And with that the Biden regime doubles down on vaccines for the young…..
In light of the FDA’s approval of booster shots for children, my story. I was a 33 year old avid hiker, biker, and traveler. I received the Pfizer booster on 12/15/21. That was the last normal day of my life. I have not been able to walk more than 80 feet since that day. #FDApic.twitter.com/vpMXB1GaKX
Official figures published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics show that deaths per 100,000 among double vaccinated 18-39-year-olds were on average 91% higher than deaths per 100,000 among unvaccinated 18-39-year-olds between January 2021 and January 2022.
This means it can no longer be denied that the Covid-19 vaccines are deadly because even the official Government published figures now prove it
The Office for National Statistics is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.
Its latest dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status can be found here. It contains a large amount of data on age-standardised mortality rates for deaths by vaccination status between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022.
Table 2 of the dataset contains data on the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status by age group for all deaths in England. The following table shows an example of how the numbers are presented in the dataset –
What immediately catches the eye when looking at this data is the mortality rate per 100,00 person-years among 18-39-year-olds in the month of January 2021. The figures show the death rate among the unvaccinated in this month was 67.7 deaths per 100,000 person-years. Whilst the death rate among the partly vaccinated (at least 21 days ago) was 119.9 deaths per 100,000 years.
This shows that vaccinated 18-39-year-olds were more likely to die in January 2021, suggesting the Covid-19 injections increased the risk of death or played a part in causing death. So we dug further and extracted all the figures on 18-39-year-olds for each month between January 2021 and January 2022, and this is what we found –
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-20 16:21:082022-05-20 16:21:58Vaxxed Young Adults are 92% More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated
Just take a close look at the official stats compiled by the FBI.
Within hours of the Buffalo, New York, mass shooting on May 14 that claimed the lives of ten innocent black people, top Democratic officials were already citing the incident as proof that the number one social problem facing America is “white supremacy” and “white nationalism.”
The reason: the mentally ill Buffalo shooter, 18-year-old Payton Gendron, in addition to being openly racist against black Americans, also objected to unrestricted mass immigration and said so in a rambling 181-page manifesto on the subject.
Favoring tighter immigration policies does not make you a potential mass shooter or a terrorist, yet that is precisely the inference Democrat Party apparatchiks – not wanting to let a serious crisis ever go to waste – were inviting the American public to draw.
The problem with the claim that the political beliefs of a criminal should result in the blanket scrutiny of everyone espousing those same beliefs – even if held by otherwise sane people – is that it is not, predictably, consistently applied.
In 2017, a far-left Democrat and supporter of Bernie Sanders, James Hodgkinson, opened fire on a couple of dozen Congressional Republicans during softball practice, seriously wounding Representative Steve Scalise and lobbyist Mike Mika. Yet at no point did members of the Democratic Party or the corporate media begin clamoring for investigations into the dangers of socialism or of far-left Democratic Party activism.
In 2019, 24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people and wounded 17 others in Dayton, Ohio – an incident the media labeled as an act of racist white supremacy. The problem was, investigations quickly revealed that Betts was an avowed Satanist and supporter of far-left Antifa who hated Donald Trump and urged all his friends to vote only for Democrats.
When news broke about a mass shooting that killed ten people last year in Boulder, Colorado, USA Today’s “race and inclusion” editor Hemal Jhaveri tweeted out, “It’s always an angry white man. Always.”
Inconveniently for the media class, it turned out the shooter was Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a 21-year old immigrant from Syria.
Despite the claims of America’s corporate media and far-left Democrats, mass shootings are not disproportionately carried out by angry white men. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
However, 17.4 percent of mass shooters were black despite blacks being only 12.4 percent of the population, and 6.6 percent were Asians even though Asians are only 3.3 percent of the population. In other words, Asians, as a group, were two times more likely to be mass shooters than they are a percentage of the population.
For example, just one day after the Buffalo atrocity, on May 15, a Chinese immigrant named David Chou, 68, walked into a church hall in Laguna Niguel, California, and began opening fire, killing one and wounding five others, all of them Taiwanese. Chou apparently was motivated by a hatred for Taiwanese people.
The case for an “epidemic” of white supremacist violent crime becomes even weaker when you look at crime statistics generally rather than just at mass shootings. (The Mother Jones database defines a “mass shooting” as “a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed.”)
According to FBI statistics, most violent crimes are not racially motivated.
A similar pattern can be seen in designated “hate crimes.” Contrary to what the corporate media and Democrat activists claim, whites are not disproportionately committing hate crimes. In fact, they are significantly less likely to commit hate crimes than other groups.
According to official FBI statistics, in 2020 there were 11,549 designated hate crimes committed in the US– including 4,381 acts of intimidation, 2,433 acts of destruction of property, 2,197 acts of simple assault, 1,407 acts of aggravated assault, 22 murders or negligent manslaughter, and 12 rapes.
While whites are 62.4 percent of the overall population, they committed only 55 percent of the hate crimes (3,823), according to the FBI statistics. Blacks, who are 12.4 percent of the population, committed 21 percent of hate crimes. The rest were committed by “unknown” (16 percent), multi-ethnic (6 percent), Asian (1 percent) or Native American and Hawaiian (1 percent).
Thus, the entire media and Biden Administration narrative – that there is an “epidemic” of white supremacy and racial hate crimes – is simply not supported by the evidence.
The truth is, America has a crime problem and a mental health problem, not a white supremacy problem. The media and Democrats activists are taking advantage of real tragedies in order to attack their political opponents and advance an extreme agenda the majority of Americans reject.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2022-05-20 12:28:082022-05-20 12:28:08America Has a Crime and Mental Health Problem, Not a White Supremacy Problem
And now we are sending BILLIONS over there. The more we know, the darker, more evil it gets.
This is a catastrophe of unimaginable proportion.
There is one Sub-Award that stands out among the rest, and it was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health INC for “SME Manuscript Documentation and COVID-19 Research”.
An award for Covid-19 research isn’t exactly shocking when the world is allegedly in the grip of a Covid-19 pandemic, but considering the fact the sub-contract was awarded 12th November 2019, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19, the award for Covid-19 research should come as a shock to everyone. [Click here to view the document]
But the shock doesn’t end there, because the place the contact for Covid-19 research was instructed to take place was Ukraine, as was the entire contract awarded by the DOD to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia-like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease Covid-19.
So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?
The shocking findings, however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019 for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.
Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.
The Government of the United States has a website called ‘USA Spending‘, an official open data source of federal spending information. According to the site as of 12th April 2021, the US Government has spent a mind-blowing $3.63 trillion “in response to COVID-19”. But that’s not the only information on Covid that can be found on the site.
Hidden within the ‘Award Search’ are details on a contract awarded by the Department of Defense to a company named ‘Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp‘, which is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”.
The contract was awarded on September 20th, 2012 and is described as “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services”. Obviously, this is very vague and most likely of little interest to anyone who happens to stumble across it. But there is something contained deep within the details that should be of interest to anyone and everyone.
The ‘Award History’ for the contract contains a tab for ‘Sub-Awards’ detailing the recipients, action date, amount, and a very brief description for 115 Sub-Award transactions. Most of the Sub-Awards are extremely mundane for things such as “laboratory equipment for Kyiv”, or “office furniture for Kyiv”.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-05-20 05:03:042022-05-20 06:08:16United States D.O.D issued a contract for ‘COVID-19 Research’ in Ukraine 3 months before COVID-19 officially existed
Yesterday, I filed suit in federal court against HHS for failing to give me records on COVID vaccine safety I had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Let me back up to the beginning. In 1976, U.S. regulators pulled the swine flu vaccine from the market after it was linked to 25 deaths. In stark contrast, U.S. regulators have not pulled the COVID vaccines from the market despite almost 28,000 deaths in the U.S. alone that could be linked to the vaccines. So here we have a situation that is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine, but the government has left the COVID vaccines on the market. Not only that, the government spent a billion dollars to have media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post tell us the vaccines are safe. We have gotten government by phony narrative instead of a legitimate public health response. If the vaccines are safe, the government would not have had to spend a billion dollars trying to convince us of that.
In 1990, the government instituted a vaccine adverse event reporting system – VAERS. There have been a relative handful of adverse reactions to various vaccines reported every year since, but the line went straight up off the chart when the COVID vaccines were introduced. The purpose of the reporting system is to prompt the government to conduct safety studies when it looks like there’s a problem. I hadn’t seen any government safety studies of the COVID vaccines so, last November, I asked HHS for any studies they had performed and for any memo explaining their decision to perform, or not perform, such studies.
In response, I got back a government website URL where a number of studies are posted. As a group, they claim various adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccines. Only one of the studies addresses mortality – the elephant in the room, the idea that the COVID vaccines just might be killing people by the thousands. That study, performed by a mix of CDC, Kaiser Permanente, and Pfizer-tied scientists did not look at the VAERS data. It performed a statistical analysis on another database. Unsurprisingly, it found “no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients.” However, “causes of death were not assessed” in individual cases and it was published last October. There have been an additional 12,000 deaths in the U.S. alone possibly caused by COVID vaccines since then [see The Daily Skirmish – 10/20/21], deaths your government has not investigated.
