John F. Kennedy Jr.

 John F. Kennedy Jr.

John F. Kennedy Jr. was the son of John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy. JFK Jr. was an impressive individual who was hated and envied for being the son of JFK. John Jr. was able to persevere despite having constant intrusion of privacy by the establishment and sycophants. John Jr. was able to be a self-made man who even worked after going to college. John Jr. was able to be a conservative liberal who wrote about Democracy and Catholicism.

John Jr. graduated from university, worked after college, studied and became a lawyer, worked as a lawyer for four years, and then became an independent journalist. John Jr. created a publication named, George, after the First American President of the United States. John Jr. wrote about the importance of Democracy and was a loyal Democrat.

John Jr. was probably envied by the establishment and sycophants for being distinct, unique, charismatic, and well liked. John Jr. wrote about Catholicism including the need to fight against the lies of the snake. For being a Catholic and writing about Catholicism, he also was envied by sycophants. 

It is possible that his plane did not crash accidently and instead was sabotaged by racist FBI socialists for being positive, a Democrat, industrious, impressive, a Catholic, independent, and good. John Jr., his wife, Carolyn Bessette, and his sister-in-law were called up to Heaven and did not have to live in the not so good times. He probably influenced individuals to care about Democracy and Catholicism and was envied. He was an amazing individual and yet was envied. We can persevere reminding ourselves of amazing individuals while going through not so good times. John Jr. kept being positive despite being surveilled and envied by marxists due to the progress of JFK's presidency.

Literary Review of Overdo$ed America

 Literary Review of Overdo$ed America

Overdo$ed America written by Dr. Abramson describes how the pharmaceutical companies had created a monopoly through compromising medical journal articles, promoting newer and more expensive dangerous medications, and affecting the doctor patient relationship negatively through false advertisements (seen in Claritin). Dr. Abramson's book is a great work on medical ethics. The book details how it is possible to be ethical in medicine despite the corruption and deceit that has increased since the 1980s and 1990s. With pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies attempting to take autonomy from primary care physicians since the 1980s, Dr. Abramson describes how it is still possible to remain ethical and moral by choosing to not be a part of corruption and deceit.

We learn that there is always a choice to remain ethical and practice integrity. There is the choice to persevere with morality despite the temporary lies of the snake that says, "Everyone sins. Why not sin and be like everyone else?" We can choose to avoid the lies of the snake knowing that there are individuals that are good and practice integrity. We do not need to believe the temporary lies of the snake that envies when individuals worship GOD Almighty. We choose to remain ethical and speak out against corruption especially when it attempts to promote faulty "medications" and "vaccines". We can choose to avoid adverse experimental "vaccines" and expose corruption.

The Scientists Whose Plane Fell and Had Developed a Treatment Against a Type of Cancer

 The Scientists Whose Plane Fell and Had Developed a Treatment Against a Type of Cancer in the 1970s or 1980s

There was a story of a group of scientists that had supposedly found a cure for cancer. (I think that it may have been for a type of cancer and not cancer in general because there are different types of cancer.) The scientists had worked on a treatment or medication that would help treat a type of cancer. After working on a treatment, they made a medication or treatment that supposedly cured a type of cancer.

The scientists were then invited to a conference to present their findings. I do not recall if it was after the conference or before traveling to the conference that the scientist's plane in which they were traveling fell and plummeted. The scientists did not survive the plane crash and died in the supposed accident.

I do not recall if this was in the 1970s or 1980s that the plane crash happened. The scientists had created an amazing treatment against a type of cancer and most likely were envied by some socialists in the medical community. The scientists were probably industrious and efficient and instead of being rewarded and appreciated, were probably envied.

There are theories that state that the CIA was responsible for the plane accident. This would not be a surprise because we already read about how MLK and JFK were envied by the FBI and socialist racists. The FDA has also denied an amazing new drug (that treated muscular dystrophy or myasthenia gravis) that passed all medical stages of testing only to be denied without any reasonable explanation. 

Non-Compete in Research

It may have been that the FDA denied an amazing drug in the 2010s that treated muscular dystrophy. The medication had passed all four clinical stages and did not result in adverse health effects. There was no reasoning as to why the effective medication was not approved. The medication alleviated symptoms, improved the patient's health, did not cause secondary symptoms, and still it was denied approval after passing all four clinical stages and 8-10 years of research. 

