Forewarning of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001; three different approaches to understanding the anthrax attacks of 2001: structural, historical and symbolic; the lone nut theory of perpetrators; connections between the anthrax attacks and the so-called 9/11 hijackers in Florida; Operation Dark Winter; the attempt to disconnect anthrax from 9/11; Mohamed Atta asks for a loan.
Children in the United States are experiencing a serious and historically unprecedented burden of chronic illness. American children display consistently poorer health outcomes than children in other wealthy nations, notwithstanding substantially higher per capita health care spending on U.S. children.
In a 2004 report, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine called attention to the rising tide of ill health in American children and its long-term implications, warning that “the nation cannot thrive if it has large numbers of unhealthy adults.” Ten years later, in Lancet Neurology, pediatric experts lamented the pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity in children that is “silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies.” Despite these and many other admonitions, U.S. agencies and officials have paid no meaningful attention to the crisis.Children with chronic conditions now constitute over 70% of pediatric intensive care hospital admissions.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The list of chronic afflictions beleaguering U.S. children—sometimes nearly from birth—includes neurodevelopmental conditions, autoimmune illnesses, atopic disorders, mental health problems and more. In many instances, multiple conditions overlap, or one condition increases the risk for subsequent disorders. Children with chronic conditions now constitute over 70% of pediatric intensive care hospital admissions.
In 2011, a widely cited survey found that over two-fifths (43%) of children had at least one of 20 chronic health conditions, and this proportion rose to over half (54%) when including obesity and developmental and behavioral risks. The health conditions assessed by the researchers ranged from learning disabilities to diabetes to depression. Another national study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2010, zeroed in on the deterioration in children’s health over time. From 1988 to 2006, there was a doubling of the prevalence of four types of chronic conditions (obesity, asthma, behavior/learning problems and “other” physical conditions), which rose from 12.8% to 26.6% of American children and youth. If researchers replicated those studies now, trends suggest that the numbers would be even higher.
Chronic illness in children accounts for significant health care expenditures, both public and private. An annual survey of outpatient care conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics showed, for example, that at least 17% of children’s visits to a doctor in 2016 were for chronic conditions (either routine or “flare-up” care). Medicaid covered a third of the visits, with the remainder mostly billed to private insurance. Research also points to a rise in the proportion of children with one or more complex chronic conditions—conditions that incur a disproportionate share of health care costs. A Minnesota study reported significantly increased five-year prevalence and incidence rates of multiple complex chronic conditions in children from 1999 to 2014. The 1990s also marked a rise in the proportion of hospitalized children who have complex chronic conditions—such children are at increased risk of lengthy hospital stays as well as mortality compared to children hospitalized for other reasons.
Autism spectrum disorders
Four diagnoses, sometimes called the “4-A” disorders, are among the most prevalent in their impact on children’s quality of life: autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma and allergies. The ASD and ADHD diagnostic labels both refer to collections of behaviors and symptoms determined largely through subjective measures.
The spike in diagnosed autism has been particularly dramatic, with a rate of increase that has accelerated over time and particularly since the late 1980s. Analysis of reliable long-term data shows that there has been a 1000-fold increase in autism prevalence since the 1930s and a 25-fold increase over the past several decades. Recent work also highlights upward ASD trends among black and Hispanic children and worsening racial/ethnic disparities….
Well gee I can’t imagine what the problem could be, all I know is that we need to keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing ad infinitum until the research and medical institutions which have led us into this nightmare discover where they went wrong and announce their incompetence and culpability to the entire world.
In the United States, those who are vaccine risk-aware have much to be concerned about right now. More and more states—and many legislators from both political parties—are displaying a willingness to impose heavy-handed vaccine mandates that trample on religious, parental and human rights—including the precious right to “security of person” guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What some Americans may not realize is that the current push for mandates is playing out not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well, reflecting a broader—and indeed, global—agenda. Countries such as Australia, Italy and France have taken the lead in transitioning away from government interventions that “merely nudge or persuade individuals to vaccinate” and toward a more punitive exercise of “coercive power”—even though research suggests that “tougher stances on the part of doctors and public health experts tend to polarize attitudes in the public.” Australia’s 2016 “no jab, no pay” law, for example, withholds thousands of dollars in childcare subsidies from parents branded as “vaccine refusers,” and some Australian states restrict unvaccinated children’s access to child care altogether.
