For over a century, vaccination has been repeatedly linked to severe neurological injuries including brain damage — with many modern studies showing a 3 to 7 fold increase in common chronic illnesses
To dodge this massive liability, all research into vaccine injuries (and many other catastrophes like Agent Orange) was suppressed so that health authorities could claim there was “no evidence” of vaccine harm
Another scheme was to redefine the brain injury as “autism” rather than encephalitis (which the U.S. government was legally required to provide injury compensation for)
Previously, children with significant vaccine brain damage were referred to as “mentally retarded.” However, after a multi-decade campaign cancelled “retarded” they were instead diagnosed as autistic — a vague term which blurs severe and minor disability together, thereby effectively concealing the severe cases from the public’s awareness
This article will reveal the manipulative techniques and wordplay that have been used to conceal vaccine injuries from the public’s awareness, as now is the time when we can at last end this atrocity
I’ve long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society. Again and again, I’ve watched professional PR firms create narratives that most of the country believes, regardless of how much it goes against their self-interests.
What’s most remarkable is that despite the exact same tactics being used repeatedly on the public, most people simply can’t see it. When you try to point out exactly how they’re being bamboozled by yet another PR campaign, they often can’t recognize it — instead insisting you’re paranoid or delusional.
That’s why one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry. Once you understand their playbook — having “independent” experts push sculpted language that media outlets then repeat — it becomes very easy to spot, and saves you from falling into the traps most people do. The COVID-19 vaccines, for instance, were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime.
One of the least appreciated consequences of this industry is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns.1 This explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong” — if a belief were actually true, it wouldn’t require a massive PR investment to instill in society. Due to PR’s power, the viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out other cultural beliefs.
In this article, we’ll take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”
VIDEO: HOW AUTISM LABELS HID BRAIN INJURY (click on the image to watch at odysee.com
The Frequency of Vaccine Injuries
When vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared, chronic illnesses are 3 to 7X as common in the vaccinated individuals. Because of this, there is a longstanding embargo on ever conducting this type of research (allowing the status quo to remain that “no evidence exists” between the vaccine and the injury).
Recently, Senator Ron Johnson revealed that a robust study comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated had been conducted at a premier medical institution in 2020, but due to the results it showed, despite previously committing to publishing the paper, its authors chose not to, due to how much it violated the medical orthodoxy.
It’s important to note that beyond these results being earth-shattering, they are also entirely in line with every other long-term comparative study that has ever been done on vaccines — all of which I synopsized here (along with the characteristic signs that allow one to identify the frightfully frequent vaccine-injured children).
Erasing Encephalitis
A key theme of George Orwell’s book 1984 is that language defines a culture. If ideas aren’t present in language, the populace can’t conceive of them (which is why 1984’s ruling party eliminated words like ‘freedom’, ‘rebellion’, and ‘justice’ from the new language).
Another way language controls the public consciousness is through the use of ambiguous terms which are not clearly defined, so that depending on the needs of the situation, the audience can be steered towards the desired interpretation of it, even if those interpretations sometimes overtly contradict each other (effectively allowing the PR firm’s client to “have their cake and eat it”).
For example, Fauci was a master of using slippery language to constantly get whatever he wanted with no accountability through implying but never explicitly stating his desired conclusion (which the media would then run with).
A classic example is having everyone in lockstep assert vaccines are “safe and effective” without ever defining what that actually means, thereby allowing that meaningless statement to be treated as “vaccines are 100% safe and effective,” yet simultaneously, having no accountability for lying as those who repeat it never actually said that.
This was best demonstrated when Fauci (who continually told us the vaccine would definitely prevent us from getting COVID) was grilled at a recent Congressional hearing,2 where in response to:
“But we knew from the trials that people who got vaccinated still were subject to getting COVID, so was the COVID-19 vaccine 100% effective?”
Fauci stated:
“I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.”
Note:In a recent article I also highlighted how the ambiguous phrase “brain death” was created to make people believe unresponsive individuals were in fact dead, thereby both removing the societal cost of perpetually caring for them and securing a reliable supply of donor organs.
One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerves and brain). Prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature — including many identical to what are seen in modern-day autism.
Furthermore, it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Consider for example, the language at this 1983 debate between doctors which took place on the Donahue Show (which at the time was the largest talk show in America) — that to my knowledge was the last time a publicized debate on vaccines was allowed to happen:
Given the taboo around “retarded” that exists now, it is quite noteworthy how nonchalantly it was used there. This shift resulted from disability groups in the late 1990s and early 2000’s campaigning against “retarded,” an extensive 2008 campaign (ending the “r-word”)3 and in 2010, Obama signing a law which effectively outlawed the term by removing “mentally retarded” from all federal laws and statutes and replacing it with “intellectual disability” (something which has never been done with any other word).4
As such, the vaccine brain injuries, which made children mentally retarded were re-labeled as “autism,” while in tandem, autism was given an extremely broad and vague definition that swept over all the concurrently occurring neurological injuries.
Because of this, the stark and unmistakable impression of a severe vaccine brain injury (e.g., “you know Sue’s son became severely retarded after their 2 month vaccines”) was displaced with a much more amorphous term that was easy to write off because it was too complex and vague to think about — hence providing easy mental escapes from this uncomfortable topic, thereby making it easy to write off and close one’s mind to.
Note: The mechanisms through which vaccines cause autism are explained here.
Anytime something injures human beings (unless it’s highly lethal), less severe reactions will be much more common than severe injuries (e.g., far more were disabled than killed by the COVID vaccines5).
As such, individuals with minor neurological injuries from vaccination have changes that lightly overlap with those seen in severe injuries.
Because of this, “autism exists on a spectrum” with many of its characteristic changes being seen to lesser extents in individuals who are not severely disabled (e.g., Elon Musk has characteristic autistic traits and has admitted as such6).
Yet, rather than recognizing that the rise in autistic-like traits signals something is profoundly changing in the population — and that a smaller group may be developing severe brain damage and more extreme versions of these traits — the prevailing narrative claims the autism surge is simply due to people who were otherwise basically normal (aside from a few “autistic quirks”) being re-diagnosed as autistic.
As such, the autism epidemic is dismissed as an illusion, attributed to “selective data interpretation by anti-vaxxers” — a convenient explanation that allows many to avoid grappling with an uncomfortable possibility.
Likewise, whenever “autism” is equated to brain damage, a large chorus of people can be relied upon to denounce them by saying their (highly functional) autistic child is not brain damaged, thereby silencing and ending the actual debate (e.g., Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly done this to RFK7).
Similarly, once the societal conception of vaccine brain injuries was shifted from “mentally retarded” or “autism,” a push began to normalize autism (e.g., with terms like neurodiversity), thereby making it even more taboo to criticize the complications of this illness.
Fortunately, independent voices are beginning to sound the alarm over this issue. Gavin de Becker (a longtime advocate for vaccine safety), in an excellent newly released book points out that:
1.There is no clear definition for autism or a definitive way to diagnose much of it.
2.The same people who whitewashed the link between autism and vaccines by claiming there is “no evidence” also did the same for many other controversies, such as:
“Promoting their work on vaccine safety, an IOM spokesperson said, ‘We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines. The message I would want parents to have is one of reassurance.’
Since that’s the same ‘very little evidence’ the Government found with Agent Orange, burn pits, the anthrax vaccine, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, breast implants, and Gulf War Syndrome, I’m not sure how reassuring it ought to be to parents.“
Note: At this point, one of the primary obstacles we are facing in ending detrimental vaccine mandates is not a lack of data, but rather finding a way to reach people who are resistant to the idea that vaccines could be harmful. De Becker’s book (Forbidden Facts8) was specifically written to provide the rhetorical tools that could bring about this shift.
Autism Data
Given all of this, there are two critical, but almost never discussed data points to consider. First, one of the primary studies cited to support the argument that the rise in autism actually is due to diagnostic reclassification is a 2009 study from California9 (conducted when the word retarded was being banned). Rather than show minor traits were being relabeled as autism, it showed 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study10).
Second, while the general public has been conditioned to believe in the amorphous autism label, since this is untenable for those actually working with severely disabled children (vs. those on the spectrum), within the autism field, the two are differentiated by the terms “profound autism” and the far less severe “non-profound” autism. CDC data11 in turn, shows that roughly 26.7% of autistic children have “profound autism,” and that it is continually increasing (although at a much slower rate than non-profound autism):
However, since clarifying what autism is defeats the purpose of the label (having it be an ambiguous term that ultimately sweeps everything under the rug), this distinction is rarely if ever mentioned, and folks outside the autism community are seldom even aware of the term “profound autism” — they simply know “vaccines do not cause autism.”
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act had a large number of supporters in Congress due to a recent public recognition (made possible by the mainstream media of that era not habitually censoring pharmaceutical injury stories) that the original DPT vaccine frequently caused brain damage and severe disability.
Because of that, the act was created with the intention of fixing many of the major safety issues with vaccines and providing for injured parents to have an easier time obtaining compensation (by having the government rather than vaccine manufacturers pay for injuries), with the industry, in turn, agreeing to the act as they needed a way to be shielded from injury lawsuits that were bringing them to bankruptcy.
However, while well-intended (e.g., it put into place many critical provisions we rely upon now, like VAERS), give or take, every key provision in the act was implemented at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion. As such, once it passed, most of the things it was intended to do never happened and the overall situation instead became much worse as vaccine manufacturers no longer had any legal liability for making injurious products, hence allowing a flood of them to enter the market.
Note: This was also enabled by a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which erased a critical provision of the act that had previously allowed the public to sue manufacturers for defective products.12
As the act was structured:
•If someone was afflicted with a condition that was agreed to be linked to vaccination shortly after vaccination, the Federal government was responsible for paying compensation to them, and to do so through a “vaccine court” designed to be much easier to handle than the hostile court system parents of DPT-injured children had navigated.
Note: DPT brain injuries were so prevalent that after I posted an article on them, along with another on SIDS (a common complication of DPT), many readers shared they had witnessed the exact injuries I described following that vaccine — which, in short, is why DPT injury lawsuits were bankrupting the vaccine manufacturers.
•In the original act, after intense negotiation, a series of vaccine-linked injuries were put into it (forming the initial vaccine injury table), along with a stipulation requiring continuous research to identify other complications that could be linked to vaccination.
Since much of that was at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion, there was an incentive to never allow future research which could unveil additional injuries requiring compensation. As such, despite twelve new vaccines being added to the schedule and decades of science since 1986, virtually no additional neurological injuries have been added to the table.13
Likewise, at the time the original act was written, brain damage (encephalopathy) was a widely recognized complication of vaccination.14 Hence, this was one of the few neurological conditions for which it stipulated that coverage was required.
As such, replacing encephalopathy with “autism” (which vaccines “do not cause”) made it possible to exempt the federal government from the massive liability it faced for these ever-increasing vaccine brain injuries.
Note: One of the things many people do not realize is that most of what RFK is trying to do with vaccines (which has provoked so much hysteria from the politicians and the media) is simply what the 1986 Act required the H.H.S. Secretary to do, but none ever have.
Conclusion
Despite endless attempts by the CDC to gaslight us about the COVID vaccines, more and more of the public is now awakening to the fact that they are, in fact, killing people. This was best shown by a recent poll that found 56% of American voters believe the COVID vaccines have caused mass deaths16 along with previous ones that showed:
•Two years ago 49% believed the vaccines had caused a significant number of deaths,17 while a year ago, 53% did.18
•That 34% of vaccine recipients had minor side effects19 and 7% had major side effects.20
•Four years ago, 32% believed public health officials were lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines,21 and two years ago, 57% wanted Congress to investigate how the CDC handled assessing vaccine safety.22
Note: The earliest poll I’m aware of — conducted on stage by Charlie Kirk at a large December 2021 event — found that nearly everyone in the audience either had personally experienced or knew someone who had suffered a severe adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine and that almost all attendees knew someone they believed had died as a result of the vaccine.
Similarly, while they’ve buried the link between vaccines and autism for decades, too many have now been affected that it can’t be swept under the rug anymore. Fortunately Trump’s recent historic press conference on Autism marked a turning point many parents have waited decades for.
There, the President stated he strongly believed vaccines caused autism, correctly identified simple measures to reduce this (e.g., spacing vaccines out) and emphasized that ending this tragedy was his top priority, after which RFK Jr. stated:
“Some 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting and marginalize them, marginalizing them like prior administrations.
Some of our friends like to say that we should believe all women. Some of these same people have been silencing and demonizing these mothers for three decades because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed in the past. It will take time for an honest look at this topic by scientists.”
Now that real change is on the table, the vested interests will fight much more fiercely to protect their status quo and it is upon each of us to do all we can to work together to protect humanity’s health.
Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which goes into greater details of the points mentioned here. That article, along with additional links and references can be read here. Additionally, a companion article on how vaccines cause Autism can be read here.
A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
As the scale of what has been done to humanity continues to evolve, the mind may struggle. In becoming increasingly distressed, many people run and hide under a psychological rock of denial or willful deaf-, dumb- and blindness. This may be fine for them, briefly, even as their peers start to suffer ‘befuddling’ health collapse or even die suddenly or horribly around them.
But one solution for those of us trying to navigate the enormity of this crime against humanity, or even working to stop it, is to focus on understanding the various elements of the crime, one aspect at a time. Clearly, to us anyway, ‘public health’ has been taken over by very dark interests and is being used to advance biowarfare on a large segment of the global population.
Superficially, the military and medicine may seem to be the antithesis of each other. One sends people to kill and be killed, and the other uses doctors and nurses to save lives. But there are plenty of clues that they can be bedfellows.
The same labs, researchers, investors and grant money work on ‘dual purpose’ innovations, for instance the souped-up pathogen and its own vaccine. Public Health is often called the 4th Service, having legislated authority to invade people’s homes and bodily autonomy in some circumstances, defined (and ideally limited) by health orders. Its leaders have military titles like Director-General, even uniforms in some countries.
Quasi-militarisitic staff can quarantine and forcibly test and administer treatments against people carrying, or merely at risk of, some diseases – even at the point of a gun.
Largely we accept all this, for the ‘greater good’, based on historic infectious disease outbreaks, and a deep primal fear of contagion. But the covid era has seen gross abuses of state power, led by bureaucrats suffering a lethal combination of fear and power craziness, and medical ethics have gone down the toilet. Worse still, the public health system has been the vehicle of choice to administer biowarfare against the people who trusted it.
What is Biowarfare?
Biological warfare (BW) is defined as the intentional use of harmful biological organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi, or their products, to inflict damage on humans, animals, or plants during warfare. It is categorized as a form of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) due to its potential to cause mass casualties.
A euphemism for biowarfare research, “gain-of-function research” is defined as scientific studies undertaken “to increase the pathogenicity and transmissibility of microbes“. Pathogenicity means the severity of disease that an organism can cause. Transmissibility means the capacity of an organism to transmit between individuals.
Alongside covid-19, we have written about biowarfare in relation to a number of other scenarios being marketed to the public recently, including Mpox, Bird Flu and Disease X.
