Related:
Wednesday, May 31, 2023
New World Order Announced Plan To Bring Down US Power Grid And Blame Conservatives (InfoWars)
Excellent show all the way through, especially the tail segment with Maria Zeee and Dane Wiggington. It's all coming together now, the blatant choreography with the Patriot Front Psy-Op and the telegraphing of a "comprehensive cyber-attack that would make COVID seem like a minor disturbance" with Klaus Schwab's annual Cyber Polygon exercises and statements, something I warned about publicly in March of 2022 in my now censored vlog "Unto the Final Chapter of the Great Reset: Orchestrated Collapse by way of Cyber Polygon and WW3", which I will be re-uploading to Rumble later today so stay tuned.
Fluoride: Poison on Tap (Repost)
In support of this recent CHD article and the preceding handful of posts on the topic:
I'm reposting this because it's relevant to my previous post here and I feel the need to convey to you, with utmost urgency, that the same Cabal behind the Fake Pandemic didn't just start depopulating with these fake vaccines, they've BEEN depopulating for decades (fully 2 out of 3 men and 1 out of 3 women will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime in the U.S.) with GMO frankenfood, sodium fluoride (a known carcinogen and neurotoxin), mercury and aluminum laden conventional vaccines, petroleum derivative based pharmacology and psychological programming from cradle to grave with our "education" system and mainstream media programming.
The most recent insults have been a side consequence of the covert aerial spraying program, whose primary purpose is to slow the brunt of climate change (oh it's absolutely real and we are absolutely driving it with our carbon based energy paradigm, 95% of the trapped heat and increase in CO2 has been absorbed by our oceans) but the aluminum, barium and strontium sprayed in the stratosphere settles via gravity down to our troposphere where we reside and we end up breathing this crap, aluminum of which is a nasty neurotoxin. Our education system is not designed to produce critical thinkers, it is designed to create a large, passive, obedient slave caste.) New threats include widespread use of EMF, i.e. wi-fi and now 5G.
You can get the fluoride out of your water! You can switch to a plant based organic diet. You can consume chelation products like chlorella and spirulina first thing in the morning on an empty stomach to reverse heavy metal toxicity, you can filter your air, you can stop drinking and smoking, you can stop listening to the mainstream media lies and you can start meditating and practicing mindful awareness (awareness of being mindful). You can elect to not receive any more vaccines and you can refuse to allow these near your children.
Originally posted 4 June 2022:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E0BkesIOwkPS/
Chronological Age: Your age as measured by chronological time.
Biological Age: The age of your body and mind based on environmental stressors, psychological stress, and diet and lifestyle choices.
Folks I'm pushing 50.
I've been on a vegan plant based diet, no drugs or alcohol, daily exercise and meditation, supplementation with Quercetin, Reserveratrol, Vitamin's C,D,E, Curcumin, ample mushrooms and garlic and Mindful Awareness Practice since 2009.
No fake vaccine. No conventional vaccine since my time in service.
Haven't been sick in 5 years.
So glad I extended my love for exercise to interest into aspects of holistic healing (body, mind, spirit), especially detoxing from corporate mainstream media who is owned by the very same people who want to shorten our lives and literally kill us.
I owe a great deal to Dr. Gary Null, whom I started listening to about a decade ago.
https://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/
If you've seen that interview with the inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, calling Fauci a stooge, that's Gary Null doing the interviewing.
In the mid 90's Dr. Null was serial negative converting full blow AIDS patients with a protocol consisting of a plant based diet, exercise, and daily intravenous injection of 200g aqueous Vitamin C. Not only did 18 of his patients submit sworn testimony to this fact, but Dr. Null held a press conference to inform the world, invited the mainstream press, and no-one showed.
You probably never heard of him. His Dr. Kary Mullis interview is all over the internet yet noone credits Dr. Gary Null nor the work he did to actually heal people.
Fully 1/3rd of women and 2/3rds of men in the U.S. will develop cancer within their lifetime. They are literally poisoning you to death (Glyphosate / Round Up).
The World According to Monsanto
Biological Age: The age of your body and mind based on environmental stressors, psychological stress, and diet and lifestyle choices.
Folks I'm pushing 50.
I've been on a vegan plant based diet, no drugs or alcohol, daily exercise and meditation, supplementation with Quercetin, Reserveratrol, Vitamin's C,D,E, Curcumin, ample mushrooms and garlic and Mindful Awareness Practice since 2009.
No fake vaccine. No conventional vaccine since my time in service.
Haven't been sick in 5 years.
So glad I extended my love for exercise to interest into aspects of holistic healing (body, mind, spirit), especially detoxing from corporate mainstream media who is owned by the very same people who want to shorten our lives and literally kill us.
I owe a great deal to Dr. Gary Null, whom I started listening to about a decade ago.
https://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/
If you've seen that interview with the inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, calling Fauci a stooge, that's Gary Null doing the interviewing.
In the mid 90's Dr. Null was serial negative converting full blow AIDS patients with a protocol consisting of a plant based diet, exercise, and daily intravenous injection of 200g aqueous Vitamin C. Not only did 18 of his patients submit sworn testimony to this fact, but Dr. Null held a press conference to inform the world, invited the mainstream press, and no-one showed.
You probably never heard of him. His Dr. Kary Mullis interview is all over the internet yet noone credits Dr. Gary Null nor the work he did to actually heal people.
Fully 1/3rd of women and 2/3rds of men in the U.S. will develop cancer within their lifetime. They are literally poisoning you to death (Glyphosate / Round Up).
The World According to Monsanto
It's never too late to turn things around and start a healthy lifestyle regimen.
I recommend starting with getting the fluoride out of your water. I'm using this with three G9's, 98% sodium fluoride removal:
Supporting information:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/harvard-study-finds-fluoride-lowers-iq---published-in-federal-govt-journal-163531556.html
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."
Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.
Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.
Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.
"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.
After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.
Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)
More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
HOW FLUORIDE AFFECTS CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE WILL TO ACT (Waking Times)
http://www.wakingtimes.com/fluoride-affects-consciousness-will-act/
August 22, 2014
Dees Illustrations
Jordan Resnick, Contributor
Waking Times
New evidence has linked fluoride and other chemicals to brain disorders. What other unknown effects might this industrial by-product added to our water supply have? An examination of water fluoridation’s shadowy history reveals potentially disturbing ramifications for human consciousness.
Recent research has brought the controversial practice of water fluoridation back into the spotlight, revealing links between water fluoridation and brain disorders, particularly in regard to its effect on children.
Troublingly, the report found that side-effects do not only come from direct ingestion by children, but also from higher levels of chemicals such as fluoride in expectant mothers’ blood and urine, which was linked to brain disorders and lower IQs in their children. In many cases, the changes triggered can be permanent. This evidence flies right in the face of spurious claims by skeptics that ingestion of fluoride in low concentrations has no harmful effects on our health.
Is it any wonder then that only seven countries in the world actually fluoridate more than 50 percent of their water supply? Although it is often portrayed in America as if every country does it, this is very far from the truth. In fact, the United States accounts for more than 50 percent of all the fluoridated water drinkers in the world, while the vast majority of European countries for example avoid this practice altogether.
So what is fluoride and why do a few countries continue to infuse their public drinking water with this controversial chemical? What ramifications might its side effects have for human development?
How Water Fluoridation Came to Be
Although there is widespread acceptance that fluoride is toxic in high doses, a trend emerged in the twentieth century to add this chemical to drinking water at dosages deemed to be “safe.” Where did this trend originate?
It may surprise you to hear that apparently the first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water took place in the German ghettos of the 30s and 40s, and shortly thereafter in Nazi concentration camps.* Clearly, the Nazis would not be concerned with the strength and resilience of their prisoners’ teeth; so, what could be the real reason to fluoridate the water? What effects does it really have upon us? And why are countries such as the United States still doing it?
Let’s now look at how water fluoridation started in America. An industry researcher from the Mellon Institute financed by the Alcoa Company first recommended water fluoridation in America in 1939. Seeing as Alcoa had toxic waste, a bi-product from aluminum otherwise known as fluoride and stood to benefit from finding a way to sell and dispose of it, could this really be a coincidence? The report convinced dentists and the public at large that water fluoridation is good for our teeth. With this, whether intended or not, the industry gained a way to get toxic waste off their hands, and moreover, even be paid to get rid of it—by selling it off to be dumped into the public water supply.
In 1946, an attorney and former counsel to Alcoa was appointed to head the U.S. Public Health Service. Shortly thereafter, he ensured that the water fluoridation “experiment” passed essentially unchallenged and unchecked by any real public study or research and was soon given a $750K private bonus from Alcoa. In today’s dollars, that’s worth anywhere from $6.89 million to $55.3 million, depending on how you account for inflation.
But some people have identified a more sinister agenda behind water fluoridation that goes beyond apparent greed and convenience. At the end of World War II, Charles Elliot Perkins, a researcher in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, and pathology, was sent to Germany to take charge of their chemical plants. He later wrote in response to what he had seen and heard while there: “The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty … Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluorine will in time gradually reduce the individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narco-tizing this area of the brain tissue, and make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.”
How Fluoride Suppresses Consciousness
Pineal gland parenchyma with calcifications. Attribution: Wiki User Difu Wu.