One of the primary cover stories that governments are using to justify the fierce uptick in vaccine coercion is the argument that infectious diseases pose a threat to national security. Measles represents the overblown threat du jour, while around the world, officials and media keep the public in the dark about the measles vaccine’s risks. In 2014, the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) formed to “elevate global health security as a national and global priority.” One of the eleven “Action Packages” to which GHSA stakeholders agreed was an “Immunization Action Package” that just so happens to use measles vaccine coverage as its proxy indicator for success. Considering that the Action Package’s aim is to marshall regional and global collaboration to “accelerate” vaccine coverage, how should we construe the measles hysteria that international organizations, governments and the media have been fomenting ever since the GHSA’s creation?
An interconnected global network
Although generally not in the media spotlight, the GHSA attracted high-level attention and commitments from the powerful from the get-go. Within four months of its February 2014 launch, the GHSA received a key endorsement from the G7, and in September, President Obama hosted the new entity’s first major meeting at the White House. Distracting the public from the earth-shattering revelations of CDC vaccine fraud issued a few weeks earlier by whistleblower William Thompson (on August 27, 2014), GHSA meeting participants instead solemnly declared: “A biological threat anywhere is a biological threat everywhere, and it is the world’s responsibility to respond as one.”
In late 2016, the outgoing President Obama signed an Executive Order that “cemented” the GHSA “as a national, presidential-level priority” and positioned the U.S. “as a committed, long-term catalyst” for executing the partnership’s goals. At present, the GHSA has 67 member countries, but—taking the concept of an “interconnected global network” to an entirely new level—all sorts of public and private “advisory partners” are also in on the push for unitary action, including various United Nations (UN) agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU) and even, somewhat ominously, Interpol.
The GHSA promotes external country-level evaluations to assess, among other measures, steps taken to prevent infectious disease threats—with “prevention” defined as “high immunisation coverage”—and improve surveillance (via detection, assessment and reporting of “public health events”). The U.S. was one of the first countries to step up for an assessment, conducted in close collaboration by external evaluators and the CDC. (The CDC head at the time was Thomas Frieden, praised by Obama as “an expert in preparedness and response to health emergencies” but arrested in 2018 on charges of sexual abuse.) The evaluators gave the U.S. top scores for measles vaccine coverage and “national vaccine access and delivery” while awarding lower scores for “dynamic listening and rumour management” and “communication engagement with affected communities.”
Other international initiatives buttress the GHSA, including the WHO-coordinated International Health Regulations (IHR) established in 2005 (a 196-nation accord to “work together for global security”) and Target 3.8 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which promotes access to “essential medicines and vaccines for all” as part of a push for “universal health coverage” (UHC). Reflecting the globally focused zeitgeist, proponents of these intertwined initiatives are fond of celebrating “more joined-up thinking,” “merging of approaches,” “mutually reinforcing agendas” and “synergy between health system strengthening and health security efforts.”
At the end of 2014, the EU made a point of declaring vaccination an important public health tool, which the European public health community interpreted as “a crucial step to strengthen EU action supporting Member States…to implement effective immunization policies and programs.” With this groundwork laid, Italy—a G7 member—volunteered to spearhead the GHSA’s Immunization Action Package and also became one of the first countries to ramp up its own vaccine mandates. With massive investments by GlaxoSmithKline in Italy, where better to start than on the home front? Although a change in government initially delayed implementation of the 2017 compulsory vaccination decree, in early 2019, citing a “surge in measles cases,” the government told Italian parents not to bother sending their youngest (under age 6) children to school if unvaccinated, and promised to impose fines of five hundred euros for older unvaccinated children attending school. Likewise, in France, “non-vaccinated children cannot be admitted to any kind of collective institutions such as nurseries, kindergarten, schools or any social activity if they have not complied with the vaccine mandates.”
With the “fortuitous” measles headwinds at their back, there is little doubt that decision-makers view mandated vaccination for school attendance as a winning strategy and that use of this strategy is growing. The WHO has done its part to help the global effort by placing measles front and center in declaring “vaccine hesitancy”—the “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate”—one of the world’s top ten health threats for 2019. Clearly, it is “game on” for those seeking to override national idiosyncracies with a one-size-fits-all global vaccination agenda.
Legislators who are contemplating new mandates but are still willing to exercise a modicum of independent judgment should recognize that we are in a situation with “echoes of WMD”—“there is no international emergency” and “policy is being hi-jacked.” Here are a handful of critical questions that legislators also should consider: …
This year’s defense spending bill – the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA – now being considered by Congress, is an unprecedented chance to regulate the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, which have contaminated hundreds of public water systems nationwide. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill include provisions to restrict PFAS discharges into water and end the military’s use of PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging.