I never got the decision memo or most of the other records I requested. HHS was in bad faith because they referred my request to the CDC, a single component of HHS, when the decision about safety studies might have been made by the HHS Secretary or other leadership office. The CDC, from whom I received a handful of records, was in bad faith for initially claiming my request was burdensome and that other agencies and the manufacturers would have to be consulted. This was a lie because, when I asked for expedited processing, they gave me records the very next day. I went back to HHS, asking for an agency-wide search on an expedited basis limited in some respects to the subject of mortality, but there was no response. So I sued them yesterday. Now it’s out of their hands and a federal judge will decide what records I get.
I filed requests for expedited processing with the CDC and HHS because the CDC had initially wanted to leave the document production schedule open-ended and HHS had delayed matters by closing my case file in bad faith. I wasn’t willing to wait 75 years to find out when I might get records, which is how long the FDA, another HHS component, had demanded to produce records in another FOIA case, that one regarding the Pfizer vaccine. The FDA was shot down by a court which initially shortened the record production schedule from 75 years to eight months, although the litigation went on from there.
The government has 30 days to answer my complaint, and we’ll see what happens.
In the course of all this, I amassed over a hundred articles pointing to safety problems with the COVID vaccines, including mortality, and saw in a database there are thousands more. No, the government does not get to sweep this under the rug. I want to know what the government decided about mortality studies and why. I want to know why the government did not pull the COVID vaccines from the market when the situation is potentially more than a thousand times worse than the swine flu vaccine disaster.
Tomorrow, I’ll tell you about some of the COVID vaccine adverse reaction articles I gathered. They’re eye-opening.
EXPOSED – Pfizer vaccine in the UK. Deaths and injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s Palsy, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, psychiatric disorders and blindness.
16 people are now blind after covid jab – Latest AstraZeneca deaths and injuries. As well as blindness, some of the many injuries include: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, sepsis, paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, deafness and covid-19.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2022-05-19 11:36:302022-05-19 11:36:30COVID Vaccine Deaths: What Did the Government Know and When Did It Know It?
A Democratic witness testified that men can get pregnant and have abortions during a Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on abortion access and care.
Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop first asked witness AVOW executive director Aimee Arrambide how she defines a “woman.”AVOW is a pro-abortion non-profit organization working to secure unrestricted access to abortion for Texas.
“I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,” Arrambide said.
“Ok. Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?” Bishop followed up.
“Yes,” Arrambide responded.
Q: "Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" –@RepDanBishop
Bishop also asked reproductive healthcare Dr. Yashica Robinson, who uses “she/her” pronouns, if she could define what a “woman” was prior to questioning Arrambide.
“It’s important for you to understand why I said I use ‘she/her’ pronouns,” Robinson said. “It’s because I understand that for people-”
Bishop then cut her off and again asked “what is a woman?”
“I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things we do, and so the reason why I use ‘she’ and ‘her’ pronouns is because I understand there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way, and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way that they desire not to be called,” Robinson said.
Bishop again asked if she was going to answer his question about the definition of a “woman.”
“I’m a woman,” Robinson said.
“Is that as comprehensive a definition you could give me?” Bishop asked.
Robinson said that the most comprehensive definition she could provide for the time being.
A “woman” is defined as “an adult female person,” according to Merriam-Webster. A female has XX chromosomes while men have XY chromosomes. Men do not. have the same reproductive organs that females have and are unable to get pregnant or receive an abortion.
Robinson and Arrambide are not the only ones unable to provide a definition of what a “woman” is. The Daily Caller reached out to every Senate Democrat to see if any of our leaders would provide a definition. Each request was met with silence. Only 15 Republican Senators were willing to provide a definition of what a “woman” is when questioned by the Caller.
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson also dodged the question during her hearing, telling Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn she is “not a biologist” and therefore could not define what a “woman” is.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-19 07:15:052022-05-19 07:17:01Dem Witness Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions
New Food System Will Stop at Nothing to Control You
The globalist takeover is coming at us from every possible angle. Whether we’re talking about biosecurity, finance, housing, health care, energy, transportation or food, all the changes we’re now seeing have one goal, and that is to force compliance with a totalitarian slave system
The global food system, and protein sources in particular, are currently under coordinated and intentional attacks to manufacture food shortages and famine
The globalist elite intend to eliminate traditional farming and livestock and replace it with indoor-grown produce and lab-created protein alternatives that they own and control
While the presence of hundreds of food brands gives the appearance of market competition, the reality is that the food industry is monopolized by fewer than a dozen companies, and all of them, in turn, are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard
Eventually, your ability to buy food will be tied to your digital identity and social credit score
The globalist takeover agenda is nothing if not comprehensive. They’re coming at us from every possible angle, and whether we’re talking about biosecurity, finance, housing,1 health care, energy, transportation or food, all the changes we’re now seeing have one goal, and that is to force compliance with a totalitarian slave system.
In an April 27, 2022, blog post,2 investigative journalist Corey Lynn takes a deep dive into the new food system being put into place, and how it is geared to control you.
“‘Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.’ This famous quote by Henry Kissinger is ringing more and more true by the week,” Lynn writes.3
“The globalists already control the majority of the money, are moving ever so swiftly to convert the energy system over into systems they are all invested in, and have been taking drastic measures to control the food industry while running much of it under the radar. If they control the seeds they control the food, and if they control the food they can use the digital ID to control consumer access to the food.
While a rash of fires suddenly destroy food processing, meat, and fertilizer plants, during a time where farmers are hurting and supply chain issues are kicking in, an entire traceable food infrastructure system has already been built in multiple cities and is making its way across the globe …
The USDA and FDA have already approved lab grown meat, genetically modified cattle, and are funding the globalists to research and develop cellular agriculture as well as indoor growers and genetics companies …
Union Pacific is mandating railroad shipping reductions by 20% impacting CF Industries Holdings, the world’s largest fertilizer company. Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street happen to be the top shareholders of Union Pacific, and BlackRock and Vanguard are in the top three shareholders of CF Industries Holdings.
By mapping some of the largest vertical farms, it reveals the crops, grocery stores involved, locations and billions pouring in by globalist investors and shareholders. It quickly becomes evident that this is the global plan to control all produce — ingredients that go into all food products.”
The Secret Monopoly
As noted by Lynn, this monopoly has been locked into place over the course of many years. Slowly but surely, the monopoly has grown, under the radar of public consciousness, which in turn has resulted in food getting simultaneously more expensive and less accessible.4
Now, as the final pieces are being put into place, many are waking up to the realization that we’ve been massively fooled and are now at the mercy of a figurative “handful” of unelected people whose megalomania is unsurpassed in human history.
While the presence of hundreds of food brands gives the appearance of market competition, the reality is that the food industry is monopolized by fewer than a dozen companies,5 and all of them, in turn, are largely owned by BlackRock and Vanguard. The growing fake meat market is similarly dominated by a very small number of large food giants6 which, again, are owned by BlackRock and Vanguard.
BlackRock alone holds $10 trillion in assets,7 up from $6 trillion in 2017.8 Combined, the three largest investment firms in the world, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.9
Through their investment holdings they secretly wield monopoly control over ALL industries, so the idea that there is competition anywhere in the marketplace is really just an illusion. You never learned about their ever-expanding monopoly because they also own the centralized media.
It’s hard to tell which of the two is more influential. Vanguard owns a large share of Blackrock. Owners and stockholders of Vanguard include Rothschild Investment Corp,10 Edmond De Rothschild Holding,11 the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, and the Morgan, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller families.12,13
Blackrock, meanwhile, has been called the “fourth branch of government,” as they are the only private firm that has financial agreements to lend money to the central banking system.14
Food Security Is Undermined by Patentable Food
In 2014, the U.S. Congress established the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research Act (FFAR) through the Farm Bill. After siphoning off $200 million in taxpayer funds to get the foundation started, FFAR became a nongovernmental not-for-profit organization. Bill Gates is one of its funders, and its first board of directors included deputy director Dr. Robert Horsch of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.15
The mission of FFAR is to “connect funders, researchers and farmers through public-private partnerships to support audacious research addressing the biggest food and agriculture challenges.”16 In reality, it’s been used to undermine food security by increasing reliance on gene-edited and patentable foods.
In April 2019, FFAR launched the Precision Indoor Plants (PIP) Consortium, a public-private partnership of indoor growers, breeders and genetics companies with the shared goal of advancing speed-breeding and altering plant chemicals responsible for flavor, nutrition and medicinal value. Five key crops being worked on are lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, cilantro and blueberries.
In August 2020, Monsanto/Bayer helped found a startup called Unfold, which develops new vegetable seed varieties specifically geared for vertical farms. According to Lynn, “GMOs already account for 75 to 80% of food Americans consume,”17 and once fresh produce is under patent, that percentage will inch closer to 100%.
The University of California is also working on plant-based mRNA vaccines. The idea there is to disseminate vaccines through the conventional food supply,18 which puts a whole new spin on the old adage to “Let thy food be thy medicine.”