But how does a chemical bi-product dumped into the water supply actually work upon those who ingest it over time? There are many ways sodium fluoride consumption affects our bodies, but one aspect we’ll focus on in this article is that sodium fluoride calcifies the pineal gland. British scientist Jennifer Luke published a study which found that fluoride deposits tended to accumulate in the pineal gland and calcify it. In addition, a 450 page review on fluoride toxicity published by the National Research Council in 2006 reported that fluoride produced a range of negative side effects including “decreased melatonin production” and “other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans.”
Not just scientists, but mystics too have explored the effects of the pineal gland within us (from different angles): physically, it plays an important role in regulating sleep patterns and sexual development; spiritually, it is said to be a connection between the body and the soul, and is referred to by some as our “third eye.” Either way, when the pineal gland is calcified by sodium fluoride, it obviously cannot function properly. This could have grave effects both physically and spiritually upon humanity.
There is more to the human body than its physical apparatus. This is widely evident in phenomenon such as near-death experiences, whereby people have had accounts of experiencing existence while their brain and body has been clinically dead. However, while we are here physically, the spiritual components depend upon the physical apparatus in order to function properly and thereby communicate and actively participate in the physical world. When an important seat of consciousness such as the pineal gland cannot function properly, by logical extension, consciousness itself cannot function properly within us, since the physical means with which it functions in the world has been damaged.
Thus, it is not only that fluoride consumption has adverse health effects and reputedly makes people easier to control (as the Nazi’s believed), but the very spiritual essence of who we are, our consciousness, can be hindered from manifesting in our lives. Within our consciousness are all the spiritual feelings such as love, peace, happiness, and freedom, as well as mystical experiences and psychic faculties. The consciousness gives us the ability to be “here,” “awake,” and present psychologically.
There are sinister agents in the world and beyond who wish to see consciousness suppressed. There appears to be an evil behind water fluoridation that runs deeper than mere convenience, and the implications go beyond fluoride’s reputed effects of making a people compliant who would otherwise question questionable things (such as water fluoridation – the irony notwithstanding). On the deepest level, it’s about a person’s individual ability to awaken consciousness and experience their full potential.
Concluding Remarks
Over ten years ago already, in November 2003, the United States passed the Water Act, which made it impossible for water companies to undergo civil or criminal hearings as a result of adding fluoride to public water supplies. It becomes more and more difficult to affect change on a mass scale to practices such as water fluoridation when those who have political, military, and legal control enact these types of measures. Fortunately, it is still within people’s ability to take measures to avoid fluoride and speak out however, and to personally do what they can to preserve, exercise, and awaken their own consciousness.
About the Author
Jordan Resnick has a keen interest in uncovering what’s really going on in the world and therefore enjoys looking into the many sides and theories behind current and past events. He works as a writer and editor by day, and has also been researching, exploring, and studying spirituality for the past ten years as a big part of his life, where his main areas of interest are in self-knowledge and studying sacred texts, using exercises like meditation, mantras, and exploring OBEs/astral projection to supplement this. Besides contributing here on ConsciousReporter.com, he also writes with his wife Jenny on their website AncientSacredKnowledge.com.
**This article was originally featured at Conscious Reporter.**
Fluoride Lawsuit Against EPA: Alleged Corruption, Shocking Under Oath Federal Statements (Zero Hedge)
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/fluoride-lawsuit-against-epa-alleged-corruption-shocking-under-oath-federal-statements
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2023 - 11:30 AM
Authored by Christy Prais via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
In this series, we explore the contentious findings surrounding fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply and answer the question of whether water fluoridation poses a risk and what we should do about it.
Previously: A confounding factor in the fluoride debate is the arsenic that contaminates the industrial sources of fluoride added to public water systems.
A groundbreaking federal lawsuit could ban fluoride from drinking water, overturning a decades-long program aimed at preventing cavities that has been challenged by mounting evidence of harm.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2017, and it appears to be nearing its conclusion. Under the act, citizens can challenge the EPA in court when the agency rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. The FAN’s suit is the first in the 44-year history of the act to actually get to trial.
The lawsuit has included pointed testimony from leading experts on environmental toxins and admissions from both EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials that fluoride could be linked to specific harms. The lawsuit has also revealed government interference in crucial scientific findings.
The Background
The lawsuit began after the EPA rejected a petition filed in November 2016 that called on the agency to “protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.”
The petition referenced more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health, including more than 180 published studies showing fluoride is linked to reduced IQ and neurotoxic harm.
In its Feb. 27, 2017 response, the EPA rejected the petition, claiming it failed to “set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride.”
In response to the denial, FAN and Food & Water Watch filed the federal lawsuit against the EPA.
The Toxic Substances Control Act is aimed at preventing harm from environmental chemical hazards before they occur and gives the EPA authority to regulate or ban the “particular use” of chemicals that pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health, including susceptible subpopulations.
The EPA made several attempts to have the case dismissed, each of which was denied by the court. After each side made its closing remarks in the two-week trial in 2020, the court made a surprise decision to delay judgment.
A 2nd Phase
Rather than issue a judgment, in August 2020, the court paused all proceedings and instructed the plaintiffs to file a new petition with the EPA including the new scientific studies.
They did so in November 2020, but the EPA denied it, citing insufficient scientific evidence, stating, “Without the final [National Toxicology Program] monograph, reconsidering the petition denial at this time would not be prudent use of EPA’s resources.”
That monograph is the National Toxicology Program’s report on fluoride toxicity, a document the government has been reluctant to release.
The EPA’s rejection of the petition means a second phase of the trial will take place. In explaining his decision to extend the trial, the judge noted the issue of ongoing science on the topic.
“So much has changed since the petition was filed … two significant series of studies—respective cohort studies—which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence,” said Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chen wants two documents in the next phase of trial.The systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the National Toxicology Program. The program’s report, which isn’t yet finalized, has been a source of controversy in the ongoing lawsuit. The report draft was made public on March 15, 2022, as part of an agreement in the lawsuit, but internal CDC emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed government interference with its release.
A Benchmark Dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The analysis titled “A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children” by Dr. Philippe Grandjean et al. was published on June 8, 2021, in the journal Risk Analysis.
The court also expressed a concern that the EPA didn’t apply the proper standard of causation under the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act in its assessment of the health hazards of fluoride.
According to FAN, the court has set aside two weeks to hear testimony and cross-examination of expert witnesses based on new published research and evidence that has come to light since the last trial dates in 2020.
Revelations at Trial
In the initial trial, Grandjean, Dr. Howard Hu, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear were among noteworthy expert plaintiff witnesses.
Grandjean has published around 500 scientific papers, and his study on the neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal mercury exposure was used by the EPA to derive a reference dose for methylmercury.
Hu and Lanphear are known for their seminal research on the impact and neurotoxicity of lead exposure, and both have worked with the EPA in expert advisory roles. Lanphear’s past studies were used by the EPA to set the standards on and regulations of lead.
Both testified on the results of their recent multiyear NIH-funded studies on fluoride and neurodevelopment.
In his testimony, Hu said his findings were comparable in magnitude to the impact of lead exposure, and in his closing statement said, “It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the results of the element studies support the conclusion that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant at levels of internalized exposure seen in water fluoridated communities.”
Similarly, Lanphear closed his testimony by stating, “The collective evidence from prospective cohort studies supports the conclusion that fluoride exposure during early brain development diminishes the intellectual abilities in young children, including at the purportedly ‘optimal’ levels of exposure for caries prevention.”
Grandjean, a physician, environmental epidemiologist, and adjunct professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, testified on a weight of evidence analysis he did of all best-available research on fluoride and neurotoxicity.
“With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, I therefore consider the elevated levels of fluoride exposure in the U.S. population as a serious public health concern,” he said.
Science for Hire?
According to court documents, instead of the EPA calling in their own agency’s experts on fluoride, they hired the outside consultancy firm Exponent, bringing in their employees, principal scientists Ellen Chang and Joyce Tsuji, as expert witnesses.
Exponent says on its website that one of the many areas it specializes in is toxic tort and supporting its clients on regulatory frameworks such as the Toxic Substances Control Act. They also note they have testified in quite a few state and federal courts.
In the past, Chang has produced systematic reviews for both Dow’s chemical Agent Orange, a herbicide used by the military during the Vietnam War to kill enemy crops, and Monsanto’s pesticide glyphosate.
Both reviews concluded that there was no consistent or convincing evidence of a “causal relationship” between exposure to the products and health risks, although not all scientists and studies agree with these conclusions.
Read more here...
Next: At the heart of the ongoing trial over water fluoridation is the NTP’s six-year systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. CDC emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal government efforts to stop the release of the review.
Read Part 1 – The Renewed Scientific Opposition to Water Fluoridation
Read Part 2 – Uncovering the Differences: Why Natural Fluoride and Synthetic Fluoride Are Not Created Equal
Read Part 3 – Fluoride: A Miracle Cure for Cavities, a Poison, or Both
Read Part 4 – Health Effects of Fluoride: The Science
Read Part 5 – New Studies Link Fluoride to Reduced IQ and ADHD in Children
Read Part 6 – Hidden Fluoride in Our Food, Medicine, and Environment
Read Part 7 – Arsenic: A Known Contaminant in Fluoride Added to the US Water Supply
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2023 - 11:30 AM
Authored by Christy Prais via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
In this series, we explore the contentious findings surrounding fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply and answer the question of whether water fluoridation poses a risk and what we should do about it.
