Search Results

3909 items found

  • Covid Pandemic Truths: Vaccinated People Are the Spreaders of New Variants

    https://expose-news.com/2022/06/21/vaccinated-people-are-the-spreaders-of-new-variants/ The majority of the testing for Covid infection has been performed using what is called a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in which a person’s nose or sometimes throat is swabbed for evidence of viral genetic material. The inventor of this test stated that no clinical infection can be diagnosed using the PCR test alone. Yet the CDC used this test to imply that tens of millions of Americans were infected with Covid-19. Are The New Waves of Infection Real? Is Testing for Covid-19 Accurate? We have now learned that the test does not identify the whole virus, just a segment. In addition, many other viruses, bacteria, and even some things that are not microorganisms at all can yield a positive test. For instance, the president of Tanzania secretly had a sheep, a goat, and pawpaw (a type of fruit) tested using PCR by his health department. The goat and the pawpaw both tested positive. Recently, the CDC announced that the PCR test would no longer be used because they discovered that it cross-reacts with the influenza virus, meaning virtually all influenza infections in the last flu season could have been diagnosed as Covid-19. This explains why there were only a few hundred flu cases reported in the entire U.S. this past season — a number unprecedented in modern times. (The CDC claims that each year there are about 30,000 deaths from the flu and over 300,000 hospital admissions). Cycles of the PCR test are run to amplify its sensitivity, and it is known that doing more than 30 cycles increases the likelihood of the test being falsely positive. Yet the CDC recommended that all labs perform 40 or more cycles, which would have meant that around 97% of positive tests were, in fact, negative. That is, the person tested most likely did not have a Covid infection. Combined with the lack of specificity of the PCR test, fear-mongering by the media and the CDC greatly exaggerated the impact of the first wave of the Covid outbreak. The same is almost certainly true with the new Delta variant. Virologists emphasise that the more people who are vaccinated, the more variants will appear. However, while the variants are more contagious, they are less harmful. This is the nature of virus mutations. Who Are the Superspreaders of The Virus? In fact, based on the observation that the vaccinated have very high titers of virus in their nasopharynx, according to mRNA technology developer Dr. Robert Malone, it is the vaccinated who are more likely to spread the new variant, as they remain asymptomatic longer than an unvaccinated person. Viral titers (concentrations) were found to be very high in the noses of vaccinated as well as infected unvaccinated people. If the “vaccine” worked, they should have found none or extremely small amounts of the virus. The average age of death from Covid-19 is around 75 years (95% occurred over age 65 years). Moreover, the highest death rate among vaccinated people is in the same age group — the very ones the vaccines are supposed to protect. The most egregious form of this fear-mongering is to imply that the Delta variant infections are all in the unvaccinated. This is not true. A study in Scotland, for example, found that 87% of Delta variant cases occurred in the fully vaccinated. Similar findings were reported in the United Kingdom and Israel. Moreover, a recent report released by the CDC found that 74% of the cases in a Cape Cod, Massachusetts cluster were among vaccinated individuals. Most of these people were reported to have the Delta variant. What Are the True Numbers? The vaccines for Covid-19 stand to make more money for their developers than any other vaccines at any time in history. Those same companies also wield enormous financial power and influence in the media, medical journals, medical societies (such as the American Medical Association), hospitals, research institutions, and government bureaucracies (such as the National Institutes of Health [NIH]). Moreover, of course, they donate vast sums to elected officials. We are witnessing an unprecedented attack on free speech directed at anyone who challenges pro-vaccine propaganda, including virologists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, and pulmonologists. Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-chief science officer for Pfizer; a whistle-blower from Moderna; Dr. Robert Malone, the developer of the mRNA vaccine technique; and other highly qualified scientists have been banned from social media and the mainstream news outlets for speaking out. Why? Because they might convince people that these vaccines are dangerous and that they should be halted immediately. There is growing evidence that government agencies are hiding the true number seriously injured and killed by these vaccines. A lawsuit has been filed in Alabama federal court by attorney Thomas Renz based on the sworn testimony of a government whistle-blower. This person testified under oath that, according to actual government records from the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 45,000 people have died after getting the vaccine. This refers to data from just one government system reporting to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The real number of dead could be much higher. Recall that at the height of the “pandemic,” about 50% of all deaths occurred in nursing homes and that government officials in several states had deliberately placed infected patients in these high-risk facilities. Where are the highest rates of vaccine-related deaths now occurring? Nursing homes and among the elderly — the very ones we are supposed to be protecting. In some places, nursing home death rates secondary to the vaccines (most of which occur within 2 days of being vaccinated) equal or exceed the rate of deaths caused by the virus itself. Some nursing homes have reported vaccine-related death rates of 30% or higher. The vaccines were meant to protect the most vulnerable, but now those individuals are the ones dying and being injured by the vaccine itself. Source Russell Blaylock, a retired American neurosurgeon, wrote the above in an extensive paper, ‘Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?’, published on 8 December 2021 in the Surgical Neurological International journal. We are republishing sections, more easily digestible portions, of his article as a series of articles titled ‘Covid Pandemic Truths’. This article is the fifth in our series and covers the sections in Blaylocks’s paper as subtitled above. You can find the first article in this series HERE. Although we have not included them, Blaylock’s article is well referenced. Read Blaylock’s full article – Russell L. Blaylock. Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?. 08-Dec-2021;12:59. – by following this LINK.

