DWQA Questions › Tag: past lives
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 7 days ago • 
48 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 7 days ago • 
40 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 7 days ago • 
33 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
31 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “In her February 2026 channeling of The Pleiadians, Barbara Marciniak says that all information on our human ancestors is in our DNA. She says that by thinking in a relaxed way (alpha brain state) we open a gateway to ancient memories and this is how humans can discover solutions to be grounded, centered, clear, and empowered in the chaotic times ahead. Can Creator elaborate on what she meant and if the LHP request to “awaken, amplify and bring into our current life and awareness all the skills, gifts, powers, and access to higher states, from any past, future, and parallel lives” will have the effects she states? Does this request need to be more explicit?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
34 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
40 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “How do we determine what kind of life is valuable?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 8 months ago • 
289 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Can humans reincarnate as other animals, reptiles, or other creatures? If not, when people remember these experiences is it because their souls ride along or because the nonlocal mind can retrieve this information? What can Creator tell us about the origin of this belief in transmigration?”
ClosedNicola asked 8 months ago • 
327 views0 answers0 votes
How much of the power of persuasion is a product of divinely bestowed soul attributes, versus a learned skill that one acquires through trial and error over many lifetimes? If a learned skill, how is that skill transferred from lifetime to lifetime? Is it recorded in the akashic records and made part of cellular memory during the fetus’s formation? Or is it something wholly spiritual in nature, retained by the spirit itself, and if one learns the power of persuasion while incarnated, are their newly discovered persuasive powers on display in the light between lives as genuine learning? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
438 views0 answers0 votes
Persuasion is the power to effect CHANGE or perhaps prevent change. And even though there is a distinction made between persuasion and compulsion, the threat of compulsion can, in and of itself, be HIGHLY persuasive. The iconic fire and brimstone sermons delivered with great theatrics by eloquent ministers comes to mind. A “fear monger” or one who “peddles fear” also comes to mind. What is Creator’s perspective of persuasion AS compulsion?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
494 views0 answers0 votes
It’s interesting to note that the iconic “snake oil salesman” never had a storefront, like a pharmacy, but instead pulled into the town square with his wagon and hawked his magical products directly to the crowds, and then often “hightailed it” to the next town before the truth of his products became more widely known. Google defined snake oil salesmen as those who deceived people in order to get money from them. The successful ones were highly persuasive people. When one has such ability, it seems so puzzling that such a person could not find a “legitimate” avenue in which to practice those skills and be successful without all the ignominy. Good salespeople are in demand everywhere and for everything—why resort to fraud? What can Creator tell us about exploiting the masterful use of persuasion to willfully engage in fraud?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
426 views0 answers0 votes
When one does a study of some of the most effective salespeople, one often encounters a mixed bag of ethically questionable tactics. One extremely successful car salesman would sit down with a phone book, call people and tell them their new car was ready for pickup. When people inevitably said, “I didn’t order a car,” he would profusely apologize and then immediately segue into asking them if they were at all in the market for a new car. With this approach, he made a fortune and set the world record at the time for most non-fleet sales made by a car salesman “one customer at a time.” Now to his credit, he was extremely likable, attentive, thorough, and did great customer service, sent birthday cards to his customers, etc. Nevertheless, a lot of his success was predicated on a lie and deception. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
418 views0 answers0 votes
In reference to the above car salesman’s success, he was successful because he was good at “cold calling” which most people have a deep aversion to. Cold calling is one of the most obvious breaches of the “Golden Rule” there is. Almost everyone HATES getting cold calls, and yet most successful salespeople will assert that you need to do it in order to be successful. Brian remembers one “boiler room” telephone canvasser who bragged how she abused anyone cold calling her but had no problem doing cold calling for a living. The stark hypocrisy was dramatic and utterly remorseless and unapologetic. She literally thought it was “hilarious” and laughed about it. Brian found it disturbing, to say the least. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
533 views0 answers0 votes
Cold calling works precisely because so many people have an aversion to doing it. That alone makes it a successful strategy for those who can bring themselves to do it. Brian did sales in the late 80s and struggled with this dilemma. A rule of thumb is it takes 10 calls to get a lead, 10 leads to get an appointment, and 10 appointments to get a sale. Brian demonstrated to himself that, indeed, the formula works and managed to get a house listing as a result. But rather than being encouraged by his success, he was so overcome with guilt about disturbing people eating dinner that he eventually abandoned sales as a career altogether. Cold calling cannot work if everyone does it. Everyone’s phone would ring all day long and it would be utterly chaotic and untenable. There is the idea that, if “everyone” can’t, then maybe no one “should?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
438 views0 answers0 votes
123…31Next »
Ask Question