Previously: A confounding factor in the fluoride debate is the arsenic that contaminates the industrial sources of fluoride added to public water systems.
A groundbreaking federal lawsuit could ban fluoride from drinking water, overturning a decades-long program aimed at preventing cavities that has been challenged by mounting evidence of harm.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2017, and it appears to be nearing its conclusion. Under the act, citizens can challenge the EPA in court when the agency rejects a petition to ban or regulate a toxic substance. The FAN’s suit is the first in the 44-year history of the act to actually get to trial.
The lawsuit has included pointed testimony from leading experts on environmental toxins and admissions from both EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials that fluoride could be linked to specific harms. The lawsuit has also revealed government interference in crucial scientific findings.
In From the Fringes
The lawsuit has brought attention to new research that links fluoride exposure to damaging neurodevelopment effects, concerns that have sometimes been deemed conspiracy theories.
“Opposition to fluoridation is now at least 70 years old, but for most of that time has been wrongly dismissed as a fringe and unscientific position,” FAN’s executive director, Paul Connett, said in a statement.
“The rapidly emerging science on developmental neurotoxicity, especially loss of IQ from early life exposure to fluoride, is a game-changer.”
Many of the most important science on fluoride has come via research funded with millions of dollars by the National Institutes of Health.
Some of that research has concluded that “the risk to children is too great to consider water fluoridation safe,” Connett said.
The lawsuit has brought attention to new research that links fluoride exposure to damaging neurodevelopment effects, concerns that have sometimes been deemed conspiracy theories.
“Opposition to fluoridation is now at least 70 years old, but for most of that time has been wrongly dismissed as a fringe and unscientific position,” FAN’s executive director, Paul Connett, said in a statement.
“The rapidly emerging science on developmental neurotoxicity, especially loss of IQ from early life exposure to fluoride, is a game-changer.”
Many of the most important science on fluoride has come via research funded with millions of dollars by the National Institutes of Health.
Some of that research has concluded that “the risk to children is too great to consider water fluoridation safe,” Connett said.
The Background
The lawsuit began after the EPA rejected a petition filed in November 2016 that called on the agency to “protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.”
The petition referenced more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health, including more than 180 published studies showing fluoride is linked to reduced IQ and neurotoxic harm.
In its Feb. 27, 2017 response, the EPA rejected the petition, claiming it failed to “set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride.”
In response to the denial, FAN and Food & Water Watch filed the federal lawsuit against the EPA.
The Toxic Substances Control Act is aimed at preventing harm from environmental chemical hazards before they occur and gives the EPA authority to regulate or ban the “particular use” of chemicals that pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health, including susceptible subpopulations.
The EPA made several attempts to have the case dismissed, each of which was denied by the court. After each side made its closing remarks in the two-week trial in 2020, the court made a surprise decision to delay judgment.
A 2nd Phase
Rather than issue a judgment, in August 2020, the court paused all proceedings and instructed the plaintiffs to file a new petition with the EPA including the new scientific studies.
They did so in November 2020, but the EPA denied it, citing insufficient scientific evidence, stating, “Without the final [National Toxicology Program] monograph, reconsidering the petition denial at this time would not be prudent use of EPA’s resources.”
That monograph is the National Toxicology Program’s report on fluoride toxicity, a document the government has been reluctant to release.
The EPA’s rejection of the petition means a second phase of the trial will take place. In explaining his decision to extend the trial, the judge noted the issue of ongoing science on the topic.
“So much has changed since the petition was filed … two significant series of studies—respective cohort studies—which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence,” said Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chen wants two documents in the next phase of trial.The systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity from the National Toxicology Program. The program’s report, which isn’t yet finalized, has been a source of controversy in the ongoing lawsuit. The report draft was made public on March 15, 2022, as part of an agreement in the lawsuit, but internal CDC emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed government interference with its release.
A Benchmark Dose analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The analysis titled “A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children” by Dr. Philippe Grandjean et al. was published on June 8, 2021, in the journal Risk Analysis.
The court also expressed a concern that the EPA didn’t apply the proper standard of causation under the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act in its assessment of the health hazards of fluoride.
According to FAN, the court has set aside two weeks to hear testimony and cross-examination of expert witnesses based on new published research and evidence that has come to light since the last trial dates in 2020.
Revelations at Trial
In the initial trial, Grandjean, Dr. Howard Hu, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear were among noteworthy expert plaintiff witnesses.
Grandjean has published around 500 scientific papers, and his study on the neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal mercury exposure was used by the EPA to derive a reference dose for methylmercury.
Hu and Lanphear are known for their seminal research on the impact and neurotoxicity of lead exposure, and both have worked with the EPA in expert advisory roles. Lanphear’s past studies were used by the EPA to set the standards on and regulations of lead.
Both testified on the results of their recent multiyear NIH-funded studies on fluoride and neurodevelopment.
In his testimony, Hu said his findings were comparable in magnitude to the impact of lead exposure, and in his closing statement said, “It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the results of the element studies support the conclusion that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant at levels of internalized exposure seen in water fluoridated communities.”
Similarly, Lanphear closed his testimony by stating, “The collective evidence from prospective cohort studies supports the conclusion that fluoride exposure during early brain development diminishes the intellectual abilities in young children, including at the purportedly ‘optimal’ levels of exposure for caries prevention.”
Grandjean, a physician, environmental epidemiologist, and adjunct professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, testified on a weight of evidence analysis he did of all best-available research on fluoride and neurotoxicity.
“With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, I therefore consider the elevated levels of fluoride exposure in the U.S. population as a serious public health concern,” he said.
Science for Hire?
According to court documents, instead of the EPA calling in their own agency’s experts on fluoride, they hired the outside consultancy firm Exponent, bringing in their employees, principal scientists Ellen Chang and Joyce Tsuji, as expert witnesses.
Exponent says on its website that one of the many areas it specializes in is toxic tort and supporting its clients on regulatory frameworks such as the Toxic Substances Control Act. They also note they have testified in quite a few state and federal courts.
In the past, Chang has produced systematic reviews for both Dow’s chemical Agent Orange, a herbicide used by the military during the Vietnam War to kill enemy crops, and Monsanto’s pesticide glyphosate.
Both reviews concluded that there was no consistent or convincing evidence of a “causal relationship” between exposure to the products and health risks, although not all scientists and studies agree with these conclusions.
Read more here...
Next: At the heart of the ongoing trial over water fluoridation is the NTP’s six-year systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. CDC emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal government efforts to stop the release of the review.
Read Part 1 – The Renewed Scientific Opposition to Water Fluoridation
Read Part 2 – Uncovering the Differences: Why Natural Fluoride and Synthetic Fluoride Are Not Created Equal
Read Part 3 – Fluoride: A Miracle Cure for Cavities, a Poison, or Both
Read Part 4 – Health Effects of Fluoride: The Science
Read Part 5 – New Studies Link Fluoride to Reduced IQ and ADHD in Children
Read Part 6 – Hidden Fluoride in Our Food, Medicine, and Environment
Read Part 7 – Arsenic: A Known Contaminant in Fluoride Added to the US Water Supply
Top comment:
"Fluoride was never about teeth. It's always been about maintaining a "semi-lobotomized retarded population".
Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal (Children's Health Defense)
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/researchers-hid-data-fluoride-lower-iq/
California’s dental director and his team of researchers intentionally omitted data from a study seeking to undermine the forthcoming National Toxicology Program report linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental damage in children, according to documents released last week.
A team of pro-fluoride researchers led by California’s dental director intentionally omitted data from a study seeking to undermine the forthcoming National Toxicology Program (NTP) report linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental damage in children, according to documents released last week.
The documents — obtained through a California public records search and posted in a press release by the Fluoride Action Network — show that the team, led by Dr. Jayanth V. Kumar, a dental surgeon, conducted a meta-analysis of the scientific literature on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and found a link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children at low levels of exposure.
However, they omitted the data and wrote a paper concluding there was no evidence of a link.
Four rounds of peer review rejected Kumar’s manuscript as “poorly researched,” “internally inconsistent” and committing “unashamed exaggeration” before the journal Public Health finally published the study last month.
NTP report: ‘no obvious threshold’ at which fluoridating water is safe
Kumar et al.’s study was published online less than a week before the NTP’s May 4 Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) meeting where advisors would finalize any recommended changes before the NTP publishes the final version of its report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
The NTP, an interagency program run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.
Its groundbreaking report on those findings — which consists of a “state of the science” monograph and meta-analysis surveying the literature on the links between fluoride exposure and cognitive health effects — concluded that prenatal and childhood exposure to higher levels of fluoride is associated with decreased IQ in children.
It also found that given that children are exposed to fluoride from multiple sources, there was “no obvious threshold” at which fluoridating water would be safe.
That means even when water is fluoridated at lower levels (typically 0.7 mg/L), studies found children had dangerous levels of fluoride in their systems.
The study’s findings contradict mainstream assumptions, the position of the dental industry, the sugar industry and the health regulatory agencies on the safety and benefits of fluoridating water to prevent cavities, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, including a series of studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
At the BSC meeting, the American Dental Association (ADA), with whom Kumar is affiliated, used his meta-analysis as evidence there were problems with the NTP study and argued that the NTP report should therefore be postponed.
This was just the latest in a series of attempts by industry and regulatory agency officials to “weaken, delay, or kill” the report.