“Bill Gates insists that droughts and climate change is destroying our ability to farm and that the future will consist of populations moving into metropolitan cities where indoor vertical farming is necessary to feed people.
If this is the case, why has he acquired 242,000 acres of farmland over the past decade while simultaneously investing in indoor vertical farming? Who gets to sit at the table with healthy produce served up by Gates while the rest of the population eats gene-edited produce from locked-down facilities, delivered to their local grocery store, and accessed only through a digital ID?” Lynn asks.19
“Meanwhile, the Consultative Group of International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) holds the world’s largest private seed banks consisting of 10% of the worldwide germplasm across the globe, which is controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and World Bank, managing 768,576 accessions of hijacked farmers seeds …
[W]hat’s going to happen to the farmers when these astronomically enormous indoor vertical farm facilities have taken over every major city, locked in contracts with all major grocery store chains, and are funded by some of the same billionaire globalists who are seeking to control human beings through every industry for their fourth industrial revolution?
It’s a legitimate concern. Add ‘gene-editing,’ ‘smart,’ ‘traceable,’ and ‘net zero’ to the production of these facilities, and the fact that they are still moving full speed ahead on digital IDs and currency, and it becomes even more concerning …
Whereas this provides a lot of explanation on the absolute intentional demolition to all of our farmers on the seed, vegetable, and produce front, people should also be aware of what’s been taking place with cattle ranchers and the globalists’ plan to take over the meat industry as well.”
Controlled Demolition of the Protein Supply Is Underway
As I explained in yesterday’s weaponized bird flu article, alleged outbreaks of bird flu and COVID-19 in food animals, along with drought and fertilizer shortages, have led to the mass culling of flocks20 and cattle herds21 around the world. So much so, we’re now told to expect egg,22 poultry and meat shortages.23
Add to that a global fertilizer shortage that is limiting the amount of animal feed that can be produced this year, and the curious decision to limit U.S. fertilizer shipments on trains, which restricts distribution and raises the cost of what little remains. Experts predict it may take up to three years to replenish global grain stocks,24 and in the meantime, farmers won’t have a readily available supply to feed their livestock.
Canada-based Nutrien Ltd., the world’s largest fertilizer company, recently warned the shortage is likely to extend into 2023. The price of fertilizer has also “skyrocketed to absurd heights that have never been seen before,” The Economic Collapse Blog reports.25
The U.S. and U.K. are also paying farmers to not farm all their available land, California is paying farmers to grow less, ostensibly to save water, and the U.K. is encouraging farmers to retire by offering them a lump sum of £100,000 — all while publicly predicting looming food shortages.26 On top of that, the two largest water reservoirs in California have also fallen to “critically low levels” and wildfires are devastating agricultural land across the western half of the U.S.27
Food production is being blatantly attacked and irrationally restricted on so many fronts, it’s clearly an intentional demolition of primary protein sources28 — meat, egg and dairy.
“February 1, 2016 the Good Food Institute was launched … with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Philanthropy Project, and Y Combinator, with the goal to ‘reimagine meat production,’” Lynn writes.29
“In October 2021, the Good Food Institute celebrated the USDA’s $10 million grant for the creation of the first-ever National Institute for Cellular Agriculture at Tufts University so they can back researchers in manufactured meat.
To be certain all of these goals are locked into place and the UN 2030 agenda is achieved, disrupting the fertilizer industry, food supply chain, and a rash of coincidental fires to food processing plants sure would help to seal the deal, wouldn’t it?”
The Emperor Has No Clothes
In a blatantly self-serving gesture, Gates has publicly called for the West to quit eating beef and transition to lab-grown meats, ostensibly to address climate change. He’s also railed against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled, since labeling would slow down public acceptance.30
Not surprisingly, Gates is financially invested in several faux meat companies.31,32,33 As luck or godlike foresight would have it, he’s also invested in genetically engineered fertilizer alternatives.34 Lynn writes:35
“Bill Gates explained his love for fertilizer in 2018 while in Tanzania.36 Coincidentally, Gates-led and Rockefeller-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has been an epic fail, with a first ever evaluation report37 that came out on February 28, 2022 after a 15-year effort with bold claims to rescue Africa’s small farmers.
Their false promise to ‘double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020’ was removed from their website in June 2020 after an assessment by Tufts University revealed little evidence of progress, and in fact showed a 31% increase in hunger.
Evaluators stated there were many deficiencies and AGRA’s reporting and monitoring data was weak. Even the German government is considering pulling funding from AGRA over their pesticide use, which is ironic because Gates claims we need to remove pesticides in the U.S. and move to indoor vertical farming …
One of AGRA’s biggest achievements was their participation in 72 agricultural policy reforms in 11 African countries, pertaining to seed, fertilizer and market access. Laws were created to protect intellectual property rights for ‘certified’ seeds, as penalties were created for open-source seed sharing.
Imagine being a farmer, homesteader or gardener and having to share and trade seeds on the black market so you don’t get penalized. Anyone who believes they won’t try this in the U.S. is kidding themselves, especially since the globalists hold the largest private seeds banks, and invest in the largest commercial seed companies …
On March 17, 2022, a notice was published38to the U.S. Federal Register seeking comments by May 16, 2022 on Competition and Intellectual Property System: Seeds and Other Agricultural Inputs. Remember to read through the proper lens when reviewing this notice that derived from an executive order signed by Biden in July, 2021 on promoting competition in the American economy.
Their ultimate goal — every human being, every piece of food, resource, and product on this planet will be tracked and traced via blockchain. This isn’t a theory — it is their goal. In July, 2021, the FDA released their ‘New Era of Smarter Food Safety’ which consists of using tech-enabled traceability for a digital, traceable food system, from farm to plate using blockchain.
A digital identity to grant access to establishments, control financial spending, and trace everyone’s moves has been rolling out on multiple fronts, including the vaccine ID passport. Eventually they will try to move toward a chip, as it will be easier with biometrics being installed everywhere …
There is no way to sugarcoat this system they are implementing. Whereas vertical farming is brilliant in many ways, and could be beneficial on a smaller scale in communities, the fact that this is the global agenda to remove farms and control all produce by the globalists themselves, makes is incredibly concerning …
We must work together to find a way forward and continue to say no to the digital ID they are creating to control our access and spending, while building self sufficiency and security together.”
Part of the answer is to grow your own food, to the best of your ability. Another part is to support local growers by buying their produce, or else they’ll get pushed out. Starting local co-ops and community gardens can also go a long way toward creating food security in the long term.
At the same time, we also have to reject globalist solutions like fake meat, gene-edited beef, GMO foods and all the rest of it. It’s time to recognize that none of their solutions are for our benefit. They’re for our detriment. The World Economic Forum has declared that by 2030, you will own nothing. They mean it. They will take everything from us, including the right to grow our own food, if we let them.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-19 05:05:592022-05-19 05:09:44Meat Shortage Alert: Are You Prepared?
After the last two years, how can any reasonable onlooker not have developed a healthy skepticism of the ‘experts?’
Are Americans losing faith in scientific experts? Well, according to one bombshell new poll, many are—but there’s a catch.
A new survey from the left-leaning pollster FiveThirtyEight measured Americans’ trust in the scientific community. It finds that in recent years, trust in “the scientific community” has cratered among Republicans and soared among Democrats. In the past, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike had similar levels of confidence in the scientific community, but these data show an intense polarization around party lines over the last few years.
In 2015, about 42 percent of Democrats said they had a “great deal” of confidence in the scientific community, and about 35 percent of Republicans agreed. After 2020, however, that number surged to more than 65 percent among Democrats and plummeted to barely 30 percent among Republicans.
The elite class’s response to this data was essentially a collective sneer at Republicans for their supposedly rube-like distrust of experts. The FiveThirtyEight article reporting the results even branded Republicans as “anti-intellectualism” and Democrats as “pro-intellectualism” due to these findings.
But this backlash misses the point. There is, of course, value in expertise and a very real need for expert input in many walks of modern life. When I go to the doctor, I do so because she has expertise in medicine that I do not. Yet a healthy skepticism of supposedly all-knowing, benevolent “experts” and would-be planners is more than warranted—the pandemic era has proven this time and time again.
Just consider how many times the “experts” got things wrong or misled the public since the COVID-19 outbreak first began.
At the very beginning, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) blocked the use of emerging COVID-19 testing technology. They literally required everyone to use their government-approved test, which later proved to be wildly inaccurate. Only belatedly and begrudgingly did the government allow private innovators to step in and produce the accurate COVID tests now in widespread use.
But that’s just the cherry on top. The “scientific community” promised Americans that if they just complied with expert advice, the pandemic could quickly be contained and life could return to normal. Remember “15 days to slow the spread?”
The “experts” went on to promote harsh government lockdowns that, as later comprehensive research has shown, had minimal public health benefits—but did destroy the economy and cause a wide range of life-threatening unintended consequences. So, too, they pushed unscientific mask mandates and security theater that has aged about as well as BlockBuster.