Recent Biowarfare History
The Biological Weapons Convention was ratified by multiple nations in 1975, prohibiting the “development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons“. The convention was immediately violated by many nations and lack of enforcement has allowed biowarfare research to proceed unhindered, renamed ‘gain-of-function’ to obscure the industry and its criminal activities from public attention.
As early as 2002 Dr Anthony Fauci, as Director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), admitted to his involvement in biowarfare research, including collaborations with Soviet Union defectors.
(Click on the image below for the video)
Biowarfare activities proved highly profitable for Dr Fauci and his partners at universities, health agencies, military agencies and research institutes worldwide. The business model is creation of engineered viruses which are then patented so that resulting countermeasures (diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics) can generate profit to the patent owner. Learn more about the history and evolution of biological weapons from biowarfare experts Professor Francis Doyle (Part 1) and Dr Meryl Nass (Part 2).
NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents and often profits from the sale of products it supposedly regulates. High level officials, including Dr. Fauci, receive yearly emoluments of up to $150,000 in royalty payments on products that they help develop and then usher through the approval process. ~ The Real Anthony Fauci, 2021, Robert F Kennedy Jr
A Rotten Pipeline
RFK Jr and other authors have followed the last decade’s biowarfare links between China and the US.
Although the modern use of pathogens as weapons goes back a while, spawned from cruel experiments on captives of Germany and Japan in World War 2, Dr David Martin explains here how for hundreds of years quarantine and the fear of conatgion have been used to control the masses and as an economic weapon.
The escalating emphasis on biological weapons by the world superpowers since the early Cold War was illuminated further by a large whistleblower release (into private hands) late last year. After successful decryption, this treasure trove of data, contracts and confidential reports was used to make a series of short documentary essays by our friends at Pure Media Australia.
They chart the path from an early Soviet program to attack the blood of the enemy using microbes all the way forward to designing the Wuhan bioweapon and it’s wicked icing on the cake, the covid-19 genetic injections. In particular, they lay out the sequence of the various open reading frames (sequences of DNA and RNA that encode for specific proteins) discovered, extracted or designed by the bioweapon researchers in the US, Communist China and the former USSR which all make their way, via SARS and MERS, into the world’s best known Coronavirus and its misnamed vaccines.
Of particular use to the Americans was the flood of Russian bioweapon workers who transferred their knowledge on the collapse of the Soviet Union beginning in 1989.
To further zoom in on some specifics, patents expert and bioweapons investigator Dr David Martin has reported on a 2011 collusion between Dr Fauci’s NIAID, the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The group established a mandate that by 2020 the world would ‘accept a universal vaccine’.
Dr Martin quoted bioweapons researcher Peter Daszak who claimed at a 2016 workshop on Developing Medical Countermeasures (MCMs) for Coronaviruses, that:
“Until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.
A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.“
Dr Martin alleges that as far back as 1966 the Wellcome Trust began funding research on Coronaviruses. It is no coincidence that Jeremy Farrar left the Wellcome Trust to take his position as Chief Science Officer at the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2023.
In a display of remarkable prophesy, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, a collaboration between WHO and the World Bank, warned in September 2019 that public money must be channeled towards preventing the threat of “a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released)“.
Recent incidents involving smallpox, anthrax and bird flu in some of the top US laboratories remind us of the fallibility of even the most secure laboratories, reinforcing the urgent need for a thorough reassessment of biosafety.
Covid as a Biowarfare Weapon of Mass Destruction
Dr Fauci’s status gave him the means to circumvent this moratorium. NIAID and USAID collaborated with bioweapons researchers Dr Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance and Dr Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, to transfer Dr Fauci’s coronavirus research to Dr Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
As early as January 2020 the late Professor Francis Boyle, an international law professor and biowarfare expert, warned that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a genetically modified biowarfare agent. Thankfully, despite appropriating many billions of taxpayer dollars, gain-of-function research remains extremely crude and the overall mortality rate of Covid-19 sits within the realm of influenza, mainly harming the already infirm and dying.
Not only was Covid treatable, but at least 50% of people had sufficient immunity from a previous common cold to prevent noticeable illness. It can also be said that Covid was not unusually lethal, since the mortality burden was only as bad as a normal flu season.
In an infamously fraudulent paper published in Science in March 2020 The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists collaborating with Anthony Fauci tried to discredit the evidence for laboratory manipulation. Dr Fauci has since been accused of directing the deletion of official government records, apparently hoping to erase evidence of his leadership in gain-of-function research.
One of the earliest scientists to identify laboratory manipulation of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 was friend and colleague of NZDSOS, esteemed London oncologist/immunologist/vaccine developer Professor Angus Dalgleish. Medical journals refused to publish his findings in what was at that time, a bewildering act of censorship. We have since learned that censorship and propaganda are a necessary feature of the biowarfare program, without which the world cannot be convinced that naturally occurring viruses are an existential threat, and patented products the only solution.
Shortly before his untimely death in January 2025, Professor Boyle signed a legal affidavit asserting that “COVID-19 injections, also known as “COVID-19 nanoparticle injections” and “mRNA nanoparticle injections,” are “biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction“.
Many thousands of virologists, vaccinologists and other scientists are engaged in highly lucrative biowarfare research through programs funded via collaborations between military, pharmaceutical, non governmental and medical research agencies.
Although easy to detect by often bizarre and deceitful behaviours, few will admit to biowarfare involvement openly. No doubt buoyed by the impunity of their funders Dr Fauci, Jeremy Farrar and Bill Gates, two key players in the biowarfare industrial complex have made public admissions:
Dr Ralph Baric from University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, known as the “coronavirus hunter”, published in 2016 that his gain-of-function research on SARS-like coronavirus was “poised for human emergence“. His laboratory has been implicated in multiple laboratory acquired infections (lab-leaks).
Speaking to New York University virologist Professor Vincent Racaniello in 2020, zoologist Dr Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance admitted to collecting hundreds of SARS-like viruses from bats in China, and manipulating their spike proteins to improve their ability to infect humans.
Meanwhile, evidence is now overwhelming that this narrative supports criminal activity, aimed at driving up profit and shifting power into the hands of those responsible. Population health is collateral damage at best, or deliberately harmed at worst. A September 2025 article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons summarises the evidence, including:
Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-2 Modified mRNA Biologics/Vaccines
Suppression of Information and Early Vaccine Development
Defense Medical Epidemiology Database Abnormalities
Autoimmune and Immunological Dysfunction
Hypersensitivity and Cytokine Storms
Cardiovascular Adverse Events
Reproductive and Pregnancy-Related Risks
VAERS Safety Signals and Vaccine Contamination Concerns
Surge in Aggressive Cancers
Aberrant Protein Production
Biopsychosocial and Ethical Considerations
The Future of mRNA Biologics: Promise, Risks, and Ethical Imperatives
Violations
In conclusion the authors state:
“The COVID-19 pandemic response violated core principles of public health, medical freedom, and bodily autonomy, amplifying the devastating effects of SARS-CoV-2 and its modified mRNA biologics/vaccines.
The overwhelming evidence of SARS-CoV-2’s gain-of-function origins, coupled with the catastrophic health impacts of modified mRNA COVID-19 biologics/vaccines and the unchecked expansion of next-generation mRNA biologics, paints a chilling picture of deliberate design and systemic harm. Engineered viral features and vaccines that devastate immunological, cardiovascular, reproductive, and neurological systems have driven staggering morbidity and mortality, with effects unlikely to be accidental.
Coordinated efforts to obscure these truths, enabled by liability shields and legislative failures, have worsened a global health disaster. The surge in autoimmune diseases, aggressive cancers, pregnancy losses, cardiovascular fatalities, societal fragmentation, and the looming risks of advanced mRNA platforms demand an immediate halt to mRNA vaccine and biologic use, comprehensive investigations into the motives behind this unprecedented violation of public trust, and robust measures to restore safe therapeutics and ethical public health practices.
Humanity deserves accountability, transparency, and a resolute commitment to preventing such engineered calamities in the future.“
On 2 September 2025, the Florida Chapter of NZDSOS partner, the World Council for Health, declared mRNA injections to be weapons of mass destruction. They endorse the mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act written by Dr Joseph Sansone and introduced to the Minnesota State Legislature in April 2025 recognising that mRNA products “violate existing state bioweapons and weapons of mass destruction laws“.
As predicted by Dr Joseph Sansone, momentum is building as the public become increasingly aware that they have been terribly harmed by the criminal activities of a small cartel posing as “experts”. Evidence is also now clear, even as the Pfizer contract remains unavailable for public scrutiny, that New Zealand authorities acted unlawfully in approving, let alone mandating, the dangerous Pfizer product for use on the population.
However, much of the above focuses only on the mad scientist-modified RNA aspect of the designer bioweapons. There is the now-obvious contamination with DNA plasmids (and probably other things) in the completely different product to the one trialed briefly on humans before the worlds’ regulators approved it en masse, and the widespread embalmers white clots, of which a thorough scientific analysis is currently in peer review.
It would seem the last thing Medsafe and its overseas equivalents were interested in was ensuring any safe product, let alone turning a seeing eye to Pfizer’s obvious bait and switch of Process 2 for Process 1. So they allowed – mandated even – a completely untested product onto the world’s population. Not a single Western public health entity called this out.
As within other elements of the military and intelligence apparatus, deception is a clear technique of the biowarfare-public health complex. With more than half the planet potentially having been genetically altered, it is up to us all not to get fooled again.
Note: NZ is equally silent on this topic Kiwis. Up and down ‘Clean and Green’ folk are resisting the fascist installation of this so called ‘option’ into their water supplies. It really aint rocket science. If folk want fluoride they can add it themselves. Instead we are all forced to purchase expensive filters to get rid of the poison … that is if we can even find a filter that does this. (See our Fluoride pages at the main menu)… EWNZ
In 2024, American researchers can sequence DNA from single cells, track neuron firing patterns in real time, and detect chemical signatures on distant exoplanets. The National Institutes of Health funds over 50,000 research grants annually, investigating everything from rare “genetic” disorders affecting dozens of people to the optimal spacing of highway rest stops. Yet in the seventy-nine years since America began adding fluoride to public water supplies, not one published study has examined whether this practice affects American children’s intelligence.
This absence becomes more peculiar when you consider the context. Researchers in Canada, just miles from our northern border, recently found that children exposed to fluoridated water during fetal development scored 4.5 IQ points lower than unexposed children. Mexican scientists documented similar deficits. Chinese researchers have published dozens of studies on fluoride and cognition. The 2024 National Toxicology Program review identified 72 human studies examining fluoride’s impact on intelligence—52 found harmful effects. None were conducted in the United States.
The silence isn’t accidental. It’s architectural.
What first caught my attention wasn’t the Canadian findings themselves but a footnote in the NTP review: “No studies evaluating IQ were conducted in the United States.” A simple statement of fact that raises profound questions. The country that pioneered water fluoridation, that exports this practice as public health gospel, has never checked whether it affects our children’s cognitive development. We’ve been running a population-wide “experiment” for nearly eight decades without measuring one of its most crucial potential outcomes.
This essay examines that structured absence and the shape of the silence itself. Why do certain questions become unaskable within scientific institutions? How does a research blind spot this large persist for this long? And what does this tell us about how public health orthodoxies protect themselves from empirical challenge?
The answer involves more than fluoride. It’s about how scientific communities develop collective blind spots, how research priorities get set by non-scientific forces, and how certain questions become professionally dangerous to ask. The absence of American IQ studies isn’t a gap in our knowledge—it’s a feature of how that knowledge gets produced.
Fifty-two studies found that fluoride exposure lowers children’s intelligence. Studies from China, India, Mexico, Canada, Iran, Egypt, and other nations have tested thousands of children, measuring their cognitive abilities against their fluoride exposure levels. The results follow a remarkably consistent pattern: higher fluoride, lower IQ.
The National Toxicology Program spent eight years reviewing this evidence. Their 2024 monograph runs 296 pages, examining studies dating back decades and including sophisticated recent research using individual-level biomarkers and prospective cohort designs. Their conclusion: “moderate confidence” that fluoride is associated with lower IQ in children. In the cautious language of systematic reviews, “moderate confidence” is significant—it means the available evidence indicates a real effect.
Here’s what makes the American absence extraordinary: we have ideal conditions for conducting such research. We have fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities side by side. We have sophisticated research infrastructure, from university laboratories to the Centers for Disease Control. We have detailed health records, standardized testing data, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that already measures fluoride levels in Americans’ bodies. Everything needed for rigorous studies exists—except the studies themselves.
The recent North American research makes “foreign studies don’t apply here” arguments untenable. The MIREC study in Canada found that a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in boys’ IQ scores. The ELEMENT study in Mexico found nearly identical results. These weren’t ecological studies comparing different regions with potential confounding factors. They measured individual fluoride exposure using biomarkers, controlled for numerous variables including maternal education and socioeconomic status, and used standardized IQ tests administered by trained psychologists.
The Canadian study is particularly relevant because it included both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, used the same water fluoridation levels as the United States (0.7 mg/L), and studied a population demographically similar to Americans. When the study was published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019, the editor took the unusual step of including an editor’s note about the extra scrutiny it received due to its potential impact on public health policy. The study withstood that scrutiny.
American health agencies haven’t ignored this research entirely. The NTP review itself represents years of work by American scientists. But they’re reviewing everyone else’s data. The systematic exclusion of American populations from fluoride-IQ research isn’t explicable by ordinary scientific priorities.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funds research on countless chemical exposures—air pollution, pesticides, heavy metals, flame retardants, phthalates. Many affect far fewer Americans than fluoridated water, which reaches over 200 million people. Major American universities conduct sophisticated studies on neurodevelopmental toxins. When they study fluoride, they analyze data from other countries. Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard co-authored the influential 2012 meta-analysis of Chinese fluoride studies. American researchers are clearly capable of this research—they just don’t conduct it on American children.
Section 2: The International Findings
The evidence from outside America’s borders tells a consistent story. Of the studies the NTP reviewed, the majority found inverse associations—higher fluoride exposure, lower intelligence scores. Not a single well-conducted study found that fluoride improved cognitive function.
The Chinese studies, which comprise the largest portion of this literature, have been dismissed by some as poor quality research from rural areas with industrial pollution. This criticism held more weight before recent high-quality studies from North America confirmed the same pattern. Many Chinese studies compared populations with different naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water, eliminating concerns about industrial contamination. A 2003 study by Xiang and colleagues tested 512 children, controlling for lead exposure and parental education. They found a clear dose-response relationship: each 1 mg/L increase in water fluoride corresponded to a 2.5-point decrease in IQ.
The Mexican ELEMENT study brought methodological rigor that should satisfy any skeptic. Researchers followed 299 mother-child pairs, measuring fluoride in maternal urine during pregnancy and in children’s urine at age 6-12. They tested children’s cognitive abilities using multiple validated instruments, including the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. The results showed that a 0.5 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride predicted a 2.5-point lower IQ in children.