The report is a key document in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and private individuals against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking to end water fluoridation.
The lawsuit was put on hold for more than two years pending the finalization and publication of the report. After the NTP scientists finalized their draft in May 2022 — which they deemed ready for publication — U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled the EPA could no longer delay the trial.
The case is moving forward as the report goes through the final stages of review.
The plaintiffs hope the report will be published in final, rather than draft, form prior to the next phase of the trial in January 2024.
The report was subject to an unprecedented number of peer reviews and agency commentary, and as a direct attempt by the NIH to block its publication, internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed.
The final step in its publication will be for the NTP director to consider the BSC’s suggestions and make any amendments to the report prior to publication.
The BSC recommended the NTP include comment on the recently published meta-analyses, but they were not aware that Kumar et al. buried data in order to support their findings.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett, partner at the law firm Waters Kraus & Paul, provided the evidentiary documents to the NTP last week so the agency can consider the omitted data in its long-awaited final review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental toxicity.
Connett told The Defender:
How researchers manipulated ‘the science’
Email exchanges between Kumar and his co-authors and transcripts from Kumar’s deposition in the lawsuit show Kumar and his co-authors are professionally committed to water fluoridation.
Kumar is a member of the pro-fluoridation ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee and one of the nation’s leading promoters of fluoridation. He admitted in the deposition that his job is “to promote fluoridation.”
Dr. Susan Fisher-Owens, one of his co-authors, receives funding from Colgate, which also promotes water fluoridation.
Kumar also admitted that part of his job was to work with the ADA’s marketing consultant to come up “with the best messaging and strategies for how to best advocate for fluoridation,” including messaging to “inoculate policymakers” with pro-fluoride information before they speak with anyone questioning the policy.
The documents show the researchers set out to prove there was no link between low levels of fluoride and lowered IQ in children, specifically to undermine the NTP report.
In a presentation to the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors in February 2021, Kumar told his colleagues he was hoping to pre-empt the NTP monograph by publishing his own meta-analysis and finding a “friendly editor” to publish it.
He reiterated this point in an email to his co-authors in July 2022, in which he emphasized there was “urgency” to get their paper published. “I wanted to publish the paper before the NTP report,” he wrote.
But publishing their desired results met a series of roadblocks as peer reviewers at the Journal of the American Dental Association rejected the study twice, finding the “discussion is unbalanced and misleading.”
One reviewer expressed concern that “the misinformation in this manuscript will fuel more controversy rather than stimulate prudent science-based decisions.”
Reviewers at Pediatrics Journal similarly rejected the study as marked by “fallacious” reasoning with conclusions that were “internally inconsistent.” Another reviewer said that a “facile style of citation increases concern about the balance of the work.”
But reviewers were unaware that Kumar also omitted data that contradicted his desired conclusions.
In an email to Kumar in February 2022, the study’s biostatistician Honghu Liu, Ph.D., told Kumar he thought the results of his analysis were “headed in the right direction.”
But on March 5, 2022, Liu wrote to Kumar explaining they had done analyses trying to find a safe threshold — ideally, around 1.5 mg/L — for fluoride in water, below which there is no association with reduced IQ in children. However, he wrote, “the results are opposite to what we hoped for.”
Liu told Kumar he would keep trying to produce different results. “Although hard, we can test more models to try to identify a threshold that can lead to a nonsignificant fluctuation in IQ before the threshold and a significant drop in IQ after the threshold,” he wrote.
But further analysis continued to show an association between low levels of fluoride exposure and decreased IQ. According to Liu, the dose-response analysis was “unfortunately not showing what we like to show.”
To resolve the problem, they eliminated the analysis from the study.
On March 24, 2022, Kumar sent his colleagues an email, quoting the particular parts of the NTP monograph that he sought to invalidate with their paper and raising concerns that reviewers would question their research if they included a certain figure that contradicted their conclusions.
When the team submitted the study to Public Health for publication, the analysis showing an association between low-level water fluoridation and IQ deficits had been removed.
The study concluded, “These meta-analyses show that fluoride exposure relevant to community water fluoridation is not associated with lower IQ scores in children.”
Connett sent the omitted analysis along with an explanation of how Kumar’s conflicts of interest influenced the outcome of his study in a letter to the NTP last week and urged them to take it into consideration as they evaluated the meta-analysis.
He wrote:
Through FOIA and public records requests, the plaintiffs revealed how high-level public health officials blocked the report’s publication after the NTP determined it was finalized.
They also showed how the ADA sought to influence the “independent” National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics to insist on further review.
Commenting on what else they might uncover about efforts to protect pro-fluoridation interests, Connett told The Defender:
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
California’s dental director and his team of researchers intentionally omitted data from a study seeking to undermine the forthcoming National Toxicology Program report linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental damage in children, according to documents released last week.
The documents — obtained through a California public records search and posted in a press release by the Fluoride Action Network — show that the team, led by Dr. Jayanth V. Kumar, a dental surgeon, conducted a meta-analysis of the scientific literature on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and found a link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children at low levels of exposure.
However, they omitted the data and wrote a paper concluding there was no evidence of a link.
Four rounds of peer review rejected Kumar’s manuscript as “poorly researched,” “internally inconsistent” and committing “unashamed exaggeration” before the journal Public Health finally published the study last month.
NTP report: ‘no obvious threshold’ at which fluoridating water is safe
Kumar et al.’s study was published online less than a week before the NTP’s May 4 Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) meeting where advisors would finalize any recommended changes before the NTP publishes the final version of its report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
The NTP, an interagency program run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.
Its groundbreaking report on those findings — which consists of a “state of the science” monograph and meta-analysis surveying the literature on the links between fluoride exposure and cognitive health effects — concluded that prenatal and childhood exposure to higher levels of fluoride is associated with decreased IQ in children.
It also found that given that children are exposed to fluoride from multiple sources, there was “no obvious threshold” at which fluoridating water would be safe.
That means even when water is fluoridated at lower levels (typically 0.7 mg/L), studies found children had dangerous levels of fluoride in their systems.
The study’s findings contradict mainstream assumptions, the position of the dental industry, the sugar industry and the health regulatory agencies on the safety and benefits of fluoridating water to prevent cavities, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, including a series of studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
At the BSC meeting, the American Dental Association (ADA), with whom Kumar is affiliated, used his meta-analysis as evidence there were problems with the NTP study and argued that the NTP report should therefore be postponed.
This was just the latest in a series of attempts by industry and regulatory agency officials to “weaken, delay, or kill” the report.
The report is a key document in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and private individuals against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking to end water fluoridation.
The lawsuit was put on hold for more than two years pending the finalization and publication of the report. After the NTP scientists finalized their draft in May 2022 — which they deemed ready for publication — U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled the EPA could no longer delay the trial.
The case is moving forward as the report goes through the final stages of review.
The plaintiffs hope the report will be published in final, rather than draft, form prior to the next phase of the trial in January 2024.
The report was subject to an unprecedented number of peer reviews and agency commentary, and as a direct attempt by the NIH to block its publication, internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed.
The final step in its publication will be for the NTP director to consider the BSC’s suggestions and make any amendments to the report prior to publication.
The BSC recommended the NTP include comment on the recently published meta-analyses, but they were not aware that Kumar et al. buried data in order to support their findings.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett, partner at the law firm Waters Kraus & Paul, provided the evidentiary documents to the NTP last week so the agency can consider the omitted data in its long-awaited final review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental toxicity.
Connett told The Defender:
“We felt it was important to make the NTP aware of the omitted data as it directly contradicts the paper’s conclusion, and further undermines the dental lobby’s main talking point that the neurotoxic hazards of fluoride only occur at high doses.”
How researchers manipulated ‘the science’
Email exchanges between Kumar and his co-authors and transcripts from Kumar’s deposition in the lawsuit show Kumar and his co-authors are professionally committed to water fluoridation.
Kumar is a member of the pro-fluoridation ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee and one of the nation’s leading promoters of fluoridation. He admitted in the deposition that his job is “to promote fluoridation.”
Dr. Susan Fisher-Owens, one of his co-authors, receives funding from Colgate, which also promotes water fluoridation.
Kumar also admitted that part of his job was to work with the ADA’s marketing consultant to come up “with the best messaging and strategies for how to best advocate for fluoridation,” including messaging to “inoculate policymakers” with pro-fluoride information before they speak with anyone questioning the policy.
The documents show the researchers set out to prove there was no link between low levels of fluoride and lowered IQ in children, specifically to undermine the NTP report.
In a presentation to the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors in February 2021, Kumar told his colleagues he was hoping to pre-empt the NTP monograph by publishing his own meta-analysis and finding a “friendly editor” to publish it.
He reiterated this point in an email to his co-authors in July 2022, in which he emphasized there was “urgency” to get their paper published. “I wanted to publish the paper before the NTP report,” he wrote.
But publishing their desired results met a series of roadblocks as peer reviewers at the Journal of the American Dental Association rejected the study twice, finding the “discussion is unbalanced and misleading.”
One reviewer expressed concern that “the misinformation in this manuscript will fuel more controversy rather than stimulate prudent science-based decisions.”
Reviewers at Pediatrics Journal similarly rejected the study as marked by “fallacious” reasoning with conclusions that were “internally inconsistent.” Another reviewer said that a “facile style of citation increases concern about the balance of the work.”
