This teacher-turned-cognitive scientist shared a disturbing reality that left the room stunned.
“Our kids are LESS cognitively capable than we were at their age.”
Every previous generation outperformed its parents since we began recording in the late 1800s.
So, what happened?
Screens.
Dr. Jared Horvath explained:
“Gen Z is the first generation in modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory, to literacy, to numeracy, to executive functioning, to EVEN GENERAL IQ, even though they go to more school than we did.”
“So why? … The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning (screens).”
“If you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly, to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two-thirds of a standard deviation LESS than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school. And that’s across 80 countries.”
But screens aren’t just decimating learning and making new generations less intelligent than the ones before them.
They’re doing something far worse. And when you take a closer look, it isn’t pretty. 🧵
This isn’t a glitch.
Engagement-driven algorithms don’t understand meaning, context, or childhood development. They only understand clicks and watch time driven by dopamine spikes.
So when AI is tasked with churning out videos at scale, it doesn’t filter for innocence—it optimizes for stimulation.
Cartoon imagery masking adult themes, fear cues, violence, and psychological distress is being served to toddlers. Bright colors on the surface. Something very, very wrong underneath.
This content has zero educational or developmental value. No story. No moral arc. No learning. Just rapid-fire novelty engineered to hold attention at all costs—even if that cost is literally the viewer’s brain and nervous system development.
Dopamine-optimized media and AI-generated slop are conditioning our children for addiction, emotional dysregulation, and long-term neurological harm.
We have to stop this before it starts—and before Big Pharma steps in with the “solution.”
Something unprecedented and highly concerning is happening to children’s brains.
Toddlers aren’t just watching screens—they’re being neurologically conditioned by them.
Rapid cuts, flashing colors, constant novelty.
And none of it is by accident. It is all by design.
What looks like “kid’s content” is often dopamine engineering aimed at maximizing engagement, not healthy development, no matter the damage it does.
Parents see the patterns.
Their young children are calm while watching shows—but when the screen turns off, they melt down.
They’re not just upset it’s over. It’s much bigger than that.
Rage. Desperation. And tantrums that feel disproportionate.
A 2025 survey found 22% of parents report “full-on tantrums” from excessive screen time, along with irritability and mood swings.
Many parents say it’s worse than sugar crashes and harder to manage than hunger or fatigue.
That’s not coincidence. That’s withdrawal.
Unfortunately, 25% of parents use screens to calm children when upset and 17% report children self-soothing with mobile devices.
The information in this thread comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc.
Developmental health isn’t the metric—engagement is.
And children are uniquely vulnerable because their brains are still wiring reward pathways.
Profit and protection aren’t aligned.
But this isn’t just an issue during childhood.
A nervous system conditioned to constant dopamine spikes struggles with delayed gratification, deep focus, emotional resilience, and stable joy.
It seeks intensity instead of meaning, stimulation instead of presence.
The groundwork for lifelong dissatisfaction is being laid earlier than ever before.
@MidwesternDoc This isn’t just about screens.
It’s about how a dopamine-driven world that is quietly shaping what joy, attention, and connection even feel like. And it’s starting in early childhood.
Children are paying the highest price. But that doesn’t mean adults are immune to this.
When the nervous system is constantly overstimulated, subtler pleasures disappear—completely.
Quiet becomes uncomfortable. Stillness feels empty. Real relationships feel dull compared to engineered highs.
That gap drives further consumption and more disconnection from the real world.
A healthy nervous system resists addiction.
When regulation, safety, and connection are intact, artificial stimulation loses its grip. Dopamine spikes become unnecessary instead of irresistible.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are walking around with nervous systems that are seriously out of whack.
And chronic overstimulation further erodes that internal stability.
Young children need protection while that system is forming.
This is why limits alone don’t work.
You can restrict screens—but if the nervous system is already dysregulated, the craving remains.
Real change requires rebuilding regulation through sleep, movement, connection, reduced sensory overload, and good old-fashioned play.
Replacement matters more than restriction.
The tragedy is that much of this harm is invisible at first.
Kids seem “advanced,” “engaged,” “quiet.”
The costs show up later—as attention problems, emotional volatility, anxiety, or dependence on constant stimulation to feel okay.