  • BREAKING: Fifth largest life insurance company in the US paid out 163% more for deaths of working pe

    https://crossroadsreport.substack.com/p/breaking-fifth-largest-life-insurance Fifth largest life insurance company in the US paid out 163% more for deaths of working people ages 18-64 in 2021 - Total claims/benefits up $6 BILLION Company cites "non-pandemic-related morbidity" and "unusual claims adjustments" in explanation of losses from group life insurance business: Stock falling, replaces CEO Five months after breaking the story of the CEO of One America insurance company saying deaths among working people ages 18-64 were up 40% in the third quarter of 2021, I can report that a much larger life insurance company, Lincoln National, reported a 163% increase in death benefits paid out under its group life insurance policies in 2021. This is according to the annual statements filed with state insurance departments — statements that were provided exclusively to Crossroads Report in response to public records requests. The reports show a more extreme situation than the 40% increase in deaths in the third quarter of 2021 that was cited in late December by One America CEO Scott Davison — an increase that he said was industry-wide and that he described at the time as “unheard of” and “huge, huge numbers” and the highest death rates that have ever been seen in the history of the life insurance business. The annual statements for Lincoln National Life Insurance Company show that the company paid out in death benefits under group life insurance polices a little over $500 million in 2019, about $548 million in 2020, and a stunning $1.4 billion in 2021. From 2019, the last normal year before the pandemic, to 2020, the year of the Covid-19 virus, there was an increase in group death benefits paid out of only 9 percent. But group death benefits in 2021, the year the vaccine was introduced, increased almost 164 percent over 2020. Here are the precise numbers for Group Death Benefits taken from Lincoln National’s annual statements for the three years: 2019: $500,888,808 2020: $547,940,260 2021: $1,445,350,949 Here are the key numbers for 2021, below, shown on the company’s annual statement that was filed with the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. These are national numbers, not state-specific: Lincoln National is the fifth-largest life insurance company in the United States, according to BankRate, after New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife and Prudential. The company was founded in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1905, getting the OK from Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to use his father’s name and likeness in its advertising. It’s now based in Radnor, Pennsylvania. The annual statements filed with the states do not show the number of claims — only the total dollar amount of claims paid. Group life insurance policies, in most cases, cover working-age adults ages 18-64 whose employer includes life insurance as an employee benefit. How many deaths are represented by the 163% increase? It is not possible to determine by the dollar figures on the statements. But the average death benefit for employer-provided group life insurance, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, is one year’s salary. If the average annual salary of people covered by group life insurance policies in the United States is $70,000, this may represent 20,647 deaths of working adults, covered by just this one insurance company. This would represent at least 10,000 more deaths than in a normal year for just this one company. The statements for the three years also show a sizable increase in ordinary death benefits — those not paid out under group policies, but under individual life insurance policies. In 2019, the baseline year, that number was $3.7 billion. In 2020, the year of the Covid-19 pandemic, it went up to $4 billion, but in 2021, the year in which the vaccine was administered to almost 260 million Americans, it went up to $5.3 billion. The statements show that the total amount that Lincoln National paid out for all direct claims and benefits in 2021 was more than $28 billion, $6 billion more than in 2020, when it paid out a total of $22 billion, which was less than the $23 billion it paid out in 2019, the baseline year. A $6 billion increase in expenses is something few companies could absorb, but Lincoln National has been working to do just that — by increasing sales of new insurance polices. In the press release accompanying its annual report, and in its press release announcing the first quarter 2022 results — in which the company announces a $41 million loss in its Group Protection business — it trumpets an increase in sales. For first quarter 2022 that increase was 42 percent. The company also mentions that premiums have gone up 4 percent. Interestingly, in the press release accompanying the first-quarter 2022 results, Lincoln National attributes the $41 operating million loss to “non-pandemic-related morbidity” and “unusual claims adjustments.” “This change was driven by non-pandemic-related morbidity [emphasis added], including unusual claims adjustments [emphasis added], and less favorable returns within the company’s alternative investment portfolio.” Morbidity, of course, means disease. A lot of people are sick. This matches what I was told by OneAmerica in January in emails following the publication of my story in The Center Square — that it was not only deaths of working-age people that shot up to unheard-of levels in 2021, but also short- and long-term disability claims. Annual statements for other insurance companies are still being compiled and reviewed. So far, Lincoln National shows the sharpest increases in death benefits paid out in 2021, though Prudential and Northwestern Mutual also show significant increases — increases much larger in 2021 than in 2020, indicating that the cure was worse than the disease — much worse. Lincoln National’s stock price fell from about $70 a share on January 3 to $50 a share this week, and last month, a new CEO was installed. It doesn’t appear to be a sudden change, but could have been timed to assuage major shareholders who have no idea what’s really happening and may think that a fresh face and fresh ideas can turn this around. Could I suggest instead an honest and thorough assessment of what’s really driving these stunning numbers?

  • Documents show Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine causes autoimmune disease and VAED

