A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753393329954885632",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"In my opinion, framing this as a belief already undermines the argument—science should be grounded in verifiable facts, not beliefs. She then lists several claims to support her position. I’ve read the article, and I’d like to focus specifically on point 3, because I believe the topic of sequencing is widely misunderstood—not only by the public but, quite frankly, even by many geneticists. I’ve studied genomics and sequencing in depth, and have run these tools myself. So here’s what I can say based on verifiable facts.\"<br /><a href=\"https://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1753393329954885632",
"published": "2025-03-31T10:39:06+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"In my opinion, framing this as a belief already undermines the argument—science should be grounded in verifiable facts, not beliefs. She then lists several claims to support her position. I’ve read the article, and I’d like to focus specifically on point 3, because I believe the topic of sequencing is widely misunderstood—not only by the public but, quite frankly, even by many geneticists. I’ve studied genomics and sequencing in depth, and have run these tools myself. So here’s what I can say based on verifiable facts.\"\nhttps://www.usmortality.com/p/are-viral-genomics-evidence-of-spread",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753393329954885632/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753301904572309504",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"When Donald Trump appointed the well-known “anti-vaxxer” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the U.S. Secretary of Health, many saw it as a historic moment. It seemed that America was finally moving in the right direction—breaking ties with globalist institutions, standing up to the pharmaceutical cartel, and putting an end to the era of pseudo-pandemics and forced vaccinations.<br /><br />At first glance, that’s exactly how it looks: the U.S. is pulling out of the WHO, the pharma lobby appears to be weakened, and Kennedy promises healthcare reform, protection of citizens from corporate abuse, and a return to scientific standards.<br /><br />But if you take a closer look at the facts, the reality turns out to be quite different.<br /><br />In this video, I’ll examine whether Trump and Kennedy are truly challenging the pharmaceutical system—or if this is just a new trap, leading us toward even more sophisticated forms of control.\"<br /><a href=\"https://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/willtrumpsaveamericafromvaccination:c\" target=\"_blank\">https://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/willtrumpsaveamericafromvaccination:c</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1753301904572309504",
"published": "2025-03-31T04:35:48+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"When Donald Trump appointed the well-known “anti-vaxxer” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the U.S. Secretary of Health, many saw it as a historic moment. It seemed that America was finally moving in the right direction—breaking ties with globalist institutions, standing up to the pharmaceutical cartel, and putting an end to the era of pseudo-pandemics and forced vaccinations.\n\nAt first glance, that’s exactly how it looks: the U.S. is pulling out of the WHO, the pharma lobby appears to be weakened, and Kennedy promises healthcare reform, protection of citizens from corporate abuse, and a return to scientific standards.\n\nBut if you take a closer look at the facts, the reality turns out to be quite different.\n\nIn this video, I’ll examine whether Trump and Kennedy are truly challenging the pharmaceutical system—or if this is just a new trap, leading us toward even more sophisticated forms of control.\"\nhttps://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/willtrumpsaveamericafromvaccination:c",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753301904572309504/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753301446059384832",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"There are a lot of myths/traps out there and we sure need to be careful not to fall in all the traps. Getting properly educated is the key.\"<br /><a href=\"https://rumble.com/v6rf1ia-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-2-going-vegan-and-staying-vegan.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://rumble.com/v6rf1ia-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-2-going-vegan-and-staying-vegan.html</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1753301446059384832",
"published": "2025-03-31T04:33:59+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"There are a lot of myths/traps out there and we sure need to be careful not to fall in all the traps. Getting properly educated is the key.\"\nhttps://rumble.com/v6rf1ia-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-2-going-vegan-and-staying-vegan.html",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1753301446059384832/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1751492153228156928",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"Are seed oils truly harmful? Do omega-6 fats like linoleic acid increase inflammation, oxidative stress, or chronic disease risk? Or is this just another wellness myth gone viral?<br /><br />In this episode, I’m joined by Dr. Bill Harris—one of the world’s leading experts on dietary fats and cardiovascular health—to unpack the science on linoleic acid, an essential omega-6 fat found in foods like nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils.<br /><br />We kick off by discussing Dr Harris’ reaction to American fast food chain Steak ‘n Shake’s decision to swap out seed oils for beef tallow. Why has linoleic acid become such a scapegoat? And what does the science actually say?<br /><br />We take a close look at the evidence—from randomised controlled trials to large-scale biomarker studies—and explore how this essential fat affects inflammation, cholesterol, oxidative stress, blood sugar, and risk of chronic disease.<br /><br />In this episode, we cover:<br /><br />- The origins of omega-6 controversy and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio<br />- Whether linoleic acid is truly “pro-inflammatory”<br />- What the highest quality human studies say about disease risk and mortality<br />- Oxidation, lipid peroxidation, and the truth about heating seed oils<br />- How linoleic acid compares to saturated fat in terms of your risk of disease <br />- Why removing seed oils from the food supply could backfire<br />- The real drivers of chronic disease—and what actually deserves our attention<br />- How Dr Harris recommends you think about choosing cooking oils at the grocery store <br /><br />We also address the broader issue of cherry-picked mechanistic studies and why outcome data—like heart attacks and mortality—need to be front and centre when we assess health claims.<br /><br />Bill brings deep expertise and scientific humility to this conversation. If you’ve felt confused by the anti-seed oil narrative, this episode will hopefully bring clarity and reduce some of the fear.\"<br /><a href=\"https://theproof.com/seed-oils-dangerous-or-misunderstood-bill-harris-phd-on-the-truth-about-omega-6-fats/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theproof.com/seed-oils-dangerous-or-misunderstood-bill-harris-phd-on-the-truth-about-omega-6-fats/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1751492153228156928",
"published": "2025-03-26T04:44:30+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"Are seed oils truly harmful? Do omega-6 fats like linoleic acid increase inflammation, oxidative stress, or chronic disease risk? Or is this just another wellness myth gone viral?\n\nIn this episode, I’m joined by Dr. Bill Harris—one of the world’s leading experts on dietary fats and cardiovascular health—to unpack the science on linoleic acid, an essential omega-6 fat found in foods like nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils.\n\nWe kick off by discussing Dr Harris’ reaction to American fast food chain Steak ‘n Shake’s decision to swap out seed oils for beef tallow. Why has linoleic acid become such a scapegoat? And what does the science actually say?\n\nWe take a close look at the evidence—from randomised controlled trials to large-scale biomarker studies—and explore how this essential fat affects inflammation, cholesterol, oxidative stress, blood sugar, and risk of chronic disease.\n\nIn this episode, we cover:\n\n- The origins of omega-6 controversy and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio\n- Whether linoleic acid is truly “pro-inflammatory”\n- What the highest quality human studies say about disease risk and mortality\n- Oxidation, lipid peroxidation, and the truth about heating seed oils\n- How linoleic acid compares to saturated fat in terms of your risk of disease \n- Why removing seed oils from the food supply could backfire\n- The real drivers of chronic disease—and what actually deserves our attention\n- How Dr Harris recommends you think about choosing cooking oils at the grocery store \n\nWe also address the broader issue of cherry-picked mechanistic studies and why outcome data—like heart attacks and mortality—need to be front and centre when we assess health claims.\n\nBill brings deep expertise and scientific humility to this conversation. If you’ve felt confused by the anti-seed oil narrative, this episode will hopefully bring clarity and reduce some of the fear.\"\nhttps://theproof.com/seed-oils-dangerous-or-misunderstood-bill-harris-phd-on-the-truth-about-omega-6-fats/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1751492153228156928/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1750760434106896384",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"John shares the story of his upbringing in the north of Sweden where as a young boy he was growing up in nature and going with his dad on hunting trips. Later in life (around year 2012) he started meeting vegans on social media and wanted to prove to them that eating only plants cannot be sustainable. He was digging into nutrition in order to prove those vegans wrong, but on the way he learned he has been lied to all his life.\"<br /><a href=\"https://rumble.com/v6r3qtk-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-1-when-a-hunter-goes-vegan.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://rumble.com/v6r3qtk-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-1-when-a-hunter-goes-vegan.html</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1750760434106896384",