A journalist on the WSJ described how there was no logical explanation given into why the medication was denied approval. It may have been that there was envy that an amazing medication was created by an independent researcher. The medication may have been the best medication in a long time and was denied based on envy. (At least we know the times we are living in. Muscular dystrophy had been researched since Lou Gherig's disease was noted in the 1940s. The socialists say no to medication that improves muscular dystrophy, but yes to covid experimental pulmonary embolism "vaccines".)

Dr. Robert Fletcher

 Dr. Robert Fletcher

"At the same time that medical journals are given incentives to please the drug companies, they are also given strong disincentives to go against drug company interests."

Dr. Abramson described that the medical journal articles in the 2000s were beginning to be affected by bias because of the pharmaceutical companies. Journal articles were being published that were positive reviews for newer medication when writers were choosing to hide real information to prevent negative results from being published or described in the case of Vioxx and Celebrex. In the case of Celebrex, the adverse effects were omitted from being published in the twelve month study and only the first six months of the study were published. 

Dr. Fletcher spoke truth being an editor of a journal of Internal Medicine. Dr. Fletcher published an article that stated that 44% of the drug ads in medical journals are written in a way that would lead doctors with no other source of information to prescribe improperly. Dr. Fletcher also described that 92% of the drug ads were in violation of FDA rules (Overdo$ed America page 113).

This describes the incongruency between how individuals that spoke truth to prevent medical harm to others were actually punished instead of rewarded. This was in 1992 that Dr. Fletcher described concern over drug ads in medical journals that are known to be significant in the prescribing of medication. This is similar to Dr. Gueriguian and Dr. Applegate who spoke out against the bias that the pharmaceutical companies were attempting to have on research of new medications.

Dr. Fletcher wrote in The Lancet in 2003 about how he was punished by the pharmaceutical industry who withdrew ads from the journal where he was the main editor. This describes that pharmaceutical companies have attempted to encroach and prevent real unbiased research in favor of positively reviewing newer medication that can have significant side effects and symptoms. This is interesting noting how since the 2000s, the pharmaceutical companies have attempted to prevent unbiased research in favor of newer medication approved in haste. 

Bias in Medical Journal Articles

Dr. Abramson described how there was increased bias in medical journal articles in the 1990s and 2000s. Dr. Fletcher in 1992 also described that advertisement on medical journals was deceitful and intended to make individuals prescribe medications based on false advertisement. Medical journals also included articles that were deceitful and could have led to increased prescription of dangerous medication like Pravachol, Vioxx, Celebrex, Quinoglute, Norpace, and Estrogen Replacement Therapy. Medical journals had integrity and ethics denying publication of support for dangerous drugs, yet in the 1990s it seemed that they allowed financial ties between researchers and pharmaceutical companies when before there was none.

The financial ties between researchers that published medical journal articles and pharmaceutical companies in the 1990s led to increased prescription of dangerous drugs that caused adverse health effects. This was another method that big pharma was attempting to lead to a monopoly and also caused adverse health effects. Newer and more expensive drugs were supported while exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation were not discussed. This was so that generic medications and inexpensive treatment would not be considered as options. Big pharma tried to overprescribe or "push pills" through deceitful medical journal articles instead of remaining objective and ethical.

Statins May Not Only Be Correlated With Incidence of Cancer But Also Strokes

"Not mentioned in the article's abstract, and mentioned only once in passing in the text, were the unexpected findings that the lower (that is, what we think of as healthier) the total and LDL (bad) cholesterol, the greater was the risk of stroke. (More on cholesterol later, but generally total cholesterol and more specifically LDL cholesterol play a role in blocking arteries, and HDL cholesterol partially counteracts this effect.) Buried with the tables included in this article were statistics showing that lower levels of total cholesterol and lower levels of LDL cholesterol were both significantly correlated with a higher risk of stroke (p< .001 and p= .04, respectively). As I read on, I was completely baffled by the authors' statement that 'we found no relation between total cholesterol levels and stroke when their own data showed that the odds were greater than 1000 to 1 that lower total cholesterol levels were associated with a higher risk of stroke? A follow-up letter to the editor of JAMA from a doctor employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (expressing his own views) pointed out that the authors had 'neglected to discuss these findings'... The article got even stranger when it argued that its data supported the use of statins to prevent strokes in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels. Statins raise HDL cholesterol only half as much as the article found would be necessary to significantly reduce the risk of stroke. But statins lower total and LDL cholesterol at least three times more on a percentage basis, far more than enough to significantly increase the risk of stroke, according to the data from the study. Nevertheless, the article concluded that treatment of low HDL cholesterol with statin drugs could significantly decrease the risk of stroke- ignoring its own findings that the overall effect on cholesterol would be associated with increased risk of stroke."- (page 19-20)