What makes ELEMENT particularly compelling is its location. Mexico City doesn’t fluoridate its water, but fluoride occurs naturally in the groundwater and residents consume fluoridated salt. This creates a range of exposures similar to what Americans experience through water fluoridation plus dietary sources. The mothers’ urinary fluoride levels (0.90 mg/L average) were comparable to those found in pregnant women in fluoridated U.S. communities.
The Canadian MIREC study addressed one of the last refuges of skepticism—that perhaps these findings only applied to developing countries or populations with unusual fluoride sources. The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals study followed 512 mother-child pairs through pregnancy and early childhood, measuring fluoride in maternal urine during pregnancy and testing children’s IQ at ages 3-4. Canada’s water fluoridation program is essentially identical to America’s. The same companies provide the same chemicals at the same concentrations to communities on both sides of the border.
MIREC’s results were striking not just for their magnitude but their sex-specific pattern. Boys appeared more vulnerable than girls to prenatal fluoride exposure. This aligns with known patterns of male vulnerability to various neurodevelopmental toxins and suggests a biological mechanism rather than confounding. The researchers measured fluoride in drinking water, maternal urine, and children’s urine, allowing them to examine different exposure windows and routes. If fluoride affects Canadian children’s intelligence, there’s no biological reason American children would be immune.
The consistency across diverse populations suggests something fundamental about fluoride’s biological activity. Whether the exposure comes from naturally high groundwater in China, fluoridated salt in Mexico, or treated municipal water in Canada, the association with reduced IQ persists. The effect sizes vary—from 2 to 7 IQ points depending on exposure levels and study design—but the direction remains constant.
The NTP review found adverse effects at water fluoride levels of 1.5 mg/L and above, with some studies suggesting effects at lower levels. The U.S. recommended level is 0.7 mg/L, but this considers only fluoride from water, not total exposure from all sources. When researchers measure total fluoride exposure using urinary biomarkers, many individuals in fluoridated communities exceed levels associated with cognitive effects in studies.
Fluoride crosses the placenta and blood-brain barrier. It accumulates in brain tissue. Animal studies document altered neurotransmitter levels, increased oxidative stress, and structural changes in brain regions crucial for learning and memory. The biological plausibility strengthens these epidemiological findings.
Section 3: The American Silence
The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies doesn’t result from oversight or incompetence. It emerges from a complex interplay of institutional, economic, and political forces that make such research professionally hazardous and practically difficult.
Start with the timeline. The U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, before the first controlled trials were complete. This premature endorsement created institutional momentum that became self-reinforcing. By the time questions about cognitive effects emerged, thousands of communities had fluoridated their water, dental organizations had staked their credibility on the practice, and opposition to fluoridation had been successfully branded as anti-science conspiracy thinking.
The dental establishment plays a central role in maintaining this research void. The American Dental Association, which generates significant revenue from its Seal of Acceptance program for fluoride-containing products, has long promoted fluoridation as one of the “ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Questioning fluoride’s safety challenges not just a policy but a professional identity built over seven decades.
Federal agencies face their own constraints. The CDC’s Oral Health Division promotes water fluoridation. The same agency that would normally investigate potential adverse effects has an institutional commitment to the intervention. This conflict of interest isn’t hidden—it’s structural. Research funding reveals clear priorities. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research had a 2023 budget of $516 million with numerous studies on fluoride’s dental mechanisms but none on cognitive effects.
Individual researchers face powerful disincentives. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix discovered this in the 1990s when her research on fluoride’s neurotoxicity in rats led to her dismissal from the Forsyth Dental Center. Those who question fluoridation risk being labeled anti-fluoridationists, grouped with conspiracy theorists, and potentially damaging their careers.
The immediate threat of litigation creates a formidable barrier. Any researcher proposing to study fluoride’s cognitive effects must consider the legal ramifications. If their study finds harm, they could be subpoenaed in lawsuits against water utilities and municipalities. Their methodology would be scrutinized by armies of lawyers. Their personal communications could become public record. The prospect deters even well-intentioned scientists from entering this minefield.
Grant reviewers and journal editors operate within this same framework. A research proposal to study fluoride’s cognitive effects in American children would face skeptical review. Why study something already deemed safe? Even if funded and conducted, publishing such research would prove challenging. Journal editors, aware of the political implications, would subject it to extraordinary scrutiny.
The precautionary principle, typically applied to environmental chemicals, inverts when it comes to fluoride. Usually, we demand proof of safety before widespread exposure. With fluoride, we demand proof of harm before questioning the exposure. This reversed burden of proof makes sense only when you understand fluoridation as public health orthodoxy rather than scientific hypothesis.
The absence becomes self-justifying. Health agencies cite the lack of American studies showing harm as evidence of safety. But they don’t fund such studies. When pressed about international findings, they emphasize differences between American and foreign populations, different fluoride sources, or methodological limitations. The solution—conducting rigorous American studies—remains unmentioned.
Section 4: The Cost of Not Knowing
Every day, approximately 200 million Americans drink fluoridated water. If international findings apply here—and there’s no biological reason they wouldn’t—we’re accepting a population-wide IQ reduction of 2 to 5 points. The implications ripple through every aspect of society.
A 5-point IQ reduction shifts the entire bell curve leftward. The number of people with intellectual disabilities (IQ below 70) increases by 57%. The number of gifted individuals (IQ above 130) decreases by 43%. These aren’t abstract statistics—they represent real children who struggle in school, adults who can’t reach their potential, innovations that don’t happen.
The economic implications are staggering. Economists estimate that a 1-point IQ increase corresponds to roughly 2% higher lifetime earnings. A 5-point decrease means 10% lower earnings across an entire population. For a median household, that’s $6,000 less per year, $240,000 over a working lifetime. Aggregated across millions of affected individuals, the economic loss reaches hundreds of billions annually.
Educational systems bear immediate costs. Children with lower IQs require more educational support, more remedial instruction, more special education services. School districts in fluoridated communities might be spending millions on special education services that could be prevented by addressing a single environmental exposure.
The competitive implications extend internationally. China, which has extensively studied fluoride’s cognitive effects, has been reducing fluoride exposure in affected regions. European countries that rejected fluoridation decades ago may have been protecting their populations’ cognitive capacity while Americans accepted gradual impairment. In a knowledge economy, even small differences in population-level cognitive ability translate to significant competitive advantages.
Environmental justice adds another dimension. Low-income families can’t afford bottled water or sophisticated filtration systems. They depend on tap water for drinking and formula preparation. If that water contains fluoride at levels that impair cognition, poverty becomes self-perpetuating through biological mechanisms.
The prenatal window of vulnerability identified in recent studies raises particular concerns. Pregnant women receive no guidance about fluoride consumption. Women conscientiously avoiding alcohol and limiting caffeine unknowingly expose their developing babies to a potential neurotoxin through ordinary tap water consumption.
The uncertainty itself carries costs. Parents who learn about international fluoride studies face an impossible choice: accept potential cognitive risks or spend thousands on bottled water and filtration. The absence of American research leaves everyone guessing.
Like fluoride, lead was once considered beneficial at low doses. Like fluoride, lead’s neurotoxicity was dismissed until evidence became overwhelming. The difference is we eventually studied lead’s effects on American children. The research led to action that prevented millions of cases of cognitive impairment. Without American studies, we’re making population-level decisions based on assumptions rather than evidence.
Section 5: Breaking the Silence
The path forward doesn’t require abandoning water fluoridation tomorrow. It requires something more radical: actually studying its effects on American children. The research design isn’t complicated. The funding, compared to other public health initiatives, would be modest. The primary obstacle is will.
A comprehensive American study would follow pregnant women and their children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Researchers would measure fluoride exposure through multiple pathways—water, dietary sources, dental products. They would assess children’s cognitive development using validated instruments at multiple ages. They would control for confounding factors like socioeconomic status, parental education, and other environmental exposures. The MIREC and ELEMENT studies provide proven templates.
The National Children’s Study, despite its cancellation, demonstrated that large-scale longitudinal research on environmental influences is feasible in the United States. Its planned methodology could be adapted for a focused fluoride investigation. For a fraction of what was spent planning that study, we could definitively answer whether fluoride affects American children’s cognitive development.
Independent funding would be essential. Neither dental organizations nor anti-fluoridation groups should control the research. A consortium of foundations concerned with children’s health and environmental justice could provide neutral support. The study design should be transparent, pre-registered, and subject to external oversight. The results, whatever they show, should be published without interference.
Congress could mandate such research through the reauthorization of environmental health programs. The NIH could designate fluoride as a priority for neurodevelopmental research. The EPA, which regulates fluoride as a contaminant, could require cognitive assessments as part of its regulatory review. Multiple pathways exist if institutional will emerges.
The research should examine not just whether fluoride affects IQ but which populations are most vulnerable. Do certain genetic variants increase susceptibility? Are there critical windows of exposure? What levels, if any, are genuinely safe for neurodevelopment? These aren’t anti-fluoridation questions—they’re basic public health inquiries that should have been answered decades ago.
Beyond individual studies, we need institutional reform. The separation between dental and public health agencies on fluoride research must end. Environmental health researchers should have the freedom to study fluoride like any other chemical exposure without political consequences. Journal editors should evaluate fluoride research based on methodology, not politics.
The broader lesson extends beyond fluoride. When public health interventions become orthodoxies, when questioning them becomes professionally dangerous, science stops functioning. The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies represents a failure of scientific culture as much as specific institutions. Recovering that culture means creating space for uncomfortable questions, even about practices we’ve long considered beneficial.
Other countries provide models. The European Food Safety Authority conducts ongoing reviews of fluoride exposure and safety. Several nations have implemented biomonitoring programs that track population-level fluoride exposure. These approaches treat fluoride as a chemical requiring continued vigilance rather than a solved problem requiring only promotion.
The cognitive stakes demand urgency. Every year without American studies means another cohort of children potentially exposed during critical developmental windows. If international findings apply here, we’re accepting preventable cognitive impairment on a massive scale. If they don’t apply, we should have evidence showing why American biology differs from Canadian or Mexican biology.
The scientific method offers a way forward: form hypotheses, test them rigorously, follow the evidence. The hypothesis that water fluoridation at current levels doesn’t affect American children’s cognitive development is eminently testable. The fact that we haven’t tested it after 79 years reveals more about our institutions than our science.
Yet even if we had the perfect study design, independent funding, and institutional support, one question remains: Why would institutions that benefit from the current arrangement ever allow such research to proceed? The answer requires examining not just the barriers to research, but who profits from maintaining them.
Section 6: The Unasked Question
The lead industry knew for decades that their product damaged children’s brains. Internal documents from the 1950s show company scientists discussing cognitive impairment while their executives funded studies designed to obscure these effects. Government agencies, dependent on industry information and reluctant to challenge a major economic sector, avoided asking obvious questions until the evidence became undeniable. By then, millions of children had been exposed.
The fluoride situation follows a disturbingly similar pattern, with one crucial difference: instead of industry adding a neurotoxin for profit, government adds it for public health. This reversal doesn’t eliminate the structural dynamics that perpetuate potentially harmful exposures. It intensifies them.
Consider what the Canadian and Mexican studies mean if their findings apply to American populations. A 4-point IQ reduction shifts millions of people from one cognitive category to another. The person who might have become an engineer becomes a technician. The potential teacher becomes a clerk. The would-be entrepreneur becomes a lifetime employee. These aren’t dramatic impairments—affected individuals still function, work, vote, consume. But multiply these subtle shifts across 200 million people and you’ve transformed a society.
Modern governance depends on extraordinary complexity that favors those who design systems over those who navigate them. Tax codes run thousands of pages. Financial regulations require advanced degrees to understand. Healthcare policies bewilder even educated consumers. A population with reduced analytical capacity struggles to challenge these structures, not through conspiracy but through cognitive load. The complexity becomes its own protection against reform.
The economic implications align troublingly well with institutional needs. Researchers have documented that lower IQ correlates with increased impulse purchasing, higher debt accumulation, and reduced savings rates. A 2019 Federal Reserve study found that a 1-point IQ decrease corresponds to roughly 2% more credit card debt. Scale that across a population and you have billions in additional consumer spending, financed through debt that generates massive profits for financial institutions.
Political scientists have observed similar patterns in civic engagement. Lower cognitive capacity correlates with decreased political participation, increased reliance on partisan cues over policy analysis, and greater susceptibility to emotional manipulation. These aren’t moral failings—they’re predictable outcomes of reduced processing power applied to complex decisions.
Every institution needs some highly capable individuals to design and manage systems, but too many critical thinkers create friction. A workforce where most people can follow procedures but fewer can evaluate them might be economically optimal from a management perspective. Nobody plans this distribution, but policies that slightly reduce population-wide cognitive capacity create it naturally.
The information ecosystem reveals another alignment of interests. Social media companies have perfected algorithms that exploit cognitive limitations—shortened attention spans, emotional reasoning, confirmation bias. These manipulations work better on people with reduced analytical capacity. Educational institutions face their own perverse incentives. Schools receive additional funding for special needs students requiring remediation but not for gifted programs that challenge high performers.
Federal agencies demonstrate through their behavior what they actually prioritize. The EPA regulates thousands of chemicals, often based on limited evidence of potential harm. Yet fluoride, added deliberately to water supplies, receives special deference. Research funding reveals priorities more honestly than policy statements. The NIH funds thousands of studies on environmental neurotoxins but none on fluoride’s cognitive effects in Americans.
Here’s where the liability dynamic becomes systemic rather than merely financial. The fear of lawsuits doesn’t just deter individual researchers—it shapes entire institutional cultures. Water utilities don’t merely avoid funding cognitive research; they develop organizational blindness to the question. Municipal lawyers don’t just defend against lawsuits; they advise against any action that might acknowledge uncertainty. Insurance companies don’t just calculate risks; they create incentive structures that reward ignorance over investigation.
This dynamic—where ignorance protects against liability—perverts normal scientific incentives. In most fields, researchers compete to make discoveries. With fluoride, institutional survival depends on not discovering. The potential damages from millions of children with documented IQ loss could reach hundreds of billions. Under these circumstances, not knowing becomes an institutional imperative, embedded in hiring practices, research priorities, and organizational culture.
None of this requires conscious conspiracy. Each actor pursues their institutional interests within a system that happens to reward cognitive impairment. The banker profits from impulsive borrowers. The bureaucrat benefits from compliant citizens. The educator receives funding for remedial programs. Nobody has to coordinate because the incentives align naturally.
The self-concealing nature of cognitive impairment makes this particularly insidious. A population with reduced analytical capacity is less able to recognize and articulate that reduction. They can’t identify patterns they can’t perceive. They can’t question complexities they can’t grasp. The system becomes self-perpetuating, not through suppression but through incapacity.
The historical parallel with lead is instructive but incomplete. With lead, once the cognitive effects became undeniable, society mobilized to remove it. With fluoride, the cognitive effects documented internationally trigger no similar response. The difference might be that lead exposure was largely corporate-driven while fluoride exposure is government-driven. Admitting error becomes exponentially harder when the error is official policy rather than corporate malfeasance.