    https://www.newstarget.com/2022-06-20-pfizer-covid-vaccine-causes-autoimmune-disease-vaed.html The Pfizer documents that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was forced to publish by court order revealed that the Big Pharma company knew that its COVID-19 vaccine is causing autoimmune disease and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED). But the FDA chose to ignore it. The Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA technology, which was never authorized before December 2020 for human use – and for a reason. During animal trials for SARS and MERS viruses, it had the opposite of its intended effect and worsened the disease by inducing antibody-dependent enhancements. Eighteen months after the injections were administrated in trials, all the animals died. Yet somehow, the vaccine was granted emergency use authorization around the world and administered to millions to protect them against a disease that statistically kills only less than 0.2 percent of those affected, the majority being the elderly, the vulnerable and those who already had existing underlying conditions. Even then, the vaccine failed. (Related: Pfizer, FDA knew their COVID vaccine causes immunosuppression, ADE, VAED.) An example is Australia. In June, nearly 90 percent of Australia is considered fully vaccinated, but the country is still riding its largest wave of COVID-19 deaths since March. According to data, at least 4 in 5 of the COVID-19 deaths recorded were among the fully vaccinated This suggests that the COVID-19 injections don’t work. Moreover, it suggests that the injections make the recipients more vulnerable to infection. Data revealed that all of the deaths could have been avoided if the FDA bothered to read the documents submitted by Pfizer. Instead, the FDA attempted to delay the release of the company’s vaccine safety data for 75 years, despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review. Thanks to Federal Judge Mark Pitton, the FDA was forced to release 55,000 pages of the Pfizer documents every month. Nonprofit group Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency posted all of the released documents on its website, with the latest uploaded on June 1. Documents in the data dump include information on important potential risks, one of which is VAED. VAED occurs when an individual who has received a vaccine develop more severe presentations of the disease he or she was exposed to. Disease enhancement has usually been associated with dengue virus infection and was previously observed in humans with inactivated whole-virus vaccines against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and measles. Previous animal trials of experimental vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV have also been found to induce a more serious presentation of the disease when exposed to the virus. (Related: Criminal conspiracy unraveling: Pfizer and the government concealed thousands of deaths, mass injuries caused by experimental covid jabs.) While it can be difficult to distinguish between vaccine failure (also called a breakthrough disease) and VAED, the latter requires recognition that a clinical presentation is different, atypical, modified or more severe compared to the natural presentation of the disease. VAED cases not definitive, claims Pfizer Pfizer made sure to use this confusion between breakthrough infections to VAED to their advantage, claiming that the identified potential VAED cases are not definitive. In an FAQ on the U.K. government website, VAED is identified as a potential risk for both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines and should be kept under close review. Real-world data showed that Pfizer is likely committing fraud, and it won’t be the first time. In 2009, the company paid $2.3 billion in a massive health care fraud settlement for “mis-promoting” the drug Neurotonin for uses that have not been approved by medical regulators and for paying kickbacks to those who had been compliant. In the U.K., the Pfizer vaccine was granted emergency use authorization on December 8, 2020, with the first injection administered the following day. Five months later, in April 2021, the company admitted that it did not have a clue if its vaccines caused VAED and that they will know once they have more data. This means that the general public could be taking part in the largest pharmaceutical experiment ever conducted. Pfizer also admitted that VAED is a theoretical risk associated with its experimental COVID-19 vaccine, which has been injected into hundreds of millions of people around the world since December 2020. Follow Vaccines.news for more information about Pfizer’s documents in connection with the COVID vaccine. Watch the video below as Pfizer confesses to FDA that it really doesn’t know how the COVID-19 vaccine works.

  • US Appeals Court Forces EPA to Reassess Glyphosate on Health and Environmental Impact

    https://sustainablepulse.com/2022/06/18/us-appeals-court-forces-epa-to-reassess-glyphosate-on-health-and-environmental-impact/ In a historic victory for farmworkers and the environment on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its represented farmworker and conservation clients by overturning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision that the toxic pesticide glyphosate is safe for humans and imperiled wildlife. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto-Bayer’s flagship Roundup weedkiller, the most widely used pesticide in the world. The 54-page opinion held the Trump administration’s 2020 interim registration of glyphosate to be unlawful because “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” Represented by Center for Food Safety, the petitioners in the lawsuit included the Rural Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, and Beyond Pesticides. A consolidated case is led by Natural Resources Defense Council and includes Pesticide Action Network. “Today’s decision gives voice to those who suffer from glyphosate’s cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,”said Amy van Saun, senior attorney with Center for Food Safety and lead counsel in the case. “EPA’s ‘no cancer’ risk conclusion did not stand up to scrutiny. Today is a major victory for farmworkers and others exposed to glyphosate. Imperiled wildlife also won today, as the court agreed that EPA needed to ensure the safety of endangered species before greenlighting glyphosate.” Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure “We welcome and applaud the court on this significant decision,” said Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida, a plaintiff in the case. “While it comes too late for many farmworkers and landscapers who suffer after glyphosate exposure, we are grateful for the court’s ruling, and hope that now EPA will act quickly to protect future workers from illness and disease resulting from this toxic pesticide.” As to its cancer conclusion, the court concluded that EPA flouted its own Cancer Guidelines and ignored the criticisms of its own experts. EPA’s “not likely to cause cancer” conclusion was inconsistent with the evidence before it, in the form of both epidemiological studies (real-world cancer cases) and lab animal studies. In addition to its lack of conclusion as to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma risk (the cancer most tied to glyphosate), the court also concluded that EPA’s general “no cancer” decision was divorced from its own Guidelines and experts when EPA selectively discounted evidence that glyphosate causes tumors in animals. At various points the Court criticized EPA’s “disregard of tumor results;” its use of “bare assertions” that “fail to account coherently for the evidence;” making conclusions that do not “withstand scrutiny under the agency’s own framework,” and “failing to abide by” its cancer guidelines. In sum the court noted EPA’s “inconsistent reasoning” made its decision on cancer “arbitrary,” and struck it down. “We are grateful that the court decided in our favor,” said John Zippert, chairperson of the Rural Coalition, a plaintiff in the case. “We need to halt glyphosate’s devastating impact on the farmworkers and farmers who suffer the deepest consequences of exposure. This decision will hopefully hasten the transition to farming and gardening methods and practices that increase resilience, protecting our children, our planet, and all those who feed us.” “EPA’s failure to act on the science, as detailed in the litigation, has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a plaintiff in the case.”Because of this lawsuit, the agency’s obstruction of the regulatory process will not be allowed to stand, and EPA should start shifting food production to available alternative non- and less-toxic practices and materials that meet its statutory duty.” The court went on to conclude that EPA’s decision also violated the Endangered Species Act. As the court noted, EPA itself elsewhere had admitted that “glyphosate ‘may affect’ all listed species experiencing glyphosate exposure—that is 1,795 endangered or threatened species” yet had unlawfully ignored the ESA for this decision. As to remedy, the court struck down, or vacated the human health assessment. The court also required that EPA redo and/or finish all remaining glyphosate determinations by an October 2022 deadline, or within four months. This includes a redone ecological toxicity assessment, a redone costs analysis of impacts to farmers from pesticide harms, as well as all Endangered Species analysis and mitigation. Background In an “interim registration review” decision for glyphosate issued in January 2020, EPA finalized its human health and ecological risk assessments and adopted “mitigation measures” in the form of label changes. EPA unlawfully concluded there is no cancer risk from glyphosate, despite major gaps in its review, including coming to “no conclusion” as to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the most well-known cancer linked to glyphosate. EPA also failed to do any assessment of how much glyphosate gets into a user’s bloodstream after skin contact, a major route of occupational exposure. Critically, EPA failed to test any of the glyphosate product formulations, which contain ingredients beyond just the active ingredient (glyphosate) and can increase the harmful effects of pesticide exposure. Finally, because EPA continued to the use of glyphosate with minor, unsubstantiated label changes, it needed to consider the impacts to imperiled species and do more to protect them from glyphosate. CFS and allies originally filed the lawsuit in 2020, incorporating volumes of evidence showing how EPA ignored glyphosate’s health risks, including cancer risks, to farmworkers and farmers exposed during spraying. Petitioners also challenged EPA’s decision based on risks to the environment and imperiled species, such as the Monarch butterfly. In response to CFS and allies’ lawsuit, in May 2021 EPA effectively admitted grave errors in its interim registration and asked the court for permission to re-do the agency’s faulty ecological, cost-benefit, and Endangered Species Act assessments. However, the agency stated that Roundup should nonetheless stay on the market in the interim—without any deadline for a new decision. In July 2021, Bayer announced it will end the sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides (including Roundup) in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market in 2023 in order to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.” In California, jury trials continue to be held. Last year, courts affirmed a judgment against Monsanto for cancer from Roundup in Hardeman v. Monsanto—one of the first in a series of high-profile consumer lawsuits filed against Monsanto-Bayer—and in the third appeal of such a claim in Pilliod v. Monsanto. While EPA has repeatedly declared that glyphosate does not cause cancer, the world’s foremost cancer authorities with the World Health Organization declared glyphosate to be ‘probably carcinogenic to humans‘ in 2015. And as the record in the case showed, EPA’s own Office of Research and Development concluded that glyphosate is either a likely carcinogen or at least there is evidence suggesting that it causes cancer, particularly increases the risk of NHL.