Dr. Abramson described how statin use may be correlated with potential carcinogenicity based on a medical journal article in 1994. Dr. Abramson also described that using statin medications may also increase the risk of strokes when they were said to have decreased the risk of stroke based on medical journal articles on Pravachol medication. Medical journal articles stated that statin medications supposedly increase (good cholesterol) HDL while decreasing total cholesterol and LDL (bad cholesterol). Dr. Abramson found out that statins only increase HDL by half of the amount that would cause a health benefit while actually decreasing LDL and total cholesterol that has been proven to cause strokes. Statins decrease LDL and total cholesterol about three times as much and can cause strokes instead of helping reduce strokes. A doctor of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services even sent a letter in June 2001 to an editor of JAMA to describe the discrepency. 

Statin medications may cause strokes by reducing total cholesterol and LDL. Dr. Abramson stated that lowering total cholesterol and LDL leads to increase of strokes. Dr. Abramson also stated that exercise can be more beneficial to lowering stroke risk than taking statins, yet medical journal articles did not state that exercise is of greater benefit than statins. (Probably because exercise does not have a monetary cost while statins can be expensive if they are brand name and newer than generics.)

"I started to wonder why the article ["Pravastatin Therapy and the Risk of Stroke"] focused on cholesterol at all. The study found that other factors were just as significant as low HDL cholesterol in increasing the risk of strokes: untreated blood pressure, lack of exercise, cigarette smoking, heavy drinking... In fact, the authors of this study had used data from the same case-control study in an article published in 1998 to show that even light to moderate physical activity reduced the risk of stroke in the same people by 61 percent and that heavy exercise reduced the risk of stroke by 77 percent. The benefit of exercise documented by these authors certainly overshadows the 19 percent reduction in stroke associated with an increase in HDL of mg/dL-almost twice as much as is achievable with statins. Curiously, the authors' earlier findings about the important role of exercise were not even mentioned in the current article. And, though the authors did cite the earlier NEJM article about Pravachol and stroke, they failed to mention that the article found no relationship between low HDL levels and increased risk of stroke."- (page 20) 

Expensive and Harmful Medications Were Promoted on Medical Journal Articles in 2000

Pravachol was not the only medication that was promoted on medical journal articles. Celebrex and Vioxx were anti-rheumatoid arthritis medication that were also dangerous to the health. Vioxx caused upper GI bleeds, heart attacks, strokes, and cardiovascular events. Despite conclusive evidence of the medication causing health problems, it was marketed on television commercials and kept on the market for multiple years prior to being removed from pharmacies. Medical journals promoted the medications despite there being financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers in the publication.

The medical journals also decided to allow for financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers. This describes the obvious lack of integrity from the pharmaceutical companies (monopoly), medical journals, and reseachers. This describes how since the 1990s even medical journal articles have been compromised by the lack of ethics and integrity in medical research. If that was happening in the 1990s with dismal medication that harmed patients, can we be surprised with covid experimental "vaccine" propaganda. 

Celebrex Was Promoted on Medical Journal Articles Without Having All the Data Published

"Pharmacia, the manufacturer of Celebrex, presented a statistical argument to the FDA justifying its omission of the data from the second half of the study. The company claimed that since a higher percentage of people taking diclofenac dropped out of the study because of minor symptoms like heartburn, the data from the second half of the study were invalid because of what is called 'informed censoring'. The manufacturer argued that these dropouts would have gone on to develop serious gastrointestinal complications, and their dropping out of the study artificially minimized the risk of serious complications from taking diclofenac. The FDA flatly rejected this argument. It countered that there was no proof that the people with heartburn would have developed more serious gastrointestinal problems. Further, if minor symptoms caused people in the study to stop taking diclofenac, people in the real world similarly would stop taking the drug if it caused heartburn and would similarly protect themselves from going on to develop serious gastrointestinal complications. The FDA's opinion of the manufacturer's decision to publish only half of the data from its study was clear: 'the sponsor's presentations of 6-month data... are not statistically valid or supportable.'"- (page 30)