The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies isn’t a mystery—it’s a choice. A choice made by institutions that prioritize orthodoxy over inquiry, by researchers who value careers over questions, by agencies that confuse promotion with protection. The international evidence demands American verification or refutation. The stakes demand immediate action. The silence has lasted long enough.
Seventy-nine years into this experiment, it’s time to check the results.
References
Bashash, M., Thomas, D., Hu, H., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Sanchez, B. M., Basu, N., … & Téllez-Rojo, M. M. (2017). Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6–12 years of age in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(9), 097017.
Bassin, E. B., Wypij, D., Davis, R. B., & Mittleman, M. A. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 17(4), 421-428.
Choi, A. L., Sun, G., Zhang, Y., & Grandjean, P. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10), 1362-1368.
Green, R., Lanphear, B., Hornung, R., Flora, D., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Neufeld, R., … & Till, C. (2019). Association between maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ scores in offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(10), 940-948.
National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program. (2024). NTP monograph on the state of the science concerning fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment and cognition: A systematic review. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph 08.
Xiang, Q., Liang, Y., Chen, L., Wang, C., Chen, B., Chen, X., & Zhou, M. (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 36(2), 84-94.
Yu, X., Chen, J., Li, Y., Liu, H., Hou, C., Zeng, Q., … & Wang, A. (2018). Threshold effects of moderately excessive fluoride exposure on children’s health: A potential association between dental fluorosis and loss of excellent intelligence. Environment International, 118, 116-124.
While Kiwis celebrate on November 5th a personage few even really know about now (Guy Fawkes) others remember the long concealed invasion of peaceful Parihaka in the Taranaki. GF has been replaced it would appear, by Halloween going by more recent hype.Here is a post on topic by historian, Vincent O’Malley focusing on the South Island’s involvement in this particular government land grabbing operation ..
SEE ALSO … Art Exhibition ‘The Art of Passive Resistance’ (Wgtn 2001). Click on the various links to see the individual art works and read the commentaries. It was this exhibition that awoke me to the govt land grabbing of the 19th Century. It’s happening now you may have noticed?.. EWNZ
Parihaka & Waipounamu: Remembering the Anniversary of the Invasion of Peaceful Parihaka
The invasion of the pacifist settlement at Parihaka on this day in 1881 is a pivotal moment in Taranaki history. What’s less well known are the southern connections to the conflict, as historian Vincent O’Malley explains.
It’s often assumed that the 19th-century New Zealand Wars fought between the Crown and various groups of Māori were exclusively a Te Ika-a-Māui (North Island) story. But, in addition to the violent clash that took place at Wairau, Marlborough, in June 1843, there is a much deeper, if largely unknown, history of southern engagement with these conflicts.
Military settlers were recruited from Te Waipounamu (South Island) goldfields to fight in the Waikato and elsewhere during the 1860s in return for a share of the confiscated lands. And Ōtautahi (Christchurch) politicians such as Henry Sewell and James Edward FitzGerald were members of colonial governments that were responsible for directing the later military campaigns and land takings, even while they expressed doubts about the justice of what was unfolding.
There is another aspect to this story with a particular focus on Taranaki. Beginning at Waitara in March 1860, Taranaki Māori were subjected to a relentless series of invasions and attacks that continued to play out more than two decades later.
As successive governments sought to implement a policy of “creeping confiscation”, it was, at different points, considered useful to remove Māori from the area. The Chatham Islands had previously been used to imprison Māori from the Tairāwhiti (East Coast) region. When it came to Taranaki Māori, Te Waipounamu was selected instead.
In November 1869, a group of 74 men from the Pakakohi tribe in Taranaki, convicted of treason for resisting the confiscation of their lands under the leadership of the prophet Riwha Tītokowaru, were sent to Ōtepoti (Dunedin).
They were sentenced to hard labour and put to work constructing roads, school playing fields, and even improvements to the Octagon. But in the harsh and unfamiliar climate, many of the group became ill; 18 men had died during their captivity in the south before the government finally agreed to commute the sentences of the survivors in 1872.
Returning north again aboard the government steamer Luna in March of that year, the party of survivors made a stopover at Ōhinehau (Lyttelton). More than 50 of their number travelled by train to Christchurch, where their appearance was said to have startled several shopkeepers and “caused considerable speculation amongst the citizens”, despite their “modern civilian attire”.
Seven years later, another group of Māori political prisoners from Taranaki was sent south.
In 1879, the government pushed through with a survey of lands that had been nominally subject to confiscation 14 years earlier, but were in practice occupied and used by Māori. That May, the people of Parihaka began ploughing up surveyed lands in the area, in an act of non-violent resistance led by prophets Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi.
They had founded the settlement of Parihaka in the 1860s as a place of refuge for all those affected by war and confiscation and soon attracted supporters from Taranaki and beyond. But the actions of the Parihaka ploughmen drew an angry response from settlers in the area, and, by June, the government began arresting them. Denied trials, the prisoners were instead sent to Dunedin.
The people of Parihaka remained undeterred. By June 1880, the ploughmen had been replaced by fencers. They, too, were promptly arrested and imprisoned in the South Island without trial. This time, there were too many to send to Dunedin alone. While some were taken south to Otago, around 40 were imprisoned at Hokitika.
An aerial view of Ripapa Island. (Photo: V.C. Browne & Son, undated.)
And, in September 1880, approximately 160 of the prisoners were taken to Whakaraupō (Lyttelton Harbour) and imprisoned on the small island of Ripapa. In December, it was reported that many of the prisoners had been punished for being “unruly and defiant” by having their daily rations reduced to bread and water.
Meanwhile, within weeks of their arrival, at least one local firm was advertising special excursion trips down the harbour designed to “afford persons an excellent opportunity of viewing the Maori prisoners at Ripa Island”. Māori misery had become a Pākehā spectator sport. The price was 1 shilling and 6 pence per passenger.
It’s not known exactly how many Taranaki prisoners died during their captivity on Ripapa Island. Buried on Ōtamahua (Quail Island), where there were hospital facilities, they were later reinterred at Rāpaki by members of local Ngāi Tahu hapū Ngāti Wheke.
For them, Ripapa Island (which had been used by the government as a quarantine station since 1873) was a wāhi tapu because of the many people killed there during the Musket Wars of the 1830s. In January 1881, the remaining 149 prisoners were moved from Ripapa to Lyttelton Gaol in order to “subject them to more rigid restriction”.
Small groups of prisoners were released in batches over the following months, and by June, the last of them had been freed.
Images of Tohu and Te Whiti by John Patrick Ward in 1883. (Alexander Turnbull Library)
Back home at Parihaka, prophets Te Whiti and Tohu were no more willing to end their campaign of non-violent resistance to the confiscation of 1.2 million acres of Taranaki lands.
The Crown’s response came on November 5, 1881, when, led by Native Minister John Bryce riding a white charger, nearly 1,600 members of the armed constabulary and volunteers (including some from Christchurch) invaded the settlement.
One journalist who witnessed proceedings reported that: “The whole spectacle was saddening in the extreme; it was an industrious, law-abiding, moral and hospitable community calmly awaiting the approach of the men sent to rob them of everything dear to them.”
Te Whiti, Tohu and several others were seized without resistance and the remainder of the population forcibly dispersed. Many women were raped, and the settlement was pillaged and destroyed.
After an inconclusive trial in Ngāmotu (New Plymouth), where Te Whiti and Tohu were accused of “wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously contriving and intending to disturb the peace”, it was decided to send the prophets south to Christchurch.
They arrived at Lyttelton on April 26, 1882, to a large crowd of spectators, and were immediately transferred to Addington Gaol, where they were held in the women’s section. Plans to put the prophets on trial again in Christchurch were soon jettisoned. Instead, the pair were held under what one historian describes as “a form of honourable restraint” and another as “a gentlemanly kind of house arrest”.
An Australian-born Irishman named John P Ward, who’d served in some of the most brutal campaigns in Taranaki and picked up some ability in te reo Māori during his time in the north, was appointed as interpreter and personal jailer to Te Whiti and Tohu (though he never told them of his military service). Ward subsequently wrote Wanderings with the Maori Prophets, a colourful, if unreliable, narrative of the 11 months he spent accompanying the two men before they were finally permitted to return home to Taranaki in March 1883.
Accompanied by Ward, Te Whiti and Tohu were taken to multiple sites across Christchurch and Canterbury, each designed to impress upon them the wonders of western civilisation. One of the first places visited was Canterbury Museum, where the prophets were met by curator Julius von Haast. From there, they travelled across to Christ Church Cathedral, ascending the tower as far as the bells to take in a panoramic view of the settlement below them.
Both men were said to have gazed longingly towards the sea, visible at a distance. Visits to the Kaiapoi woollen factory, to the theatre, Addington railway workshops, Hagley Park, and elsewhere, followed. Later asked to name a favourite place visited, Te Whiti opted for somewhere simpler, calling the Ōtākaro (Avon River) the highlight of his stay.
Te Whiti and Tohu happened to be in Christchurch during the International Exhibition, a three-month-long showcase of science, technology, commerce, art and civilisation that attracted an estimated 226,000 visitors.
There, and elsewhere in their travels, the pair attracted a large and often admiring crowd of their own, many following the men as they inspected the art gallery, waxworks, “Ladies Court”, “Maori Court” and other exhibits. At least one report noted that some of those who had turned out to see the rangatira were Māori. The warm reception they were receiving prompted the New Zealand Herald to complain that “Christchurch people are having the gratification of lionising Te Whiti and Tohu, all at the Government expense”.
The two Māori prophets travelled much further afield during their stay in the South Island — including journeys to Hakatere (Ashburton), Temuka, Timaru, Oamaru, Dunedin, Tāhuna (Queenstown), Waihōpai (Invercargill), and around to Te Tai o Poutini (the West Coast) on steamer, followed by six months housed in Whakatū (Nelson). But it seems doubtful that Te Whiti and Tohu came away from their extended stay in Te Waipounamu with any sense of the supposed superiority of Pākehā culture.
On their return to Parihaka, the two men immediately threw themselves into rebuilding the settlement into the vibrant and thriving place it had once been, before te rā o te pāhua (“the day of the plunder”) in November 1881.
Te Whiti and Tohu had never rejected western technology or ideas — Parihaka went on to become one of the first settlements in New Zealand with electricity and street lighting — and in this respect their detention in Christchurch and elsewhere in the South Island had not fundamentally altered their outlooks. But it was a compelling chapter in the story of the New Zealand Wars in Te Waipounamu.
The Parihaka monument at Rāpaki urupā, Te Whaea Whakamomori – The suffering of mothers. The southern connections to Parihaka are acknowledged by Ngāti Wheke and the wider community with annual remembrance services at Rāpaki each November 5 — near this memorial to those who were held and imprisoned on nearby Ripapa. The memorial was unveiled in March 2000, when a 300-strong hīkoi from Taranaki travelled to the settlement.
This is a lightly edited version of a piece which was first published in Bulletin by Te Puna o Waiwhetū Christchurch Art Gallery. The original, fully-referenced version can be read here.
Vincent O’Malley is a Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington writer and historian, born and raised in Ōtautahi Christchurch.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we’re a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
RELATED
In 2024, The National Library site featured a blog post on topic titled ‘Remembering Parihaka’, by Dylan Owen.
“For Taranaki Māori, 5 November 1881 is known as ‘Te Rā o te Pāhua’ or the ‘Day of Plunder’. The invasion of Parihaka — te pāhuatanga — involved 1500 armed constabulary and volunteers led by the Native Affairs Minister, John Bryce.”
Jamaica is moving toward becoming a UN-backed smart city under its Vision 2030 development plan, a long-term blueprint running from 2009 to 2030 that aims to make the island “the place of choice to live, work, raise families, and do business.”
Aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the initiative integrates Artificial Intelligence, Central Bank Digital Currency, and carbon pricing policies.
The Weirdest Storm Path of any Hurricane in Recorded History
This Alt Media platform has been closely watching Hurricane Melissa since its very inception. From the beginning, even before it was classified as a tropical depression, Melissa possessed all the signatures of a highly geoengineered frankenstorm.
Quite predictably, NOAA has removed the entire trajectory of this transparently manufactured superstorm from the National Hurricane Center website. Because of Melissa’s absurdly manipulated path from the very start, they really had no choice as geoterrorism investigators and weather warfare researchers would have easily exposed the plot by its very odd behavior.
As it stands at 6:30 AM this morning, Tuesday, Oct. 28, this deliberately slow-moving weather weapon has been stationed right over the island to Jamaica to inflict maximum damage (see the following screenshot). And so it is.
Here’s how Melissa was tracking on Sunday, October 28th before the murderous geoengineers executed a 90 degree angle to slam her right into the center of the southern Jamaican coastline.
Now we see that Melissa has mysteriously produced the “driest tropical eye ever recorded”.
“NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft measured the driest eye ever recorded at –4.75 °C (23 °F), which is a sign of a perfectly ventilated eyewall. This is one of the most efficient Hurricanes we’ve ever sampled with modern technology!”
That data point alone proves that this act of catastrophic geoterrorism is the product of the most advanced DARPA-directed weather warfare technology on the planet today.
Furthermore, let’s not ignore these incriminating data points pointing to a full-blown weather attack and geoterrorist operation being perpetrated against the people of Jamaica and Cuba (as usual).
As for “WHY NOW?”, it ought to be obvious to everyone at this late date that whenever these NWO geoterrorists fabricate such a captivating weather drama like Melissa, there is a great need for the globalist cabal to distract US from something very BIG that’s going on under the radar. Incidentally, the following UPDATE #1 is not that “something”.
To be continued —
UPDATE #1
“There is a lot of speculation within the global intel community that the main purpose of this calamitous geoterrorist attack is to completely monopolize Mission Barrio Adentro, which is the name of the program involving Cuba’s medical professionals assisting Venezuela. In this way, those doctors and nurses and med techs will not be available to help Maduro’s military in the event of an unprovoked attack of naked aggression by the U.S. Armed Forces at the direction of the warmongering President Trump.”
— A Veteran Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Military Officer
N.B. What follows are the usual MSM reports that are hyping the 175 mph winds just prior to landfall. If this wind speed is accurate, then Mega Hurricane Melissa is practically a hurricane-tornado just like weather weapon Hurricane Michael when it devastated a large swath of north Florida in October of 2018.
Prime Minister Andrew Holness of Jamaica issued dire safety warnings and ordered mandatory evacuations as Hurricane Melissa, a Category 5 storm channeling 175 m.p.h. winds and enough moisture to drop nearly three feet of rain, made a turn toward his country’s southern coast and its 2.8 million people on Monday.
Speaking on CNN, Mr. Holness offered a grim outlook, saying that he did not believe there was “any infrastructure within this region that could withstand” a storm that powerful.