  • Millions Face New Fluoridation Threats

    Although government-funded fluoridation studies confirm skyrocketing fluorosis rates, infant neurotoxicity and numerous other side effects, the CDC has announced a new strategy to fluoridate over 19 million Americans, which will also eventually expand to Canadians, Australians and likely others. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/06/21/millions-face-new-fluoridation-threats.aspx Millions Face New Fluoridation Threats ______________________________________________________________________________________________ STORY AT-A-GLANCE Government-funded studies confirm skyrocketing fluorosis rates, fetal and infant neurotoxicity, and numerous other side effects from fluoridation The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has helped create and promote a new fluoridation system they hope will expose nearly 20 million more Americans to harmful levels of fluoride The governments in the United Kingdom and New Zealand have passed bills that will effectively mandate fluoridation throughout their nations ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The published science over the past decade has taught us a lot about water fluoridation, about both the very real and significant side effects inflicted on the public, but also about the credibility of those who continue to vouch for its safety. At this point, the question we must ask isn’t whether the overwhelming risks outweigh the theoretical scant benefits, or whether more research is needed to draw strong conclusions. No, the only appropriate question now is: How much more harm will the promoters and regulators of fluoridation allow the practice to inflict on the public? Without the Fluoride Action Network, our coalition partners, and people like you taking a stand, their answer will be a resounding, “a lot more harm!” With their credibility and influence at stake after defending fluoridation for more than 75 years, they’ve sadly shown that they’ll not only be the last to act, but that they plan to double down until we stop them. As we speak, tens of millions of residents currently living on community water systems with no added fluoride throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are facing the imminent threat of having their water dosed with hazardous fluoridation chemicals. The CDC has announced a new strategy and helped develop a new technology to fluoridate an addition 19+ million Americans, which will also eventually expand to Canadians, Australians and likely others. Meanwhile, the governments in the U.K. and New Zealand have exploited the recent pandemic to pass sweeping health care reform bills that effectively include nationwide fluoridation mandates due to decades of strong pushback from residents and elected officials at the local level, keeping fluoridation at bay. Fluoride Has Already Damaged the Teeth of Millions The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s own data taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) has repeatedly found that our children in the United States are significantly overexposed to fluoride, evidenced by skyrocketing rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is a biomarker of toxicity from ingested fluoride, and is a permanent tooth defect, causing unsightly discoloration and mottling of the teeth, weakening the enamel and resulting in increased dental decay. Ingesting fluoridated water — particularly in reconstituted infant formula — and processed foods made with fluoridated water are recognized as the primary sources of exposure, though swallowing toothpaste and fluoride prescriptions also contribute. A 2015 review of the practice of fluoridation by the Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard for evidence-based reviews of health interventions, found that “there is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and [water] fluoride level.” The CDC reported that 41% of adolescents (12 to 15) had dental fluorosis in 2004. At the time this was an increase of over 400% from the rates found 60 years prior. Then the 2012 survey found that the rate jumped significantly to 65+% of adolescents with dental fluorosis. Now, according to a recent study (Yang, June 2021) published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety using the data from the NHANES 2015-16 survey, the "prevalence of dental fluorosis was 70% in the U.S. children." This means that the teeth of millions of children, teens and adults have already been damaged by overexposure to fluoride during development, and the CDC, along with the other promoters of fluoridation are fully aware. However, the teeth are not the only tissues in the body that are harmed by or accumulate fluoride. There is no apparent reason, therefore, why fluoride’s effects on the body would be limited to the teeth. As noted by renowned dentist and researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback: ... it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion. NHANES data has been used in recent published and peer-reviewed studies to link fluoridated water with a number of additional side-effects, including earlier onset of menstruation for black teens, sleep disorders in adolescents, increase uric acid levels in the blood, and kidney and liver impairment in adolescents. Additional studies on fluoridation have also recently found higher rates of hip fractures, disruption of the endocrine system, and increased rates of hypothyroidism. Fluoride Is the New Lead There is now a large body of government-funded research indicating that fluoride is neurotoxic, and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the toxicology have likened the size of the effect to that from lead. To date, 69 human studies, most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. The highest quality fluoride brain studies have been published since 2017, when the first of five NIEHS-NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded prospective-cohort studies was published (Bashash et al., 2017) finding an association between fetal exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in Mexico. A year later, another NIH-funded study found an increase in ADHD symptoms associated with in utero exposure to fluoride (Bashash et al., 2018). Over the next two years, two more of these government-funded studies found similar results, linking fetal exposure to fluoridated water in Canada to lowered IQ (Green et al., 2019), and finding that bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities in Canada had a significantly lowered IQ compared to bottle-fed infants in non-fluoridated communities (Till et al., 2020). And just last year, the fifth NIH-funded study (Cantoral et al, 2021), found that for every 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.10 to 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys. The authors stated: "Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and ... fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels ... These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range.” I strongly urge you to watch and share this recent 20-minute PowerPoint presentation by professor Christine Till, Ph.D., lead author of some of these landmark fluoride studies, explaining her team’s research and findings. In 2021, the first benchmark dose analysis conducted on maternal fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity to the fetus was published in the journal Risk Analysis (Grandjean, 2021). Benchmark doses analyses are used by the EPA and toxicologist to determine at what level a substance starts to cause harm. It is