"published": "2025-03-24T04:16:55+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"John shares the story of his upbringing in the north of Sweden where as a young boy he was growing up in nature and going with his dad on hunting trips. Later in life (around year 2012) he started meeting vegans on social media and wanted to prove to them that eating only plants cannot be sustainable. He was digging into nutrition in order to prove those vegans wrong, but on the way he learned he has been lied to all his life.\"\nhttps://rumble.com/v6r3qtk-conversation-with-john-b-ep.-1-when-a-hunter-goes-vegan.html",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1750760434106896384/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1745533349822210048",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "Very interesting talk that should be listened to in my view. I rarely if ever post talks like this which should underscore its importance.<br /><br />\"Jeffrey Sachs European Parliament Speech | Jeffrey Sachs | Jeffrey Sachs On US | Jeffrey Sachs On Europe | NATO | Ukraine War | Russia Ukraine War | Russia Vs Ukraine News<br />Days before Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump's Oval Office fiasco, economist Jeffrey Sachs spoke in the European Parliament, where he elaborated in detail about the current geopolitical scenario. He spoke about the United States' stake in Ukraine, Europe's role in the 3-year-long war among other things.\"<br /><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUUuLdfgm0k\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUUuLdfgm0k</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1745533349822210048",
"published": "2025-03-09T18:06:21+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Very interesting talk that should be listened to in my view. I rarely if ever post talks like this which should underscore its importance.\n\n\"Jeffrey Sachs European Parliament Speech | Jeffrey Sachs | Jeffrey Sachs On US | Jeffrey Sachs On Europe | NATO | Ukraine War | Russia Ukraine War | Russia Vs Ukraine News\nDays before Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump's Oval Office fiasco, economist Jeffrey Sachs spoke in the European Parliament, where he elaborated in detail about the current geopolitical scenario. He spoke about the United States' stake in Ukraine, Europe's role in the 3-year-long war among other things.\"\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUUuLdfgm0k",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1745533349822210048/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1745274129608609792",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"The strong evidence presented in this study suggests that the reduced FBS environments commonly used in viral isolation protocols may be the primary cause of the observed CPE and morphological features. This challenges the assumption that these effects are exclusive indicators of viral presence and calls for a reassessment of current viral isolation methods. The findings indicate that claimed isolated and replicated viruses, assumed to be harvested from the cell culture isolation method, should not be considered legitimate if the observed effects can be replicated in uninfected cultures.\"<br /><br />\"In conclusion, this study challenges the conventional interpretation of CPE as definitive evidence of viral presence and calls for a critical reassessment of the methods used in viral isolation. The findings emphasize the need to consider the impact of the culture environment on cell viability and morphology, ensuring more accurate and reliable virological research.\"<br /><a href=\"https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/evaluation-of-cytopathic-effects\" target=\"_blank\">https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/evaluation-of-cytopathic-effects</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1745274129608609792",
"published": "2025-03-09T00:56:18+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"The strong evidence presented in this study suggests that the reduced FBS environments commonly used in viral isolation protocols may be the primary cause of the observed CPE and morphological features. This challenges the assumption that these effects are exclusive indicators of viral presence and calls for a reassessment of current viral isolation methods. The findings indicate that claimed isolated and replicated viruses, assumed to be harvested from the cell culture isolation method, should not be considered legitimate if the observed effects can be replicated in uninfected cultures.\"\n\n\"In conclusion, this study challenges the conventional interpretation of CPE as definitive evidence of viral presence and calls for a critical reassessment of the methods used in viral isolation. The findings emphasize the need to consider the impact of the culture environment on cell viability and morphology, ensuring more accurate and reliable virological research.\"\nhttps://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/evaluation-of-cytopathic-effects",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1745274129608609792/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1744752425485230080",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "Here is a comment I recently made in a private group in relation to my views of Kennedy and his role as the head of HHS in the US.<br /><br />I think it's a total distraction on focusing on Kennedy or anyone else that are in similar places in various countries, the responsibility for health lies within each and every individual, period. To think that a person outside of us is magically gonna fix the health of all the people in any country is wishful, false and frankly naive thinking. <br /><br />We don't live in a world of rainbows and unicorns where people ride in on white horses and save us from our own stupidity. We got to step up and take back our responsibility which we handed over to strangers in cities far far away. This whole problem is rooted in the false belief in authority and as long as that is in place we will never fix things. Freedom and responsibility goes hand in hand and there is no way around it no matter how much we wish for it to be.<br /><br />To blame politicians or \"science\" or whatever for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc is nonsense and a sign of lack of personal responsibility, nobody held a gun at our heads and forced us to eat and live the way we do today, we chose to do all this to ourselves. It's better to own up to our mistakes regardless if they were done by intention or not and move forward than keep pointing fingers at people around us, it just creates a whole populace of victims where nothing is getting resolved. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1744752425485230080",