This statement is made within correspondence in 1994 by an Eltham resident (NZ) to a US manufacturer of 1080 (details supplied in the document at the end of the article). The person was trying to ascertain the level of risk to environment and health regarding an imminent drop of 1080 poison into a Taranaki National Park.
It is interesting to note that the replies to all the risks the person raises in their questions are risks that are now deemed quite safe & have become normalized (to the authorities at least that is – many people are now very concerned, witness the recent hikoi & continual NZ wide protests going on).
Here are the questions and answers enlarged for reading:
Nowadays we are told that 1080 targets pests and we are given the impression that little if any other form of wildlife is affected. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. A person told me recently in the Manawatu that she was told no birds would die in the bush nearby when it was 1080ed however to her surprise she found a dead bird after the area was treated. Of course we now know that this is a common occurrence by the testimony of many people who find multiple dead birds after drops, photograph them & post them online. And of course we have the various documentations that we’ve published here of multiple finds, with latterly the estimate by a Landcare scientist of 10,000 birds in a South Island drop. Just search ‘birds, 1080’ in our search box to find more.
We are regularly told that 1080 breaks down to harmlessness in water. A scientist told me the other day it is so diluted it isn’t a problem, repeating the cup of tea mantra we hear so regularly. We also learned recently it was added to water to poison ships rats and we heard from the former Greens co-leader that there are question marks over the official testing on 1080 concentrations in water.
This is very enlightening. No wonder the data sheets tell us not to allow it into waterways. However NZ it seems makes up their own rules on that one. No research to prove their point, they just tweaked the rules. Here is a link to the information regarding the development of 1080 by Germany for use as a chemical weapon in water supplies.
Not approved in the US! “Very very restricted & controlled areas” only. And here it is chucked around like a veritable lolly scramble. The baits aren’t picked up off public walkways & neither are the poisoned animals collected & disposed off, frequently left to rot in the water where eels and other meat eaters can feed off them (Watch Poisoning Paradise on that one).
Remember the Hunua Ranges drop recently? A Court injunction to stop that one failed & during the proceedings DoC lawyers asked (and were granted) that the opposing lawyers not be allowed to question the DoC scientist. Now doesn’t that say something? Let’s not forget Bill Benfield’s revelation either that a drop in the Hunuas in the ’90s left the water filters packed with 1080 pellets. Good one DoC. And none of the public ever got to hear about it.
Previously I’ve noted the frequent discovery of pellets on tracks, drops going on around tourists, pellets dumped near people fishing, on it goes. The veritable lolly scramble again.
Water & wildlife contamination. Something we are repeatedly told does not happen. The manufacturer’s data sheet warns users not to drop into waterways. NZ has tweaked the rules of course so they can.
You may need to make your own decisions on all of that & make your own plans for non-contamination if necessary. It does not look like anybody else is going to.
Here are the whole pages of the documents with addresses & contact details:
NZ’s Dept of Conservation would have us believe 1080 targets pests only. One aerial drop in Otago in the South Island in 2002 revealed an officially estimated 10,000 native bird deaths! Search Kea in the search box (right of page) for further info on Kea deaths due to aerial 1080 poisoning … EWNZ
Dr Jo Pollard, BSc (Hons), PhD
Posted by Carol Sawyer
(Published in the Greymouth Star, 10 March, 2020)
In 1979 scientist Eric Spurr warned that wide scale poisoning of New Zealand with compound 1080, intended to kill introduced mammals, was actually killing kea and many other animals. It took decades before NZ’s Department of Conservation (DoC) finally began to monitor kea deaths from 1080 poisoning.
Now, using DoC’s own data, we can estimate that each poisoning operation will kill an average 12% of kea.
During the most horrific example DoC managed to kill 78% of the tracked kea population (7 of 9 kea monitored at North Okarito). Last month, in the Matukituki Valley, 50% of DoC’s monitored kea died after a 1080 drop.
Disturbingly, two myths have again been rolled out in an attempt to soothe public anger over the destruction of these now rare, iconic birds.
Myth 1. Kea are only likely to eat baits if people have conditioned them through providing food previously. DoC’s own research shows that this is not true. 9% of monitored kea (2/22) died at Kahurangi, a site chosen by DoC precisely because of its remoteness.
The fallacy of this claim is clear to anyone with experience of kea. They are curious to examine and pull anything new apart – as motorists will often attest after even the briefest of encounters with these inquisitive creatures. Scientists consider that this trait is likely an adaptation to living in a harsh environment, where food can be very hard to find, especially in winter (when 50% or more of kea juveniles are likely to die of starvation). Before the advent of DoC, helicopters and a toxin designed to kill everything from microbes to mammals, a willingness to try a new food source undoubtedly played a key role in the birds’ survival.
Myth 2. Kea nests need protection from stoats and 1080 poison provides that protection. Two studies have shown that the presence of stoats does not bother kea (in 1969, then again in 1999). Even if stoats were a problem for kea, 1080 would not fix the situation, quite the reverse. Scientists found that stoats became more likely to eat birds after 1080 drops. Why? Because rats, a primary source of food for the stoats, have been almost wiped out.
Mice do not usually eat 1080 baits so, in the absence of hungry rats, their numbers boom in the aftermath of a 1080 drop – a fact easily established by a review of the literature. Rat numbers, usually low immediately after 1080 operations, rebound strongly within months – often peaking at figures far higher than were present pre-drop. The population booms of mice and rats that are caused by 1080 drops are never highlighted by DoC, although they are easily seen in many studies. Those booms are likely to fuel stoat plagues as a new generation of mustelids arrives to find a larder overflowing with rodents.
Journalist Dave Hansford last year made the dubious claim that because of the “benefit” of 1080 to kea breeding, up to 22% of kea could die before there would be a net loss (Spinoff, August 2019). A 50% death rate would surely be tragic then, even to a journalist with an extreme pro-1080 bias!
Nature lovers should be very concerned because the monitoring of kea throughout 1080 drops is unique. No other native species: microbe, plant, insect or bird has been given even a tiny fraction of the attention or resources that have been used to monitor kea. 1080 is broad spectrum, highly toxic, spreads rapidly, travels up food chains, binds to cellulose and has extreme, unexpected effects. What is happening to everything else that lives in our forests, wetlands, grasslands and mountain tarns?
1080 poison may have a dual function for DoC. Not only does it attract an enormous amount of government funding, its use may help divert concern away from other ways in which vital habitat is being lost through poor management and financial interests. Examples are DoC’s approving high quotas for tourist helicopter flights (80 per day were planned for the remote Darran mountains) and the continued mining of conservation land (despite government promises to curb it).
The public needs to wake up to the fact there is no “science” behind DoC’s aerial poisoning. Mast-driven rodent plagues, often used to justify aerial poisoning, have been around since the time of the kiore. They are part of a general, short term increase in productivity including bird breeding. Effects are not something DoC needs to try to control with aerial poison, it should follow the evidence and stop blindly interfering in a process that it is simply not equipped to control.
Healthy populations of native birds, such as mohua and kakariki, lived in many places around the South Island until DoC started “helping” them by interfering with nests and trapping out the main rat predator (stoats). Rat numbers escalated, bird numbers plummeted, then broad spectrum 1080 poison was applied.
DoC’s science-less management shows a complete lack of respect for NZ’s ecological heritage and the legal mandate it holds to conserve it. Kea, much loved and admired, seem destined for the same fate as other species that have suffered from DoC’s “helping hand”. DoC needs to leave them and everything else alone, now.
“We have a population that has been poisoned for at least 100 years straight, on an ever-increasing scale, with the end goal being the complete theft of all public assets, or as many assets as the ruling group can get away with. “
The great weakening is something I’ve written and talked about extensively. The great poisoning is something Catherine Austin Fitts has talked about extensively. They’re both basically the same concept. We’re all living inside what’s often referred to as 5th generation warfare, which is a major advancement above conventional warfare strategy.
For anyone who doesn’t understand 5th generation warfare, please allow me to explain. In regular warfare (from 4th generation warfare backwards), we would see an invading force (usually motivated by theft) coming into an area they don’t yet govern, with the intention of enriching themselves via the resources of that invaded area. Within old style conventional warfare, the assets that the invading force were targeting to steal, often get destroyed. That’s the big drawback of conventional warfare. If you’re going to start a war and steal other people’s resources, which aren’t rightfully yours (and you’re going to risk everything involved with that) you certainly don’t want those prized resources getting destroyed as you’re invading.
Obviously, this older method of war isn’t so profitable in many situations, where the war itself destroys the assets that you’re trying to steal. That’s where 5th generation warfare comes into play and why it’s so popular today.
In 5th generation warfare, you use psychological manipulation, mind control, brainwashing and behavior modification to trick the people you’re targeting….to destroy themselves and destroy every form of strength they could ever use to resist your invasion. After that (which can often take decades to accomplish), with the public’s wealth and assets intact, you send in the cleanup crew to fully take over the area. You make the people too weak, too dumb, too fat, too addicted and too apathetic to fight back…..even if their full enslavement is implemented right in front of them.
Just an FYI update…. you’re now living in the last stages of a 5th generation warfare takeover attempt. In conventional warfare, you would always know that you were being invaded because of the bombs, the infantry, the barbwire, the missiles, the tanks and the explosions. With 5th generation warfare it’s the ever-growing number of Starbucks stores, the Coca-Cola trucks, the vaccine clinics, the chemtrails, the toxic beauty care products, the Teflon pans, the fluoride toothpaste, the mercury teeth fillings, the mammograms, the pesticide laden nonorganic food everywhere at the grocery store etc. With 5th generation warfare, it’s all about a gradual slow-motion slide into a full-spectrum weakening operation of the human body, mind, soul, spirit and bank account.
The great weakening is a government and media endorsed living model…..based on perpetual pleasure seeking, self-gratification, gluttony and hedonism. The vast majority of people in the Western world today (especially in Canada, Australia, the UK and the United States) are excessively overweight, brain damaged, weak, diseased and financially broke. (living pay cheque to pay cheque, where one small financial emergency could wipe them out completely) This is all by design.
No human can end up this broken if they live within their natural habitat. This is all socially engineered. This is the result of “the mind control based great weakening”. Well over 50% of Western populations are too overweight, sick, broke and apathetic to defend themselves……as is the goal of any 5th generation warfare operation. The overweight, wheel chaired, handicapped, brain damaged, toxic and addicted population isn’t natural. What we see in our cities today is the result of 5th gen warfare.
Oddly enough, this 5th gen warfare model has been applied more to the United States population than any other country, simply because the US contains the most asset wealth to steal. 70% of US adults are now obese or overweight. 50% of US children are now in the same boat. Most are addicted to cycles of perpetual self-destruction, using their bodies as disposable fun factories from which they extract max perpetual pleasure……using a very wide array of the state and media sponsored fun chemicals. (caffeine, alcohol, junk food, narcotics, medical narcotics, sugar, tobacco, screen entertainment etc.)
But that’s not the only way “the great weakening” has been implemented, upon a completely uninformed population. Most people genuinely believe that they’re just living a great, sedated, fun and distraction-based lifestyle. Most folks equate their absolute destruction via poison as “the good life“. The person poisoning themselves the most on social media is adored and admired. The public poisoners who celebrate their love of poisons get the most likes, comments and shares…..via their never-ending alcohol selfies. The average person (especially in the US) doesn’t know that the cleanup crew is about to be sent in.
The US government (for example) isn’t sending the national guard, to many major American cities, to fight crime. That’s the easily digestible excuse, handcrafted so that the average TV watcher cheers on and endorses what was always planned to occur. The complete collapse (financial to begin) is coming and that’s when the national guard in the US will take full control of everybody, regardless if democrat or republican. This isn’t a blue vs red political party issue either. A population this unhealthy can’t survive and was never intended to survive. The US is the most asset laden country on the planet and its population is 70% obese and overly medicated. What did you think was going to happen and do you really think this is all one big accident? Please, people…….it’s no accident. The great poisoning is now about to transform into THE GREAT TAKING…..as is clearly outlined in the documentary of the same name. The asset theft has been going on a long time and is about to accelerate dramatically. It will be like taking candy from a baby, literally.
As I review where we all sit right now, please keep in mind that this is a) all by design b) was purposely socially engineered over the last 100 years and c) is now too severe to fix or remedy. What’s coming is coming. Solutions and safe positions will only be available to people who know what’s happening and why it’s happening.
Let’s quickly review. We have a population that has been poisoned for at least 100 years straight, on an ever-increasing scale, with the end goal being the complete theft of all public assets, or as many assets as the ruling group can get away with. The younger the person is, the sicker they are in general. (mostly because they’ve received the most injected poison of our population) The school system has purposely dumbed down the children, where many have lost their will to live, their genetic self-preservation mechanisms are almost extinguished. Seniors are being purposely euthanized in our hospitals. Canada’s MAID program (Medical Assistance in Dying) is expanding its reach. MAID is now being offered to more and more people, as they simply enter Canadian hospitals looking for basic medical care. If you’re weak and poisoned (and are still walking above ground), the system is being continually engineered to flush you right down the toilet. Saying that, there are obvious solutions that will end in you making it through all this with flying colors.
Logically, if the ruling group’s agenda is poisoning and weakening….the solution is health and strengthening. Simple stuff. What’s really important to understand is that most people are poisoning and weakening themselves because they’re under mind control. Now, if you think that’s far-fetched, please consider this, If you click here, you can watch a mind control expert brainwash 75% of the people he was targeting, to murder another person……….LIVE on camera. If you click here, you can watch another mind control expert brainwash another person to forget his own name. If you click here, you can watch another mind control expert brainwash a lady named Carol, to believe she’s a man named Bob. Brainwashing you to poison yourself is a snap.
The mind control experts cited above use the same brainwashing tactics that your social engineers use to trick you to poison and weaken yourself. This is why it’s so hard for most people to stop poisoning themselves and why their addictions seem so strong……..because we’re all being brainwashed and mentally manipulated to poison and weaken ourselves every day.
This way, as we take ourselves out, we believe that there’s something personally wrong with us. We believe our dysfunction and failure in life is organic to us. We blame ourselves and think we’re broken. Blaming ourselves is perfect for the mind control experts who puppeteer our addictions and failures into us from behind our screens. The truth is that there’s nothing wrong with us whatsoever. If we succumb to the media mind control and become weak, addicted, overweight and broke……we’re actually working as designed.
Free will, determination and self-control have very little to do with becoming stronger and healthy. The first thing you’ll need to know, in order to break free, is to fully understand how mind control works. With this key knowledge you can brainwash yourself into a better life……as your social engineers try to continually brainwash you into a terrible life. You can indeed win the mind control battle, which most people don’t even know is raging all around them.
That’s where your new life starts. Their agenda is weakening and poisoning. Your personal agenda will now be strengthening and health. It’s that simple. But again, you need to learn the basics of mind control, brainwashing, psychological manipulation and behavior modification……before you begin your journey upwards into the stronger and healthier version of you. This is all I teach. All my programs and writings are dedicated to making my students stronger and healthier, on all levels. Let me tell you how I will do this for you.