Celebrex was promoted as a safer medication option to NSAIDs that can cause irritation of the stomach lining. Researchers stated that Celebrex did not cause irritation of the stomach lining like Ibuprofen and Diclofenac generic medication. Dr. Abramson described that Celebrex was noted to cause stomach complications such as upper GI bleeds and health problems. Researchers knew about the side effects of Celebrex yet hid the results of the second six months of the study from medical journal publication to allow the medication to be promoted on commercials and even prescribed as a great medication. 

The first six months of the study were published where no adverse health effects were noted, yet the second six months of the study were hidden from publication since they described that Celebrex was an unsafe medication causing upper GI bleeds and not being a better alternative to NSAIDs such as Ibuprofen and Diclofenac. The medical journal article published described that Celebrex was a better alternative to NSAIDs while being a dangerous treatment for minor to moderate aches and pains. The researchers had ties with the pharmaceutical companies and describe how dangerous medications were approved in haste even in the 2000s. New medications must submit their research findings to the FDA prior to drug approval. The FDA reviewed the 6 month and 12 month data and found out that the conclusion of the publications on medical journals that Celebrex was better than generic NSAIDS to be false. The faulty argument of Pharmacia was that the second half of the study was not published because individuals taking Diclofenac who had heartburn had dropped out and caused the data to be invalidated. This was to make Celebrex seem like a better medication through deceit. This was called "informed censoring". The real reason was that Diclofenac was a better treatment than Celebrex and did not cause as numerous upper GI bleeds and health complications compared to Celebrex. 

"Looking at the data from the entire year of the study, the FDA's gastroenterology reviewer concluded that 'the sponsor has failed to demonstrate a statistically lower rate' of serious GI complications in the people who took Celebrex compared with the people who took the other NSAIDs. When the reviewer looked at only the second six months of the data (i.e., the data that had not been published in the JAMA article), he concluded that the risk of serious GI complications appeared to be higher in the people who took Celebrex 'compared to both Ibuprofen and Diclofenac'. This was hardly an endorsement for a drug whose only advantage (besides the convenience of a once-daily dosing) was that it caused fewer serious GI problems.

The FDA told the pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia, that it could not promote the Celebrex medication with false statements that it was safer than NSAIDs because it was not true. However, Celebrex kept marketing the medication, and the medication kept being prescribed. The FDA also did not prevent the medication from being recalled once it knew about the findings and only issued warning letters to the pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical company kept promoting the dangerous medication. Journal articles which are supposed to promote the best treatment were promoting dangerous and harmful medication. Pharmaceutical companies were using medical journals to promote bad medication with flawed research design and dishonest findings. Celebrex was not the only medication featured in medical journal articles.

Vioxx Was Promoted in Medical Journals Yet Led to Heart Attacks and Cardiovascular Complications

"Next I looked at the data in the FDA files comparing the risk of serious cardiovascular complications in the people who took Vioxx with the risk of those who took naproxen. The original research plan for the VIGOR study had acknowledged the possibility that naproxen users might develop fewer serious cardiovascular complications than those who took Vioxx. The reasoning was that the COX-1 inhibiting activity of naproxen makes platelets less "sticky" (like aspirin, but not to the same extent), potentially decreasing the risk of unwanted blood clots- a property not shared by Vioxx, which is a selective COX-2 inhibitor. Because of this possibility, the research called for serious 'cardiovascular thrombotic or embolic' complications (serious cardiovascular complications include: sudden cardiac death, heart attack, stroke, unstable angina, transient ischemic attack, arterial blood clot, and venous blood clot) to be examined by an independent committee to make sure that the study results were accurate and unbiased. It turns out that the increased number of serious cardiovascular complications in Vioxx users more than offset the highly touted GI benefits of this drug. In the VIGOR study the people who took Vioxx experienced 21 fewer serious GI complications than those who took naproxen, but they experienced 27 more serious cardiovascular complications. These were the results that the November 2000 NEJM article on the VIGOR study acknowledged had been assessed, but did not report."