"published": "2025-03-07T14:23:14+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1744752410670145536/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 720,
"width": 960
}
],
"source": {
"content": "Here is a comment I recently made in a private group in relation to my views of Kennedy and his role as the head of HHS in the US.\n\nI think it's a total distraction on focusing on Kennedy or anyone else that are in similar places in various countries, the responsibility for health lies within each and every individual, period. To think that a person outside of us is magically gonna fix the health of all the people in any country is wishful, false and frankly naive thinking. \n\nWe don't live in a world of rainbows and unicorns where people ride in on white horses and save us from our own stupidity. We got to step up and take back our responsibility which we handed over to strangers in cities far far away. This whole problem is rooted in the false belief in authority and as long as that is in place we will never fix things. Freedom and responsibility goes hand in hand and there is no way around it no matter how much we wish for it to be.\n\nTo blame politicians or \"science\" or whatever for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc is nonsense and a sign of lack of personal responsibility, nobody held a gun at our heads and forced us to eat and live the way we do today, we chose to do all this to ourselves. It's better to own up to our mistakes regardless if they were done by intention or not and move forward than keep pointing fingers at people around us, it just creates a whole populace of victims where nothing is getting resolved. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1744752425485230080/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1740493625735536640",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"LankaVision 📺 /// seen like this ... 💬<br /><br />————————————<br /><br />Our new series<br /><br />From the mechanistic thinking trap<br />into real, active life.<br /><br />Part 8 : Continuation of Part 7:<br />The idea of the antibody and its misinterpretation<br /><br />Everyone knows this process: when you get injured, blood clotting starts (due to the proteins) and wound healing is initiated. The same processes take place within the body: when our organism is confronted with toxins or an internal injury occurs, the globulins seal off our tissues - they start blood clotting and wound healing. But also when you get a blow to the muscle, a bruise, a blow to the kidney, etc., the body immediately reacts with a \"globulin increase\".<br /><br />This increase in protein can be measured in the laboratory and is called a “titer”*. A “titer increase” simply means that the body is reacting competently and sealing off the damaged tissue and naturally growing tissue.<br /><br />* The so-called “titer” indicates the content of dissolved substance in a solution.<br /><br />A titer increase is declared by conventional medicine as an “antibody increase” and even as a “specific antibody increase” after a vaccination.<br />The binding properties of the proteins, with their hydrogen sulphide group, are not specific - they can bind anything. For example, the blood of a pregnant woman is full of globulins to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing. If the blood of a pregnant woman were not diluted by around 40 times, a titer test, for example for the so-called immunoglobulins, would show a massively positive value in every so-called virus antibody test.<br /><br />While conventional medicine claims that a high titer (= increase in protein) after vaccinations provides protection, it propagates the exact opposite in the case of AIDS: a high \"antibody level\" is said to cause the disease. The Robert Koch Institute explains that there is no test for some vaccinations (e.g. whooping cough) and that the antibody concentration does not provide any indication of possible existing immunity. You may now be wondering why these vaccinations have been approved?<br /><br />The answer is simple: every vaccine contains so-called excipients (e.g. antibiotics, mercury, aluminum, etc.) that always cause a protein reaction - just not an imaginary \"specific\" protein reaction. Conventional medicine understands a \"specific antibody increase\" as follows: Let's assume that in a diphtheria vaccination the laboratory always measured an increase in the \"immunoglobulins from group G\" in over 50% of cases. In a rubella vaccination the laboratory found an increase in the \"immunoglobulins from group M\" in over 50% of cases. We have already conjured up the \"specific antibodies\".<br /><br />Conclusion: As mentioned, the protein bodies are not an antidote, but are \"only\" a reaction of the body to the poisons contained in the vaccine or a natural reaction in recovery phases or in the event of injuries. This is why there are never any published real placebo controls (auxiliaries = adjuvants against pure saline solution) when \"vaccinating\", because otherwise it would become public knowledge that the so-called immune reactions of the vaccines are 100% based on the toxic auxiliary substances and not on components of alleged viruses. Viruses that do not exist and that cannot exist if we know real biology (=Hamer's system of knowledge).<br /><br />Dr. Stefan Lanka and Ursula Stoll\"<br /><br />Source: <a href=\"https://t.me/LankaVision/200\" target=\"_blank\">https://t.me/LankaVision/200</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1740493625735536640",