I’ll make you stronger financially by showing you everything you need to know to start your own business, as a Certified Overcoming Self Sabotage Coach. I know that scares you. That’s why I’ll first teach you how to brainwash that fear out of you. It’s easy. All our beliefs are programs, and you can change your programs at any time. I’ll make you super strong with your health as well. You’ll lose weight, tone up and get in super shape. I have diets, exercise programs and healthy living guides all ready to go for you. I know that scares you too. That’s why I’ll first brainwash that fear out of you as well. I’ll make you strong on all levels. Even though I know all that’s really scary, to change into a super powerful version of yourself in a very short amount of time, I actually have a very large brainwashing library….so you can reprogram yourself into any super strong version of yourself that you desire. You can use mind control for positive changes as well. That’s what I do and teach. That’s what I’ll teach you to do as well. After that, you’ll go out and teach others how to do the same. We strengthen the world as a team. That’s how we win.
Are you ready to step into a strong and healthy version of yourself…….and have someone like me guide you every step of the way? If you said yes, just click here or email me at info@jchristoff.com. This one-of-a-kind program starts this Saturday (Oct 25th 2025) and we’re already 81% full, with only 19 spots left of the 100 we offer. It’s close to opening day and I would love to see you in our opening day online ceremony. Anyone can afford to join because of our new payment plan. This program is rapid, effective and super entertaining. Come work with me LIVE online from anywhere in the world. I hope to see you this Saturday. Let’s get better together.
It had been an unusually busy day in the hospital last weekend— far busier than expected for Fall. The kind of day that makes you think ahead to winter and wonder how intense it’s going to get!
There was nothing particularly special about the day itself. Just another long hospital day filled with patients, decisions, and the usual challenges of hospital medicine. But as always, one thing stood out above everything else: the powerful difference made by loved ones who stay at the bedside.
And I will never stop imparting this crucial advice for anyone dealing with a loved one in the hospital.
Being the best advocate you can be for your loved one is LIFESAVING.
And having a great advocate at your bedside is a true BLESSING.
I see this over and over again.
In some rooms, you can feel that energy immediately— a spouse, a daughter, or son, or other family member— cheering their loved one on and watching every detail. Family members asking questions and making sure everything is on track. In others, there was silence. A patient alone for hours, monitors beeping, no familiar faces around.
That contrast hits me every single time.
And so here’s my golden tip— something I cannot emphasize enough after years on the frontlines:
If you ever have a loved one in the hospital, be the best advocate you possibly can. Be there. Watch over them like a hawk. Ask questions. Never assume everything is being handled.
This isn’t being overbearing or difficult (which you must NEVER think). It’s being life-saving.
Dr. Suneel Dhand Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Why This Matters So Much
Hospitals may be full of some hard-working and dedicated professionals who work long hours. But they are also complex, high-stress, fast-moving environments. Even with the best systems in place, mistakes happen. It’s simply the nature of such a demanding environment.
Studies suggest that medical errors contribute to over 250,000 deaths every year in the United States, making them one of the leading causes of death. This may even be an underestimate! Countless more patients are harmed by preventable complications or breakdowns in communication.
Nobody sets out to make mistakes— but fatigue, time pressure, and human error are unavoidable realities. That’s why a vigilant, caring family member at the bedside can make all the difference in the world.
What Being an Advocate Really Means
Being an advocate doesn’t mean you need to know medicine or have a healthcare background. It means you are paying attention. Closely.
You’re the one who notices that a medication hasn’t arrived, a dose looks different, or a symptom is changing. You’re the one who asks when the next test is scheduled, whether results have come back, or what the plan is for the next step. The ill person lying in bed often cannot do these things.
You don’t need to worry about “bothering” anyone. This isn’t the time to be overly polite or worry about hurting feelings. If something doesn’t seem right, speak up— clearly and firmly.
This is not being pushy. It’s being responsible. It’s imperative. The reality is, when a patient has someone at the bedside keeping an eye on everything, they’re safer. Period.
I always make it a point (and it’s a delight to walk into a room and see loving family at the bedside)— to say thanks for coming in and how wonderful it is too see them! No doctor worth their salt should ever think differently.
The Emotional Impact
Aside from safety, there’s also the emotional side, and it’s enormous. The presence of loved ones can transform a hospital stay. Seeing a familiar face, hearing a reassuring voice, knowing someone truly cares— it changes everything. Patients feel calmer, more hopeful, and more determined to recover.
Of course not everyone is the same. Some people may not want relatives nearby or be happier alone. That’s fine, but most people realistically are not like that.
The human body responds to connection. Healing is faster when people feel supported. I see it every single week.
That’s why it’s heartbreaking when a patient lies alone for days on end. Sometimes it can’t be helped— families live far away, or life circumstances make it hard to visit. Not everyone is blessed to have loved ones nearby, especially at the extremes of age. But there’s no question: loneliness in hospital is one of the saddest things to witness.
If it were up to me, there would be no strict visiting hours at all— as long as sleep and privacy are respected. The benefits of human presence far outweigh any “inconvenience”.
How to Be the Best Advocate Possible
If someone you love is ever in hospital, here’s how to make a real difference:
Be there as much as you can. Your presence alone improves safety and morale.
Keep a written log. Jot down medications, test results, and what doctors say (as well as the names of doctors). You’ll be surprised how often it helps clarify things later.
Ask questions— lots of them! Understand the plan of care. Know what’s being done and why. Don’t let a doctor turn his or her back until you’ve got your answers.
Be firm if needed. Don’t shy away from speaking up. This is too important for hesitation.
Stay observant. Notice every change, every symptom, every delay.
One Day, It Could (And Probably Will) Be You
One day, any of us could find ourselves in that hospital bed— sick, anxious, vulnerable, or not in our full capacities. In that moment, having someone who loves you watching over things, asking questions, and refusing to let anything slip through the cracks could literally save your life.
Medicine has advanced in many ways over the last 100 years, but the most powerful force of all is still human presence. Machines can monitor your vitals, but they can’t care for your soul. Algorithms can alert staff, but they can’t notice the small things only someone who knows you can see (feel free to share your stories with us down below!)
So if a loved one ever ends up in the hospital— don’t just visit. Be there. Stay alert. Ask questions. Protect them.
Whether you are a spouse, child, parent, sibling— or even a trusted friend.
Because sometimes, that’s the difference between recovery and tragedy.
That’s one of the most lifesaving pieces of advice I could ever give you.
“As the world teeters on the verge of nuclear war and economic collapse, remember that in times of war and economic downturns, food is more valuable than gold.”
EWNZ Note: Remember Kissinger’s statement:
If you control the food, you control a nation. If you control the energy, you control a region. If you control the money, you control the world.
The following report was first published on October 10th, 2022, on winepressnews.com.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is encouraging people to legally register their community and backyard gardens into a national registry, where anyone can join.
The initiative is called the People’s Garden Initiative, which was created to build a “more diverse and resilient local food system to empower communities to address issues like nutrition access and climate change,” the USDA says.
“The simple act of planting a garden can have big impacts – from building a more diverse and resilient local food system to empowering communities to address issues like nutrition access and climate change.”
The USDA says there are 5 types of gardens that qualify for this project:
Food – indoor and outdoor gardens, “to increase access and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in urban and rural areas.”
Wildlife Habitat– Areas designed to increase the number of animals and insects, namely pollinators such as bees.
Conservation – preservation of natural resources like soil, water, air, and so on.
Beautification – an objectively pretty garden, by “rethink[ing] the planting of seasonal annuals and instead design a space with native species of flowering plants to enhance the biodiversity of your community and build a healthier ecosystem.”
Education and Training – gardens can fall under on the previously mentioned 4, but solely created for teaching and internship.
The USDA clarifies that these gardens can be any shape or size.
“You can plant a home garden in your yard or in a small space like a windowsill or balcony.”
Every garden registered can currently be publicly viewed online, per an interactive map that displays all gardens around the nation.
Each dot can be clicked on to learn more specifics about a registered garden, such as the type and pictures of the garden.
According to a press release from the USDA published on September 9th, those who register will also be featured in USDA communications, and sent a swanky sign showing their registration.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said:
“We welcome gardens nationwide to join us in the People’s Garden effort and all it represents.
“Local gardens across the country share USDA’s goals of building more diversified and resilient local food systems, empowering communities to come together around expanding access to healthy food, addressing climate change and advancing equity.
“We encourage existing gardens and new gardens to join the movement. Growing local food benefits local communities in so many ways, and we offer technical resources to help. Also, it’s a great way to connect with your local USDA team members.”
The press release notes that this project actually began in 2009. So, it would appear the USDA is attempting to make a renewed effort for this project. “It’s named for the “People’s Department,” former President Abraham Lincoln’s nickname for USDA, which was established during his presidency in 1862,” the USDA added.
But not everyone is on board with this idea.
Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Projectis pessimistic about this initiative, explaining that the USDA has never been in favor of people’s health. He cites an example of a group of physicians in 2020 who sent a whopping myriad of evidence to the USDA in a bid to reduce their recommended levels of sugar intake – levels these doctors thought was too high already, but settled on a reduced rate. In short, the USDA did not consider it and rejected the plea.
Agorist wrote,
“Now, this same organization is claiming that it wants you to register your vegetable garden so it can place you in a database and put your healthy food source on a map — for your health, of course. You also get a cool sign for your front yard too.
“While a handful of folks inside the USDA may have well-meaning intentions behind this program, the behemoth organization’s track record and history clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of them do not care about your health. Not only do they not care about your health but most of their farm and food budget goes toward subsidizing products that directly harm your health.
“So, skepticism over a national garden database run by this organization is entirely warranted. As the world teeters on the verge of nuclear war and economic collapse, remember that in times of war and economic downturns, food is more valuable than gold.”
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Please don’t do this. I, like Agorist, am quite pessimistic about initiatives such as this.
WinePress readers already know that the government and tech giants love to database our info already, and now registering your garden – even down to your windowsill plants (!) – they want to have on record. Absolutely not. But this type of thing certainly fits right in line with the coming CBDCs, social credit scores, carbon calculators, food IDs, and so forth. Right now it’s optional. But how long before it becomes mandatory?
With the food shortage narrative in play, it certainly could present an opportunity for the government to try and craft a narrative as to why Americans need to register their gardens, as to know who is buying what, what food crops are which, whose hogging up too much water, who is impoverished in nearby towns, how much excess you have, and on and on.
In the early days of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, many nations were already racing to get these very same types of agendas in place for the time they wish to roll them out. I suspect that when the famine gets to be a legitimate and obvious problem to the broad masses, coupled with a grand economic collapse – something I have been warning about for some time – that is when they might roll this type of thing out. Admittedly, some of this is speculative on my end.
Do you realize that most states still to this day still ban the commercial sale of raw milk and dairy products? I cannot go to the store and eat and drink what I want: I need the government’s approval, as they are “all-knowing.” And those that do want to sell raw milk and dairy, for example, if they are allowed to do it, have to have their practices registered, inspected, and datalogged, but still cannot sell it on the grocery store shelves in most states, but through these convoluted backdoor channels and red tape, most consumers will never notice and realize. And the states that do allow the commercial sale of raw milk and dairy, had to lobby and plead with the government to be allowed to do it!
So, lest anyone think that I am not a “patriot” and whining about nothing, then I suggest you chew on that apple and think about what I just said… And that is just one example. If you cannot eat and drink what you want, and plant and pasture whatever you want, without the government’s permission, then you do not have freedom. PERIOD. No president, governor, politician, or media tell-a-vision prophet will admit this truth to you, on either side.
Ecclesiastes 5:18 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. [19] Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God. [20] For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.
But you see, that is not part of the new paradigm. America has an odd fusion of communism and fascism for a puppet government. This will be the framework for this “Great Reset.” “You’ll own nothing, and be happy” – as the masses live in these smart cities, packed in like sardines, physically connected to the grid; where everything is serviced and run through by the major corporations working in tandem with the government.
The bottom line is this: do NOT EVER register your garden with the government. Simple as that.
Note: I’m taking the liberty of adding here the NZ info on population decline first, given this blog is a Kiwi one. Prof Crispin Miller has gathered together the global evidence on the population free fall happening in plain sight. He has done this with a global team of folk who daily document the instances of ‘sudden death’ and injury post covid jab … down to that taking place within various people groups and professions. What you are seeing individually (many of us now have several people we know who have suffered death or injury) is actually global. EWNZ
The authors of the ongoing democide believe that it will make the world a better place for THEM. We who really want the world to be a better place must stop them, break their power, and indict them.
“ABV” stands for “anything but the ‘vaccine.’” We use it to refer to articles whose authors strain to name some other “factors” causing this unprecedented cull..
What better way to preface this apocalyptic overview than to revisit Bill Gates’ (in)famous 2010 Ted Talk, in which he proposed “our” lowering the global population by “10 or 15%,” through “vaccines, health care [sic] and reproductive health services” (i.e., lots more abortions). He cast this project as an urgent one, because “CO2 is warming the planet.”
News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The segment with Gates making that “humanitarian” suggestion, as well as the whole talk, was on YouTube, which disappeared it early in the “COVID crisis.” So here’s Gates’ whole performance, still accessible on Rumble: (click on the vid image to watch at Rumble.com)
The video is also in this article, along with a full transcript:
First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.
Later, early in the COVID-19 panic, Gates, interviewed by Stephen Colbert, indiscreetly tipped his hand (and Colbert quickly urged him to use different wording, lest “the conspiracy theorists” seize on what Gates really said):
OOPS THE VIDEO HAS ALREADY BEEN ‘DISAPPEARED’
It now appears that Gates—and his towering cohorts in the eugenics movement (guided by the likes of David Rockefeller)—have got their wish; only Gates was shrewdly lying when he lowballed the number of those marked for non-existence. (The cantankerous Ted Turner, a eugenicist fanatic like Bill Gates, didn’t hesitate to come right out and say that 90% of the human race must go.) Thanks to them, and their multitudinous accessories, what we’re now living through (if we’re lucky) is a catastrophic global population crash—which will do, is now doing, vastly graver harm to all the rest of us than “overpopulation,” COVID and CO2 combined.
Brace yourself, and read the evidence; then do all you can to spread the word about this democide, and that it’s the responsibility of all who can still think to bring the authors of the most destructive crime in history, and all their accomplices, to justice.
World fertility rates in ‘unprecedented decline’, UN says
June 10, 2025
United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] surveyed young adults and those past their reproductive years. “The world has begun an unprecedented decline in fertility rates,” says Dr Natalia Kanem, head of UNFPA. “Most people surveyed want two or more children. Fertility rates are falling in large part because many feel unable to create the families they want. And that is the real crisis,” she says. In all countries, 39% of people said financial limitations prevented them from having a child. The highest response was in Korea (58%), the lowest in Sweden (19%). In total, only 12% of people cited infertility – or difficulty conceiving – as a reason for not having the number of children they wanted to. But that figure was higher in countries including Thailand (19%), the US (16%), South Africa (15%), Nigeria (14%) and India (13%).