But reviewers were unaware that Kumar also omitted data that contradicted his desired conclusions.
In an email to Kumar in February 2022, the study’s biostatistician Honghu Liu, Ph.D., told Kumar he thought the results of his analysis were “headed in the right direction.”
But on March 5, 2022, Liu wrote to Kumar explaining they had done analyses trying to find a safe threshold — ideally, around 1.5 mg/L — for fluoride in water, below which there is no association with reduced IQ in children. However, he wrote, “the results are opposite to what we hoped for.”
Liu told Kumar he would keep trying to produce different results. “Although hard, we can test more models to try to identify a threshold that can lead to a nonsignificant fluctuation in IQ before the threshold and a significant drop in IQ after the threshold,” he wrote.
But further analysis continued to show an association between low levels of fluoride exposure and decreased IQ. According to Liu, the dose-response analysis was “unfortunately not showing what we like to show.”
To resolve the problem, they eliminated the analysis from the study.
On March 24, 2022, Kumar sent his colleagues an email, quoting the particular parts of the NTP monograph that he sought to invalidate with their paper and raising concerns that reviewers would question their research if they included a certain figure that contradicted their conclusions.
When the team submitted the study to Public Health for publication, the analysis showing an association between low-level water fluoridation and IQ deficits had been removed.
The study concluded, “These meta-analyses show that fluoride exposure relevant to community water fluoridation is not associated with lower IQ scores in children.”
Connett sent the omitted analysis along with an explanation of how Kumar’s conflicts of interest influenced the outcome of his study in a letter to the NTP last week and urged them to take it into consideration as they evaluated the meta-analysis.
He wrote:
“The public counts on NTP to provide the best available science on the chemicals that impact their lives. I recognize this is a challenging task, particularly for chemicals with significant political interests at stake, but it is vital nonetheless.”
Through FOIA and public records requests, the plaintiffs revealed how high-level public health officials blocked the report’s publication after the NTP determined it was finalized.
They also showed how the ADA sought to influence the “independent” National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics to insist on further review.
Commenting on what else they might uncover about efforts to protect pro-fluoridation interests, Connett told The Defender:
“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.”
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
Related:
Tuesday, May 30, 2023
Memorial Day LIVE: Alex Jones Returns, Breaks Exclusive Intel on Debt-limit Deal, Ukraine War, NWO Takeover (InfoWars)
Excellent show, it really gets good around the 1 hour 15 min mark when Owen Shroyer explains how they will control us, what we do and say with the CBDC connected to your "Vaccine" Passport followed by an excellent clip by Candice Owens explaining how they have been telegraphing a "comprehensive cyber attack" (Klaus Schwab, Cyber Polygon) that I have also been warning of and covered in my now censored / deleted vlog from March of 2022 that I will re-upload to Rumble in the coming days once my data cap rolls over.
Monday, May 29, 2023
Sheeple - Tom MacDonald
Klaus Schwabs’s master plan for a One World Government is in its final stages.
— Pelham (@Resist_05) May 28, 2023
In less the one year the World Economic Forum will take control and sovereignty over every single nation. pic.twitter.com/Ch3cbTRuZ8
"COVID" "Vaccine" and Multiple Sclerosis (Dr. John Campbell)
When watching Dr. Campbell keep in mind that very early on he bought into the narrative and was pro "vaccine".
Also, note that he points out how he's only allowed to relay adverse events on Youtube that the WHO acknowledges exist and when you try to find papers or more information on Google, who owns Youtube, who is owned by the Cabal along with Facebook and the rest of IT / Silicone Valley, in this instance how the "vaccines" cause MS, the hits are buried or can't be found altogether.
Related:
COVID vaccines have likely caused over 25,000 new cases of multiple sclerosis (MS) - Steve Kirsch
Klaus Schwab’s three mentors were leading proponents of a One World Government and Depopulation Agenda
By Alexandra Bruce, 21 Apr 2022
Johnny Vedmore recently published an article about the hidden history of the mysterious World Economic Forum, which is currently waging war against the world with its Great Reset.Founder and Director, Klaus Schwab’s three mentors were the most influential people in America’s thermonuclear deterrence program, as well as leading proponents of a One World Government.
Evil Henry Kissinger of the Council for Foreign Relations recruited WEF’s Klaus Schwab at a CIA funded seminar
Henry Kissinger recruited Klaus Schwab at the International Harvard Seminar, which was funded by the CIA.
During this time, Kissinger was focused on global governance and depopulation.
But it was with the Council on Foreign Relations that Kissinger became a major player, by war-gaming psychological operations, involving America’s growing thermonuclear weapons arsenal ad writing the book on nuclear weapons and foreign policy.
John K Galbraith was a highly-influential economist who helped Klaus Schwab create the World Economic Forum.
Galbraith was an economist at Harvard who traveled to Germany in 1938 to study land policies under Hitler’s National Socialist government.
From there, he went to work for an advisory committee for FDR’s New Deal.
After World War II ended, his work shifted into nuclear weapons. Galbraith was tasked with evaluating the economic effects of the wartime bombing. He interrogated Nazi war criminal, Albert Speer and was sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to evaluate the damage caused by the nuclear weapons attack.
By 1968, Galbraith had joined Kissinger in his pursuit of a One World Government and it was during this time that Kissinger introduced Galbraith to Klaus Schwab, along with Herman Kahn, who in 1967 suggested subverting democracy by training a select group of global leaders, which later became the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders.
Both Kissinger and Galbraith were heavily involved in the religion of nuclear deterrent warfare but Herman Kahn was, as the New Yorker puts it, “the heavyweight of the Megadeath Intellectuals” and is commonly referred to as “the real Dr Strangelove”.
Kahn wrote the official military policy on nuclear deterrence and believed that if everyone had nuclear weapons, the world would know peace.
By the late ’60s, Kahn was pushing for a European Union and joined Galbraith in 1970 on a European speaking tour to support Klaus Schwab’s recruitment drive for the first European Union’s first management symposium, now known as the World Economic Forum.
And while they were doing that, Klaus Schwab helped merge his father’s nuclear weapons company into a company that he then directed to illegally build nuclear weapons for the South African government.
In 1972, the Club of Rome published ‘The Limits to Growth’, which planted the seeds of the depopulation agenda. And while Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith helped Schwab get started, what really brought him the international support he was hoping for was when he introduced the ideas of depopulation.
All Klaus Schwab really cares about is world government, depopulation and thermonuclear war.
In 1972, the Club of Rome’s founder was invited by Schwab to make the keynote speech in 1973. As controversial as it was – even Herman Kahn opposed it – the World Economic Forum suddenly caught the attention and support of powerful elitists everywhere and blew up to what it has become today.
The article suggests that Schwab’s supervillain persona is a deliberate marketing tactic to gain the attention of those who seek power and wealth to join Schwab as stakeholders in society.
The author believes that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually, people will fight back.
But they already know that and all they really seem to care about is world government, depopulation and thermonuclear war.
In 1972, the Club of Rome’s founder was invited by Schwab to make the keynote speech in 1973. As controversial as it was – even Herman Kahn opposed it – the World Economic Forum suddenly caught the attention and support of powerful elitists everywhere and blew up to what it has become today.
The article suggests that Schwab’s supervillain persona is a deliberate marketing tactic to gain the attention of those who seek power and wealth to join Schwab as stakeholders in society.
The author believes that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually, people will fight back.
But they already know that and all they really seem to care about is world government, depopulation and thermonuclear war.
Current events suggest Deagel’s Apocalyptic Depopulation Forecast for 2025 is not just an Estimation (The Expose')
https://expose-news.com/2023/05/02/deagel-depopulation-2025-on-track/
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON MAY 2, 2023In October 2020, Swiss lawyer Michael Lusk wrote an article on his LinkedIn page urging that, in the wake of the coronavirus “pandemic,” Deagel’s 2025 Forecast be given serious attention. Lusk’s article focused on the economic well-being of people comparing citizens of NATO and non-NATO countries.
Based on Deagel’s Forecast 2025, Lusk wrote: “In Deagel’s [ ] image of 2025, Russia flowers while Europe is ruined. Deagel signals that Great Britain [ ] is to be ruined most comprehensively.”
Deagel.com’s infamous 2025 population forecast was removed from their website in April 2021 but the content was reproduced by Nobul Art for reference purposes.
In a September 2021 article, Metallicman – who described the Deagel corporation as a minor branch of US military intelligence – explored what the population reduction in the 2025 Deagel Forecast could mean in terms of what we were witnessing at the time.
“There are all sorts of people slicing and dicing these figures,” he wrote and then went on to discuss some theories. While Metallicman didn’t agree with these theories he conceded: “Nevertheless, they do point out something interesting. That there is a direct correlation between the nations that are giving mRNA vaccinations and those that do not.”
Read more: UN Predicts Sharp Decline in Working Age Population for Japan and Europe Beginning 2025
While the forecast population reduction raises many questions, Lusk’s analysis adds another perspective considering what we are witnessing two and a half years later with the splitting of the world into two – NATO and BRICS. Below is Lusk’s article.
The following slideshow shows captured screenshots of Deagel.com’s Forecast 2025 which has since been removed from their website.