No single individual embodies the scientific community’s credibility crisis better than Dr. Anthony Fauci. The well-credentialed government COVID “expert” flip-flopped on countless key public health questions, from masking to closing schools to herd immunity and more. Fauci also blatantly misled the public on issues like gain-of-function research. He went from originally enjoying widespread approval and trust to largely being perceived as a hero or villain along party lines.
With all that has happened over the last two years, how can any reasonable onlooker not have developed a healthy skepticism of the “experts?”
Far from being evidence of “anti-intellectualism,” the decline in trust for the scientific community among Republicans is actually a good sign. Blind trust in the “experts” is often exploited by those who seek centralized power and control, sometimes to tragic results.
“Many of the great disasters of our time have been committed by experts,” economist Thomas Sowell observed in a 2020 interview. “You may remember [former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt]’s ‘brain trust,’ which according to later studies, prolonged the Great Depression by several years. The ‘whiz kids’ in the Pentagon who managed to mess up the Vietnam War… you can run through an impressive list of disasters brought about by men with very high IQs.” (Emphasis mine).
Of course, skepticism of the experts and the scientific community can go too far. Scientists are people, and they’re not always right—but they’re certainly not always wrong, either. In the same way that blind faith in experts leads one astray, so too can a blind rejection of everything they say.
The solution is simple. We should consider what experts have to say, but consider it critically, not accept it as gospel. Contra FiveThirtyEight’s narrative, that approach is not “anti-intellectualism.” In fact, true intellectualism requires thinking for ourselves.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He was previously a Media and Journalism Fellow at… More by Brad Polumbo
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-05-18 06:12:042022-05-18 06:19:16Trust in ‘The Science’ is polarizing along party lines
Randall Smith: 16,000,000 dead black babies and counting. All those demonstrating to protect the abortion industry are not only on the wrong side of history, they’re also racist.
There’s been a lot of discussion recently about the upcoming Dobbs decision, in which the Supreme Court might finally overturn the Court’s deadly earlier decisions in Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton. Many of the articles bemoaning the coming decision have been filled with incivility, mindless vitriol, fear-mongering, absurd non sequiturs, and outright lies.
When the Supreme Court overturned its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick seventeen years later in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas – thereby protecting homosexual activity – liberals weren’t screaming that Brown v. Board of Education was next, because they knew that would have been an absurd non sequitur.
And today, no progressive liberal would find it acceptable were a conservative group giving out the home addresses of the dissenting judges in Dobbs, so that groups of angry demonstrators could gather outside their homes to pressure them to change their minds. No, only one side may do these things.
Well, to those defending Roe, I have only one thing to say: You’re on the wrong side of history.
I’ve always wanted to say that. Mostly just to show people on the other side how it feels. I do in fact believe that those who are arguing for abortion are on the wrong side of history and that, in fifty years, with advances in neonatal care and greater knowledge of the developing child in the womb, abortion will be seen as barbaric as slavery does to us today.
And just for the record, if you study history, you’ll find that when your side is the side that’s using euphemisms to cover up what you’re doing – breaking windows, lying, threatening people with violence, and stirring up mob anger, fear, and resentment – you usually are on the “wrong side of history.”
But simply saying to one’s opponents, “You’re on the wrong side of history,” is no argument. It is the verbal equivalent of a patronizing pat on the head. Imagine making a sophisticated argument about something only to have your interlocutor blurt out: “Well that’s just stupid!” or “You’re just wrong!” Now, I may be wrong; I may even be stupid. But you will have to make an actual argument to show that.
Too many people today assume they have no need to make logical arguments and can instead simply assume that “all good and sensible people” agree with them because, well, “it’s obvious.” The problem is, it almost never is, and with especially controversial issues, such as abortion, you can’t simply assume it is. What you are saying when you claim, “It’s obvious,” is that the people who disagree with you are stupid — too dense to see what’s “obvious.”
So I’m not going to simply say to those who disagree with me about abortion, “You’re on the wrong side of history.” I think they are; they obviously think they’re not. Fine. We need to move on and get to some real arguments and actual data.
“Disparate impact” and racial bias seem to be popular topics at the moment. You can barely go more than a day or two without a discussion of them showing up on the mainstream media. So let’s talk about them with reference to abortion.
The claim one often hears is that overturning Roe would be “disastrous” for the black community. But here is the reality:
Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.
You might be thinking, “Yes, but the abortion providers didn’t abort these black children because they were black.” First, liberals never allow this excuse when it comes to any other “disparate impact” case. And second, are you so sure?
Everyone admits now that the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, began her “Negro Project” in 1939 to stop the growth of the black population. And it’s still the case that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance (2 miles) of relatively high black and/or Hispanic populations. Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women. If that isn’t evidence of “systemic racism,” then the term is meaningless.
So all you people demonstrating to protect the abortion industry, you’re not only on the wrong side of history, you’re also racist.
You? No, not you! You’re the good people! Sixteen million dead black babies and counting, and you’re absolutely certain the people pushing back against this racial genocide are the horrible, evil ones, and you – you – are the people who will be judged by history as the ones who really cared about the black community.
And you are so certain of this, in fact, that you’re willing to silence your opponents, terrorize them in mobs, lie repeatedly, vandalize churches, disrupt church services, desecrate religious sacraments, tear down free women’s care centers that provide women the resources to make the choice not to terminate the life of their unborn child, and even overthrow the democratic process itself, all so that some women can terminate the lives of their unborn sons and daughters
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2022-05-17 07:18:562022-05-17 07:18:56Abortion and the Genocide of the Black Community
The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.
Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”
The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. (“Assault weapon” is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)
While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.
1. Mass shootings with assault weapons constitute a fraction of a percent of gun violence
Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.
Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.
To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.
Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)
Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)
There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.
Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. A subsequent Department of Justice study found no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.
3. Australia doesn’t prove gun control works
In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.
A 2016 JAMAstudy on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.
4. There is inconclusive evidence of assault weapons bans on mass shootings
Last year, the RAND Corporation released an extensive scientific analysis of available evidence on gun control measures and how they relate to various crime outcomes. Regarding the effect of assault weapons bans on mass shootings, they determined the evidence was “inconclusive.”
When former President Bill Clinton claimed the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban was associated with reduced mass shootings, Politifactrated that claim as “half-true,” noting that “the ban’s impact remains unclear.”
Using Mother Jones’s data on mass shootings, I constructed the graph you see above. Prior to the ban, on average five people were killed with assault weapons in mass shootings per year. During the ban, that number went slightly down to four. Post-ban, it rose to 22.
But mass shootings with assault weapons didn’t rise until 2012—eight years after the ban ended. In the seven years after the ban, there was only an average of four people killed in mass shootings with assault weapons per year.
Given the fact that the pre-ban period and the seven years after the ban had essentially the same rate of mass shooting deaths with assault weapons, it is hard to prove that the ban had any effect on mass shootings.
The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial
With the release of Pfizer trial data — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation are coming to light
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization — a feat that has many questioning whether fraud was committed
The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack, who also happens to be a consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC), a current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, an investigator for Fundación Infant, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the first author of Pfizer’s paper, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
Site 1231 held a second enrollment session, given the designation of “site 4444.” The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag. It supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020 — the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Was “site 4444” fabricating data to create the appearance that the jab was having an effect?
In November 2021, Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, warned she’d seen evidence of fraud in the trial.
Data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. The revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. In his November 2, 2021, report, investigative journalist Paul Thacker wrote:1
“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …
[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”
Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas, repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues,” Thacker wrote.
When her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email. Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all.
She provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid, and according to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator.
BMJ Report Censored
Disturbingly, social media actually censored this BMJ article and published pure falsehoods in an effort to “debunk” it. Mind you, the BMJ is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world! The Facebook “fact check” was done by Lead Stories, a Facebook contractor, which claimed the BMJ “did NOT reveal disqualifying and ignored reports of flaws in Pfizer’s” trials.2
In response, The BMJ slammed the fact check, calling it “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.”3,4,5 In an open letter6 addressed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to “act swiftly” to correct the erroneous fact check, review the processes that allowed it to occur in the first place, and “generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.” As noted by The BMJ in its letter, the Lead Stories’ fact check:7
Inaccurately referred to The BMJ as a “news blog”
Failed to specify any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
Published the fact check on the Lead Stories’ website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Pfizer Trial Data Raises Suspicions of Fraud
Now, with the release of Pfizer trial data8 — which they tried to withhold for 75 years — internet sleuths are finding additional problems suggestive of fraud and data manipulation. May 9, 2022, a Twitter user named Jikkyleaks posted a series of tweets questioning data from Pfizer trial sites 1231 and 4444.9
Trial site 1231, located in Argentina, somehow managed to recruit 10% of the total trial participants, 4,501 in all, and they did so in just three weeks, and without a contract research organization (CRO). CROs like the Ventavia Research Group, which Jackson worked for, provide clinical trial management services. The lead investigator for trial site 1231 is Dr. Fernando Polack,10 who also happens to be:11
A consultant for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (RBPAC) since 2017
A current adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee
An investigator for Fundación Infant,12 which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation13
The first author of Pfizer’s paper,14 “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” published at the end of December 2021
As noted by Jikkyleaks, Polack “is literally the busiest doctor on the planet,” because in addition to all those roles, he also managed to single-handedly enroll 4,500 patients in three weeks, which entails filling out some 250 pages of case report forms (CRFs) for each patient. That’s about 1,125,000 pages total. (CRFs are documents used in clinical research to record standardized data from each patient, including adverse events.)