well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. The analysis confirmed that extremely low fluoride exposure during pregnancy impairs fetal brain development, finding that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of only 0.2mg/L — which coincides with the level in water (0.2ppm) — was enough to lower IQ by at least 1 point. This is four times lower than the current government “recommended” level of 0.8ppm in fluoridated communities. It’s also six times lower than the level that was recommended as “safe” by the CDC, HHS, and the American Dental Association for over 60-years up until 2011 (1.2ppm). For perspective, A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies. A recent study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74mg/L. A second study with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06mg/L. Both studies also found that the UF levels were significantly lower for the participants living in the non-fluoridated communities. The authors of the benchmark dose analysis stated: "These findings suggest that fetal brain development is highly vulnerable to fluoride exposure ... and provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life). Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic ... and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children." These authors are hardly alone in comparing fluoride’s neurotoxic impact to the well-established harm of lead: * Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MPH, and Dr. Frederick Rivara, MPH, editors for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on their podcast (around 4:25): “[The 4.5 IQ loss is] An effect size which is sizeable — on par with lead.” * Christine Till, PhD, co-author of several landmark fluoride/neurotoxicity studies, on Canada’s CTV: “4.5 points is a dramatic loss of IQ, comparable to what you’d see with lead exposure.” * David Bellinger, Ph.D., MSc, Harvard professor of neurology, on NPR: “It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.” Other experts, including Linda Birnbaum PhD, former Director of the National Toxicology Program, stress the need to avoid fluoride: "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time [to] protect pregnant women and their children [and recommend they] reduce their fluoride intake." There are now nine fluoride mother-offspring studies linking fluoride exposure to harm, and 23 studies published on the association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ since 2017. How FAN Responded to the Science Because of the growing list of published fluoride-IQ studies, and the downplaying of their importance by pro-fluoridation advocates such as the Division of Oral Health at the CDC and the American Dental Association, FAN embarked on two initiatives in 2016. First, we requested the National Toxicology Program undertake a systematic review of ALL the studies (animal, human and cellular) pertaining to fluoride’s potential to damage the brain. The NTP agreed with our request, and they plan to publish the final results of their multiyear review of fluoride neurotoxicity any day now. In the two first drafts the NTP concluded, “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans ...” The review drafts identified over 100 studies showing adverse effects including IQ loss and increased ADHD. Among 27 studies designated as high quality, 15 show fluoride injury at the same exposure levels found in community fluoridation programs. Second, we petitioned the EPA under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water supply because it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of children. The EPA’s lack of action led to FAN suing them in federal court. The initial phase of the trial was held in June 2020, concluding with the judge saying, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.” However, the court is awaiting the final NTP report before moving forward with the final phase of the trial. Here is a short video update on the lawsuit from FAN’s attorney. This past year, FAN embarked on a two more initiatives. We communicated with the U.S. surgeon general about the risk posed by fluoridation to developing children, and asked that he take action to warn parents. We also initiated a dialogue with CDC officials (see initial letter signed by 112 professionals) that ultimately led to them organizing presentations for their leadership from several fluoride/neurotoxicity study authors, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Christine Till, Ph.D., and Dr. Philippe Grandjean on their research. How Promoters Have Responded to the Science: A New Threat It has been six months since the CDC heard the presentations on neurotoxicity from the three veteran researchers, and it’s been over a decade since the CDC acknowledged that fluoridation has damaged the teeth of millions. Yet, the CDC, along with the EPA, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and their state level peers not only have failed to warn residents about the dangers posed by fluoridation, but have continued advocating for fluoridation expansion in spite of the science. The CDC has partnered with the chemical industry to target 19 million residents in 32,000 small and medium sized communities across the United States that do not add fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water. Using your tax dollars, the CDC provided upward of $2 million dollars in funds to private business to develop a fluoridation delivery product for water systems serving between 50 and 10,000 people. The widespread sale and promotion of this new product began in January throughout the U.S., but is also planned for Canada and Australia in the near future. The American Dental Association has joined the CDC in pushing this new strategy. In July of 2021, the CDC held a “Public Health Grand Rounds” presentation on fluoridation. While there was no mention of the large number of new studies linking low levels of fluoridated water to neurotoxicity, it was an infomercial for a new technology that the CDC and ADA were calling “a game changer” in their efforts to expand fluoridation. Below is a slide from that presentation, where you can see they intend to increase the percentage of fluoridated water systems from 73% to 77% — representing 19 million people on 32,000 water systems — by 2030. This goal isn’t exactly new. The CDC and ADA have utilized a number of strategies over the past decade to expand the practice, but largely due to FAN and our network of local volunteers and professionals, the number of fluoridating communities has actually decreased, while the population served has increased slightly due to urban growth. To accomplish this significant increase over the next eight years, they intend to utilize a new fluoridation system specifically designed to be simple and cheap enough for even the smallest water systems, which could include private systems, or even colleges and public schools. They’re calling it the “New Wave Fluoridation System.” It utilizes compacted sodium fluorosilicate in a tablet form designed to dissolve over time in a small amount of water, much like the deodorizer tablets used in urinals. We have learned that this process started in 2013, when CDC’s chief fluoridation engineer, Kip Duchon, suggested that the CDC help develop a product that was feasible for small and rural communities. Soon thereafter the CDC announced a Small Business Innovation Research grant opportunity — providing upward of $2 million — for private business to develop and test the idea. KC Industries, of Mulberry, Florida, was awarded at least two large grants, one to develop the