(See original article for slideshow)
Premonition of 2024
Deagel.com (“Deagel”) has self-identified as a guide to military aviation and advanced technologies. Since 2014 it publishes Forecast 2025, which notoriously predicts a “Western collapse.” Under cover of a long-planned political event vigorously promoted by the WHO, governments and media as a “coronavirus pandemic,” Western governments presently engage in a systematic campaign to destroy citizens’ life, liberty and property. The formerly implausible Forecast 2025 now warrants serious attention.
This note provides an overview of the content of Deagel’s current Forecast 2025. It comprises two charts illustrating population and economic prospects for a wide range of countries, according to Deagel’s present indications. Broadly speaking, Deagel continues to foreshadow grim prospects for the US and the NATO-complex, incorporating non-NATO US allies (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) and NATO-vassal States (e.g. Libya). By contrast, Deagel foreshadows positive prospects for China, parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia, and especially for Russia.
The first chart shows the prospects for an individual’s relative economic well-being as a function of population change in the relevant country in 2025 as compared to 2017.
The second chart shows the prospects for a country’s relative economic well-being as a function of change in its military spending in 2025 as compared to 2017.
The charts show a change in each country’s position from the modelled perspective of 2025 relative to the same country’s position in 2017.
This does not necessarily match countries’ modelled positions relative to each other in 2025. Each chart plots a selection of countries drawn from a common subset of 77 out of the 179 countries presented in the current Forecast 2025.
In making the selections I aimed to ensure legibility by allowing only peripherally overlapping entries. In each chart, the selection has a European bias, and otherwise usually shows the more populous rather than the less populous country in case of overlap.
Within the scope of the selections made, the charts accurately reflect the content of Forecast 2025. Countries are identified by codes according to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, with common surrounding symbols indicating common regions; e.g. where a country code is placed within a violet square, the violet square signifies South Asia.
Geopolitical relations, or at least perceived similarities, among countries, are indicated by coloured clouds. NATO-complex countries are indicated by blue clouds.
Purple clouds unite NATO-complex countries which, having regard to Deagel’s Forecast 2025, seem to be breaking away from the NATO complex in the context of the foreshadowed “Western collapse.”
Countries outside the NATO complex are encompassed by yellow clouds. Countries in the latter category may have no other similarities to each other.
Readers should form their own views regarding Deagel.
Wikileaks and #PIZZAGATEwiki are informative sources. Blogs, e.g., TheWatchTowers.org, provide relevant commentary. In a recent interview, Dr. Katherine Horton explained the practice of cartel-signalling, of which Forecast 2025 may be an example.
Dr. Horton’s website further includes a pertinent reference document dated 29 March 2018 (metadata), citing a post by Ryan Zimmerman.
Deagel apparently comprises a think tank informed by the CIA, NSA and others inside the Beltway. Accordingly, it seems that Washington insiders persistently signal the imminent demise of the US empire including NATO, with China and Russia emerging as hegemons [with dominant influence or authority over others].
The picture painted by Deagel may be contrasted with the cartoon map published in the 1890 special Christmas edition of Henry Labouchère’s weekly journal Truth. Presumably the work of British insiders, the then bizarre map foreshadowed the emergence of European “republics” and the reduction of Russia to a “desert,” each being a transformation substantially achieved by the end of World War I.
In Deagel’s contrasting image of 2025, Russia flowers while Europe is ruined. Deagel signals that Great Britain, i.e., the principal architect of the “Russian desert,” is to be ruined most comprehensively.
On the other hand, Deagel indicates Finland, Hungary and The Netherlands may navigate the foreshadowed European upheaval with relatively little loss.
However, Rushi Sunak’s government seems determined to deliver that particular outcome for the UK ahead of schedule.
Related:
Sunday, May 28, 2023
FAUCI IN 2017 "TRUMP WILL BE CHALLENGED BY A "SURPRISE GLOBAL DISEASE OUTBREAK"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KkUjp6LFTUYk/
Related:
MILITARY DOCUMENTS ABOUT GAIN OF FUNCTION CONTRADICT FAUCI TESTIMONY UNDER OATH #EXPOSEFAUCIhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/_zgoENmeddA/
Trump wasn't surprised, Trump is in on it! Operation Warp Speed ring a bell? How about assigning Scott Gottlieb as head of the FDA who tried to render our ability to purchase basic supplements like Vitamin C, D and Zinc that would ward off a bad time with seasonal flu / "COVID" who then went on to join the board of directors at Pfizer shortly thereafter for his success in banning NAC, a supplement that is incredibly powerful in warding off a bad time with seasonal flu / "COVID"?!
 |
 |
The actual reason Google / Youtube removed the downvote button!  |
Facebook admits the COVID Vaccines destroy the Immune System and cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (The Expose')
Ironically I received my very first 30 day Facebook ban for relaying a chilling message from Luc Montagnier, the worlds foremost expert on HIV who won the Nobel Prize in 1992 for his discovery of the HIV virus, who stated "if you've had your 3rd jab, go and get tested for HIV, and then sue your government. He then inexplicably, out of the blue, dies right as Moderna began Phase 2 clinical trial of their mRNA HIV "vaccine". Total coincidence!
Just like how the inventor of the PCR method, Dr. Kary Mullis, just so happens to die in September of 2019, right before Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab host Event 201 in October "predicting a global outbreak of a novel coronavirus" with "COVID" "cases" derived from the PCR test and Kary Mullis already challenged Dr. Anthony Fauci in the late 80's / early 90's for his abuse of Mullis' PCR method, using then as in now, way too many amplification cycles and deriving mostly false positives (90%+ false positive rate above 25 cycles, they are using 40-50 intentionally!), then killing said "HIV patients" with the toxic drug AZT, and he's back at it again this time with Remdesivir. Mullis would be screaming foul play at the top of his lungs right now, and Montagnier was just getting warmed up, he absolutely started challenging Fauci and the rest of the cabal for their shenanigans and they killed him to send a chilling effect to any other prominent would-be whistleblowers. Remember, the Deep State can covertly assassinate you and make the death appear completely natural (the heart attack gun here, this hearing was 50 years ago!)
Fortunately we still have a large number of prominent scientists all calling their agenda out, like Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA gene therapy technology in question, Dr. Mike Yeadon, former chief scientific officer at Pfizer, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Dr. Ryan Cole et al. At this point, the information is overwhelmingly irrefutable that there never was a pandemic and that these injections absolutely are not vaccines that confer protection but it doesn't matter now how much factual information you bring to bear and from whom, no matter how prominent, those that bought into the narrative are victims of an elaborate psychological warfare operation waged by the vey same Deep State who honed such capabilities via MK Ultra, and decades of brain-washing via the mainstream media. The phenomenon is called Mass Formation Psychosis. I cover it quite a bit here on this blog).
From my vlog from 8 months ago, at the 59 min mark:
Facebook admits the COVID Vaccines destroy the Immune System and cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (The Expose')
Please support independent journalism!
https://expose-news.com/2022/10/28/facebook-admits-covid-vaccination-causes-ai-d-s/
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON OCTOBER 28, 2022
Facebook has confirmed that five months’ worth of official Government data does in fact prove Covid-19 vaccination destroys the immune system leading to what can be described as a new form of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.
Back in August 2022, The Expose published an exclusive in-depth investigation into five months’ worth of official UK Government released by the UK Health Security Agency that confirmed each Covid-19 “booster” dose provides a very short-lived temporary boost to the immune systems of the vaccinated population before decimating their immune systems much more rapidly than had already been seen in people who had received two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine.
In short, we discovered that official UK Government data strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccinated population are developing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Source
That investigation was shared by a reader on Facebook on the same day that we published the article, and Facebook took it upon themselves to immediately remove the post and label it as “misinformation”.
However, the reader who shared our article disputed Facebook’s censorship and on the 27th October they finally responded to confirm that they were in fact wrong, the investigation was entirely correct, and that the readers Facebook post is now back on the highly censored social media platform.
So now that Facebook has confirmed what The Expose has been trying to tell the wider public for over a year, we have included the full original investigation below so that you can share this article far and wide.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) used to publish a weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report, with each report containing four weeks worth of data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status. For our investigation we analysed 5 of these published Vaccine Surveillance Reports containing data from August 16th 2021 to January 2nd 2022, in order to get a clear picture of the effect the Covid-19 vaccines are having on the immune systems of the vaccinated population, and this is what we found…
The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports used for our investigation can all be found here –
Pfizer claims that its Covid-19 mRNA injection has a vaccine effectiveness of 95%. They were able to claim this because of a simple calculation (full details of which can be viewed here) performed on the number of infections confirmed amongst the vaccinated group and the not-vaccinated group during the earliest stages of the still ongoing clinical trials.
Now, thanks to a wealth of data published by the UK Health Security Agency we are able to use the same calculation that was used to calculate 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, to calculate the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines, and the data, unfortunately, paints an extremely concerning picture.
The week 37 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 33 and week 36 of 2021 (August 16th to September 12th). Because the report tells us the Covid-19 case rates per 100,000 people among the unvaccinated and two-dose vaccinated population we are able to calculate the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period, and it proved to be as follows –
Source
The real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-47% in the 60-69 age group, and as high as +66% in the under 18 age group between August 16th and September 12th 2021. The only other age groups that the vaccine was showing to have a positive effect at this point were 18-29, 30-39, and 80+. But as you can clearly see none of the age groups was showing a vaccine effectiveness anywhere near 95%.
However, just look at how the tables turn just one month later.