This recruitment also took place seven days a week, which is another red flag. “Weekend recruitment for a clinical trial would be odd. Staff are needed to fill out that many record forms (CRFs) and there are potential risks to the trial, so you need medical staff. It would be highly unusual,” Jikkyleaks notes.
Is Polack just a super-humanly efficient trial investigator, or could this be evidence of fraud? As noted by Steve Kirsch in the featured video and an accompanying Substack article,15 Polack is the coordinator for a network of 26 hospitals in Argentina, so perhaps it’s possible he could have recruited 57 patients per week per hospital, but it seems highly unlikely.
Questions Surround Site 4444 Data
Now, “site 4444” does not exist. It’s actually the same as site 1231. It appears site 1231 held a second enrollment session, and these were for some reason given the designation of 4444. The 4444 trial site data raise another red flag.
Site 4444 (the second enrollment session for site 1231) supposedly enrolled 1,275 patients in a single week, from September 22 through 27, 2020, and the suspicious thing about that — aside from the speed — is the fact that this was the last week that recruitment could take place to meet the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December 2020. Jikkyleads writes:16
“My guess: they needed enough numbers of ‘positive PCR tests’ in the placebo group to show a difference between groups for that VRBPAC meeting on the 10th Dec, and they didn’t have them. So, site 4444 appeared and gave them their ‘perfect’ result. Bravo.”
“Was there fraud in the Pfizer trial? Without a doubt. The story of Maddie de Garay is a clear case of that. Brook Jackson has evidence of fraud; she has 17 lawyers working for her. If there wasn’t fraud, these lawyers wouldn’t be wasting their time.
This new data on Site 1231/4444 looks suspicious to me. It looks too good to be true. But we can’t make the call without more information. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will not look into this, Pfizer will remain silent, and Polack will be unreachable for comment. The lack of transparency should be troubling to everyone. That is the one thing we can say for sure.”
Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers
Among the tens of thousands of Pfizer documents released by the FDA so far, we now also have clear evidence of harm. For nurse educator John Campbell, featured in the video above, these documents appear to have served as a “red pill,”18 waking him up to the possibility that the jabs may indeed be far more dangerous than anyone expected, including himself.
In the video, Campbell reviews the documents listed as “5.3.6. Postmarketing Experience,” which were originally marked “confidential.” They reveal that, cumulatively, through February 28, 2021, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.
To have 1,223 fatalities and 42,086 reports of injury in the first three months is a significant safety signal, especially when you consider that the 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.
As noted by Campbell, “It would have been good to know about this at the time, wouldn’t it?” referring to the rollout of the jabs. Campbell has been fairly consistent in his support of the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative, but “This has just destroyed trust in authority,” he said.
158,000 Recorded Side Effects — A World Record?
The first really large tranche of more than 10,000 Pfizer documents was released March 1, 2022. (You can find them all on PHMPT.org.19) In this batch were no less than nine single-space pages of “adverse events of special interest,” listed in alphabetical order20 — 158,000 in all!
To see the first page, click the link below. The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deletion syndrome. This condition, caused by the deletion of DNA in chromosome 1p36, results in developmental delays, severe intellectual disability, seizures, vision problems, hearing loss, breathing problems, brain anomalies, congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, renal anomalies, genital malformation, metabolic problems and more.21,22
Life expectancy depends on the amount of DNA that has been deleted. This, at bare minimum, sounds like something a pregnant woman might want to know before she gets the shot.
After reviewing some of the released CRFs in the March 1 tranche, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah also discovered several problems, including the following:23
Patients entered into the “healthy population” group who were far from healthy — For example, one such “healthy” participant was a Type 2 diabetic with angina, a cardiac stent and a history of heart attack.
Serious adverse event (SAE) numbers were left blank — Ventavia site No. 1085 has a particularly large number of missing SAE numbers.
Missing barcodes for samples collected — Without those barcodes, you can’t match the sample to the participant.
Suspicious-looking SAE start and end dates — For example, the so-called “healthy” diabetic suffered a “serious” heart attack October 27, 2020. The “end” date is listed as October 28, the next day, which is odd because it was recorded as serious enough to require hospitalization.
Also, on that same day, October 28, the patient was diagnosed with pneumonia, so likely remained hospitalized. “This anomaly raises doubt as to the accuracy of these recorded dates, potentially violating ALOCA-C clinical site documentation guidelines for clinical trials,” Elijah writes.
Unblinded teams were responsible for reviewing adverse event reports for signs of COVID cases, and to review severe COVID cases — Yet in some cases they appear to have dismissed the possibility of an event being COVID-related, such as pneumonia. This despite the fact that Pfizer’s protocol (section 8.2.4) lists “enhanced COVID-19” (i.e., antibody dependent enhancement) as a potential side effect to be on the lookout for. As noted by Elijah:
“Inadvertently, this could have led to bias, as the unblinded teams would have been aware which participants were assigned the placebo and those who received the vaccine. They might have been under pressure by the sponsor for the trial to go a certain way and for events like ‘COVID Pneumonia’ to be classified simply as pneumonia.”
Impossible dating — The diabetic who suffered a heart attack followed by pneumonia (which may have been unacknowledged COVID pneumonia) died, and the date of death is listed as the day before the patient supposedly went for a “COVID ill” visit.
Clearly, it’s impossible for a dead person to attend a medical visit, so something is wrong here. The clinical investigator note states: “There cannot be a date later than date of death. Please remove data from the COVID illness visit and add cough and shortness of breath as AEs (adverse events).” “What kind of pressure was being exerted here?” Elijah asks.
Second dose administered outside the three-week protocol window.
Observation period appears to have been an automatic entry — According to the protocol, each participant was to be observed by staff for a minimum of 30 minutes.
A majority of the CRFs state 30 minutes, which raises the question: Were participants observed for adequate amounts of time, or did they simply put down “30 minutes” as an automatic entry? Why is there so little variety in the observation times? If participants were not adequately observed, their safety was put at risk, which was one of Jackson’s concerns.
Adverse events listed as “not serious” despite extended hospital stay — In one case, the participant fell and suffered facial lacerations the day after the second dose and was hospitalized for 26 days, yet the fall was not reported as serious.
Other anomalies in this particular case include listing the fall as being caused by a “fall” unrelated to the study treatment, and the facial laceration being the result of “hypotension” (low blood pressure). The SAE number is also missing for the facial lacerations.
Elijah writes, “Doubts can be raised over the credibility of this information given the fall and facial lacerations were intrinsically related. So, if facial lacerations were due to ‘hypotension’ then the fall should be due to that too.” Might low blood pressure be an effect of the experimental shot? Possibly. Especially when you consider the patient fell the day after being given the second dose.
Even more suspicious: the causality for the fall was recorded as “related” (to the treatment) on the serious adverse event form, but listed as “not related” on the adverse event CRF. A note states, “Please confirm correct causality.”
Dismissing brand new health problems as unrelated to the treatment — For example, in one case, a female participant with no medical history of impaired kidney function was diagnosed with kidney stones and severe hypokalemia, requiring hospitalization, one month after her second dose. Yet despite her having no history of kidney problems, both events were dismissed as “not related” to the study treatment and no further investigation was done.
In closing, Elijah wrote:24
“All the evidence gleaned over a limited time appears to back up whistleblower Jackson’s claims of poor trial site data management and raises questions as to how Ventavia conducted the Pfizer clinical trials.
The errors and anomalies in the CRFs also allude to her claims that the clinical research associates were not trained adequately, with many having had no prior clinical experience history. If such egregious findings are true at these sites, could they manifest at other trial sites around North America and beyond?”
Can You Trust Pfizer?
Pfizer, which was quickly given emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy shot, has a long list of criminal verdicts against it:
In 2002, Pfizer and two subsidiaries paid $49 million to settle civil claims that it had failed to report best prices for its drug Lipitor, as is required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute.25
In 2004, a Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert pleaded guilty and paid more than $430 million to settle criminal charges and civil liability from fraudulent marketing practices.26
In 2007, another subsidiary was found guilty of paying out kickbacks for formulary placement of its drugs and had to pay a fine of $34 million.27
Two years later, in 2009, Pfizer was found guilty of health care fraud and ordered to pay the largest penalty ever for this kind of offense.28 When announcing the record penalty of $2.3 billion against the drug giant, the U.S. Department of Justice said one of the charges was a felony. The other charges stemmed from false actions and false claims submitted to federal health care programs.
