Skip to content
Research is confirming an association between poor oral health and subsequent development of poor heart health later in life. This is solidly demonstrated in the recent study of N. Nygaard, et al. “Childhood oral health is associated with the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adulthood,” Int. J. Cardiology, 448 (2026) 134151. A nationwide Danish cohort of 568,778 individuals born between 1963 and 1972 and having records in national registries showed highly significant incidence and worsening of ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke among both males and females with histories of severe childhood dental caries or gingivitis. The authors speculate those outcomes were caused by bacteria migrating from oral lesions via the bloodstream to cause vessel damage. Is this on the right track, but more likely the case that it is chronic viruses spread the same way that are the true culprit? You have told us that gingivitis is mostly caused by viruses, and while bacterial infection is also often present, it is the viruses, rather than bacteria, traveling to the brain which cause dementia? What can Creator tell us?43 views0 answers0 votes
Author Susy Smith channeled The Book of James. A book Creator earlier confirmed was written via channeling and automatic writing by the famous American psychologist and philosopher William James. In the book, James lays out his understanding of “Evolutionary Soul Progression” in the afterlife. However, there is one startling assertion that stands in contrast to the demonstrable paradigm of reincarnation. In fact, an entire chapter of the book is devoted to an attempted refutation of its importance. He may be technically correct in that reincarnation does appear to be a choice and not an absolute mandate. And Creator has stated as much when one considers that the choice to no longer reincarnate was collectively made by the Mayan civilization. However, the chapter seems to conclude that unless it can be demonstrated to be absolutely necessary, then reincarnation likely does not exist at all. Given James’s advanced status in the spirit realm, this so-called “revelation” seems highly incongruous and ultimately, unlikely. Or was this “blind spot” really, in fact, attributable to the channel Susy Smith—her “blind spot” being a powerful intolerance for the notion of reincarnation? If so, would this have compelled James, who is subject to the Divine Rules of Engagement, to “stand down” and allow another consciousness to step in and basically share with Susy what she fully expects and essentially insists on hearing? What can Creator tell us?35 views0 answers0 votes
One glaring omission in MOST spiritual literature is the extraterrestrial problem. To say this is a blind spot is an understatement. However, Dr. Newton provided one singular case that is most interesting and alarming. In his book, Destiny of Souls, he writes about a subject who reported being sent to a planet as a spirit between lives. A planet named Galath. The subject, via superconscious hypnosis, reported, “It is a physical world similar to the geography of Earth. This world once had a great civilization, highly technical, and the Galathians were able to travel to other planets, which led to their undoing. Galath now has no highly intelligent life forms.” The subject further reported, “The Galathians were wise but foolish—like the rest of us. They came to believe in their invincibility.” The subject then shared the fate of the Galathians: “They were conquered by another race and assimilated into their culture away from here.” Assuming this testimony is sincere and authentic, it presents some rather compelling evidence of the “Extraterrestrial Alliance” problem in our galaxy. What can Creator tell us?44 views0 answers0 votes
In hypnosis, if you directly tell a subject to pour a bottle of ink on their shirt, they will almost always refuse and come out of trance. However, if you trick them and tell them they are in a shower and the bottle contains soap and they are instructed to pour it on their chest, they will pour the ink on their shirt. In that instance, the hypnotist is being dishonest, is lying to the subject. Dr. Newton admitted that he often adopted the persona of being a guide or fellow spirit and creating the impression that any discussions and revelations were “safe” as a result. A great deal of material was elicited in this fashion. Material he was very often told by subjects was off-limits to be shared. However, Newton would rarely take no for an answer. He seemed to be very successful in persuading his hypnotized subjects to violate the rules of engagement. Newton, of course, has free will as an incarnated human, and had the freedom to investigate as he saw fit, with only eventual karma to answer to. Did he violate his personal contract with the divine realm? Or is a subject reviewing a between-life reality also free from the rules of engagement because they are, in fact, incarnated? Also, higher selves are unique individuals after all, so is it possible that some could be persuaded to assist and feel sympathetic toward a self-professed “truth seeker,” which could have some of them perhaps test and maybe sometimes exceed the boundaries of the Divine Rules of Engagement? What is Creator’s perspective?23 views0 answers0 votes
Nicola