Healthy & Awake @healthyandawake@dev.brighteon.social

It seems that with some issues, there is an effort to prevent us from critically thinking. Pejorative terms like "conspiracy theorist" are used for those who challenge the status quo. You're told that you have to sacrifice certain liberties for the greater good and that you're a bad person if you question that. You're told to trust the science. And if you start asking too many questions or the wrong questions, people get upset. For me, those are red flags that warrant further scrutiny. Maybe I have contrarian tendencies, so when someone tells me not to do something, I want to do it. But it's also more than that; it's a healthy suspicion and skepticism.

It seems unusual that asking questions is discouraged, especially in matters involving my own health or certain freedoms I've always had. In today's day and age, it takes strength to continue to ask questions and challenge the status quo, and I celebrate those who do. Strength and a healthy sense of skepticism are crucial for protecting your health.

Have you noticed this sort of effort, or do you think I'm engaging in the types of conspiracy theories I'm referring to? What do you have a healthy sense of skepticism towards, and where do you feel more questions should be asked?

If you want to work with a Board Certified Health Coach who isn't afraid to ask questions and challenge the status quo, start your first session for just $1 today. Head over to our website to sign up, and check out our testimonials.

The way I see it, there are pretty much two schools of thought when it comes to food-like products such as margarine. The first group focuses primarily on calories. They've read articles and maybe some research that suggests these products are somewhat healthy or, at the very least, not harmful. They're comfortable with consuming processed foods as long as there's some scientific backing, though the reasoning can vary in its validity.

The second group, on the other hand, believes that the natural body shouldn't consume unnatural products. For them, calories are less important than the quality of the food. They are skeptical of food companies and even scientists, who sometimes have a history of being influenced by these companies. This group prefers real food, whether they're vegans, carnivores, or followers of keto and paleo diets. They see the value in eating food in its natural state.

While I think studies and science are important, I also believe that personal values and feeling good are crucial. I've seen people thrive on diets focused on real food, regardless of whether they're vegan or carnivore. There's hardly any strong argument against the idea of eating real food.

Apparently, I am a right-wing jerk! I couldn't help but laugh at this latest headline opinion piece from The Guardian. This isn't the first time I've seen a headline equating fitness and a healthy lifestyle with being right-wing. It seems baseless, possibly because the author dislikes people on the right or those who are healthy.

To be clear, I don't align myself with the right or the left. I have a variety of views, but one thing's for sure: I am a fit person. It's unfortunate to see headlines demonizing a healthy lifestyle by associating it with a political agenda. There's nothing wrong with being fit or healthy, and it certainly doesn't turn you into a right-wing jerk. As a personal trainer and health coach who has worked with hundreds of people, I can confidently say the biggest side effect of a healthy lifestyle is feeling good.

It's important to laugh at this type of propaganda and dismiss it for what it is. It seems there's an attempt to demonize the healthy lifestyle because the term "right-wing" has become a boogeyman. Some commenters on my posts mention right-wing propaganda, and while that exists, so does left-wing propaganda, though it often goes unmentioned.

So, what's the counter to this article? Maybe something as ridiculous as "being a lazy, unhealthy, junk-food-eating non-exerciser makes you a left-wing jerk." It's as nonsensical as the headline I'm addressing. There are plenty of people with different political views who live healthy lifestyles.

Let's not kid ourselves: indoctrination is a big part of what comes out of the education system. This isn't by accident; it's by design. Even John D. Rockefeller, who had a substantial role in developing the public education system, said, "I want a nation of workers, not a nation of thinkers."

My own experience was mostly about listening to the teacher and following the textbook. Critical thinking was rarely discussed. It felt like they didn't want us to think critically; they just wanted us to listen to authority and follow orders. Nowadays, you see ideologies being brought into classrooms, with certain flags and agendas being pushed. I've heard complaints from teachers fed up with these ideologies. Further, student performance on a global scale is dropping for US students.

It's worth scrutinizing our education system, not only because of the ideologies or declining performance, but because it's the perfect environment for indoctrination. A government-run system will push government values, praising and celebrating authority when they are the authority.