In 2010, the company was again ordered to pay $142 million in damages for fraudulent marketing and promoting the drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.29
Less than 10 years later, in 2018, Pfizer was again caught in an illegal kickback scheme and agreed to pay $23.8 million to resolve claims that it used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking three of its drugs.30
As noted in the journal Healthcare Policy in 2010,31 “Pfizer has been a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” The article also highlights the crimes of Johnson & Johnson, another COVID jab maker.
Despite its tarnished history, we’re now expected to trust that everything Pfizer does is above-board. I don’t think so. A company that continues getting caught committing the same crimes over and over again clearly has a deeply established ethical rot within its corporate structure that fines simply have no effect over.
Has Pfizer committed fraud in its COVID jab trials as well? It sure looks that way. Time will tell whether attorneys will have enough for a conviction in the future. If fraud did take place, Pfizer can (and likely will) be held liable for the more than one million injuries its injection has caused in the U.S. alone, and we all look forward to that reckoning.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-17 04:19:432022-05-17 04:21:42Is This Why Pfizer Wanted Trial Data Buried for 75 Years?
“the cable was too short to reach the EV inlet for 4.9% of the EVSEs and 22.7% of EVSEs that were non-functioning were unresponsive or unavailable screens, payment system failures, charge initiation failures, network failures, or broken connectors…This level of functionality appears to conflict with the 95 to 98% uptime reported by the EV service providers (EVSPs) who operate the EV charging stations.”
So, 27% of the EVSEs had serious enough issues that you could not charge your EV.
The Biden administration wants to create the ‘backbone of [a] national charging network’ for electric vehicles. The Biden administration has said it will make a $5 billion investment to build electric vehicle charging stations across the country by 2030 in a bid to ease U.S. dependence on gas-powered cars.
Biden has set a goal of a national network of 500,000 public charging stations in place by 2030, and administration officials say over 100,000 exist already.
However, this 100,000 EVSEs is not true. It is misinformation.
According to Satista.com as of January 13th, 2022 there are 46,290 fast charging stations (EVSEs) and 113,558 home charging outlets in the U.S.
California has a combined 41,300 public and private power outlets or 38% of those in the U.S.
The time it takes to charge an electric car can be as little as 30 minutes or more than 12 hours. This depends on the size of the battery and the speed of the charging point.
A typical electric car (60kWh battery) takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point.
Most drivers top up charge rather than waiting for their battery to recharge from empty-to-full.
For many electric cars, you can add up to 100 miles of range in ~35 minutes with a 50kW rapid charger.
The bigger your car’s battery and the slower the charging point, the longer it takes to charge from empty to full.
QUESTION: How long will it take to charge an 18 wheeler and does it make sense to have these drivers sitting around drinking coffee waiting for their trucks to get charged? How much will this increase our costs for food and other manufactured products?
The Association For Convenience & Fuel Retailing was founded August 14, 1961, as the National Association of Convenience Stores. Today it is an international trade association representing more than 2,100 retail and 1,600 supplier company members.
The NACS, the association for convenience and fuel retailing, reports that there are more than 145,000 fueling stations across the United States. 127,588 of these stations are convenience stores selling fuel. The rest are gas-only stations, grocery stores selling fuel, marinas, etc.
According to the latest information, the refiners own less than 5% of the 145,000 retail stations. When a station bears a particular refiner’s brand, it does not mean that the refiner owns or operates the station. The vast majority of branded stations are owned and operated by independent retailers licensed to represent that brand. According to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), more than 60% of the retail stations in the US are owned by an individual or family that owns a single store. Through various branding agreements, approximately 36% of the retail stations in the US sell fuel under API members’ brands. See U.S. Service Station Outlets Summary.
QUESTION: Why do we need 500,000 EVSEs when we only need 145,000 gas stations to refuel the millions of cars, trucks, SUVs and 18 wheelers on the road today?
Why aren’t we using retail gas stations to create EVSEs? Given that it can take hours to charge your EV it would be convenient to have these charging stations co-located with convenience stores. Don’t you think?
API also noted “Many countries assess higher tax rates and use the revenue for their general fund budget. For example, ten countries in Europe, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom assess more than $3 in taxes on every gallon of gasoline, according to the Tax Foundation.”
At some point the government, now fully dependent on gasoline taxes to build and maintain our road and highway structure, will have to tax the heck out of EVSEs and home charging units. Don’t you think?
So, let’s look at California’s San Francisco Bay area charging stations. If according to the Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley 27% of the EVSEs don’t work properly, what does that say if the government was the sole owner and operated 500,000 EVSEs? That might mean:
Approximately 135,000 of these EVSEs would not be fully functional.
Electric companies or EV manufacturers like Tesla, like refiners of gasoline and diesel, would no longer be able to partner with locally owned convenience stores or build independently owned EVSEs.
Many of the current gas stations would go out of business meaning you can’t refuel your car, truck, tractor, lawnmower, SUV, or 18 wheelers.
The government would be in total control of the vast majority of charging stations nationwide, shutting out small business owners.
The Bottom Line
Whenever government gets into any business be it healthcare, public education or building and operating EVSEs they will find a way to screw things up.
For example there is a group called Pecan Street that gets grants for its “Centre for Race, Energy & Climate Justice.” Get it? Government and the private sector studying the links between race, energy and climate justice. Who would have thought? Hmmmmm.
Do we really want organizations like Pecan Street and the federal government using our tax dollars to create a national network of EVSEs to insure climate justice?
I think not. The private sector and open market can best deal with how we fuel or recharge our cars, trucks, SUVs and commercial vehicles.
Get government out of the charging business or, like California, we will see it fail 27% of the time.
Put your trust in the private sector, not big government.
I can see a future that if you don’t get vaxxed-up you can’t get charged-up. Prove me wrong.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-16 15:38:042022-05-18 07:38:13Does Biden’s $5B Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Plan Put Government Totally in Control of Charging Your Car?
We have lived through a period that went from mankind cannot control the weather to environmental alarmists first warning about global cooling, then global warming and now the “existential threat” of climate change.
Now we learn from Biden’s Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo that American children having clothes comes second to dealing with the “existential threat” of climate change. Watch and listen:
When the climate cools during the winter children need coats, scarves and other clothes to keep them warm and protect them from the elements. When the climate warms in the summer children need clothes to keep them cool and protect them from sunburn and overheating.
Logic right? Wrong. The climate myth trumps logic.
On February 17th, 2021 USA Today’s Kerry Breen reported:
A winter storm that pummeled the state has set record-low temperatures in cities like San Antonio, Dallas and Corpus Christi, with some areas of the state seeing single-digit and below-zero temperatures. According to NBC News, the unprecedented cold put too much strain on the state’s electrical system, meaning that more than 3 million residents of the state are dealing with rolling power outages or total blackouts.
NBC News also reported that at least 25 people have died in “weather-related fatalities” since the weekend, with the “majority” of the deaths happening in Texas.
Shoppers are ready to restock their closets for the fall and winter. But many are asking, where’s all the clothing?
Kristin Sterling was trying to do some back-to-school shopping at TJ Maxx. “I’ve been looking for baby items, as well as for a teen, a school-age child,” Sterling said. But inside, she found a much smaller selection than she has seen before. “I’m finding that there’s not that much clothing,” Sterling said.
Shoppers across the country are finding half-empty clothing racks, and shoe shelves out of popular sizes at many stores. At a Burlington store, a third of the store is now closed off with a divider. High school sophomore Mia Dressel was looking for a homecoming dress with her grandmother, but… “All the dresses were really, really short, or really long,” Dressel said.
Owing to supply-chain snarls, two-thirds of fashion executives said they are expecting to increase prices in 2022, with an average price increase of 3% across all clothing and apparel, this year’s State of Fashion 2022report by the Business of Fashion and McKinsey & Co. found.
A worrying 15% of executives polled said they planned on increasing prices by more than 10% in 2022.
Inflation in fashion is caused by a combination of material shortages, transportation bottlenecks, and rising shipping costs straining supply and demand, according to the study, which surveyed more than 220 international fashion executives and experts.
All of these things are happening now but worse. Biden’s build back better for Americans nothings built, nothings back and nothings better.
The Bottom Line
America depends on cheap and reliable power. America depends on its supply chain to deliver goods and services. America depends on our economy to provide what we need to live healthy and prosperous lives. That is now all at risk.
Biden’s green policies of eliminating fossil fuels and replacing oil, coal and natural power plants with solar and wind generators to stop the “existential threat” of climate change is destroying foundation of the economy.
From climate change to lockdown mandates we are seeing the long term impact on everything we Americans have come to depend on. Going to the supermarket or store or online and buying what we need and want is gradually going away. It’s becoming more and more common to see shortages and higher prices for essentials.
Biden’s policies are the root cause our supply chain to being disrupted.
Disruptions to the supply chain aren’t over yet. It is predicted that supply chain issues facing the United States will continue into 2022—citing demand as one of the top contributors. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which account for 40% of shipping containers entering the U.S., have already started operating 24/7 to relieve supply chain bottlenecks. But with labor shortages in both warehousing and transportation, are consumers looking at something similar—or more disruptive than—the 2020 toilet paper shortage?
