think that the days of Pythagorus and his harsh retribution for an unwelcome scientific finding are over, that no one is getting thrown overboard for bearing bad news. Unfortunately, in the age of Covid-19, that is not the case. I have experienced first hand multiple examples of academic censorship, overt attempts to keep this information from reaching the public. I’ve witnessed colleagues getting thrown overboard by both academia and the health care system. I have personally been investigated by my state licensing board for merely summarizing the findings of a study, published in a prominent medical journal, which showed that cloth masks produce significantly more exhaled particulates into the surrounding air than no mask at all.
Given what I’ve experienced and what I’ve learned regarding the mRNA shots, what would I advise?
My first line of advice is that you never receive any injection that involves mRNA, be it a Covid-19-associated injection nor any other of the dozens they have in the developmental pipeline for the near future. If you have already gotten one, I believe – but cannot know for sure – that there are ways to detoxify the components of that injection, which include both genetically modified mRNA and lipid nanoparticles. Both components carry a broad set of risks, and both have been shown to distribute around the body, landing in multiple organs and potentially persisting for years following injection.
Over the past 4 years I have been co-author on about a dozen papers elucidating multiple aspects of the Covid-19 mRNA injections and their implications for health. If you have specific questions or concerns you would like me to address in future newsletters please submit them here and I’ll do my best to cover them all.
If you would like to get started with some nutrients and home therapies I think can mitigate the negative impact of the shots, set up a consultation with me at https://gregnigh.com. Keep in mind that I cannot make treatment recommendations during a free consultation.