"published": "2025-02-23T20:20:17+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"LankaVision 📺 /// seen like this ... 💬\n\n————————————\n\nOur new series\n\nFrom the mechanistic thinking trap\ninto real, active life.\n\nPart 8 : Continuation of Part 7:\nThe idea of the antibody and its misinterpretation\n\nEveryone knows this process: when you get injured, blood clotting starts (due to the proteins) and wound healing is initiated. The same processes take place within the body: when our organism is confronted with toxins or an internal injury occurs, the globulins seal off our tissues - they start blood clotting and wound healing. But also when you get a blow to the muscle, a bruise, a blow to the kidney, etc., the body immediately reacts with a \"globulin increase\".\n\nThis increase in protein can be measured in the laboratory and is called a “titer”*. A “titer increase” simply means that the body is reacting competently and sealing off the damaged tissue and naturally growing tissue.\n\n* The so-called “titer” indicates the content of dissolved substance in a solution.\n\nA titer increase is declared by conventional medicine as an “antibody increase” and even as a “specific antibody increase” after a vaccination.\nThe binding properties of the proteins, with their hydrogen sulphide group, are not specific - they can bind anything. For example, the blood of a pregnant woman is full of globulins to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing. If the blood of a pregnant woman were not diluted by around 40 times, a titer test, for example for the so-called immunoglobulins, would show a massively positive value in every so-called virus antibody test.\n\nWhile conventional medicine claims that a high titer (= increase in protein) after vaccinations provides protection, it propagates the exact opposite in the case of AIDS: a high \"antibody level\" is said to cause the disease. The Robert Koch Institute explains that there is no test for some vaccinations (e.g. whooping cough) and that the antibody concentration does not provide any indication of possible existing immunity. You may now be wondering why these vaccinations have been approved?\n\nThe answer is simple: every vaccine contains so-called excipients (e.g. antibiotics, mercury, aluminum, etc.) that always cause a protein reaction - just not an imaginary \"specific\" protein reaction. Conventional medicine understands a \"specific antibody increase\" as follows: Let's assume that in a diphtheria vaccination the laboratory always measured an increase in the \"immunoglobulins from group G\" in over 50% of cases. In a rubella vaccination the laboratory found an increase in the \"immunoglobulins from group M\" in over 50% of cases. We have already conjured up the \"specific antibodies\".\n\nConclusion: As mentioned, the protein bodies are not an antidote, but are \"only\" a reaction of the body to the poisons contained in the vaccine or a natural reaction in recovery phases or in the event of injuries. This is why there are never any published real placebo controls (auxiliaries = adjuvants against pure saline solution) when \"vaccinating\", because otherwise it would become public knowledge that the so-called immune reactions of the vaccines are 100% based on the toxic auxiliary substances and not on components of alleged viruses. Viruses that do not exist and that cannot exist if we know real biology (=Hamer's system of knowledge).\n\nDr. Stefan Lanka and Ursula Stoll\"\n\nSource: https://t.me/LankaVision/200",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1740493625735536640/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1732989025742774272",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"A fresh perspective on inflammation<br /><br />Yesterday I burned my arm with hot water. As you can see, it is red, swollen, and blistering. These symptoms are part of the inflammatory response.<br /><br />The inflammation didn't cause the tissue damage, the hot water did. The injury preceded the inflammation, the inflammation didn't precede the injury. The tissue damage occurred first and the inflammatory response followed.<br /><br />Inflammation is not the enemy.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because inflammation is the healing response. It should be celebrated, not denigrated. If there is no tissue damage, there is nothing to heal. If there is nothing to heal, there is no inflammation.<br /><br />The same is true of 'chronic inflammation'. When the tissue is being chronically injured, the body is in a chronic state of healing. If I kept burning my arm day after day, it would become 'chronically inflamed'. <br /><br />Does this mean my arm has a disease? No. <br /><br />Does it mean the inflammation caused the burn? No.<br /><br />Does it make sense to suppress the healing response with anti-inflammatories? No.<br /><br />The answer is to stop pouring boiling water on the injury. In other words, identify and remove the cause so that the body can repair itself.<br /><br />So, before you go blaming inflammation, ask yourself, what's causing damage to your tissue? Maybe it's the pesticides and heavy metals in the food? The pollution in the air? The contaminants in the water? <br /><br />It's time to rethink our relationship with inflammation.\"<br /><br />Source: <a href=\"https://t.me/humanley/730\" target=\"_blank\">https://t.me/humanley/730</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1732989025742774272",