[ … ]
With a quickly shifting marketplace, many companies are finding it increasingly difficult to navigate the intricacies of the supply chain. This has led to many businesses looking to outsource their logistics needs to third-party logistics warehouses and transportation providers. In 2021, users of 3PL services reported that 40% of their total logistics expenditures were related to outsourcing. Much of this growth can be directly correlated to the rise of the ecommerce industry. Considering this push of online sales, expectations for the global third-party logistics market are expected to be valued at $1.1 trillion over the next six years.
Biden and his administration have reset the priorities of America and Americans are now feeling the pinch. From Covid to Climate Change this administration has fundamentally transformed our economy from being robust, our supply chain from being dependable and our store shelves full to the polar opposite.
From baby formula, to clothing, to fuel prices to the cost of living Biden’s policies are NOT making America better, rather it is making America MUCH worse.
What is more important to you? Feeding and clothing your new born baby or climate change?
Bill Nye said,
“The less we do to address climate change now, the more regulation we will have in the future.”
Under Biden we now have more and more regulations and mandates negatively impacting our economy in the name of climate change.
How’s that working out for you now?
Choose wisely on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022 because you and your family’s long-term health, welfare and well being are at stake.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-14 05:50:592022-05-14 09:26:51Biden’s Secretary of Commerce: American children ‘having clothes comes second to the existential threat of climate change’
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. A 2017 systematic review confirmed this trend, showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011
Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising
We can rule out genetics as the cause, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals
Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include obesity, smoking, binge drinking and stress
A great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates. EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function, such as testosterone
In the After Skool video above, Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologist and professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, examines the role of environmental toxins in reproductive health.
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. According to this study:1
“Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x 10(6)/ml in 1990 and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml, indicating an even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the decline in sperm density …
As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these changes is emphasized by a concomitant increase in the incidence of genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with serious effects on male gonadal function.”
Are Humans Going Extinct?
Swan was initially skeptical, but she decided to look into it some more. To her amazement, after reviewing each of the 60 studies included in that 1992 analysis, she could find nothing to indicate that the finding was a fluke. It was the most stable trend she’d ever come across, and she spent the next 20 years investigating why human reproduction is plummeting.
In 2017, she published a systematic review and meta-regression analysis2 showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011. Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4% decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).
Swan refers to this shocking 39-year decline as “the 1% effect,” meaning the cumulative effect that an annual change of just 1% has over time. Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising.
If these trends continue, and there’s no indication that they won’t, in the not-so-distant future, we’ll be looking at a male population that is completely infertile. At that point, the human population will become extinct. Along the way, however, we’ll be facing a number of other pressing problems.
How Will We Care for Aging Baby Boomers?
Historically, the age distribution of the population has looked like a pyramid. The bottom largest section was children, the middle, slightly smaller section was working adults, and the top of the pyramid was seniors. This worked out well, because the younger population was able to financially support and care for the much smaller older segment.
We no longer have that pyramid. In most countries, the population distribution now looks like a light bulb, with a narrow base of children, a bulbous segment of adults, and a narrowing but still very large segment of older adults.
Part of the equation is the fact that life spans have gotten longer, which is wonderful. But the funds to support this aging population — through social security and Medicare in the U.S., for example — are dwindling, as the payer base is shrinking so dramatically.
Another problem is the fact that we won’t have the labor force required to keep the economy afloat. There aren’t enough children to fill all the jobs after the adult population retires.
What’s the Cause?
According to Swan, there are likely a whole host of factors contributing to this reproductive calamity. We can, however, rule out genetics, because the decline in sperm count is simply too rapid. A 50% decline in just two generations cannot be explained by genetics.
That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals. Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include:
On the chemical side, we know that a great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).3 EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function.
Many EDCs will mimic hormones, effectively taking their place. But, of course, the chemical doesn’t function the way the natural hormone does, so whatever that hormone controls won’t function well either. As explained in the 2019 report, “Male Infertility and Environmental Factors”:4
“Classically the EDCs bind to the androgen or estrogen receptor triggering an agonist or antagonist action. These in turn lead to increased or decreased gene expression of sex-specific genes.
In addition, EDCs act on steroidogenic enzymes and the metabolism of hormones, for example, inhibit the activity of 5-α reductase, which is the most important enzyme in the production of dihydrotestosterone and hence the regulation of the masculinization of the external genitalia and the prostate.
Furthermore, P450 enzymes in the liver that metabolize steroid hormones may be affected. In animal models EDCs affect hormone receptor levels. In addition to the effect on hormone action, animal experiments suggest that EDCs may also result in epigenetic changes and miRNA levels.”
Shaw suspects EDCs are a primary culprit in infertility, in part because we’re surrounded by them every day of our lives. We’re exposed to them through our food, water, personal care products, furniture, building materials, plastics and much more.
In Utero Exposure to EDCs Can Drive Down Fertility
The most vulnerable time of a person’s life is in utero. This is when the building blocks for your reproductive system are laid down, and exposure to EDCs at this time can wreak havoc with a child’s adult reproductive capacity. Since the fetus shares the mother’s body, everything the mother is exposed to, the fetus is exposed to.
As explained in the video, a boy’s reproductive system is dependent on a certain level of testosterone for proper development. If the testosterone level is too low, his reproductive system will be impaired to some degree. In short, without sufficient testosterone, the boy’s reproductive system will “default” to female. He will be feminized, or as Shaw describes it, “incompletely masculinized.”
Phthalates Are in Everybody
Shaw was tipped off to investigate phthalates by a chemist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who noted that these EDCs have been found in everybody, including pregnant women.
Specifically, phthalates have been shown to disrupt the reproductive development of males, because they lower testosterone levels and incomplete male development in animals has now become so prevalent, there’s even a name for it: phthalate syndrome.
Animal studies have shown that when a pregnant mother is fed phthalates in early pregnancy, her male offspring will have smaller and less developed reproductive organs. His testicles may not be descended, his penis may be smaller, and his anogenital distance (the distance between the anus and the genitals) tends to be shorter.
Shaw was the first to study the anogenital distance in human male infants, and was able to confirm phthalate syndrome is occurring in humans as well. Boys born of women with high levels of phthalic metabolites in their urine — specifically those that lower testosterone — had phthalate syndrome, and the severity was dose-dependent.
Shaw then replicated the study with another set of mothers and their babies, and found the same result. The next question then is, does a shorter anogenital distance result in lower sperm count?
According to Shaw, boys with a short anogenital distance are more likely to have reproductive defects such as undescended testicles and defects of the penis. He’s also more likely to develop testicular cancer at an earlier age than normal, and he’s more likely to be sub-fertile.
So, it is her professional conclusion that phthalate exposure in utero is “undoubtedly part of the explanation of the decrease in sperm count and fertility.” Phthalates and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have also been linked to reduced bone mineral density in male teens,5 which could have significant implications later in life.
Common Sources of Phthalate Exposure
Phthalates are found in plastics. They’re what make the plastic soft and flexible, so wherever you find soft and pliable plastic, you find phthalates. Examples include:
Vinyl clothing, such as raincoats and rubber boots
Plastic shower curtains
Plastic tubing of all kinds
Foods that have been processed through plastic tubing, such as dairy products (the milking machines have plastic tubing)
Phthalates also increase absorption and help retain scent and color, so you’ll find them in:
Cosmetics, perfumes and personal care products
Scented household products such as laundry soap and air fresheners
As noted by Shaw, phthalates are only one class of EDCs. There are several others, including phytoestrogens, dioxins, flame retardants, phenols, PCBs and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Phthalates, however, are among the most hazardous for male reproductive health due to their ability to block testosterone.
The phenols, such as bisphenol-A (BPA), have the opposite effect in that they make plastic more rigid and hard. In the human body, they increase the female hormone estrogen, resulting in breast development and a flabby midsection. BPA also damages the DNA in sperm.6 Like phthalates, BPA and other bisphenols are extremely pervasive. They’re found in:
Personal care products such as shampoos and lotions
The Good News
The good news here is that many of the chemicals that are most harmful to reproduction are not persistent, and your body can eliminate them in four to six hours.
Sperm production take about 70 days from start to finish, so over time, a man may be able to reverse some of the damage, provided it’s not congenital. The problem, of course, is that most people are exposed to multiple sources 24/7, so successful detox means you have to stop taking them in.
Another piece of good news is that researchers have shown that if you clean up the environment of the offspring from a toxic, unhealthy rat, normal reproductive capacity is restored after three generations of clean living.
While this is a relatively quick fix for rats, the life span of which is only two years, it’s not quite as simple for humans. Three generations in human terms is about 75 years, “but we can start in that direction,” Shaw says, by making sure we a) don’t expose children to EDCs in utero, and b) eliminate further exposure during childhood if the child was exposed in utero.
Forever Chemicals in Our Food and Water
While phthalates and bisphenols are nonpersistent, PFAS — a class of chemicals that are pervasive in soil, water, and human bodies — are so persistent they’re known as “forever chemicals.” In Maine, farmers are now blowing the whistle, warning that PFAS on farmland are a “slow-motion disaster.”7
How do the chemicals get there? While spills and seepage from industrial sites are part of the problem in some areas, the most prevalent source of the contamination is biosolids — toxic human waste sludge — which is being marketed as an affordable fertilizer.