PFAS chemicals have been used in consumer and industrial products for decades. They’re in nonstick pans, furniture and clothing treated with water- and stain-repellent finishes, fast-food wrappers and containers. It’s an overwhelming list.
An especially important provision of the NDAA would designate PFAS as “hazardous substances.” This would trigger a higher level of reporting requirements, kick-start the cleanup process and mandate that the polluting companies – not taxpayers – pay for the cleanup, instead of pointing fingers at each other and avoiding responsibility. PFAS regulation found its way into the NDAA because PFAS is commonly used in firefighting foam used by the military.
The list of PFAS-related health harms is equally long, including cancer, kidney disease, ulcerative colitis and high cholesterol. PFAS exposure has been linked in some studies to pregnancy-induced hypertension, low birth weight, shortened breastfeeding duration and reduced fertility, and reduced effectiveness of tetanus and measles vaccines. Because of their developing bodies, kids are especially vulnerable to the harmful health effects linked to PFAS.
By the end of this month, House and Senate negotiators must decide whether to include these reformsin the bill, including provisions to:
- Quickly end the military’s use of PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging.
- Restrict PFAS discharges into drinking water supplies.
- Clean up the sites with the worst contamination.
- Ensure proper disposal of PFAS waste.
- Expand PFAS monitoring and reporting.
Negotiators from the House and Senate will soon meet to decide on what’s included in the final version of the NDAA. Then it will go to the White House for signing.
What can you do to make sure your voice is heard?
- Contact your members of Congress and urge them to support PFAS reform.
- Avoid exposing yourself and your family to PFAS. Consult EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetics database and this tip sheet to see what types of products are made with PFAS.
- Find out more about PFAS in your drinking water and what you can do to filter it out.
Until Congress passes effective chemical safety laws to protect you from the newest versions of PFAS chemicals, stay away from nonstick pans, products made with Gore-Tex and Teflon, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, and anything treated with stain or water repellent.
In the early 20th century, the world’s dominant superpower looked warily on the rise of a competitor to its supremacy. The machinations of the British to contain the rise of Germany led inexorably to the First World War. Once again in the early 21st century, the world’s dominant superpower is looking warily on the rise of a competitor. Will the American Empire’s machinations to contain the rise of China lead to the Third World War? Or is the American/Chinese conflict another engineered conflict for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many? Join James Corbett as he presents “Echoes of World War I” to the Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
(Natural News) What if getting your teens to eat healthier was as easy as teaching them more about junk food and its marketing tactics? If you’re thinking that would never work, think again: A new study has shown that educating teens about junk food and how ads influence them can cut their junk food buying habits by as much as 31 percent.
That was the surprising finding made by researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. If there’s one thing teenagers hate, it’s feeling like adults are manipulating them into doing something that they want them to do, so the study used this feeling to discourage them from buying and eating unhealthy foods.
In their study, they divided more than 500 eighth-graders into two groups. The first group was given an expose-style article outlining how big food companies manipulate them into buying junk food. It painted these firms as the manipulative marketers they are, explaining how they target young people, and those with lower incomes in particular, and try to get them hooked on these foods. The second group was given an article about the benefits of eating healthy foods.
After reading the articles, those who had read the ones about the predatory marketing practices of food companies chose fewer junk foods the next day and opted for water rather than soda. A year later, they found that those who had been exposed to the expose chose healthier options for the remaining three months of their school year. Boys were particularly impacted, cutting their junk food intake by 31 percent compared to the group who read about healthy eating.
The study’s coauthor, Christopher Bryan, explained it nicely, stating: “Food marketing is deliberately designed to create positive emotional associations with junk food, to connect it with feelings of happiness and fun.??”What we’ve done is turn that around on the food marketers by exposing this manipulation to teenagers, triggering their natural strong aversion to being controlled by adults. If we could make more kids aware of that, it might make a real difference.”…
The same probably applies to teaching them something about media propaganda and how it serves the interests of its owners, its advertisers and the government agencies which dish out controlled access to privileged insider “sources”. Government PR is a low-cost feeding trough for the media, no research is needed, just infinite gullibility.
The “news” is a monstrosity derived from the conflicts of interests of every institution involved in its production. — unknown
And beyond all that is the invisible influence of secret societies, but there’s no need to make teenagers paranoid. The paranoia will come later.
The 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001. But there’s just one problem: Six out of the 10 commissioners have admitted that the commission was misled, stymied, hampered by conflicts of interest, and, ultimately, forced to participate in a politically motivated cover-up. This is the story of the doubtful 9/11 commissioners….
Show notes at: