The Mineral Power for Your Body’s Electrical Supply
We know that water conducts electricity in our bodies. But would you like to see how? What if you learned about a little something extra that could add a lot more zap to your zip? Dr. Seneff has all the data that you need.
A committed voice for sanity in science, Dr. Seneff has authored over two dozen peer-reviewed journal papers over the past few years about the connection between toxic chemicals and micro nutrient deficiencies in health and disease, with a focus on the dangers of Roundup (glyphosate) and the importance of sulfur.
For more than three decades, her research interests have been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, and applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. Her current work focuses on the relationship between health and nutrition.
Dr. Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Cambridge, MA. She has four degrees from MIT including a B.S. in biology and a PhD in electrical engineering and computer science.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format and independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx(link is external). NOTE FROM TED: We’ve flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event in 2016, because it appears to fall outside TEDx’s curatorial guidelines. As the speaker states in the opening of their talk, this is their own personal theory of health. Please do not look to this talk for medical advice. TEDx events are independently organized by volunteers.
About the Author
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
Tedx? right…
Same person I presume?
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephanie-seneff-strikes-out-again-glyphosate-and-covid-19
Reply
Lorraine
| #
I did a basic background search on Dr Seneff and on the author of the article you link.
I find Dr. Seneff to be credible as a person of intellect and the application of that intellect to various investigations of medical and scientific fields of research using out of the box critical thinking applied to unsolved questions concerning physical health and well being.
On the other hand Joe Schwarcz appears to be a C19 vax promoter who attempts to quash challenges to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Curiously his wiki bio shows no educational background or degrees other than an interest in chemistry and magic with a few subsequent positions as instructor at lesser known, by me anyway, colleges before his position at McGill.
He says a good lecturer must be a good actor. I think this guy has applied his magic and acting background to his ridicule of an authentic scientist who rightfully condemns the use of an herbicide widely known to cause profound harm in humans.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
To add to my thought, ridicule which, Schwarcz employs against Dr. Seneff is meant to demean and discredit her in all areas of her scientific endeavor, not just her investigation of the harms of glyphosate in the food chain.
This guy comes off as a deflector from the real and serious threats we face from government sponsored disinformation.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Ah, not so friendly this time.
My link isn’t the only one Lorraine, but you know why I went looking?
“What if you learned about a little something extra that could add a lot more zap to your zip? Dr. Seneff has all the data that you need.”
Clickbait. The hook, designed to draw me in.
“a focus on the dangers of Roundup (glyphosate)”
The sinker. This is the repetitive issue from Dr Seneff. I guess the video, which I won’t bother with, is related? No thanks.
I went looking for clues.
I find such behaviour not only disingenuous, from one you find “out of the box critical thinking”, but it appears from what I see, a desperate attempt to draw interest to, an obsession maybe? That leaves me with no appetite for such a person I’m afraid.
One of the doctors’ youtube video titles:
Could extensive Glyphosate use in Western countries be related to poor COVID-19 outomes? Title verbatim.
Unless I’m mistaken, Covid doesn’t exist, so it looks like my link is redundant as far as discrediting anybody is concerned, I find the doctors’ own material enough, yet we need both sides of the coin to make an informed choice don’t we?
Why would I pay any attention to the doctor at all when that is what I witness?
Admittedly, there are plenty of results praising Dr Seneff, but I will go on what I see from the article and my own eyes. I do not condone being hoodwinked.
Anyway, the reader can decide for themself what they choose to believe. I’m not a scientist, but then again, I’m making a decision from behaviour.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
A happy relaxing Saturday to you Howdy! I’m dismayed you find me less kind and welcoming toward a contrasting opinion. The opposite is true. I do enjoy intellectual debate when it’s easily understood by a lay person without professional background in a specific area because that describes most of us. My educational and professional expertise is the history of art and architecture.
I don’t find many trustworthy sources of information due to the fact that many who do have alternate perspectives to what the powers that be are promoting are suppressed or censored, so we never have an opportunity to hear their evidence.
I was commenting on the link you presented regarding the charlatan Joe Schwarcz. If I were to chose an unbelievable source of reference it would be him.
Howdy
| #
“I’m dismayed you find me less kind and welcoming toward a contrasting opinion.”
That is not the reason for my claim, Lorraine. We’ve disagreed before, but your entrance was different.
Just something I noticed. Forget it, it doesn’t matter.
“the charlatan Joe Schwarcz. If I were to chose an unbelievable source of reference it would be him.”
Just another view afaiac. The problem of assigning blame to people is a complicated one, and you see differently than I do
I have no experience of Mr Schwarcz and I’m not going to go looking since his name was not the specific query I entered. He was a random result of a search of the article writer’s name that was taken as a negative result against the article. This was triggered by the article, and what I see as the intent.
Just as I didn’t bother much with the article, I didn’t read the link other than a few words. It’s just a balance – Well, as far a balance as one can get these days.
I have no allegiance to any mortal, so I make no decision on him, or his intentions at this time.
It’s my choice whether to believe him or not.
Lorraine
| #
I have always enjoyed reading your commentary. When we differ, it provides a window into other thoughts and opinions that I may not have considered. I honestly do not want to offend by not offering customary salutations before diving into conversation. I thought we’d established a good foundation for a respectful exchange so I flippantly dispensed with pleasantries.
I think you bring up a good point, there’s no reason to dispense with courtesy and manners in addressing people, it’s civilized and proper, expediency is not acceptable.
I hope your day is very pleasant. Be well.
Reply
Howdy
| #
You didn’t offend Lorraine. It just put a more serious tone on your words.
I didn’t get upset about it, just noticed. No worries.
Take care.x
Reply