tablet and the other to develop the injection/feeder system. KC Industries is a small chemical manufacturer with a handful of employees. According to their website, “The plant was built by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and began producing Sodium Fluorosilicate in 1957 as a raw material to manufacture aluminum.” KC Industries purchased the facility in 1999 and appears to have focused heavily on the “dry” fluoride drinking water additive market with sodium fluoride. Here is their page on their sodium fluoride product; it’s worth a quick look. Over the past 20 years, more communities have switched their additive to fluorosilicic acid, which is an incredibly dangerous and corrosive liquid, but is cheaper. This led to a massive decline in sales of dry additives, and KC Industries’ profits. According to their press release, they were struggling until the CDC’s grant, which they say provided “a new lease on life” for the chemical company. They’re expecting “an immediate return on investment” as communities clamor for the new system. KC Industry representatives have said that interest in the system has come from around the world. The first community to use the product as part of a free pilot project is Cleveland, Georgia. Other communities that have signed on include Marathon, Wisconsin; Center, Colorado; and Aulander, North Carolina. The Missouri state legislature has also included nearly $4 million in funding over the next few years to go toward grants to expand the program in their state. The CDC employee who initiated this process, Kip Duchon, has retired from the CDC and is now a consultant to the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee. The ADA has already called it a “game-changer” and lobbied Congressional members to include taxpayer funding for this technology in the recent infrastructure bill intended to help economy out of the pandemic. Meanwhile, the CDC also continues to give very large taxpayer-funded grants to states to pay for public relations campaigns to promote fluoridation. Pandemic Exploited to Mandate Fluoridation in UK, New Zealand Even worse than what is happening in North America with the new tablet fluoridation system, is the recent passage of legislation in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, transferring authority over fluoridation from local officials (and indirectly the public) to unelected public health bureaucrats who have vowed to mandate the practice throughout their respective nations without concern for what the public wants. Both nations include fluoridation resolutions as part of a much broader legislative effort to centralize public health decisions in response to the pandemic. The U.K. and New Zealand will now join Ireland and Singapore as the four public health outliers in a world that has overwhelmingly rejected fluoridated water. Last year, the New Zealand government revived, amended and passed a bill that was introduced in 2016, but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently — to district health boards. However, the current government amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. Like the CDC, government officials and public health officials were warned in advance of the harm their decision would cause, yet they ignored it. Some local leaders have quickly made their opposition to this proposal heard, including the mayor of Whangarei, Sheryl Mai, who said, “People who drink water from the tap will be mass medicated whether they want to be or not.” Mayor Greg Lang of Carterton, and Mayor Alex Beijen of South Wairarapa, both opposed the measure because it took councils, consumers and ratepayers out of the decision. Officials in Christchurch and Southland have also recently voiced opposition, saying safety is a greater priority than fluoride. Clearly, there is still a chance for those communities that push back against this proposal. In the U.K., decades of efforts by the government to expand fluoridation stalled having reached only 10% of the population. Efforts to fluoridate Northern Ireland failed miserably with 22 councils voting against the measure. Scotland too remained unfluoridated. Efforts over the last two decades to fluoridate Southampton, Manchester, and Hull also failed. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed an addition to the large Health and Care Act that would effectively mandate fluoridation by giving the health secretary, Sajid Javid, unilateral power to force communities throughout the country to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supplies. FAN coordinated with locals to mount opposition to this proposal, including a series of public letters from British scientists accusing public health officials of ignoring the science. The opposition culminated on the floor of the House of Lords, where a number of members spoke out against the proposal, including Lord Reay, who warned of the dangers posed to developing children. Since passage into law, FAN has made an official submission to the government urging the Department of Health and Social Care to perform a health risk assessment on the effects of fluoridated water on the pregnant woman, the fetus and the formula-fed infant, before implementing fluoridation into the U.K. No regulatory agency in any fluoridating country has ever done this. However, as the U.K. is contemplating expanding fluoridation to the whole country, it is essential that this is done before they embark on this program. The Last Line of Defense I want to conclude by asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this article, but rephrased: How much more harm will YOU allow the promoters and regulators of fluoridation to inflict on the public? As I write this, millions of developing babies and infants are being overexposed to fluoride from their fluoridated tap water. The research has shown that there is no safe amount of fluoride for the fetus or infant. All will be impacted, some significantly more than others. Please help us defend these vulnerable children and give them the gift of normal brain development. Help us also protect other vulnerable subpopulations, including those with hypersensitivities, dental fluorosis, bone brittleness and kidney, liver, or thyroid impairment. The Fluoride Action Network is a nonprofit advocacy group set up in 2000 to broaden awareness among citizens, scientists and policymakers on the toxicity of fluoride compounds. It maintains the largest online database for fluoride toxicity studies, and has helped many of the 300+ communities that have ended or rejected fluoridation chemicals since 2010. We’re amplifying the voices of a growing chorus of renowned international experts in toxicology, neurology and environmental toxins, warning the public about fluoridation, and educating and recruiting more to speak out. We’ve captured the surgeon general’s and the CDCs’ attention, made progress with our federal lawsuit against the EPA, helped communities come together to fight fluoridation, and worked with state legislators to defeat mandate bills and support prohibition efforts. Can you help us continue defend our water and our health, and expand our efforts as new threats arise here in North America and around the world in the United Kingdom and New Zealand? Will you stand with FAN? Fluoride Awareness Week - Your Help Is Needed On June 20 to June 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today. Together, Let's Help FAN Get to the Finish Line This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the tenth year in a row, I will be matching funds up to $25,000, that’ll be donated to Fluoride Action Network.