Dr. Abramson stated that the complete research data on Vioxx available on the FDA website in the year 2000 described the possibility that Vioxx caused more cardiovascular complications than naproxen. However, the NEJM did not actually fully report the complete findings. Dr. Abramson described that based on the journal article published, Vioxx appeared to cause less GI complications than naproxen while actually causing significantly more cardiovascular problems than naproxen. (Why promote on a medical journal and market a faulty medication that leads to severe cardiac problems even if it supposedly prevents GI complications? Naproxen was a safer alternative than Vioxx.)

There were supposedly 21 fewer GI complications from using Vioxx, yet 27 more severe cardiac complications that included sudden death. If a medication causes so much health problems, the safer alternative is preferred. The NEJM also tried to down play the fact that Vioxx caused serious cardiac complications and that Vioxx increases the risk of problems in people who should have taken aspirin because of a previous cardiovascular problem. The cardiac complications were not described entirely in the medical journal article.

Vioxx also was touted as a better alternative than Naproxen that prevented GI complications yet caused increased heart attacks and serious cardiac adverse events that led to hospitalizagions or death compared to the people who took Naproxen (p= .013). 

"Overall, the people in the VIGOR study who took Vioxx were 2.4 times more likely than those who took Naproxen to experience a serious cardiovascular complication. The statistical significance of this finding (p= .0016) means that there are less than two chances out of a thousand that this increase in the risk of developing serious cardiovascular complications is simply due to chance.

"The results of the VIGOR study show that for every 100 people with a history of cardiovascular disease treated with Vioxx instead of Naproxen there were between seven to eleven additional serious cardiovascular complications each year."- (page 35)

The NEJM article did not describe the finding as significant and called it a "play of chance" in order to promote the medication as safe. The role of using statistics in research is to find the cause of a finding and remove illogical explanations. The "play of chance" phrasing may have been to downplay the significance of the truthful finding so that the unsafe medication could be promoted as a better alternative to Naproxen. The FDA sent a warning letter to Merck, the pharmaceutical company that made Vioxx, about false and misleading statements about its safety concerning cardiovascular complications, yet the medication kept being prescribed. The newer, non-generic, and expensive medication caused adverse health effects and was not better than Naproxen. We can persevere learning about statistics and science in ordert to avoid bad medication and "vaccines". Even once prestigious medical journals, JAMA and NEJM, published faulty medical knowledge to cause physicians to prescribe faulty medications in Celebrex and Vioxx that caused severe health complication.

"An FDA reviewer commented that the greater risk of cardiovascular problems in the people who took Vioxx 'could lead one to conclude that naproxen... would be the preferred drug."- (page 35)

"Vioxx costs $100 to $134 a month, compared with $18.19 a month for prescription Naproxen or $7.50 for over-the-counter Naproxen."

"By the end of 2001, 57 percent of all money spent on prescription arthritis medication in the United States was spent on Celebrex and Vioxx, and both were among the top 10 selling drugs in the United States."- (page 38)

John S. Penderton

 John S. Penderton

Penderton was a pharmacist who created the formula of Coca-Cola also referred to as soda, or fountain drink. The reason that Coke took to its name was because there was a trace amount of cocaine in the original formula. The fountain drink was initially supposed to be used only in case of dyspepsia or indigestion and not for every day use.

Coca-Cola was sold to another agency and became a soft drink that was advertised as a refreshing every day drink. Coca-Cola with advertisement became seen as something that could be drunk every day instead of only when there was indigestion.

The trace amount of cocaine was removed and the original recipe was modified. Coca-Cola actually is not meant to be consumed every day and can lead to diabetes, being overweight, and obesity. Physicians and health experts have attempted to describe the need to drink 6-8 glasses of water a day instead of soda that has 39 grams of sugar per serving. A typical 24 ounce of soda can have 78 grams of sugar.

We can avoid sugary drinks and instead choose to drink water. Drinking water every day can help avoid being overweight, prevent diabetes, and diabetes complications. We should avoid commercials for unneeded things such as soft drinks. (Things that are needed like bread and water do not have commercials. If there are commercials for a specific item, then it is probably not needed. We should also be skeptical of false advertisement.)

Fernando del Solar

 Fernando del Solar

Fernando del Solar was a Mexican Argentinian television presenter who was positive and motivated individuals. He worked in the morning editions of television programming being encouraging and positive. Fernando del Solar was able to help individuals see the positive side of life instead of being bitter and envious.

