DWQA Questions › Tag: human health
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “Are contact lenses generally safe, or are there inherent risks to be aware of? If there are risks, how can they be mitigated?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
Is the PEMF device similar in mechanism to the device Royal Rife had promising healing results with? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
27 views0 answers0 votes
You have told us that using Cannabitol 5000 will be just as effective as an antiviral or anticancer agent compared to Cannabitol 5000 with ECS5. Can you confirm this is so, especially as the version with ECS5 has black pepper to enhance absorption?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
32 views0 answers0 votes
What are the benefits of having ECS5 along with Cannabitol 5000?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
39 views0 answers0 votes
The CDC reported on Thursday, that the U.S. life expectancy increased in 2024 to a record high of 79 years. The top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. all declined by varying small degrees. Heart disease deaths, the top killer, were down by 3%. Deaths from unintentional injuries declined 14.4% from the previous year. This seems surprising given the fact serious chronic illnesses have been steadily increasing in case numbers for years. Were these statistics manipulated to make the healthcare system look good?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
36 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “I have been wearing glasses since I was young. I suspect I actually didn’t need them, but it was foisted on me due to a concerned family friend who raised the alarm to my parents when I complained of not being able to see the blackboard from the back of the classroom. I think this was a temporary fluctuation in vision acuity, but the glasses themselves paralyze eye muscles and lock in bad vision. First of all, is my theory correct that the glasses themselves deteriorated my eyesight to the point of a vicious cycle of dependency?” What can we tell him?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Glasses and contact lenses are a nuisance to me. I am athletic and they get in the way. I have rejected LASIK eye surgery until now due to the risks. However, recently, I have been thinking more about it. It would be liberating not to have to depend on glasses or contacts anymore. I think it would make me more resilient physically, especially considering the tough times ahead, as well as protect me from the risk of not having my glasses on hand (they can break, too) or running out of contact lenses. I also get uncomfortable with glasses and contacts, and sometimes get headaches. They sure do get in the way of fun as well. And I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, and again, vision correction causes extra strain. I know several people that have done the surgery and they report no problems years after. But there are also lots of warnings about risks, such as blurry vision and regression after some time. Overall, I know the divine realm is not in favor of surgery. Considering that we need to be in top form with minimal obstacles to effectiveness for the mission, and considering that I am also supported by the protocols to mitigate risks, would it be best for me to do this procedure? Or are there serious risks that could become a net negative and is it best to continue relying on glasses/contact lenses?” What can we tell him?
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
31 views0 answers0 votes
A study was reported in 2004 of people with advanced coronary artery disease who started taking just 50 ml of pomegranate juice daily. At the end of 1 year, control subjects taking a placebo showed a further 9% increase of coronary artery media-intima thickening. Those on pomegranate juice, had up to a 30% decrease [M. Aviram, et al., Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and LDL oxidation. Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):423-33]. Were these findings truly reflecting an important therapeutic benefit of a simple, widely available nutraceutical? Is there anything sinister about the limited follow-up by the medical community?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
38 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “According to ChatGPT, risks of topical chelation are minimal with small areas and short use but could lower calcium or magnesium if used extensively (EDTA binds calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron, potentially lowering levels) and that rare but serious complications include mineral depletion, hypotension, fatigue, or strain on kidneys or liver. Would using low concentrations (1–5%), avoiding chelation if there are kidney, liver, or metabolic issues and limiting duration and frequency (e.g., once daily, 5–7 days per cycle), and limiting the treated area to a small area of the body (≤20–25% of surface), while taking a daily multivitamin/multimineral supplement be a sound safety protocol?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
31 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Creator has previously suggested topical chelation as an effective treatment for improving coronary vessel blood flow, especially in combination with Lumbrokinase and Venoplus8. Chelactiv EDTA Cream from Chelactiv, Inc however is not available in the UK. Would the UK products KelaCream EDTA Heavy Metal Detox Cream (delivers Calcium Disodium EDTA into the body transdermally.) and Detoxacream be safe and effective in reducing arterial calcified plaque, given that EDTA can be irritating to veins, cause blood pressure drops, damage kidneys and removes essential minerals from the body, including calcium?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
27 views0 answers0 votes
Is taking a wide spectrum mineral supplement essential if using topical chelation therapy?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
28 views0 answers0 votes
N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) is widely used in respiratory medicine, with a maximum licensed dose in chronic use of 600 mg/day, although use of up to 3,000 mg/day has been reported to be safe. The supplement studies combining Glycine with NAC (GlyNAC) have used doses of 100 mg/kg/day of each supplement. Thus, a 150-pound person (68 kg) would be taking about 6,800 mg of Glycine and 6,800 mg of NAC. Are these doses safe to recommend for daily intake, as long-term safety has not been established yet at these levels of exposure?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
26 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Being aware of Creator’s previous answers on Vitamin D3 supplementation I was shocked to discover a paper from 2014 “A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D”. The paper claims that the Recommended Daily Allowance advocated by the Institute of Medicine for Vitamin D was incorrectly calculated! In fact, analyzing the data correctly, nearly 9000 IUs per day are required to achieve target levels (600 IU per day is the USA recommended level). I was struck by how closely the 9000 IU figure matched Creator’s “daily doses of 5,000 to 10,000 IU vitamin D3 will rarely be harmful.” What is Creator’s perspective on this “miscalculation” coming to light?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
81 views0 answers0 votes
A British group reported recently that administration of vitamin D2, which is converted to vitamin D3 by the body, may be disadvantageous. A review of random controlled trials showed that taking vitamin D2 can lead to a decrease in vitamin D3 levels, the more active form generated by sunlight exposure. The research indicates that D2 supplementation may not only be less effective, but can also lead to lower concentrations of D3 in the circulation. [Emily I G Brown, et al. Effect of Vitamin D2 Supplementation on 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutr Rev, 2025 Sep 18:nuaf166.doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaf166]. Is this an accurate and meaningful assessment? What is most important for us to know?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
89 views0 answers0 votes
In reviewing the ingredients of Primal X Plus, a supplement promoted by Dr. Al Sears and the supplier, Primal Force, and said to be an effective mix of 35 ingredients for stimulating and optimizing stem cell function, it seems to offer many basic vitamins, minerals, and tissue constituents but nothing particularly exotic. Is this something unique, or is the marketing emphasis on scientific breakthroughs in better understanding the origins and function of stem cells just detailing benefits of broad spectrum nutraceutical coverage that likely occurs with many supplements, singly and in combination?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
72 views0 answers0 votes
123…42Next »
Ask Question