  • Data From a New Study Shows Falling Sperm Counts Post-Covid Injection – It’s Devastating

    https://expose-news.com/2022/06/21/new-study-shows-falling-sperm-counts-post-injection/ On Friday, the journal Andrology published a peer-reviewed paper showing large decreases in sperm counts among men after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA Covid jab. Based on counts from men who donated sperm to three fertility clinics in Israel, this finding is devastating – medically and politically. By Alex Berenson It cuts to the heart of the hottest button question of all about the mRNA shots, whether they have hidden fertility risks. That issue has simmered since early 2021, following my reporting that data showed the shots had caused excess miscarriages in rats – and other reports showing that measurable amounts of vaccine reached the ovaries and testes in tests in rats. Ever since, media “fact-checkers” and public health authorities have dismissed and mocked the concerns and anyone who raises them: Now – after a half-billion men have received mRNA shots – the sceptics appear to be right. Again. The Israeli paper offers hard evidence that the vaccines may present a systemic risk to men’s sperm counts. What was a conspiracy theory is now just a theory. AGAIN. The paper raises questions about the mechanism of action that must be answered immediately. And on top of the myocarditis risk, the finding is more evidence that encouraging – much less forcing – men under 40 to take the mRNA vaccines was a catastrophic mistake. However, the authors qualified their findings by reporting that after five months, sperm levels recovered. Thus, the decreases were only temporary, they wrote. Put aside the fact that a five-month decrease hardly qualifies as temporary for someone trying to start a family – or compared to a “vaccine” that loses effectiveness against Omicron within weeks or months. As other writers have pointed out, the actual data in the paper do not really support the argument that sperm levels returned to normal after five months. In fact, by some measures, levels continued to decline. Rather than acknowledging this fact, the authors offered the best possible spin on their data, while at the same time publishing the figures themselves near the end of the paper so that other researchers could see the reality for themselves. This tactic is now commonplace among researchers putting out data that might raise concerns about the mRNA shots. It is likely a response to the overwhelming political pressure to hide the deepening crisis around the safety and efficacy of shots that governments have given to over a billion people worldwide. Below is the crucial chart, which shows that “total motile count” – the number of sperm in the ejaculated semen – plunged 22 per cent three to five months after the second shot (T2) and barely recovered during the final count (T3), when it was still 19 per cent below the pre-shot level. Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors, Andrology, 17 June 2022 Even more importantly, the fall in sperm counts CANNOT be blamed on short or even medium-term inflammation as mRNA-generated spike proteins cause our immune cells to ramp up the systemic production of anti-spike antibodies. If that were the case, one would expect to see a short-term decrease in sperm count that reverses over time. Instead, total sperm counts are unaffected shortly after the mRNA shots, then decrease months later and hardly recover. To play down this unpleasant reality, the researchers instead focused on the fact that median rather than average counts did recover after five months. (The median is the numerical midpoint of a series; If a series goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, the median will be 3, but the average will be 30 divided by 5, or 6.) Both the median and the average can be valuable statistics. Using the median rather than the average will hide extreme outliers. In this case, the fact that the average fell much more than the median is a sign that some of the men probably had near-zero sperm counts in both the second and third time periods – and that fact is arguably more important than the median change. All of which is to say that this data cannot be easily explained away and should not be ignored, as badly as the media would like to do so. The fall in sperm counts is part of an emerging and increasingly dark picture about the long-term health impacts of the mRNA shots – and should all by itself convince parents not to risk exposing their children to these powerful biotechnologies. About the Author Alex Berenson is a former New York Times reporter and the author of 13 novels, three non-fiction books, and the Unreported Truths booklets. His latest book, Pandemia, on the coronavirus and the American response to it, was published last year. You can subscribe and follow Berenson on his Substack HERE. Further reading from The Exposé: Head of Pfizer Research: Covid Vaccine is Female Sterilisation, 3 December 2020 Florida Doctor Finds Signs of Infertility and Prostate Cancer in Men Who Received Covid-19 Vaccine, 17 June 2021 Vaccine-Induced Infertility and Birth Defects: Taking A Look at A New Study on Fertility Plus Pandemic “Black-Eyed” Babies, 14 October 2021 FOI reveals Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid the dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy because Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility, 5 May 2021

  • Agenda 2030 And The WEF’s Plan To Remake The World

    https://principia-scientific.com/agenda-2030-wef-remake-world/ The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently wrapped up its meeting in Switzerland, where billionaires and world leaders discussed their plans and priorities for the coming years. The meeting brought into focus the WEF’s initiatives, including its cooperation with the United Nations on its Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programs to reshape the world. We speak with Alex Newman, an award-winning international journalist and Epoch Times contributor who has been investigating these programs, about the World Economic Forum and its plans and the United Nations’ Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. We also speak about the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty, and its upcoming meetings to try again to advance its powers.

  • Dr. Simone Gold Sentenced to Prison For Speaking with Megaphone Inside US Capitol on January 6