By then, the habits are entrenched.
Parents don’t set out hoping to damage their children’s nervous systems. They trust that these products made for children are not harmful to their target audience.
Once they realize they’ve been sucked into a trap, it can be hard to escape it.
@MidwesternDoc But there is a way out of this trap.
It doesn’t require rejecting technology—it just requires understanding how nervous systems actually heal.
The full article from @MidwesternDoc maps a path forward.
Families are navigating a constantly changing environment engineered against them. The responsibility belongs with systems that monetize neurological vulnerability—especially in children who can’t consent or defend themselves.
Awareness is the first form of protection.
@MidwesternDoc Children don’t need constant stimulation to thrive.
They need safety. Rhythm. Boredom. Presence.
They need time for their nervous systems to settle and integrate.
These things build resilience, focus, and real joy—the kind that doesn’t crash.
Depth beats intensity.
What’s at stake isn’t just attention spans.
It’s whether the next generation grows up capable of sustained thought, emotional regulation, and meaningful connection—or locked into chasing hollow highs that never satisfy.
That outcome is being shaped now. And if most kids stay on this path, the outcome could be disastrous.
@MidwesternDoc Thankfully, nervous systems are adaptable.
When overstimulation is reduced and regulation is restored, attention improves. Emotional volatility softens. Joy returns in quieter, more stable forms.
Healing isn’t instant—but it is real.
@MidwesternDoc Protecting our children doesn’t mean isolating them from the modern world.
It means understanding how that world works—and choosing environments that support development rather than exploit it.
That choice matters more than most people realize.
@MidwesternDoc A society that trades children’s nervous systems for engagement metrics is borrowing against its future.
Reversing that trajectory starts with clarity, restraint, and a willingness to value long-term health over short-term convenience.
That work begins at home.
@MidwesternDoc Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by @MidwesternDoc.
Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact.
@MidwesternDoc For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by @MidwesternDoc:
Over 40 million Americans take statins, not realizing they’re depleting the “most vital nutrient for the heart.”
Statins are pushed to reduce cholesterol, but they also severely deplete CoQ10, a critical compound for energy.
And when the body is starved of CoQ10, your cells begin struggling to produce energy. Muscles weaken. Fatigue sets in. And the heart itself can start losing the fuel it depends on to keep beating efficiently.
Dr. Stephen Sinatra was a “choir boy for cholesterol” until a 1993 study exposed the unsettling CoQ10-depleting effects of statins.
“Didn’t make any sense,” he said.
“How could the most vital nutrient for the heart be knocked out of the box? The heart requires COQ10 for survival.”
In his own practice, Dr. Sinatra began to notice that he “wasn’t seeing a correlation of heart problems with higher cholesterol.”
He eventually concluded everything he thought he knew about cholesterol was a “myth.”
“Cholesterol is not the villain of heart health” we’ve been told. 🧵
The information in this thread comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc.
For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
The more you dig into modern medicine, the more you realize how often “settled science” isn’t actually settled. It’s simply been rigged to build an industry.
In the 1960s and ’70s, two scientists squared off over the cause of heart disease.
John Yudkin pointed to sugar while Ancel Keys blamed saturated fat and cholesterol.
Keys won the battle, and his seven countries study became gospel.
But Yudkin didn’t just lose. He was ridiculed into obscurity.
This 75-year-old man, who’s been blind since birth, suddenly regained his eyesight after using DMSO to treat sinusitis.
It cleared his sinuses “instantly,” Murray says, but what it did to his sight was “unbelievable.”
For the first time in his life, he was finally able to see color in his left eye.
And when he kept using DMSO, his vision kept improving: He could make out details and even count fingers, something he “could never do before.”
It might sound like a coincidence, but DMSO has been repeatedly shown to heal eye issues medicine still can’t solve, like blindness, macular degeneration, floaters and cataracts.
It’s Big Pharma’s worst nightmare. And it’s hiding in plain sight for just $20 a bottle. 🧵
This information comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc.
For all the sources and details, read the full report below:
A registered nurse with 30 years of experience treating chronic pain says she saw “TEN TIMES” the positive effects after mixing DMSO with castor oil to treat her peripheral neuropathy.