New Zealand’s fertility rate hits record low as births fall
February 19, 2025
New Zealand’s fertility rate slumped to a record low in 2023, official data shows, as the total number of births also dropped. The fertility rate tracks the average number of births women will have in their lifetime. New Zealand, along with many countries around the world, has seen this number drop as factors like education, participation in the workforce, and access to contraception contribute to women having fewer children. Statistics NZ data released on Monday found there were 1,932 fewer babies born in the year ending December 2023 than in the year before, the lowest number of registered births in 20 years. The drop was despite a 3% increase in the number of women between 15 and 49 years old, the ages at which most children are born. The combination of fewer births and more women in the population led to the fertility rate hitting a record low of 1.56 births per woman. In 2022, the rate was 1.66, and it remains far below the 2.1 needed to replace population numbers in the long term.
Japan Confirms Over 600,000 Citizens Killed by Covid ‘Vaccines’
September 21, 2025
Chilling news is emerging from Japan as the nation’s leading experts have uncovered explosive evidence linking skyrocketing excess deaths to Covid mRNA “vaccines.” A grassroots coalition, United Citizens for Stopping mRNA Vaccines, has forced the release of official vaccination records for 21 million Japanese citizens through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The records include vaccination dates, batch numbers, and post-vaccine death reports. The results are devastating.
Professor Murakami of Tokyo Science University, a respected scientist, analyzed the data and uncovered a consistent, alarming pattern:
• A surge in deaths occurred 90–120 days after injection.
• Those who received multiple doses saw earlier and steeper death spikes, suggesting cumulative toxicity.
•Murakami estimates that 600,000–610,000 Japanese citizens have been killed by the “vaccines.”
This figure is eerily consistent with Japan’s excess death statistics. Because these deaths typically happen months after the jab, doctors rarely connect them to the shots, allowing health officials to hide the carnage in plain sight.
Covid ‘Vaccines’ Triggered Global Turbo Cancer Crisis
September 24, 2025
Devastating alarm bells are emerging from Russia as the nation’s leading experts warn that chilling new evidence proves that the global turbo cancer crisis was caused by Covid mRNA “vaccines.” An alarming new review has confirmed the link between mass mRNA “vaccination” and skyrocketing cancer cases and deaths recorded around the world. The study was led by renowned Russian researcher Angelina Alekseevna Seliverstova and Dr. Oleg Germanovich Makeev, Professor of Biology and Biotechnology at Ural State Medical University in Yekaterinburg. Their findings confirm that the worldwide rollout of Covid mRNA shots triggered unexpected long-term safety risks. Most damning of all, the study exposes how Western institutions have downplayed, censored, or outright concealed these risks. The authors accuse global health officials of keeping the public in the dark about what could be the most devastating medical cover-up in modern history.
Unlike many Western studies, this review declared no financial conflicts of interest, no outside funding, and no pharmaceutical ties, underscoring the independence of its conclusions. The warning from Russia is clear, as the world is now grappling with a medical ticking time bomb unleashed by the mRNA experiment. Meanwhile, the establishment is doing everything it can to silence the truth.
The evidence is mounting and shows that mass mRNA “vaccination” has not only failed to stop Covid but may be fueling an ongoing surge in cancer, chronic illness, and unexplained deaths. The warnings from Russian and Western scientists now converge on a single reality, revealing that humanity has been subjected to a reckless experiment with catastrophic consequences. Yet, the cover-up may be as dangerous as the injections themselves.
US population decline sooner than expected as deaths to outpace births in America by 2031
September 19, 2025
The US population is approaching a critical demographic milestone as deaths are now projected to exceed births as early as 2031, two years earlier than previously expected. This shift signals a trend toward near-zero population growth, raising concerns about the country’s economic future and social support systems. In conclusion, the convergence of lower birth rates and aggressive immigration enforcement signals a turning point in U.S. demographic dynamics. Policymakers face the urgent task of addressing this population slowdown’s economic repercussions while balancing immigration regulations and social welfare needs.
Puerto Rico ranks among world’s fastest-shrinking populations
April 21, 2025
Puerto Rico is the fourth jurisdiction with the highest population decline in the world, according to recent statistics showing the island’s population shrank by 1.2% in 2024 compared to the previous year. The Cook Islands in the South Pacific, American Samoa, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon experienced greater population declines — at 2.24%, 1.54% and 1.21% respectively — Statista reported. Of the 20 countries with the highest rate of population decline, the majority are island nations, where emigration rates are high, particularly to Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. mainland, or they are in Eastern Europe, which suffers from a combination of high emigration and low birth rates, according to Statista. Puerto Rico’s population is forecast to decline steadily between 2024 and 2029, dropping by 100,000 people, or 3.13%, to little more than 3.1 million in 2029 — reaching its lowest level since 1977. The island’s population peaked at 3,827,000 in 2004, according to World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau data.
Canada’s population growth slows to historic lows as temporary residents decline
September 25, 2025
Canada’s population stood at an estimated 41.65 million on July 1, 2025, rising by just 47,098 people, or 0.1%, over the previous quarter. According to Statistics Canada, this is the lowest second-quarter growth rate since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when border closures nearly halted migration. Excluding that year, it is the slowest pace for a second quarter since comparable records began in 1946. From July 2024 to July 2025, Canada’s population expanded by 389,324 people (+0.9%), sharply lower than the 1.21 million (+3.0%) added a year earlier. Much of the slowdown came after the federal government introduced policies in 2024 to reduce temporary migration.
MEXICO
ABV:
Birth rate in Mexico declines, mirroring a global phenomenon
October 2, 2024
Mexico’s birth rate fell to a three-year low in 2023, with 1.8 million births recorded, marking a significant decline in fertility, according to a report by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography. This decline will have important implications for the country’s labor market, healthcare, and economic growth, signaling an urgent need for policy adjustment to address the evolving demographic landscape. Several interconnected factors have contributed to the decline in birth rates, including rising living costs and economic pressures, as reported by Al Jazeera.
CUBA
ABV:
Cuba gets older: The island reports its lowest birth rate since the Revolution
March 10, 2025
A group of Cuban officials has confirmed what has been obvious on the streets of Cuba for some time: that the country has much fewer people than it did three years ago. Fewer births are being registered and only older adults are increasing as a demographic group. The latest official figures from the National Statistics and Information Office (ONEI) show that the latest exodus of Cubanshas emptied the country out; that women are reluctantto have children in the midst of an endless economic crisis, and that young people are leaving while the elderly remain behind. Authorities have said that this population aging should not be “dramatized,” but researchers insist that it should not be underestimated either. In any case, they say that the problem is not aging per se, but the conditions in which Cubans are getting older.
Latin America’s Fertility Decline is Accelerating. No One’s Certain Why
January 5, 2024
Among demographers, 2023 will be remembered as the year Brazil “shrank” by almost 5 million people. A new census put the country’s population at 203 million people—well below the 208 million previously estimated by Brazil’s national statistics institute, and even further from the 216 million calculated by the United Nations. Those missing people didn’t vanish or emigrate—they were never born. The 2022 census, delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, showed that Brazil’s population grew during the 2010s by just 0.52% per year—half the rate seen throughout the 2000s, and the lowest such percentage since 1872. Brazil is not alone. For half a century, fertility rates around the world have been drifting downwards thanks to a confluence of rising education levels, greater labor force participation by women, strengthened reproductive rights, and wider access to contraception. But in several Latin American and Caribbean countries, this decline has recently accelerated to an unexpected degree that even experts are struggling to explain.
UNITED KINGDOM
ABV:
Fertility rate hits record low in England, Scotland and Wales
August 27, 2025
The fertility rate for England and Wales has fallen for the third year in a row to reach a record low, figures show. The total fertility rate across both countries, meaning the average number of live children women can expect to have across their child-bearing life, stood at 1.41 in 2024, down from 1.42 in 2023, the lowest since comparable data was first collected in 1938, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is despite a 0.6% increase in live births last year, with a 14% increase in the number of babies born to fathers over 60, according to figures published last month. Bernice Kuang, a demography researcher at the University of Southampton, said the fall in fertility rates could be a temporary result of people postponing having children.
Birth rate in France: The decline under the microscope
July 10, 2025
The birth rate in France is declining, and the trend has been observed under the microscope by the Académie Nationale de Médecine and INED (French institute for demographic studies), which have each recently published a report on the subject. The decline recorded can be analysed through different factors. The total number of births has been steadily falling since 2010 in mainland France. At that date, the number of births was 832,000. In 2024, a historic low was recorded with 663,000 babies. To understand these figures, the post-war record was achieved in 1971 with 916,000 births. These raw figures should also be compared with the size of the population. Indeed, the size of the population bears an obvious link with the total number of births. The INSEE (National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies) defines the birth rate as the number of births during the year relative to the total mean population for the year. The rate has been falling almost constantly for several decades. from 14.8 in 1982, it has dropped to 9.9 in 2023. Many analyses have been put forward in order to understand the phenomenon. Among the explanatory factors, the social and professional status of women is important. Women are undertaking longer studies, and a much higher proportion of women have a salaried income.
After decades of growth, Brussels’ population is set to decline
June 20, 2025
The Brussels region is expected to see a slight population decline to just under 1.25 million by 2034 after two decades of steady growth, the Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis said in a new report. Between 2004 and 2024, the region’s population grew from 1 million to 1.25 million, with international migration being one of the main drivers. Non-Belgians accounted for 37.2% the population data from last year shows – the French are topping the list, followed by Romanians and Italians. But the next decade isn’t expected to see any further growth, as residents are leaving for other parts of the country and birth rates are declining. By 2034, the numbers are expected to drop to just under 1.25 million, the Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis (BISA) estimates in a new report. The municipalities of Brussels are projected to lose 2,400 inhabitants between 2024 and 2034.
In 2024 Germany‘s population rose by 0.1% which is a drop from the 0.4% growth witnessed the year before, according to preliminary figures released by the Federal Statistical Office on Friday. As a result, the population for the EU’s largest economy now stands at 83.6 million. The figures showed that, as in previous years, more people died than were born in Germany, but the population growth came about due to immigration. Population growth concentrated in Germany’s western states, which saw an increase of 0.2%, while the eastern states, excluding the city-state of Berlin, recorded a decline of 0.3%. The largest increase for a state came in Bavaria, with population numbers up by 73,000. The biggest population losses occurred in the eastern states of Thuringia (down 15,000 or 0.7%), Saxony (down 12,000 or 0.3%), and Saxony-Anhalt (down 9,000 or 0.4%).
A disappearing country. Moldova on the verge of a demographic catastrophe
August 1. 2025
Moldova is one of the fastest depopulating countries in the world. Since it gained independence in 1991, the population of its right-bank region (the territory controlled by Chișinău, excluding the separatist region of Transnistria) has shrunk by approximately 35%. This is primarily due to mass labour migration driven by economic conditions, involving over one million citizens of a country with a current population of 2.4 million. Other significant factors contributing to Moldova’s declining population include a dramatic drop in fertility rates and high mortality associated with low life expectancy, which is ten years below the EU average. Consequently, Moldovan society is ageing rapidly; in 1991, the average age of a resident was 29, compared to 38 at present.
Croatia is facing a serious depopulation crisis, with many young people leaving in search of better opportunities. In an effort to reverse this trend, the government has pledged €700 million in 2024 to support returning Croatians, tax relief, and affordable housing. But will these measures be enough to keep people in the country? Experts warn that financial incentives alone won’t solve the problem, HRT writes. The biggest challenge for young families remains securing a place to live. Croatia is implementing projects aimed at reducing the cost of housing construction, yet it still ranks among the most expensive EU countries in terms of property prices.
No one left to live, let alone work: Serbia faces a major demographic crisis
June 23, 2025
The saying “The further south you go, the sadder it gets” perfectly applies to the story of demographic changes in certain parts of Serbia, which are now heavily influencing the labour market. In essence, in some regions, depopulation has reached alarming levels, threatening not only to reshape the local economy but also to alter the structure and even the nationality of the workforce. While this may sound overly pessimistic, data from both national and international institutions indicate that the country and its leadership face serious demographic challenges. If left unchecked, these challenges could significantly reshape the economy – not only in southern and eastern Serbia, where the problem is most pronounced – but in the entire country. The bleak reality is underscored by World Bank data, which ranks Serbia 13th globally for the fastest population decline. Jakup Berisha, UNDP’s Resident Representative in Serbia, also reminds us of this status. “The census shows that Serbia has 6.65 million inhabitants, 496,000 fewer than in 2011. Due to a low birth rate, an ageing workforce, and emigration, the number of young people entering the labour market is decreasing, while the number of pensioners is rising faster than we can replace outgoing workers. At the same time, emigration disproportionately draws away highly educated professionals, further worsening labour shortages in key industries,” Berisha told NIN.
Bulgaria Among EU’s Most Declining Populations as Demographic Shifts Intensify
August 7, 2025
Over the past two decades, Bulgarians rank among the top three populations in the European Union that have experienced significant decline. Across the EU, the share of children in the population has fallen, marriages are increasingly rare, and one in four newborns last year had a mother from an immigrant background. The latest European statistics shed light on these demographic trends. Eurostat data shows the EU population grew by 4% over 20 years, concentrated mainly in five countries: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Poland, which together account for nearly 70% of the total. Smaller populations include Malta, with around half a million inhabitants. Bulgaria’s population stands at approximately 6.4 million, placing it 15th in size among EU member states. Within this timeframe, 19 countries saw population growth while 8 experienced decline. Luxembourg’s population doubled, followed by Malta and Ireland, which increased by about one-third. Bulgaria saw a notable 17% reduction, equivalent to a loss of roughly 1.3 million people, second only to Latvia’s 18% decrease. Immigration remains a significant factor shaping the EU’s demographic landscape.
Greece announces €1.6bn relief package to tackle population decline
September 7, 2025
Greece has announced drastic measures, including tax breaks and other financial incentives, to address a population decline that is on course to make it the oldest nation in Europe. The prime minister said the €1.6bn (£1.4bn) relief package had been dictated by one of the biggest challenges facing the Mediterranean nation: a demographic crisis of unprecedented scale. Greece’s near decade-long crisis has been widely blamed for the alarming drop. This is partly because younger people were among those hardest hit by austerity measures required in return for international rescue funds that kept bankruptcy at bay and debt-stricken Athens in the EU.
Low Birth Rates, Brain Drain, and Living Conditions Drive Greece’s Population Down by Half a Million
August 23. 2025
The latest report by the Laboratory of Demographic and Social Analyses of the University of Thessaly paints a grim picture of the current state and future demographic outlook of Greece, as the country’s population continues to age disproportionately and decline sharply. Data shows that the total population of Greece has declined by half a million over the last thirteen years, while the birth-death ratio is projected to remain negative until at least 2050, pointing towards a shift in the migratory flows balance as the most imminent solution to the problem. According to the report, the reasons for this significant decline in population are not only related to demography but more generally to the social challenges that Greece has faced in recent decades and the worsening living conditions for both native Greeks and migrants.