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/dr-simone-gold-sentenced-prison-speaking-megaphone-inside-us-capitol-january-6/ Dr. Simone Gold on Thursday was sentenced to two months in prison for speaking with a megaphone inside of the US Capitol on January 6. In March Dr. Simone Gold pleaded guilty to a class A misdemeanor count, “entering and remaining in a restricted building charge.” NBC News reported: U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., also sentenced Dr. Simone Gold to 12 months of supervised release after her 60-day prison term and ordered her to pay a $9,500 fine. She can report to prison at a date to be determined. The judge told Gold that her anti-vaccine activism wasn’t a factor in her sentencing. Cooper said Gold wasn’t a “casual bystander” on Jan. 6. The judge also said Gold’s organization has misled supporters into believing her prosecution was politically motivated and trampled on her free speech rights. Cooper called it “unseemly” that America’s Frontline Doctors has invoked the Capitol riot in raising money, including for her salary. “I think that is a real disservice to the true victims of that day,” he said. Dr. Simone Gold was in Washington DC on January 5th and 6th and spoke on the 5th at Freedom Plaza. Dr. Simone later entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and delivered her same medical speech with a bullhorn from inside the U.S. Capitol. Dr. Simone committed no acts of violence. She only wanted to push her medical opinion on the coronavirus. For this Dr. Gold was placed in the front row of the FBI’s most wanted release. “I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of takedown moment, which is quite uncalled for. You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door,” Gold narrated. FBI thugs gave her the Roger Stone treatment. Life Site News reported: In a recent interview with Michelle Malkin, Dr. Simone Gold, founder of American Frontline Doctors (AFLD) discussed the lack of authentic informed consent with regards to experimental vaccines, censorship as a “crime against humanity,” and how she was subjected to a massive swat team raid upon her home by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in order to arrest her for being present in the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th. In describing this incident, Gold said, “I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of take down moment, which is quite uncalled for. You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door,” Gold said. “It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country. If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I’m telling you America, this can happen to you.” Dr. Simone Gold led a team of doctors called America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that challenged COVID prevention strategy in America, back in July 2020 in Washington DC. The Frontline Doctors from across the country met in Washington DC to dispel the coronavirus’s misinformation and myths. The group was concerned with the disinformation campaign being played out in the far-left American media today. The vicious liars in the media have labeled Dr. Simone Gold as an “anti-vaccine doctor who stormed the Capitol.”

  • HUGE FINDING: Higher CO2 makes food crops and herbs more nutritious and medicinal

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-17-higher-co2-makes-plants-more-nutritious-medicinal.html# (Natural News) The war on carbon is a war on life itself. It is a war on plant health, animal health and human life. Not only is carbon dioxide necessary for photosynthesis, but it also makes plants more nutritious, multiplying their medicinal value. Numerous studies show that higher carbon dioxide levels increase the vitamin and mineral output of plants. Studies also show that higher carbon levels increase the plants’ output of flavonoids, phenolics, essential oils, tannins, antioxidants, amino acids and other phytochemicals. Humans and animals depend on the vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals provided by the plant kingdom. When plants are starved of basic elements like carbon, they cannot provide the nourishment that humans need to thrive. As the world’s population surpasses eight billion people, there will be a greater global need for warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and higher carbon dioxide levels to build up an ecosystem that supports highly medicinal crops, herbs and super foods. CO2 enrichment significantly boosts the medicinal properties of herbs A research team (AbdElgawad et al.) conducted a CO2 enrichment study on caraway. This herb is cultivated globally and is used to treat several human ailments, from diarrhea and cholera to asthma and hypertension. Caraway has a history of medicinal use as an antibacterial, anthelmintic, antifungal, anti-allergic and bronchodilator. Because it is a valuable medicine worldwide, scientists are looking into ways to promote its growth and increase its medicinal properties. The researchers grew the herb in two controlled environments. One environment contained 400 ppm CO2 and the other was enriched with elevated CO2 level of 620 ppm CO2. The plants were harvested as sprouts after nine days of growth and as mature plants after 45 days of growth. The researchers quantified the differences in their medicinal value. The high CO2 environment enhanced photosynthesis, the chlorophyll content, as well as the fresh and dry weight of the plants. In the sprouts, these increases were 66%, 50%, 64% and 120%, respectively. In the mature plants, these increases were 40%, 44%, 48% and 29% respectively. These increases were just the beginning. The CO2 enrichment also boosted the carbohydrate, protein, fat and crude fiber content of the plants. The CO2 enriched caraway also produced more minerals, vitamins, amino acids, phenolics and antioxidants, and ultimately produced more robust antibacterial activities. These increases in medicinal quality were observed in the sprout stage and in the mature plants. CO2 enrichment can turn herbs into highly effective medicine that fight infectious disease, chronic diseases and cancers. CO2 enrichment boosts antibacterial, antiviral, anticancer properties of plants In another study, scientists enriched Arthrospira platensis with CO2. This cyanobacterium is farmed from mineral-rich alkaline waters and is used around the world for its medicinal properties. The researchers found that higher atmospheric CO2 caused increases in the carbon to nitrogen ratio, which “induces the synthesis of secondary metabolites by carbon allocation to the secondary metabolism.” The substantial increase in polyphenol content boosted the medicinal properties of the plant “including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antioxidant, antithrombotic, vasodilatory, and anticarcinogenic.” The CO2-enriched samples boosted the antibacterial properties against Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, and Klebisella pneumoniae. They also “showed the strongest cytotoxic activities toward cancer cells,” boosting the plant’s ability to “inhibit proliferation of human colon (HCT-116), breast (MCF-7) and ovarian (OVCAR) cancers.” A trove of studies prove that CO2 enrichment causes increases in anticancer, antibacterial and antiviral bio-activities. These enhancements boost the medicinal value of thyme, Brazilian ginseng, green tea, basil, peppermint, guava, kava, hibiscus, valerian, etc. How to thrive during the next pandemic This is how the global population survives upcoming plagues and pandemics… They must exit the paradigm of fear that has been foisted on their minds. They must end their allegiance to the germ theory and the medical dictatorship it has wrought. They must look for ways to increase biodiversity and boost the medicinal properties of plants. It’s this plant nourishment that builds the human immune system. The medicines synthesized in plants are necessary to create an internal cellular terrain that thwarts disease and builds immunity in humans and animals. As the globalists ratchet up their war on carbon, the people must take back their communities and adopt the principles found in permaculture. It is of the utmost importance to restore the nutrient-quality of the soil and create the atmospheric conditions that bring forth a bio-diverse array of crops, herbs and superfoods. Ironically, the same “experts” who want to “prevent the next pandemic” have notoriously called for the elimination of both people and carbon. These so-called philanthropists invest heavily in the glyphosate-ridden, mono-culture agricultural practices that are destroying soil quality, biodiversity and the medicinal value of plants. These “philanthropists” want to continue spraying toxins on the food and modifying plant genomes for their power and gain. They want to capture carbon underground and starve plant life so humans are deprived of nutrition and valuable medicines. In short, these globalists are weaponizing nature at every level, as they try to starve people and profit from human sickness and disease.