Castor oil on its own has anti-inflammatory effects, but adding the DMSO is where she says it “got interesting.”
That’s because DMSO “isn’t just a treatment, it’s a carrier,” Danielle Minetti explained.
“It can pull medications and nutrients right through the skin barrier deep into the body.”
That’s why when Danielle mixed DMSO with castor oil, she saw “ten times” the positive results.
Because DMSO acts as the delivery system, carrying the castor oil deeper into the areas where she needs relief most.
DMSO is a naturally occurring compound that is primarily derived as a byproduct of the wood pulp and paper industry, which makes it widely and affordably available.
But that also creates a problem...
Because if a treatment can’t be patented, Big Pharma can’t profit.
And that simple reality is where the DMSO story takes a dark turn.
So what happened to DMSO, and why is a substance that is so medically promising still relatively unknown to this day?
Let’s take a closer look. 🧵
The real story isn’t whether or not DMSO worked.
The real story is how a low-cost, widely available substance became an early case study in medical distrust.
Regulators suddenly restricted it. Doctors dismissed it.
But patients kept using it.
And once that happened, official medicine no longer controlled the story.
DMSO was discovered in 1866 by a Russian chemist, then largely forgotten.
In the 1950s, the paper industry needed new solvents. Dimethyl sulfide from wood pulping could be oxidized into DMSO.
That industrial turn set up one of the most unusual medical controversies of the 20th century!
The FDA knew the COVID shots would kill and maim countless Americans.
They kept injecting anyway.
One government employee tried to sound the alarm about “49 examples” of deadly side effects that conventional safety analyses weren’t detecting.
She was shut down.
Her name was Dr. Ana Szarfman.
On March 1, 2021, less than three months after the rollout of the COVID-19 injections, Dr. Ana Szarfman, an employee at CDER and safety data mining developer, warned that the FDA’s existing system could hide vaccine safety signals due to a flaw called “masking.”
She proposed a newer method developed by statistician Dr. William DuMouchel that corrected for this issue and, when applied, detected “49 examples of extreme masking” that the standard system did not.
These “49 examples of extreme masking” include not “minor” but serious adverse events:
• Bell’s palsy
• Cardiac failure
• Acute left ventricular failure
• Agonal rhythm (severe end-of-life arrhythmia)
• Pulmonary infarction
• Cerebral artery occlusion
• Aortic stenosis
• Sudden cardiac death
• Hypertensive emergency
• Basal ganglia stroke
When Dr. Szarfman proposed a new method, she was told to “hold off on creating and sending data mining reports and analyses.”
Later, they “made it clear” that she “needs to focus on her assigned work” and “should not be discussing or providing internal analyses externally.”
As Dr. Szarfman puts it, her work became a “pest” for raising concerns about safety signal masking.
In September 2021, Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA's top vaccine official, decided that Dr. Szarfman’s COVID vaccine data-mining days were over.
He informed Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the then director of CDER, that Dr. Szarfman “has been asked to cease and desist conducting her data analysis.”
Dr. Marks complained that Dr. Szarfman’s work had become “a major distraction” and that her efforts could “create erroneous conflicts that feed into anti-vaccination rhetoric.”
Dr. Szarfman went on to retire from the FDA in 2025 after more than 35 years of service.
She raised concerns about safety signal masking. The FDA essentially told her to shut up.
Because in their eyes, “49 examples of extreme masking” could create “erroneous conflicts” and fuel “vaccine hesitancy.”
Unfortunately, this is not a one-off instance. It’s part of a much deeper problem: the gap between what’s known internally and what’s allowed to reach the public. 🧵
For years, Americans were told the COVID vaccines were “safe and effective.”
Not mostly safe.
Not partially effective.
Not still being studied.
Safe. Effective. Full stop.
The message was absolute, repeated by government officials, doctors, media outlets, hospitals, employers, schools, and nearly every major institution in the country.
But internal records now suggest something very different was being discussed behind the scenes.
The story is no longer just about whether the COVID vaccines caused harm.
That debate has been raging for years.
The bigger question is what federal health agencies knew, when they knew it, and why the public was told a much different story than the one officials were discussing behind closed doors.
Senator Ron Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations obtained thousands of pages of subpoenaed HHS records.