Fernando del Solar would be recognized as one of the best television presenters for his spontaneity and also his good sense of humor. Fernando del Solar was able to encourage television viewers so that they could start their mornings being cheerful.

Del Solar would develop a type of cancer, yet he did not let that discourage him. His wife left him after developing a type of cancer, and Del Solar kept being positive. Del Solar managed to recuperate from cancer and kept a positive mind set through it all. Del Solar describes how circumstances do not define a person and that individuals can still be positive despite not so good circumstances.

After recuperating from cancer, he returned to work at a different television morning program where he was discouraged for being cheerful and positive. Instead of being impressed by his resiliency to be positive and motivated, the bitter feminists attempted to discourage him. They seemed to be negative and irritated by displays of positivity and goodness. Del Solar left that place for another morning program where he remained being positive and encouraging. He remarked how it is better to avoid negative people who try to cause negative emotions. We can learn from Fernando del Solar about the need to avoid socialists and feminists who actually attempt to cause negative emotions in others and resent happiness and positivity. Socialists actually hate cheerfulness and having a sense of humor. We can learn from Fernando del Solar that positivity can help us persevere and to avoid socialists who only want to cause bitterness in others.

The Documentary That Criticized Greed and Materialism

The Documentary That Criticized Greed and Materialism

There was a documentary made in the 2000s or 2010s that talked about how materialism does not satisfy. The documentary was made by a journalist who described that making money our everything results in unhappiness. The documentary was made in the 2000s, yet I can not recall the name of the documentary (the documentary described the life of a journalist who worked and also raised her family and also described Warren Buffett's work being the administrator of an investment banking company.) The documentary described how worshiping money does not lead to happiness.

The journalist described through different individuals lives how money is only a tool and not the most important thing in life. Money is meant to be administrated for good use instead of worshiped and misused. The documentary describes the reality of how once individuals have their basic necessities met, money does not actually improve happiness. There are other things that actually do improve happiness like practicing genuine empathy, studying and reading, writing, self-improvement, singing, learning languages, exercising, and keeping fidelity to GOD Almighty. 

The documentary described a journalist who made about average income and described that money was not the source of happiness. She also described the life of wealthy individuals who prioritized money. The documentary described that the worship of money leads to coveting and not to happiness. The documentary describes that money is just a tool that can be used to buy necessities and that can be administrated for good instead of misused and worshiped.

There are multiple sources from Psychiatrists to Psychologists that have stated that money is not meant to be worshiped because it leads to unhappiness and coveting. To place all the emphasis on paper money that can stagflate and also decrease in value is not wise. We instead choose GOD Almighty who allows us to persevere with everything that we need. We may not have specific things because they are not needed to persevere in the path of eternal salvation. The documentary was an eye opener concerning how accumulating stagflated currency does not satisfy. This is because we are created for greater things than the worship of stagflated currency. I saw the documentary in college or after college and understood that money is not everything despite post-modernism and socialism wanting individuals to worship money. The reason socialism wants individuals to worship money is so that they become bitter when they compare themselves to others based on how other people may have more money. (The idolatrous millionaire covets the person with 2 millions and so on and so forth.) That is the point of money worship or idolatry. Instead, we decide to worship GOD Almighty because we do not compare ourselves based on inanimate material perishable items nor stagflated currency (Venezuela's currency is not worth much and that can happen in any country especially under socialism.) The snake wants individuals to covet, and they can only covet when they compare themselves to others. Instead of comparing ourselves based on stagflated currency, we have gratitude for having everything that we need to persevere to Shabbath Millennium. We learn that instead we have authenticity and uniqueness instead of practicing envy and coveting based on paper money (that is not even anchored to diamonds, platinum, gold, silver, bronze, emeralds, rubys, or jewelry). A book that I read, the Reckoning by Jacob Soll, stated that the banking system was basically created on IOUs or paper notes that were receipts. There was no platinum, gold, silver, or bronze backing money. Instead there were IOUs and that became paper money. (That is why Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson opposed the First and Second Bank of the US and were disdained by idolators.) Once we realize that natural resources are more important than monetary paper notes, we begin to understand the beauty of GOD Almighty's creation and how the earth provides basic necessities that are more precious than greed and monetary IOUs. (However if idolators slander, commit adultery, practice homosexuality, murder, steal, and covet, the earth does not produce needed necessities. The climate change false argument was made by idolators to obfuscate the truth and try to prevent the preaching of repentance of sin. The practice of homosexuality (LGBT) and grave sin are the reason for the not so good times.) We learn that greed and coveting are from the snake and describes the non-compete mafia's mentality of not wanting others to improve and get better based on merit and competition such as in sports, jobs, and education (60 years after Civil Rights Movement). We have seen this with covid experimental "vaccines" developed in haste and that cause blood clots (44 years after the 1976 flu "vaccines" of unknown strain that led to adverse health problems and sudden death to many individuals who took the "vaccine" made in haste). We can persevere knowing that these are not the best of times when non-compete mentality is actually celebrated by idolators instead of repudiated. Instead we can acknowledge that we can ignore the lies and choose to keep improving preaching and writing truth. (We can persevere worshiping GOD Almighty despite the not so good times that idolatry and sycophants have caused.)

The Banking Collapse of 2009

We learned from the 2008-2009 banking crash about how the economy was not improving. The economy never fully recovered after banks went under. Employers did not give full time employment (like in the 1950s and 1960s with benefits and good pay) and also had non-compete clauses for part time jobs without benefits. It seems that the economy never quite improved after 2009. Individuals had to work two part time jobs and had no benefits. This was while individuals were saying that the economy had improved and then the housing market crashed in the 2010s. It is possible than the economy did not recover completely since the 2008-2009 banking crash and 2010s housing crash. With covid added, we can understand that the economy has been stagnated for a while. (That is why we do not worship money.)

When I applied to multiple jobs in the 2010s, it seemed that most jobs had non-compete clauses while also being part time jobs without benefits. The intention was to prevent individuals from improving their circumstances through non-compete clauses where individuals who developed a work skill set through hard work and dedication could not be employed at two different companies with the same job description for fear that individuals could work more hours, improve their skill set, and improve their circumstances (the real fear was that individuals could start their own companies after learning a trade and compete against established companies). Non-compete clauses are from the snake and socialism. Socialist business commentators stated that this was good for businesses while actually promoting non-compete. Non-compete clauses favor monopoly "capitalism" by preventing workers from increasing work experience, improving talents, improving salary, and favoring businesses over individuals. The socialist intention is to provide labor without benefits and favoring companies through non-compete. It seems that in the 2010s, the economy never improved and non-compete clauses were a manner to skimp on benefits and better pay. Then covid happened and the economy definitely stagnated. We can still be grateful knowing that we can persevere in the worship of GOD Almighty and not prioritize money. The value of money fell during the banking collapse of 2008-2009 and housing market crash of the 2010s. We can persevere knowing that we have everything that we need in the worship of GOD Almighty. Our grandparents survived the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, de-estabilization in the Middle East, Avian flu, Swine flu, E. Bola, the banking collapse of 2008-2009, housing market crash in the 2010s, 1976 "flu of unknown" strain, the covid "unknown flu strain", and still instructed integrity, motivation, a sense of humor, and happiness. We can persevere with integrity and choosing GOD Almighty above everything.

Non-Compete on Stock Trading

With the money I was making working part time jobs, I was able to get into med school (and also get out of med school without getting vaccinated with experimental "vaccines"). I went back to working part time jobs after med school and learned to day trade on Robinhood. While writing my blogs, working part time jobs, learning languages, writing on quora, and exercising, I began to day trade. While day trading, I began to learn about options trading. I began to make good trades and began to supplement my income. The part time jobs allowed me to day trade and increase my income. Because I was improving making good options trades, I was blocked from day trading and then my debit card was frozen (about the time I left a part time job and was being gangstalked.) There was probably envy that I was supplementing my income through learning about stock trading and also still working a part time job. (Not a leech and actually learned how to make good day trades by myself.) They also prevented me from withdrawing 401k savings, reinvesting dividends, and making cents on Medium (the blog writing site) to prevent me from reinvesting. I still have everything I need and do not have regrets. Not vaccinated once with an "experimental" vaccine. Can keep improving and worshiping GOD Almighty.

It was probable that the gangstalking socialists were envious of that too. Despite the non-compete mentality of sycophants, I can persevere being grateful that I did not love money and instead place my importance in the worship of GOD Almighty. After all paper money has an expiration date. And we can avoid the technological implant.