"published": "2025-02-03T03:19:41+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1732988966866522112/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280,
"width": 960
}
],
"source": {
"content": "\"A fresh perspective on inflammation\n\nYesterday I burned my arm with hot water. As you can see, it is red, swollen, and blistering. These symptoms are part of the inflammatory response.\n\nThe inflammation didn't cause the tissue damage, the hot water did. The injury preceded the inflammation, the inflammation didn't precede the injury. The tissue damage occurred first and the inflammatory response followed.\n\nInflammation is not the enemy.\n\nWhy?\n\nBecause inflammation is the healing response. It should be celebrated, not denigrated. If there is no tissue damage, there is nothing to heal. If there is nothing to heal, there is no inflammation.\n\nThe same is true of 'chronic inflammation'. When the tissue is being chronically injured, the body is in a chronic state of healing. If I kept burning my arm day after day, it would become 'chronically inflamed'. \n\nDoes this mean my arm has a disease? No. \n\nDoes it mean the inflammation caused the burn? No.\n\nDoes it make sense to suppress the healing response with anti-inflammatories? No.\n\nThe answer is to stop pouring boiling water on the injury. In other words, identify and remove the cause so that the body can repair itself.\n\nSo, before you go blaming inflammation, ask yourself, what's causing damage to your tissue? Maybe it's the pesticides and heavy metals in the food? The pollution in the air? The contaminants in the water? \n\nIt's time to rethink our relationship with inflammation.\"\n\nSource: https://t.me/humanley/730",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1732989025742774272/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1732000263843090432",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"DNA paternity test is based on tons of theories, hypotheses and claims. While hypotheses and claims are assumptions and suggestions, per the scientific community a theory is a proven hypothesis, it’s almost identical to a fact but not really a fact. Scientific theory is supported by data and experiments, it has gained scientific consensus and there is no other acceptable alternative theory at the current moment. In reality, scientific theories, especially molecular theories (including “molecules” themselves), remain hypotheses because they’re based on models and mathematical/physical/statistical formulas applied on byproducts obtained from boiling/heating chemically treated dead matter. In other words, the methods applied have nothing to do with reality or nature and the stories we are taught, have never been observed happening because they are deduced from numerical formulas.<br /><br />We also need to consider that governments and other (non-taxable) bodies fund studies and experiments that promote-support only specific theories/models/agendas (e.g. EU Horizon 2020). Anyone who wants to study something that is not eligible for funding will need to use his/her own means of financing. Basically, science is controlled, shaped and directed by the funding bodies. Last but not least well-known scientific journals publish articles and studies that are based on and support the current accepted theories and agendas; anything contradicting or questioning the established consensus is simply rejected or/and ridiculed (e.g. Harold Hillman experiments and findings, Climate The Movie, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism).<br /><br />Having the mentioned at the back of our minds let’s examine each component of DNA test separately.\"<br /><a href=\"https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2025/01/30/critical-review-of-dna-test/\" target=\"_blank\">https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2025/01/30/critical-review-of-dna-test/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1732000263843090432",
"published": "2025-01-31T09:50:41+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"DNA paternity test is based on tons of theories, hypotheses and claims. While hypotheses and claims are assumptions and suggestions, per the scientific community a theory is a proven hypothesis, it’s almost identical to a fact but not really a fact. Scientific theory is supported by data and experiments, it has gained scientific consensus and there is no other acceptable alternative theory at the current moment. In reality, scientific theories, especially molecular theories (including “molecules” themselves), remain hypotheses because they’re based on models and mathematical/physical/statistical formulas applied on byproducts obtained from boiling/heating chemically treated dead matter. In other words, the methods applied have nothing to do with reality or nature and the stories we are taught, have never been observed happening because they are deduced from numerical formulas.\n\nWe also need to consider that governments and other (non-taxable) bodies fund studies and experiments that promote-support only specific theories/models/agendas (e.g. EU Horizon 2020). Anyone who wants to study something that is not eligible for funding will need to use his/her own means of financing. Basically, science is controlled, shaped and directed by the funding bodies. Last but not least well-known scientific journals publish articles and studies that are based on and support the current accepted theories and agendas; anything contradicting or questioning the established consensus is simply rejected or/and ridiculed (e.g. Harold Hillman experiments and findings, Climate The Movie, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism).\n\nHaving the mentioned at the back of our minds let’s examine each component of DNA test separately.\"\nhttps://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2025/01/30/critical-review-of-dna-test/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1732000263843090432/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1730284128345001984",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"💥 Control experiment completely dismantles DNA analyses 🧬<br /><br />🔬 17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories in North America, 1 mixed DNA sample, completely different results!<br /><br />The blinded study (<a href=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355030611000967?via=ihub\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355030611000967?via=ihub</a>) by Itiel Dror and Greg Hampikian shows that some analysts identified individuals as possible DNA sources, while others completely excluded the same individuals. The analysis is subjective and depends on methods , interpretations and biases of the analysts.<br /><br />⚠️ Influence by case information<br />When analysts were given information about suspects, it clearly influenced their analysis. The same analysts changed their original statements after receiving additional case information and suddenly evaluated the same DNA sample differently. Biases (conscious or unconscious) mean that supposedly \"objective science\" is in reality shaped by external influences and uncertainties.<br /><br />According to the study, only 1 out of 17 analysts agreed with the initial assessment that the suspect “cannot be excluded.” The remaining 16 analysts came to different conclusions: 12 excluded the suspect and 4 rated the sample as “inconclusive.”<br /><br />📉 The significance of DNA tests<br />These results underline the subjectivity and influence of contextual information in the analysis of mixed DNA samples.<br />No surprise for those familiar with genetics. A shock for laypeople.<br /><br />🚨 Conclusion<br />Genetics in forensic analysis turns out to be a purely subjective and non-standardized process. Anyone who considers this method to be scientific is ignoring reality.<br /><br />When 17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories come to completely different results on the same DNA sample, it becomes clear: what is sold as scientific certainty is ultimately just subjective guesswork with serious consequences in many areas of life❗️<br /><br />Reference: Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204-208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 ( <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004\" target=\"_blank\">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004</a> )<br /><br />Dr. Itiel Dror, a recognized cognitive scientist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, conducts research on decision-making and cognitive biases in forensics at University College London. Dr. Greg Hampikian, a professor at Boise State University and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, is a leading expert in forensic DNA analysis in the United States and is committed to exonerating the wrongfully convicted.\"<br />Source: <a href=\"https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/646\" target=\"_blank\">https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/646</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1730284128345001984",
"published": "2025-01-26T16:11:23+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"💥 Control experiment completely dismantles DNA analyses 🧬\n\n🔬 17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories in North America, 1 mixed DNA sample, completely different results!\n\nThe blinded study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355030611000967?via=ihub) by Itiel Dror and Greg Hampikian shows that some analysts identified individuals as possible DNA sources, while others completely excluded the same individuals. The analysis is subjective and depends on methods , interpretations and biases of the analysts.\n\n⚠️ Influence by case information\nWhen analysts were given information about suspects, it clearly influenced their analysis. The same analysts changed their original statements after receiving additional case information and suddenly evaluated the same DNA sample differently. Biases (conscious or unconscious) mean that supposedly \"objective science\" is in reality shaped by external influences and uncertainties.\n\nAccording to the study, only 1 out of 17 analysts agreed with the initial assessment that the suspect “cannot be excluded.” The remaining 16 analysts came to different conclusions: 12 excluded the suspect and 4 rated the sample as “inconclusive.”\n\n📉 The significance of DNA tests\nThese results underline the subjectivity and influence of contextual information in the analysis of mixed DNA samples.\nNo surprise for those familiar with genetics. A shock for laypeople.\n\n🚨 Conclusion\nGenetics in forensic analysis turns out to be a purely subjective and non-standardized process. Anyone who considers this method to be scientific is ignoring reality.\n\nWhen 17 analysts from accredited forensic laboratories come to completely different results on the same DNA sample, it becomes clear: what is sold as scientific certainty is ultimately just subjective guesswork with serious consequences in many areas of life❗️\n\nReference: Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204-208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 )\n\nDr. Itiel Dror, a recognized cognitive scientist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, conducts research on decision-making and cognitive biases in forensics at University College London. Dr. Greg Hampikian, a professor at Boise State University and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, is a leading expert in forensic DNA analysis in the United States and is committed to exonerating the wrongfully convicted.\"\nSource: https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/646",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1730284128345001984/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1726906703431884800",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594",