The investigation and subpoenaed records suggest that the CDC and FDA were aware of serious safety signals involving myocarditis and strokes, yet continued pushing the vaccines while downplaying the risks.
That’s the part we can’t ignore.
Vaccine trust was built on a very simple promise.
The government said the products had been carefully tested, monitored, and transparently evaluated.
If a serious safety issue appeared, the public would be told.
But according to the records Johnson released, that isn’t how the COVID vaccine rollout worked. Not even close.
Republicans are once again teaming up with Democrats to ram Digital ID through at the federal level.
The bill they’ve just introduced is, if you can believe it, worse than all the others before it.
HR 8250, deceptively named the Parents Decide Act, doesn’t just force everyone to link their identity to use apps on their phones, it mandates that they must do it to use ANY operating system. That means Apple, iOS, Windows, Google, Android, even Samsung—basically everything.
And once that’s in place, there’s nowhere to step outside of it.
But one brave group is refusing to go along.
GrapheneOS has made a statement saying: GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification, or an account.
@glennmeder from PrivacyAcademy.com/Pulse has been working to educate people on how to escape the digital control grid, including how to put GrapheneOS on your phone—for free. And they have a solution to Digital ID right now.
He joins us to discuss. 🧵
You’ve seen this pattern before.
When the same thing starts appearing everywhere at once, it’s usually not random.
A new push for Digital ID laws isn’t happening in just one place. With bills like the Parents Decide Act (HR 8250), it’s now moving directly into the systems we use every day. It’s happening in a very coordinated way across countries, across platforms, and now, at the operating system level.
This isn’t about regulating a few apps anymore. The focus has moved underneath them—to the operating system itself—the software that runs your phone and computer. @GlennMeder described it plainly, they’re trying to “lock it down on an operating system level,” because that’s the one layer you can’t avoid.
Apps can be swapped. Accounts can be deleted.
But if access to the operating system requires Digital ID, there’s nowhere left to step outside of it.
That’s the inflection point.
Glenn called it “the hill to die on,” not because of how it looks today, but because of what it enables once it’s in place. In his words, this isn’t just verification, it’s the foundation for removing privacy and building a system that monitors “everything we say.”
He warned it would “change instantly,” the kind of shift you only recognize after it’s already locked in.
Access to your phone. Your apps. Your accounts. All tied to one digital identity.
And once that becomes the standard, stepping outside of it stops being an option.
Your phone is a surveillance Trojan Horse.
Big Tech and Big Brother have colluded together to create a spyware monopoly.
Your phone tracks your location at all times, who you text, what you read, whether you’re skeptical person or not, how you spend your money and where your finances are stored... This list could go on forever.
Privacy Academy is hosting a FREE webinar on Thursday, May 7th at 7pm CT (8pm ET / 6pm MT / 5pm PT) where you can learn how to escape the cell phone surveillance state.
For four years, Ron Johnson has wondered how US health officials could ignore “overwhelming evidence of harm” from the COVID vaccine.
“Now I know,” he says.
The truth is, health officials didn’t “ignore” safety signals. They buried them instead.
And now we have the receipts:
The US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it—and dug out a timeline that would make any American furious.
This is not a fringe “conspiracy theory.” It was revealed by the government’s own investigation—and it’s a story they don’t want you to read.
(Post 1 of 7)
According to VAERS, the US’s vaccine adverse event reporting system, more adverse events and deaths have been reported following COVID vaccines than from all other vaccines combined over the system’s 30+ year history.
More dangerous than ivermectin. More dangerous than hydroxychloroquine (which turned out not to be so dangerous after all).
It was 55 times more deadly than the flu vaccine (0.46 deaths vs 25.5 deaths per million doses).
And even more dangerous than Remdesivir, which earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near” after it wreaked havoc on the kidneys and livers of tens of thousands of COVID patients in the hospital.
But still the question remains. How did US health officials miss a safety signal this big?
(Post 2 of 7)
The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated what federal health officials knew and when they knew it.
It turns out they knew the safety signal was there. But they didn’t see it as a warning sign. They saw it as “pest.”
So much of a “pest” that they decided it was better to ignore the devastating safety signals and let people die than to deal with the data head-on because it could stoke “vaccine hesitancy.”