In 2019, I wrote about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to adequately regulate the biosolids industry, thereby allowing massive quantities of toxic materials to be introduced into our food supply.
You can learn more about this in the Natural News documentary “Biosludged,” above. PFAS accumulate in the soil and is transferred into your food. Proof of this can be seen in food testing, which in 2017 found PFAS chemicals in 10 of the 91 foods tested.
Chocolate cake had the highest amount — 250 times above the advisory limit for drinking water. (There’s currently no limit for food.) Nearly half of the meat and fish tested also contained double the advisory limit for water. Leafy greens grown within 10 miles of a PFAS plant also contained very high amounts. As you might expect, PFAS also accumulate in your body.
Maine Takes Action
In Maine, PFAS contaminated water wells have sparked both outrage and action. A March 2022 article in The Maine Monitor spells out the game plan:8
“Maine is the first state to comprehensively test for the impacts of forever chemicals from sludge spreading on farmland, a practice occurring nationwide where fully half of wastewater sludge is land-applied. Consequently, Maine has had to pioneer policy actions, moving to implement recommendations of a year-long PFAS task force.
The next policy step must be passage of LD 1911, which would ban land application of sludge and the land application or sale of compost derived from sludge. Two dozen companies and municipalities are licensed to convert sludge into compost, despite the state’s own finding that 89% of finished compost samples exceeded the screening level for PFOA, a common PFAS compound.
Adam Nordell, co-owner of Songbird Farm in Unity — another site of high PFAS contamination — summarized the importance of LD 1911 this way: ‘No one can undo the historic contamination of our land. But we know enough now to turn off the tap.’
A second bill before the Legislature, LD 1639, would prevent the state-owned Juniper Ridge landfill, managed by Casella Waste Systems, from accepting construction and demolition debris that originated out of state and is laden with PFAS and other toxics, increasing the contaminated leachate entering the Penobscot River.”
Communities in Maryland and Massachusetts have also confirmed that pesticides used against mosquitoes were contaminated with PFAS, even though they’re not supposed to contain such chemicals. In April 2022, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) reported:9
“EPA claimed that there were no PFAS chemicals used in this way, but independent testing10 revealed that there was PFAS contamination in pesticides being used by mosquito control districts — of 14 mosquito control products tested, half were found to contain PFAS. These products are heavily applied across communities, often weekly, from Spring through Fall.
In response to these concerns, EPA claimed that the PFAS contamination was due to leaching from fluorinated plastic HDPE storage containers. While this explanation has been touted by many as proof that PFAS contamination of pesticides is not a serious concern, the testing in Maryland and Massachusetts revealed that three products were contaminated from another source than the containers.
Beyond this kind of contamination, PFAS are active ingredients in at least 40 pesticide products used worldwide. And this only accounts for pesticides that include PFAS as an active ingredient.
PFAS products are a popular surfactant (helps spray more easily) so PFAS may also be used as inert ingredients in pesticides, which unfortunately don’t have to be reported since chemical composition falls under ‘trade secret’ jurisdiction.
It is clear that PFAS are present in a variety of commonly-used pesticide products, regardless of storage conditions. No research has been done on the synergistic effects of PFAS and pesticides — which we know pose their own set of human and environmental health risks.”
Again and again, the EPA has failed in its duty to protect public health from chemicals that wreak havoc on human health, fetal development and fertility. As noted by PAN, “EPA has engaged in a regulatory stalling tactic — changing the definition of what is considered to be a PFAS to shirk responsibility.”
The new “working definition” of PFAS has been considerably narrowed from what it was, thereby excluding many chemicals used in drugs and pesticides. To counter the EPA’s deliberate shortcomings, the U.S. Congress has also introduced a bill (HR.5987 — the PFAS Definition Improvement Act11) that would require the EPA to use the widest and most comprehensive definition of PFAS.
I join PAN in urging you to call on your representatives to co-sponsor this bill. Maine and Maryland have also proposed bills to prevent PFAS contamination in pesticides specifically.
It’s hard to be optimistic when faced with such dire statistics as a 1% reduction in male fertility per year. But if we care about life, we must at least try to turn things around. One step in the right direction would be to eliminate EDCs from common use. In the meantime, men and women of childbearing age would be wise to take precautions and clear out anything that might expose them to these chemicals in their day-to-day lives, before they try to conceive.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-05-14 04:46:472022-05-14 04:47:28U.S. Sperm Count Drops 50%: Are These Chemicals Part of a Depopulation Agenda?
“Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” – 18 US Code §1507
When Black Lives Matter race rioters burned cities and wounded thousands, Biden’s people and their media allies claimed that these were “mostly peaceful” protests.
A thug could be beheading a conservative and the media and the Biden administration would claim that the head was still mostly on. So their definition of peaceful can’t be trusted. And, there’s no such thing as a peaceful protest at a public official’s home. That’s harassment and intimidation meant to change a judicial ruling.
If conservatives were doing this to D.C. Federal judges who are engaging in blatantly partisan conduct the FBI would be called in and they’d be in jail.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday defended protests outside the suburban homes of conservative Supreme Court justices as “peaceful to date” — despite the fact that more of the potentially illegal rallies are planned Wednesday to pressure the judges to abandon a draft anti-abortion rights ruling.
“The president’s longstanding view has been that violent threats and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe of course in peaceful protests,” Psaki said at her daily press briefing.
“So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date,” Psaki later added. “And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.”
Would Psaki consider protests outside her home peaceful? I suspect she would not. But as we already know, there’s a double standard.
EXAMPLE 1: Here is a white woman stating that overturning Roe v. Wade is about “white supremacy so white people can preserve their majority.” The reason this is misinformation is because 80% of abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods and the most dangerous place for a black or Hispanic is in their mother’s womb. The Guttmacher Institute reports that 59% of abortions are not white. The Guttmacher Institute’sU.S. Abortion Patients infographic shows abortion patients are: 28% are black, 25% Hispanic and 6% Asian/Pacific Islander. For whites it is 39%. If Roe v Wade had not happened it is estimated that the black population of the U.S. would be 31% not 13%.
Abortion is the leading cause of death for African Americans, more than all other causes combined, including HIV, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease.
Abortions are performed on black women at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women; black women have over 30 percent of abortions though they are only 12.6 percent of the population.
Over their lifetimes, black women average 1.6 more pregnancies than White women but are 5 times more likely to have a pregnancy that ends in abortion.
Approximately 360,000 pre-born black babies are aborted every year, nearly 1000 per day.
More than 16-million black babies have died by abortion since 1973.
The percentage of the black population in the U.S. has dropped from 12.6 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The black population in the U.S. (41 million) has dropped precipitously below the Hispanic population (63 million), numbers that would be radically different had 16 million black lives mattered enough to society to protect them from abortion and raise them to fruitful adulthood.
EXAMPLE 2: In the video below is Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. stating that the “MAGA crowd” is “most extreme” political group in U.S. history. NOTE: This statement also falls under the category of disinformation, which is political propaganda.
In testimony before Congress Biden’s Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated unequivocally that abortion is good for the economy. Our question is how does killing future generations of Americans who would become workers and contribute to our economy be good for the economy? It is estimated that over 60,000,000 million unborn Americans have been aborted. If you realize that doing this reduces our population as these unborn were not able to grow up, have families and then children of their own we would not have any labor shortage and our economy would be robust.
EXAMPLE 1: In the below video Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. calls former President Donald J. Trump “The Great MAGA King.” Biden in a speech Wednesday, May 4th, 2022 repeatedly stumbled over the views of pro-Trump Republicans, labeling their agenda as “mega” instead of the MAGA acronym.
EXAMPLE 2: In this video White House press secretary Psaki was asked to clarify Biden’s “ultra MAGA” statement.
EXAMPLE 3: In this video White House press secretary Psaki supports “peaceful to date” abortion protests at SCOTUS justices’ homes. However, 18 US Code §1507 states: “Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” Wither a protest outside any judges house may be peaceful it is according to the law illegal and requires fines, arrests and imprisonment. NOTE: Psaki labels what happened on January 6th as an “insurrection.” This statement is mis, dis and malicious information all wrapped into one.
Finally, we have learned that the DOJ and FBI have been monitoring parents and some parents have been placed on a terrorist watch list because they have questioned what their children are learning in public schools, what books are available in public school media centers and questioning why political indoctrination has replaced education and the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic as the primary goals of school boards, superintendents, principals and teachers. Here is one example of a parent being silenced by a School Board while trying to read from graphic book “Gender Queer” readily available in district’s media centers.
The Department of Homeland Security’s website states that when Americans see something they must say something. It is the duty of every American citizen to report instances of mis, dis and malinformation to the Disinformation Governance Board for appropriate action. Even if this bad information is being passed along by those holding the highest office in the land.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-05-13 06:32:322022-05-17 07:26:17MISINFORMATION WATCH: Overturning Roe v Wade is about white supremacy, abortion is good for the economy and more…