Let me be clear: I highly value education. I've gone through a lot of it myself, and I think it's incredibly important. But when we relinquish influence over our children to an authoritarian government, it should be no surprise when they come home with ideologies and a lack of critical thinking.

An NPC, or non-playable character, is a term from video games referring to characters who lack personality and simply repeat programmed lines. This concept can be applied to real life, describing people who seem to lack critical thinking and individuality.

I believe this is a real phenomenon, and that's why I'm bringing it up. I treat people with respect, and I'm not saying this to insult anyone. However, I think it's worth calling out because almost anyone could be susceptible to this. This phenomenon, driven by something known as deindividuation, occurs when people shift from individual thought to a collective mentality. It makes us vulnerable to manipulation because we become more reactive and susceptible to external influences.

One significant factor contributing to this mentality is our digital environments. Spending extensive time on the internet can make it easier for us to fall into groups or movements, often without realizing it. It functions essentially like hypnosis. This is evident in the prevalence of groupthink showcased on social media and in public.

I'm not suggesting you should disavow all groups or communities, but it's crucial to maintain our sense of identity in a world that often tries to take it away. We don't want to become NPCs.

One of the biggest failures of the mainstream media is manipulation by omission—not reporting on big stories. One recent example is the lawsuit against Pfizer by multiple states for fraud. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone paying attention. Many, including myself, have been warning about this from day one. Let's not forget Pfizer has one of the largest criminal fines of any business.

They're accused of misleading the public, among other things. I encourage people to check out the story for themselves, wherever they can find it—certainly not from the mainstream media. It’s crucial to stay informed, but if you only trust the mainstream media, you're likely misinformed or uninformed. This omission shapes perceptions and conversations, drastically altering public discourse.

You have to wonder why the media covers for these large companies. Just think logically: pharmaceutical companies spend millions on ads with these media organizations. A pharmaceutical insider recently claimed that the reason for these massive ad spends isn’t just to persuade the public to buy their products, but to ensure favorable media coverage. It's essentially buying them off.

I'm sure that our nation's intelligence agencies do some important work. I know people who want to do the right thing, and I believe most people, even within these organizations, have good intentions. However, it should be obvious that information is sometimes hidden from us for reasons not necessarily related to protecting national security. This is often the justification given, even if it's not always true. Information can be concealed to protect their power or other interests, even when the public has a right to know.

It's important to call attention to this because these intelligence agencies hold a lot of power and have a history of suspicious behavior. We should be very wary of what these agencies tell us and offer as much scrutiny as possible to any organization with the ability to operate in secrecy and influence us in ways we might not be aware of, including covert operations on the public.

If you want to work with a health coach who is "awake" and values truth and integrity, click the link in my profile to learn more about Avantia Health Optimization. Your first session is just $1, and you can check out our testimonials to see how we've helped others achieve their health goals.

Artificial Intelligence is exploding in terms of capability, and it boggles my mind when I hear that someone hasn't used it at all or has no interest in trying it. I understand some of the hesitation—the biggest concern I hear is that AI will make people lazier by replacing their thinking. But that’s the wrong way to look at it. AI is merely a tool, and its impact depends on how it’s used. You can’t fault the tool for anti-intellectual behavior from humans. If someone wants to use AI to make themselves smarter, there are ways to do that. AI can also make tasks more efficient, quicker, and even more accurate. Even if the technology isn't 100% there yet for certain tasks, it absolutely will be.

One ethical question that comes to mind is if an AI tool can diagnose patients 1,000 times faster than a human doctor, isn’t there an ethical obligation to use it if it has the potential to help more people more quickly? That seems to me to be a net positive for society. However, I also understand the potential for misuse and abuse, especially since these tools are currently in the hands of tech giants who don’t care much about your privacy or well-being.

Since AI isn’t going away anytime soon, it’s advisable to get some familiarity with it. Soon, it will be inescapable, as it’s already integrated into our phones, computers, and various software. But these are just my opinions. What are your thoughts on the developments in AI? Have you used it at all?