"content": "\"Inflammation is not the cause of disease.<br /> <br />Many people perceive inflammation as being the bane of humanity’s existence. From diabetes to dementia, inflammation is blamed as the cause of our modern health woes, a destructive process that must be suppressed at all costs. But is it really the villain it’s been made out to be?<br /><br />When you cut your finger or sprain your ankle, the body mounts an acute inflammatory response. The injury occurs first (cause), and the inflammation follows (effect). No one thinks the inflammation caused the problem. The purpose of the inflammation is to heal the damaged tissue.<br /><br />However, when it comes to chronic inflammation this logic is thrown out the window. People erroneously believe chronic inflammation destroys healthy tissue and causes disease. The reality is that chronic inflammation is the body’s attempt to heal tissue that is being continually damaged and insulted.<br /><br />Although the true nature of inflammation was once understood by the medical profession, it seems to have been forgotten in recent times. In 1860, Dr William Braithwaite, a surgeon and lecturer at the Leeds School of Medicine, exemplified this understanding in a leading medical journal (<a href=\"https://archive.org/details/s2id13656040/page/336/mode/2up\" target=\"_blank\">https://archive.org/details/s2id13656040/page/336/mode/2up</a>). <br /><br />He stated “One great error which has blinded the minds of medical men in observing the true principles of science, is confounding symptoms of disease with the disease itself. A man has a bit of sharp sand blown on his cornea by the wind; he cannot displace it himself—what occurs? The eye begins to inflame and looks red and angry; the eye looks diseased. But is this disease? No. It is only the symptom produced by the bit of sand—the sand, in fact, is the real disease, and the inflammation is nothing more than an effort of nature to get rid of the bit of sand. The inflammation (the falsely called disease) in short is a conservative process\".<br /><br />Simply put, inflammation is the response to tissue damage caused by an aggravating factor. Inflammation will resolve when the healing process is complete. Therefore, our focus should be on removing and avoiding the aggravating factor(s), and supporting the body's innate healing response, rather than trying to suppress the symptoms of inflammation and blaming it for our ills.\" <br /><br />Follow Humanley: t.me/humanley",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1726906703431884800",
"published": "2025-01-17T08:30:42+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"Inflammation is not the cause of disease.\n \nMany people perceive inflammation as being the bane of humanity’s existence. From diabetes to dementia, inflammation is blamed as the cause of our modern health woes, a destructive process that must be suppressed at all costs. But is it really the villain it’s been made out to be?\n\nWhen you cut your finger or sprain your ankle, the body mounts an acute inflammatory response. The injury occurs first (cause), and the inflammation follows (effect). No one thinks the inflammation caused the problem. The purpose of the inflammation is to heal the damaged tissue.\n\nHowever, when it comes to chronic inflammation this logic is thrown out the window. People erroneously believe chronic inflammation destroys healthy tissue and causes disease. The reality is that chronic inflammation is the body’s attempt to heal tissue that is being continually damaged and insulted.\n\nAlthough the true nature of inflammation was once understood by the medical profession, it seems to have been forgotten in recent times. In 1860, Dr William Braithwaite, a surgeon and lecturer at the Leeds School of Medicine, exemplified this understanding in a leading medical journal (https://archive.org/details/s2id13656040/page/336/mode/2up). \n\nHe stated “One great error which has blinded the minds of medical men in observing the true principles of science, is confounding symptoms of disease with the disease itself. A man has a bit of sharp sand blown on his cornea by the wind; he cannot displace it himself—what occurs? The eye begins to inflame and looks red and angry; the eye looks diseased. But is this disease? No. It is only the symptom produced by the bit of sand—the sand, in fact, is the real disease, and the inflammation is nothing more than an effort of nature to get rid of the bit of sand. The inflammation (the falsely called disease) in short is a conservative process\".\n\nSimply put, inflammation is the response to tissue damage caused by an aggravating factor. Inflammation will resolve when the healing process is complete. Therefore, our focus should be on removing and avoiding the aggravating factor(s), and supporting the body's innate healing response, rather than trying to suppress the symptoms of inflammation and blaming it for our ills.\" \n\nFollow Humanley: t.me/humanley",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/entities/urn:activity:1726906703431884800/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/530680213659459594/outboxoutbox"
}