The week 41 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 37 and week 40 of 2021 (September 13th to October 10th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows –
Source
The real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-109% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +89% in the under 18 age group between September 13th and October 10th 2021. The only other age group that the vaccine was showing to have positive effect at this point was 18-29.
What’s concerning here though is how far the real-world effectiveness of the vaccine has fallen in all age groups, but especially the 40-49 age group which fell from a real-world effectiveness of minus-36% to minus-109%.
The fact that the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines had surpassed the minus-100% barrier suggests that not only were the vaccines failing, but they were also completely decimating the immune system of the recipients.
This makes the next Vaccine Surveillance report frightening reading.
The week 45 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 41 and week 44 of 2021 (October 11th to November 7th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows – –
Source
The real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-126% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +78% in the under 18 age group between October 11th to November 7th 2021. The only other age group that the vaccine was showing to have a positive effect at this point was again 18-29.
What’s concerning here is that two more age groups have surpassed the minus-100% barrier, with the 50-59 age group falling to minus-116% and the 60-69 age group falling to minus-120%. But what is perhaps more concerning is that the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections has continued to decline in the 40-49 age group after already surpassing the minus-100% barrier in the previous month.
What we can also see from the above is that the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injection in persons over the age of 80 has climbed from minus-22% to minus-9 percent. This coincides with the booster jab roll-out to this age group, suggesting the vaccines do in fact boost the immune system But it is worth noting that there is still a negative effectiveness in this age group, and it is still lower than the minus-3% effectiveness seen between week 33 and week 36 of 2021.
The week 49 Vaccine Surveillance report, however, provides a much clearer picture on the effect of the boosters on the vaccinated population in the short term.
The week 49 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 45 and week 48 of 2021 (November 8th to December 5th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows –
The real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-120% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +80% in the under 18 age group between November 8th to December 5th 2021. The real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections actually only decreased in the 18-29-year-olds and 30-39-year-olds during these four weeks.
People over the age of 70 were rewarded with a major boost to their immune systems over these four weeks, with vaccine effectiveness proving to be +27% in 70-79-year-olds between 8th Nov and 5th Dec 21, compared to minus-84% between 11th Oct and 7th Nov 21.
Whilst vaccine effectiveness in people over the age of 80 increased to +47% between 8th Nov and 5th Dec 21, compared to minus-9% between 11th Oct and 7th Nov 21.
Everyone between the age of 40 and 69 was also rewarded with a boost to their immune system during this period, however not enough to show a positive vaccine effectiveness. This boost in vaccine effectiveness coincides with when the booster shots were administered to each age group as can be seen in the below graph taken from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022.
Source – Page 23
Based on vaccine effectiveness turning positive in everyone over the age of 70 following the booster shot after previously showing a negative effectiveness, we should expect to see much-improved vaccine effectiveness in 40-69-year-olds in the next published Vaccine Surveillance Report.
But unfortunately, this isn’t the case.
The week 1 – 2022- Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 49 and week 52 of 2021 (December 6th to January 2nd), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period proved to be as follows –
Real-world vaccine effectiveness dropped to the lowest levels yet across all age groups except for the over 70’s between December 6th and January 2nd, but the over 70’s still dropped into negative effectiveness.
The expected further boost to 40 to 69-year-olds did not materialise and instead, a huge tumble in vaccine effectiveness was recorded, dropping to -151% in 40-49-yer-olds.
Vaccine effectiveness also tumbled in the 30-39-year-old age group to minus-123%, despite the booster jab being administered to millions in week 49.
The following graph illustrates the increase/decrease in vaccine effectiveness by the month among each age group over a period of 5 months from 16th Aug 21 to 2nd Jan 22.
The first booster shots were administered in week 37 of 2021, and this graph illustrates clearly how they provided a boost in vaccine effectiveness in the following two months. But unfortunately, it also shows how short-lived this boost was with the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines falling to frightening levels between weeks 49 and 52.
But what does a positive/negative vaccine effectiveness actually mean?
Vaccines work by simulating a viral attack and provoking the immune system into responding as if you have had the virus. They are supposed to train the immune system to the point where you develop natural immunity to the virus. Therefore, vaccine effectiveness is really a measure of the immune system performance induced by the vaccine.
A vaccine effectiveness of +50% would mean that the fully vaccinated are 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated. In other words, the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is 50% better at tackling Covid-19.
A vaccine effectiveness of 0% would mean that the fully vaccinated are 0% more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated, meaning the vaccines are ineffective. In other words, the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is equal to that of the unvaccinated at tackling Covid-19.
Whilst a vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that the unvaccinated were 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the fully vaccinated, meaning the vaccines actually decimate the immune system.
Therefore with the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines proving to be negative in everyone over the age of 18 in England, this means double/triple vaccinated adults’ immune systems are being decimated.
Immune System Performance
The formula used to calculate the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines was based on the exact calculation used by Pfizer to demonstrate that their vaccine had an alleged effectiveness of 95%.U = No. of Cases among the unvaccinated
V = No. of Cases among the fully vaccinated
U – V / U = Vaccine Effectiveness
However in order to calculate the immune system performance we need to perform a slightly different calculation that divides the answer to U – V by the largest of the number of cases among either the unvaccinated or fully vaccinated.
Therefore, the calculation for a positive immune system performance is –
U – V / U
Whilst the calculation for a negative immune system performance is –
U – V / V
The following table shows the monthly boost/decline in the immune systems of the vaccinated population compared to the natural immune systems of the unvaccinated population-
This shows that as of the 2nd January 2021 (Month 5), triple/double vaccinated 40-49-year-olds currently have the worst immune system performance at -60%. But they are closely followed by 30-39-year-olds at -58%, 18-29-year-olds and 50-59-year-olds at -55%, and 60-69-year-olds at -47%.
The following graph illustrates the overall immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past 5 months –
What we can see from the above is that the immune system performance of adults aged between 18 and 59 has deteriorated to the worst levels yet since they were given the Covid-19 vaccine. Whilst the immune system performance of everyone over the age of 60 has deteriorated dramatically following receipt of the booster shot, but not yet to the level seen between week 37 and week 40.
The over 70’s have however seen the most dramatic fall in immune system performance between month 4 and month 5 alongside 18-29-year-olds.
The 55% boost to the immune systems of the over 80’s given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 1% better than it was in month 3 but still 54% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.
The 73% boost to the immune systems of the 70-79-year-olds given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has also all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 10% better than it was in month 3 but still 63% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.
The minor boost, however, given to the immune Systems of everyone between the age of 30 and 59 by the boosters between months 3 and 4 has been completely decimated by the following month, whilst 18-29-year-olds have seen a 60% decline in their immune system performance between months 4 and 5.
The following graph illustrates the boost/degradation in immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past 5 months –
Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
The real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections wains significantly in a short amount of time, but unfortunately for the vaccinated population, rather than the immune system returning to the same state it was prior to vaccination, the immune system performance begins to rapidly decline, making it inferior to that of the unvaccinated.
Now the official UK Government data proves that a booster dose of the vaccine can give a short-term boost to the immune system of the vaccinated, but unfortunately, this same data shows that the immune system performance then begins to decline even faster than it was prior to the booster dose being given.
This data, therefore, suggests that the vaccinated population will now require an endless cycle of booster shots to boost their immune systems to a point where it does not fail but is inferior to that of the unvaccinated population.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.
Therefore, could we be seeing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?
It would certainly appear so when we consider the most recent figures made available by the UK Government through the Office for National Statistics show the unvaccinated population have the lowest mortality rates per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated population among all age groups.
Facebook has confirmed that five months’ worth of official Government data does in fact prove Covid-19 vaccination destroys the immune system leading to what can be described as a new form of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.
Back in August 2022, The Expose published an exclusive in-depth investigation into five months’ worth of official UK Government released by the UK Health Security Agency that confirmed each Covid-19 “booster” dose provides a very short-lived temporary boost to the immune systems of the vaccinated population before decimating their immune systems much more rapidly than had already been seen in people who had received two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine.
In short, we discovered that official UK Government data strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccinated population are developing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
SourceThat investigation was shared by a reader on Facebook on the same day that we published the article, and Facebook took it upon themselves to immediately remove the post and label it as “misinformation”.
However, the reader who shared our article disputed Facebook’s censorship and on the 27th October they finally responded to confirm that they were in fact wrong, the investigation was entirely correct, and that the readers Facebook post is now back on the highly censored social media platform.
So now that Facebook has confirmed what The Expose has been trying to tell the wider public for over a year, we have included the full original investigation below so that you can share this article far and wide.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) used to publish a weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report, with each report containing four weeks worth of data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status. For our investigation we analysed 5 of these published Vaccine Surveillance Reports containing data from August 16th 2021 to January 2nd 2022, in order to get a clear picture of the effect the Covid-19 vaccines are having on the immune systems of the vaccinated population, and this is what we found…
The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports used for our investigation can all be found here –
- ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 37’ (Published by PHE)
- ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 41’ (Published by UKHSA)
- ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 45’ (Published by UKHSA)
- ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 49’ (Published by UKHSA)
- ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022’ (Published by UKHSA)
Pfizer claims that its Covid-19 mRNA injection has a vaccine effectiveness of 95%. They were able to claim this because of a simple calculation (full details of which can be viewed here) performed on the number of infections confirmed amongst the vaccinated group and the not-vaccinated group during the earliest stages of the still ongoing clinical trials.
