DWQA Questions › Tag: sabotage
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
You have said to us many times that the interlopers are carrying out a Trojan Horse maneuver to deceive us in representing themselves as benevolent white-hat ETs who are here to help save us from the black-hat variety who have infiltrated our world. Is the current rollout and escalation of the mad dash to create ever-more-powerful AI systems, in effect, a Trojan Horse bringing a kind of false-hope with alien encouragement that will ultimately backfire, causing damage and economic losses from within our own infrastructure?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
59 views0 answers0 votes
It is difficult for me to tell from this channeling to what degree, if any, using Artificial Intelligence could be considered wise. It is clear from the discussion that advanced agentic AI systems pose greater dangers from going rogue, not only allowing intrusive clandestine oversight and manipulation, but fatal sabotaging of operations. But what safety guarantees exist that today’s simpler platforms won’t be altered by the interlopers to allow higher-level manipulations and damaging actions?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
51 views0 answers0 votes
You told us recently that human reliance on Artificial Intelligence would prove to be a costly mistake and many problems and limitations would become evident, but that the Extraterrestrial Alliance is not counting on existing platforms to become a doomsday device during their planned absence. This new channeling seems more dark, and even uses the term “doomsday device.” Does the interloper planning envision a more important role of AI failures to continue softening up humanity for their eventual annihilation? Is one important factor for the delay in launching the planned sequence of major catalysts, starting with the tidal power outages, the need for more time to put in place greater human reliance on AI systems and to ensure they are sufficiently corrupted?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
61 views0 answers0 votes
We have shared comments about the paper in JAMA blowing the whistle on medical dangers, in pointing out that the U.S. healthcare system was the third leading cause of death in America (Starfield, B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000 284:483-5). Things continue to raise questions. I just saw a citation of an editorial by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, published in 2015 in which he says: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” While this is largely focused on the pressures to publish because of the vested interests of researchers, as well as journal editors, is there a deeper reason that quality and integrity suffer?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
45 views0 answers0 votes
A news outlet reported: “A series of fires and explosions at oil refineries and energy installations across multiple countries—including India, the United States, Australia, Mexico, and Ecuador—has sparked global concern, particularly as these incidents coincide with the ongoing Middle East conflict involving Iran.” Is this indeed a pattern of sabotage to further stress energy supplies? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “In his 1970s book, Medical Nemesis, Ivan Illich suggests medicine isn’t the primary reason people survive illness; sanitation, nutrition, and housing matter more. He goes on to say over-treatment and exaggeration of disease are widespread, that healthcare fosters dependency, and that illness is seen as unacceptable. Healthcare often operates less for the benefit of patients and more to serve political, social, or bureaucratic interests – public image, economic concerns, or voter approval over medical advice. His views jarred badly with me. Is it right to say, in 2026, that people avoid confronting mortality and that modern healthcare is more about socio-political optics than illnesses?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “An overlooked aspect of modern medicine is perhaps that now normal human experiences—such as minor stress, aging, ‘high’ blood pressure, ‘high’ cholesterol, or childbirth—are labeled as medical problems that require professional intervention. Society has arguably become increasingly dependent on doctors and healthcare institutions, losing confidence in self-care and mutual support. Medical institutions now dictate social norms, defining what is ‘normal’ or ‘deviant,’ and expanding their authority into everyday life. Is this intended to weaken society’s resilience, creating a population that depends on the medical system for a ‘pharmaceutical invasion’ and even the conception of who is ‘ill?'”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
47 views0 answers0 votes
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 3 months ago • 
147 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 3 months ago • 
123 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 3 months ago • 
115 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 3 months ago • 
77 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 3 months ago • 
89 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 3 months ago • 
120 views0 answers0 votes
Creator recently channeled that the greatest karmic rewards come to those who take on the greatest challenges. You wouldn’t think that playing football for the Detroit Lions would amount to much of a karmic challenge, but since we have learned that they have been a targeted group since 1958, and Detroit is a targeted city due to Detroit’s prominent role in helping the Allies win World War II, it turns out that anyone playing for and coaching for the Detroit Lions was putting themselves squarely in harm’s way. Detroit developed a pernicious and persistent losing culture. Like many karmic dilemmas, it seemed the situation just got worse with time. Negative karma has a tendency to compound, to spiral downward, and eventually reach a point where the entity trapped in the dilemma is no longer in a position to save themselves. Was this truly the situation with the Lions organization prior to a campaign being launched to heal them using the Lightworker Healing Protocol? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
463 views0 answers0 votes
Lightworker Healing Protocol sessions being done for the Detroit Lions were aimed at providing protection from targeting and manipulation. This is a complex request because the free will choices of the interlopers doing the targeting still needed some allowance for expression within the divine rules of engagement. The request was never, “Creator, help the Lions win.” It was soon noticed that the frequency and severity of injuries did, in fact, seem to decline. But something else also seemed to happen, the team dramatically improved its play and started winning. But the improvement seemed way out of proportion in contrast to the requests for protection from harm. When asked about it, Creator said it was a backlog of compensatory karma coming to bear after decades of targeting. Yet, it seems that this compensatory karma could not be brought to bear until the healing campaign was launched. Can Creator explain how compensatory karma can be held at bay by the pernicious downward spiral of negative karma?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
446 views0 answers0 votes
123…5Next »
Ask Question