You have to wonder how many decisions made by the FDA are influenced by outside pressures. I’m not suggesting you drink raw milk; I understand some arguments against it. But I know people who drink raw milk without issues. Many approved foods, like Fruity Pebbles syrup, contribute to diabetes and other issues associated with high sugar consumption. The FDA also allows energy drinks, which have sent kids to the hospital, and medications that are often pulled from the market due to discovered harms. With such inconsistencies, it’s clear that their decisions are not always about our protection.

When it comes to your health, be sure to stay informed and do your own research. Read studies, seek multiple sources, and don't rely solely on institutional advice. Empower yourself with knowledge to make better health choices and maintain a healthy skepticism—not just towards FDA decisions, but also towards labels that claim something is good for your health or natural. Be skeptical of companies making bold claims or using clever marketing tricks to sell their products. Many of these companies are multibillion-dollar conglomerates whose primary interest is profit, often at the expense of your health.

Also, prioritize whole, unprocessed foods. Foods that are minimally processed and free from additives are generally healthier and less likely to be influenced by external pressures.

Trust is something that should be earned. The story in this image highlights the corruption of some giant pharmaceutical organizations. A few years ago, it seemed like everyone wanted to believe these companies had good intentions, but history proves otherwise. Many of these companies have caused serious harm with their products, leading to numerous lawsuits. In some instances, there's evidence showing they knew about the harms even as they continued to market the drugs. An example is Bayer, which knowingly distributed HIV-contaminated drugs to third-world countries.

These companies often seem ruthless, caring more about their bottom line than about your health or delivering on their promises. Part of their business model likely takes into account these huge fines, which pale in comparison to the billions of dollars they make in profit. It’s crucial, when it comes to your health, to be highly skeptical of companies offering products that could have dramatic impacts on your well-being.

This is about more than just the companies; it's about your discernment. Only you can look out for your health in the most serious way because nobody else will prioritize your health as you should. You make decisions that affect your health—what food you eat, what pharmaceuticals you take or avoid, and when to exercise. The worst thing you can do for your health is to outsource those decisions, especially to a nameless, faceless multibillion-dollar company.

Let's talk about something called fifth generation warfare (5GW). Historically, warfare involved guns and tanks. While that still happens, today we are in a 5GW landscape, which uses cognitive attacks that can affect anyone, including you and me. Cognitive warfare is a core component of 5GW.

This might seem dismissible or irrelevant. When people think of warfare, they often think, "This isn't affecting me." But it absolutely is. This can happen through social media, our phones, TV, and other propaganda methods. Just like in traditional warfare, if we want to get through it intact, we need to defend ourselves.

The first step is awareness. Understand the landscape and realize that there are efforts from governments, NGOs, and other institutions to influence the way you think. This is happening all the time, even if you don’t recognize it. Multiple times a day, you are subjected to these influences.

Being aware of your environment and these efforts better positions you to defend yourself and act in your own best interest. These campaigns are subtle, making ideas feel like they originated from you. Propaganda is one of the most powerful weapons ever, and with social media and new AI technology, it is more pernicious than ever.

So, my questions for you are: Have you noticed any examples of influence campaigns or 5GW efforts? How do you defend yourself from these efforts? Is this something you’ve heard about before, or is this the first time?

Someone pointed out that some of my posts have a political nature, which might seem off-topic since I'm a health coach. I get that. But today, politics permeates almost every aspect of society—from music and TV shows to news channels, each with their spin.

The pandemic especially politicized health. This shift is partly due to perceived encroachment by politically affiliated organizations and government institutions on individual health decisions. I personally stand against this encroachment. The phrase "the greater good" is often used to justify limiting personal freedom for collective comfort, but I believe this is incompatible with true freedom. These arguments are presented as infallible because the consequences, if correct, are serious.

What bothers me is the dismissal of opposing views, which can be equally dire. If we all sacrifice some freedom for an idealistic vision, we risk significant influence from government and non-governmental institutions over our decisions. History shows that such encroachments can lead to more egregious actions, and it's reasonable to suspect this could happen again.

The crux of the disagreement often lies in trust: some people trust our systems and authority figures, while others do not. Both perspectives are valid. Personally, I believe the best approach is to leave everyone alone and avoid encroachment. However, I remain open-minded and respectful of differing opinions.