Now, thanks to a wealth of data published by the UK Health Security Agency we are able to use the same calculation that was used to calculate 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, to calculate the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines, and the data, unfortunately, paints an extremely concerning picture.
The week 37 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 33 and week 36 of 2021 (August 16th to September 12th). Because the report tells us the Covid-19 case rates per 100,000 people among the unvaccinated and two-dose vaccinated population we are able to calculate the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period, and it proved to be as follows –
SourceThe real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-47% in the 60-69 age group, and as high as +66% in the under 18 age group between August 16th and September 12th 2021. The only other age groups that the vaccine was showing to have a positive effect at this point were 18-29, 30-39, and 80+. But as you can clearly see none of the age groups was showing a vaccine effectiveness anywhere near 95%.
However, just look at how the tables turn just one month later.
The week 41 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 37 and week 40 of 2021 (September 13th to October 10th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows –
SourceThe real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-109% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +89% in the under 18 age group between September 13th and October 10th 2021. The only other age group that the vaccine was showing to have positive effect at this point was 18-29.
What’s concerning here though is how far the real-world effectiveness of the vaccine has fallen in all age groups, but especially the 40-49 age group which fell from a real-world effectiveness of minus-36% to minus-109%.
The fact that the real-world effectiveness of the vaccines had surpassed the minus-100% barrier suggests that not only were the vaccines failing, but they were also completely decimating the immune system of the recipients.
This makes the next Vaccine Surveillance report frightening reading.
The week 45 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 41 and week 44 of 2021 (October 11th to November 7th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows – –
SourceThe real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-126% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +78% in the under 18 age group between October 11th to November 7th 2021. The only other age group that the vaccine was showing to have a positive effect at this point was again 18-29.
What’s concerning here is that two more age groups have surpassed the minus-100% barrier, with the 50-59 age group falling to minus-116% and the 60-69 age group falling to minus-120%. But what is perhaps more concerning is that the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections has continued to decline in the 40-49 age group after already surpassing the minus-100% barrier in the previous month.
What we can also see from the above is that the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injection in persons over the age of 80 has climbed from minus-22% to minus-9 percent. This coincides with the booster jab roll-out to this age group, suggesting the vaccines do in fact boost the immune system But it is worth noting that there is still a negative effectiveness in this age group, and it is still lower than the minus-3% effectiveness seen between week 33 and week 36 of 2021.
The week 49 Vaccine Surveillance report, however, provides a much clearer picture on the effect of the boosters on the vaccinated population in the short term.
The week 49 Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 45 and week 48 of 2021 (November 8th to December 5th), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period was proving to be as follows –
The real-world effectiveness of all available Covid-19 vaccines combined was as low as minus-120% in the 40-49 age group, and as high as +80% in the under 18 age group between November 8th to December 5th 2021. The real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections actually only decreased in the 18-29-year-olds and 30-39-year-olds during these four weeks.
People over the age of 70 were rewarded with a major boost to their immune systems over these four weeks, with vaccine effectiveness proving to be +27% in 70-79-year-olds between 8th Nov and 5th Dec 21, compared to minus-84% between 11th Oct and 7th Nov 21.
Whilst vaccine effectiveness in people over the age of 80 increased to +47% between 8th Nov and 5th Dec 21, compared to minus-9% between 11th Oct and 7th Nov 21.
Everyone between the age of 40 and 69 was also rewarded with a boost to their immune system during this period, however not enough to show a positive vaccine effectiveness. This boost in vaccine effectiveness coincides with when the booster shots were administered to each age group as can be seen in the below graph taken from the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022.
Source – Page 23Based on vaccine effectiveness turning positive in everyone over the age of 70 following the booster shot after previously showing a negative effectiveness, we should expect to see much-improved vaccine effectiveness in 40-69-year-olds in the next published Vaccine Surveillance Report.
But unfortunately, this isn’t the case.
The week 1 – 2022- Vaccine Surveillance report included the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between week 49 and week 52 of 2021 (December 6th to January 2nd), and the real-world vaccine effectiveness during this period proved to be as follows –
Real-world vaccine effectiveness dropped to the lowest levels yet across all age groups except for the over 70’s between December 6th and January 2nd, but the over 70’s still dropped into negative effectiveness.
The expected further boost to 40 to 69-year-olds did not materialise and instead, a huge tumble in vaccine effectiveness was recorded, dropping to -151% in 40-49-yer-olds.
Vaccine effectiveness also tumbled in the 30-39-year-old age group to minus-123%, despite the booster jab being administered to millions in week 49.
The following graph illustrates the increase/decrease in vaccine effectiveness by the month among each age group over a period of 5 months from 16th Aug 21 to 2nd Jan 22.
The first booster shots were administered in week 37 of 2021, and this graph illustrates clearly how they provided a boost in vaccine effectiveness in the following two months. But unfortunately, it also shows how short-lived this boost was with the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines falling to frightening levels between weeks 49 and 52.
But what does a positive/negative vaccine effectiveness actually mean?
Vaccines work by simulating a viral attack and provoking the immune system into responding as if you have had the virus. They are supposed to train the immune system to the point where you develop natural immunity to the virus. Therefore, vaccine effectiveness is really a measure of the immune system performance induced by the vaccine.
A vaccine effectiveness of +50% would mean that the fully vaccinated are 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated. In other words, the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is 50% better at tackling Covid-19.
A vaccine effectiveness of 0% would mean that the fully vaccinated are 0% more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated, meaning the vaccines are ineffective. In other words, the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is equal to that of the unvaccinated at tackling Covid-19.
Whilst a vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that the unvaccinated were 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the fully vaccinated, meaning the vaccines actually decimate the immune system.
Therefore with the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines proving to be negative in everyone over the age of 18 in England, this means double/triple vaccinated adults’ immune systems are being decimated.
Immune System Performance
The formula used to calculate the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines was based on the exact calculation used by Pfizer to demonstrate that their vaccine had an alleged effectiveness of 95%.U = No. of Cases among the unvaccinated
V = No. of Cases among the fully vaccinated
U – V / U = Vaccine Effectiveness
However in order to calculate the immune system performance we need to perform a slightly different calculation that divides the answer to U – V by the largest of the number of cases among either the unvaccinated or fully vaccinated.
Therefore, the calculation for a positive immune system performance is –
U – V / U
Whilst the calculation for a negative immune system performance is –
U – V / V
The following table shows the monthly boost/decline in the immune systems of the vaccinated population compared to the natural immune systems of the unvaccinated population-
This shows that as of the 2nd January 2021 (Month 5), triple/double vaccinated 40-49-year-olds currently have the worst immune system performance at -60%. But they are closely followed by 30-39-year-olds at -58%, 18-29-year-olds and 50-59-year-olds at -55%, and 60-69-year-olds at -47%.
The following graph illustrates the overall immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past 5 months –
What we can see from the above is that the immune system performance of adults aged between 18 and 59 has deteriorated to the worst levels yet since they were given the Covid-19 vaccine. Whilst the immune system performance of everyone over the age of 60 has deteriorated dramatically following receipt of the booster shot, but not yet to the level seen between week 37 and week 40.
The over 70’s have however seen the most dramatic fall in immune system performance between month 4 and month 5 alongside 18-29-year-olds.
The 55% boost to the immune systems of the over 80’s given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 1% better than it was in month 3 but still 54% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.
The 73% boost to the immune systems of the 70-79-year-olds given by the boosters between month 3 and month 4 has also all but deteriorated between month 4 and month 5. Their immune system is performing 10% better than it was in month 3 but still 63% worse than their unvaccinated counterparts.
The minor boost, however, given to the immune Systems of everyone between the age of 30 and 59 by the boosters between months 3 and 4 has been completely decimated by the following month, whilst 18-29-year-olds have seen a 60% decline in their immune system performance between months 4 and 5.
The following graph illustrates the boost/degradation in immune system performance among all age groups in England over the past 5 months –
Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
The real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections wains significantly in a short amount of time, but unfortunately for the vaccinated population, rather than the immune system returning to the same state it was prior to vaccination, the immune system performance begins to rapidly decline, making it inferior to that of the unvaccinated.
Now the official UK Government data proves that a booster dose of the vaccine can give a short-term boost to the immune system of the vaccinated, but unfortunately, this same data shows that the immune system performance then begins to decline even faster than it was prior to the booster dose being given.
This data, therefore, suggests that the vaccinated population will now require an endless cycle of booster shots to boost their immune systems to a point where it does not fail but is inferior to that of the unvaccinated population.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.
Therefore, could we be seeing some new form of Covid-19 vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?
It would certainly appear so when we consider the most recent figures made available by the UK Government through the Office for National Statistics show the unvaccinated population have the lowest mortality rates per 100,000 compared to the vaccinated population among all age groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
https://www.bitchute.com/video/g0X8oIkCTm0o/ https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Childrens/dp/1510766804/ref=sr_1_1?keywords...
-
source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/01/numbing-out-of-america-public-apathy-explained/ by Allen L Roland Connect the dots; the...
https://philosophersbunker.blogspot.com/2023/06/unto-final-chapter-of-great-reset.html
Into the Final Chapter of The Great Reset: Orchestrated Collapse by Way of Cyber Polygon and WW3 (Re-Post)
After being up for over a year (I was able to thwart their algorithmic censorship by omitting tags, tags are keywords that direct searche...