I find it peculiar that some medical professionals haven't changed their views on these novel medical products one bit, even as new evidence emerges. This rigidity reminds me of past medical catastrophes like thalidomide and Vioxx. As these disasters unfolded, many doctors and pharmacists defended these harmful drugs until the last minute, despite growing evidence of harm.

This isn't about agreeing with my perspective; it's about the essence of science, which is open-mindedness and adaptability. In the face of new evidence, we must be willing to reconsider our positions. It's concerning when professionals are so fixed in their thinking that they cannot acknowledge potential mistakes.

Trusting your doctor is important, but make sure they have earned that trust by demonstrating a willingness to stay updated and consider new information. Blind trust can be dangerous, as history has shown us.

I've had the privilege of speaking with some excellent doctors on the Healthy & Awake Podcast. Even among them, there are varying opinions, but what they all share is an open mind and adaptable thinking. These are the qualities that make a healthcare provider truly trustworthy.

What experiences have you had with medical professionals who were rigid in their views? How do you ensure that your healthcare providers are trustworthy and open-minded?

Science isn't the same thing as "the truth." Science helps construct arguments, and some arguments are better than others. You might have one strong scientific argument that contradicts another equally strong scientific argument. This is why you see a lot of contentious debate on hot topics, such as COVID-related issues.

Often, the well-educated side is presented with a strong scientific argument and they take it and run with it. However, due to heuristics, biases, and cognitive dissonance, it can be tough for people to change their minds, even when they might be wrong. This is why understanding the scientific process is crucial, but it's also important to realize that a scientific conclusion is not infallible truth. It's just a conclusion based on a series of studies, which can be flawed or manipulated, especially when industries like pharmaceuticals get involved. They can manufacture studies, consensus, and the appearance of certain conclusions.

Therefore, an argument based on science means very little to me when it disregards other opposing scientific arguments. This becomes even more problematic when presented by people who appear dogmatic and possess a religious fervor for their position.

Given this complexity, how do you reach your own conclusions? How do you parse scientific data? If you don't do it yourself, who do you trust to help you interpret the data?

The FDA has a history of allowing drugs to enter the market after minimal testing, often manipulated with statistical trickery. Nearly one out of every three drugs approved by the FDA has a new safety issue detected following approval, according to a Yale-led study (2017). This highlights an inherent flaw within the system. Notable examples include Vioxx and thalidomide.

Today, many argue that a similar situation is unfolding with the novel products from companies like Pfizer and Moderna. There have been clear instances of serious harm, leading to withdrawals from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Yet, some still adamantly defend these products, seemingly ignoring the reasonable concerns raised by studies and credible medical professionals.

This fervent defense may stem from cognitive dissonance, embarrassment over initial recommendations, simple ignorance, or some other reason. However, questioning these products is not unreasonable, especially as more evidence of harm continues to emerge. The system appears inherently broken, routinely putting out drugs that are eventually withdrawn, casting doubt on the initial claims of safety and effectiveness.

I'm not here to tell anyone what to take or avoid, but I firmly believe these products should be questioned. Given the evidence, it’s difficult to trust that they are as safe and effective as initially claimed. But hey, I am not a medical doctor— These are just my thoughts.

Don't think for one second that marketing executives aren't interested in implementing cult-like tactics. The goals of a cult leader and a marketer are strikingly similar—both seek to influence behavior and build a loyal following. These tactics exploit vulnerabilities of the mind, nudging people towards actions that serve the agenda of the influencer rather than the individual.

Consider the infamous example of people drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. The ability to convince someone to do something so extreme is rooted in the same psychological mechanisms that can persuade someone to buy a product. It’s a darkly humorous thought that Kool-Aid executives might have marveled at such persuasive power, jokingly wishing to hire those cult leaders as marketers.

This isn't to say that all marketing is inherently evil, but the parallels are worth noting. For instance, look at the intense brand loyalty people have for products like Coca-Cola, where fans get tattoos, wear branded clothing, and attend events. Similarly, newer brands like 'Happy Dad' have cultivated a dedicated following, with people lining up for events and showcasing their loyalty in various ways.

It takes two to tango: cult-like marketing tactics and individuals predisposed to becoming followers. This predisposition can arise from various psychological and social factors, making people more susceptible to such influence.

An interesting trend in our culture is that many social media companies and organizations have taken it upon themselves to "protect" the population from critically thinking for themselves to determine the truth. Evidence of this is seen in the censorship efforts aimed at shielding your mind from information deemed too sensitive for you to handle. Additionally, governments worldwide have launched campaigns to address what they refer to as a "misinformation emergency."

Make no mistake, the core of these efforts is the notion that you can't think for yourself. If something is truly false information, it should be left to critical thinkers to sort out. "If something can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth." However, these information control operations often appear to be about slowing or stopping the spread of truthful information that might jeopardize existing power structures. This is never openly stated but is often done under the guise of "protecting the public from malicious information".

This is why I firmly believe in the First Amendment right in the United States—freedom of speech and expression. We have the freedom to say things that people might not agree with. The idea of centralized control of the truth is inherently tyrannical, regardless of the arguments behind censorship.

Let's face it, science isn't always correct. There are numerous famous examples, especially related to pharmaceutical mishaps, that illustrate this. This brings us to the idea that science is a process. And processes aren't perfect, especially those involving imperfect humans. I refer to this as the "closeness problem," sometimes called the "too close to the elephant problem." This concept suggests that if you are so close to an elephant that your eyeballs almost touch it, you wouldn't necessarily recognize that it's an elephant in front of you. You only see the color and texture of the skin up close. To see the whole picture, you need to take a few steps back to reveal the full elephant.

Specialization in science, health, and medicine often forces this closeness problem perspective. While there is significant value in a specialized approach, it leaves plenty of gaps that can create problems. You'll often hear scientists in a particular specialty make definitive claims that contradict the experiences of many individuals.

I say this not to discount the scientific process but to assert that we should also consider other aspects outside that process, such as experience and anecdotal evidence. A healthy sense of skepticism towards the institutions that might use the scientific process—or the appearance of a scientific process—to create a perception of truth and authority is essential.

Someone once called me a grifter for attacking our institutions, which I find quite hilarious for a few reasons. Firstly, those who throw around names like that are often projecting their own insecurities. They embody what they accuse others of being. Secondly, people love categorizing others as a way to avoid critical thinking. This ties into heuristics and biases within the brain, topics I often discuss here.

The term "grifter" has become so diluted, much like many words that gain popularity in culture. It now seems to mean anyone with a different political view who promotes their ideas. True grifting is about capitalizing on trends opportunistically, and that's far from what I do. Let me share my story to illustrate this.

At 13, I downloaded George Carlin’s stand-up comedy on Napster. This was a pivotal moment in my life, marking my first significant shift in consciousness. Carlin taught me to question everything and challenge authority, which was the opposite of what I had been told. His message resonated deeply with me and has driven everything I've done since. Questioning everything and challenging authority are fundamental to who I am.

I’m not sharing this to defend myself against accusations—honestly, I don’t care what others think of me. I've been called worse. Instead, I see this as an opportunity to share my origin story. I am extremely passionate about my messaging and the values I promote.

One often under-discussed aspect of health is the prevalence of endocrine disruptors in our food, air, and water. This issue is frequently dismissed, often by experts like chemists who suffer from what I call the "closeness problem"—failing to see the big picture because they're so close to the issue.

There is ample research demonstrating the negative impact of endocrine disruptors on health. These substances are alarmingly prevalent and often result in estrogenic effects. Observing society today, we can see evidence of these effects. These disruptors are unnatural to the body and pose significant health risks.

To mitigate exposure, we should take several proactive steps. Avoiding plastic, especially plastic water bottles, is crucial, as these containers often undergo heating during transportation, increasing the leaching of harmful chemicals. Opt for glass and metal containers whenever possible. Additionally, avoid bathroom products known to contain endocrine disruptors and carcinogens, despite FDA approval. "Mamavation" is a great website that does independent testing for these types of chemicals.

This concern highlights a unique aspect of health: the institutions claiming to protect us often fall short. The widespread presence of these chemicals and their impact on health is a testament to this failure. Therefore, it is up to us to be vigilant, minimize exposure, and take control of our health.