Poland records EU’s largest population decline for second year running
July 15, 2025
Poland’s population fell by over 123,000 in 2024, the largest overall decline among all European Union member states for the second year in a row. In relative terms – taking account of the size of countries’ population – Poland had the EU’s joint-third-largest drop of 0.34%. The data for 2024 mark the sixth consecutive year that Poland’s population declined amid a demographic crisis that the country’s statistical agency has forecast will continue in the coming decades. Last year saw the number of births in Poland fall to a new postwar low. It was the 12th year in a row in which deaths have outnumbered births. Poland’s fertility rate – the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime – also fell to a new record low of 1.099, which is among the lowest in the world.
Population Decline in the Czech Republic: 27,000 Fewer Residents in the First Half of 2025
September 11, 2025
The population of the Czech Republic decreased in the first half of 2025. By the end of June, 10.88 million people were living in the country, 27,200 fewer than at the start of the year. This is due to both the negative birth-to-death balance and emigration abroad. According to data from the Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ), 57,700 people died in the first six months – almost 2,000 more than in the same period last year. In contrast, only 37,400 children were born, a decrease of around 12 per cent compared with the first half of 2024. Nearly half of all births occurred outside marriage, and most children were born to women aged 30 to 32.
Albania, with the strongest population decline in Europe in the last decade
July 14, 2025
Throughout Europe, especially in developing countries, people are moving in search of a better life. Globalization, the opening of markets, the easing of movement and work permit criteria by aging developed countries are opportunities that, naturally, many will try to take advantage of, especially young people who today have higher expectations from life. But no one is leaving at the rate that Albanians are leaving. The latest Eurostat data, processed by “Monitor”, show that Albania’s population has been reduced by 18.2% at the end of 2024, compared to 2011, a period that includes the development of two censuses. In Albania, the strong population contraction is related to two factors. First, the slowdown in natural increase, which turned negative during the pandemic and is now at minimal levels, with only 1.2 thousand people plus in 2024, from over 60 thousand people in the early 90s. The second and most important factor is emigration, which saw a new wave after 2016, mainly from the young population. In 2024, according to Eurostat, net emigration was 28.8 thousand people.
In six, months, 102 new cases of childhood cancer were reported in Ceara
September 23, 2025
The data are from the Albert Sabin Children’s Hosptial and refer to the number of visits performed in the state public health system in the first six months of 2025. [paywall]
Portugal grapples with accelerating demographic decline
August 28, 2025
Portugal is confronting a deepening demographic crisis, as recent data from the National Statistics Institute (INE) highlights a marked decline in its younger population and a significant increase in the elderly. The Portugal News reports that in 2023 only 12.8 percent of the Portuguese population was aged between 0 and 14, positioning the country as the third in the European Union with the lowest proportion of young people, surpassed only by Italy and Malta. This trend is attributed by the INE to decades of consistently low birth rates combined with a rise in life expectancy. Analysis reveals that between 1970 and 2024, the proportion of young people in Portugal decreased from 28.5 to 12.6 percent. The INE projects that if current demographic patterns persist, Portugal’s resident population will decline to approximately 8.2 million by 2080. This forecast further accentuates the urgencyfor policy interventions designed to stimulate birth rates and facilitate the integration of young people and migrants into the labour market.
Italy’s demographic crisis worsens as births hit record low
March 31, 2025
Italy’s demographic crisis deepened in 2024 as the number of births hit a new record low, emigration accelerated and the population continued to shrink, national statistics bureau ISTAT said on Monday. Italy’s ever-falling birth rate is considered a national emergency, but despite Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her predecessors pledging to make it a priority, none have so far been able to halt the drop. There were some 281,000 more deaths than births in 2024 and the population fell by 37,000 to 58.93 million, continuing a decade-long trend. Since 2014, Italy’s population has shrunk by almost 1.9 million, more than the inhabitants of Milan, its second-largest city, or of the region of Calabria in the country’s southern toe. The 370,000 babies born in 2024 marked the 16th consecutive annual decline and was the lowest figure since the country’s unification in 1861. It was down 2.6% from 2023, ISTAT said, and 35.8% lower than in 2008 – the last year Italy saw an increase in the number of babies born. The fertility rate, measuring the average number of children born to each woman of child-bearing age, also fell to a record low of 1.18, far below the 2.1 needed for a steady population.
Unprecedented Crisis in Italy, Population Decreasing to 54,8 Million by 2050
April 1, 2025
Italy is facing an unprecedented demographic crisis that will have profound economic and social repercussions in the coming decades. According to data presented by the president of Istat, Francesco Maria Chelli, during the hearing at the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on the effects of the demographic transition, the Italian population continues to decline, reaching 58,9 million inhabitants in 2025, with a decrease of 37 thousand people compared to the previous year. The forecasts for the future are even more worrying: by 2050 the population will drop to 54,8 million, with a loss of over 4 million inhabitants compared to current levels.
Turkey sounds alarm over declining birth rates amid economic concerns
May 27, 2025
Turkey’s birth rate has plunged to its lowest level in modern history, prompting warnings from officials and experts, who say the country is facing a demographic crossroads. Recent data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) show that the total fertility rate in 2024 fell to 1.48 children per woman, well below the population replacement level of 2.1 and a steep decline from 2.38 in 2001. The number of live births in 2024 stood at 937,559, with boys accounting for 51.4 percent and girls for 48.6 percent. This marks a continuation of a trend that demographers and economists say is increasingly linked to economic hardship in Turkey, particularly among young adults of childbearing age.
Despite exhortations from ruling clerisy to be fruitful, and pro-natal policies intended to prop up birth rates, fertility in Iran is slumping once again. Earlier this month, the Tehran Times reported that annual births in Iran fell below the million mark. According to the Civil Registration Organization in charge of Iran’s vital statistics, just under 980,000 births were recorded between the Iranian calendar year coinciding with 21 March 2024 through 20 March 2025. It has been a very long time since so few babies were born in Iran. By the reckoning of the United Nations Population Division, we have to go back seventy years—to 1955—to find a time when Iranian annual birth totals were lower than today. The current birth level, as we see in Figure 1, is less than half as high as it was forty years ago, in 1985.
Grim warning: Writer warns of declining population in Saudi Arabia
February 8, 2025
A Saudi writer has raised alarms about the country’s declining birth rates, warning that Saudis could face extinction. In an article published in the Saudi newspaper Al Watan, Mansour Al Daban referenced UN data that shows a worrying drop in Saudi birth rates. The figures indicate that births in Saudi Arabia fell by 67 per cent in 2023 compared to 1950, when the birth rate was 53.34 per 1,000 people. By 2023, the rate had plummeted to 15.7, marking a 2.88 per cent decline from the previous year. Al Daban also cited a study titled Epidemiological Decline in Human Fertility Rate in the Arab World, conducted by researchers from the University of Sharjah in the UAE. The study, which analysed fertility rates in the Arab world from 2011 to 2021, found a similar decline in most Arab countries.
Russia’s attempts to boost its flagging birth rate — through policies promoting “traditional values,” tighter abortion restrictions and officials’ encouragement of larger families — appear to be falling short, as the number of births has fallen to its lowest level in centuries. According to data released by the state statistics agency Rosstat, 195,400 children were born in Russia during January and February 2025 — a 3% drop compared to the same period in 2024. The decline was even steeper in February alone, with births falling 7.6% year-over-year to 90,500 — 7,400 fewer than in the same month last year. Some regions saw even sharper drops. Births fell by 18.7% in Arkhangelsk, 19.4% in the republic of Karelia, 18.6% in the Oryol region, 21.6% in Kostroma and 26.6% in Smolensk. According to demographer Alexei Raksha, the first quarter of 2025 likely saw the lowest number of births since the early 1800s, with February marking the lowest monthly figure in over 200 years. Based on preliminary registry office data, he estimated that 95,000 to 96,000 children were born in March, bringing the total for the first quarter to around 293,000-294,000.
Some parts of India have been forced to shut down schools amid the country’s declining birth rates. Economist Sanjeev Sanyal, who was previously the principal economic adviser in India’s finance ministry and a member of the Economic Advisory Council to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has spoken about this happening and called for it to occur “more routinely.” “Our population is only growing now because we are living longer, we are not having enough babies,” he told the Indian financial newspaper Mint on Monday. “So our problem is already the case that in parts of the country we have to shut down schools.” “We should be shutting them down,” he added. “We are doing them slowly. But we need to do them more routinely. Because whenever I mention that we need to shut down schools, people get very emotional about this issue.”
Rethinking Thailand’s Population Crisis through the Lens of a “Reluctant Economist”
September 23, 2025
Many of us are already aware of Thailand’s growing demographic crisis. The country is now experiencing “more deaths than births,” and the Thai population is steadily shrinking. Within approximately 50 years, the population is projected to drop by half—from over 60 million to just over 30 million. The country will be filled with elderly citizens. Working-age individuals will become rare, and the number of children and youth will decline dramatically. All of this stems from one key issue: Thai people are having fewer children. This is undeniably a major issue that many sectors are trying to address with the best possible solutions. In our article, “Integrated National Strategic Plan: Turning Thailand’s Population Crisis into Future Opportunities,” we presented macro-level strategies for dealing with this issue. However, in this article, we want to invite everyone to “rethink” the problem through the perspective of the “Reluctant Economist”—a concept developed by Professor Richard A. Easterlin. This lens, which is rarely seen (or perhaps never seen) in Thai discourse, may help us better understand the root cause of the population crisis—and possibly lead us to better solutions. Thailand’s declining birth rate poses the core of the population crisis. From the perspective of the Reluctant Economist, the central question is, why are people choosing to have fewer children? [Hint – It’s not lower fertility.]
Why Vietnam’s Demographic Decline Will Reinforce Its Non-Aligned Foreign Policy
August 26, 2025
Demographic decline is causing multiple headaches for Vietnamese policymakers. According to the latest statistics, Vietnam’s births per woman in 2024 declined to 1.91 from 1.96 in 2023, which is slightly below the replacement rate of 2.1. Vietnam’s population is aging rapidly. The number of people over the age of 60 increased from 11.4 million in 2019 to 14.2 million in 2024 out of a population of approximately 100 million. This cohort is projected to reach 18 million in 2030. An aging population and a declining workforce will put pressure on Vietnam’s nascent welfare system and its ambitious growth target of becoming a high-income country by the 2040s. The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is encouraging births by handing out a one-time cash payment to women having two newborns before the age of 35 and not punishing party members who have a third child. This year, Vietnam also ended its two-child policy and allowed families to decide for themselves how many children they can have.
Chinese kindergartens in crisis as enrolments plunge 25% in 4 years
July 26, 2025
The number of Chinese kindergartens has fallen by a quarter in four years, prompting the closure of tens of thousands of schools in the country as a precipitous drop in births hits the education system. Enrolments in China’s kindergartens have declined by 12mn children between 2020 and 2024, from a peak of 48mn, according to data from the country’s ministry of education. The number of kindergartens, serving Chinese children aged 3-5, has also fallen by 41,500 from a high of nearly 295,000 in 2021. Falling enrolments are now “baked into the system and that’s not going to change”, said Stuart Gietel-Basten, director of the Center for Aging Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He added that compared with five or 10 years ago, the decline in births was “huge”. The contraction of China’s pre-school system is a foretaste of the challenges to come for business and policymakers from China’s demographic decline, which is expected to be one of the most rapid in the world. China has recorded three consecutive years of population decline to 2024 following the decades-long policy, ended in 2016, that limited many couples to one child. While the number of births rose by about 520,000 last year to 9.3mn, following a record low in 2023, they were still outpaced by deaths and have declined by nearly half since the peak of 17.9mn in 2017.
China to offer $500 per child in move to boost birth rate
July 28, 2025
The Chinese government will offer parents subsidies of 3,600 yuan ($500, €429) per child under the age of three per year, Beijing’s state media said Monday. China‘s population has declined for three consecutive years, the world’s second most populous nation — after India — is facing an emerging demographic crisis. The number of births in 2024 — 9.54 million — was half as many as in 2016, the year that ended its one-child policy that was in place for more than three decades. Marriage rates in China have also hit a record low. Young couples put off having babies due to the high cost of raising children and career concerns.
China’s population falls for a third consecutive year
January 17, 2025
China’s population fell for a third consecutive year in 2024, with the number of deaths outpacing a slight increase in births, and experts cautioning that the trend will accelerate in the coming years. The National Bureau of Statistics said the total number of people in China dropped by 1.39 million to 1.408 billion in 2024, compared to 1.409 billion in 2023. Friday’s data reinforces concerns that the world’s second largest economy will struggle as the number of workers and consumers declines. Rising costs from elderly care and retirement benefits are also likely to create additional strains for already indebted local governments. The high cost of childcare and education as well as job uncertainty and a slowing economy have also discouraged many young Chinese from getting married and starting a family. Gender discrimination and traditional expectations for women to take care of the home exacerbate the issue, demographers say.
Taiwan sees 18th consecutive month of population decline
July 10, 2025
Taiwan’s population declined for the 18th consecutive month as of the end of June, according to data released Thursday by the Ministry of the Interior (MOI). In total, 55,375 babies were born in the first half of 2025, down 8,499 from the same period last year, when 63,874 births were recorded. Meanwhile, 16,554 deaths were reported in June, equivalent to approximately one death every 2.6 minutes. That figure represents an increase of 1,172 from May and 1,632 more than in June 2024. The crude death rate for the month stood at 8.63 per 1,000 people. The natural population decrease – the difference between births and deaths – was 7,586 for June.
New South Korea Data Reveals Scale of Population Decline
September 5, 2025
Marriages in South Korea have dropped by nearly half over the past three decades, while annual births have fallen to just one-third of 1995 levels, according to newly released data. The numbers show what officials consider a looming population crisis. South Korea‘s fertility rate—the lowest in the world—stood at 0.75 births per woman in 2024, well below the 2.1 needed to sustain a population. The same year, the share of South Koreans aged 65 and older passed 20 percent. The demographic shift could drag on the country’s economic prospects and strain its pension and health care systems, with fewer young workers supporting a growing elderly population. Analysts have cited high housing costs, an unforgiving workplace culture and unequal burdens of child care as key reasons young South Koreans are deciding to delay or forgo children.
South Korea’s Military Personnel Plummet 31% as Male 20s Drop 16%
September 23, 2025
This year, the male population in their 20s stood at approximately 3,024,000, a 15.8% decrease compared to the male population in their 20s in 2010, 15 years ago. Meanwhile, South Korea’s military personnel, which numbered 650,000 (based on the Defense White Paper) in 2010, plummeted to 450,000 over 15 years, a 30.7% drop. The reduction in military personnel has outpaced the natural decline in the population eligible for service. Analysis suggests that populist policies aimed at shortening military service periods to appeal to younger voters have accelerated the military’s crisis more rapidly than the decline in conscription resources due to low birth rates.
The Philippines’ annual population growth rate (PGR) is declining, according to data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has officially declared the country’s latest population count at 112,729,484, based on recent data. This marks an increase of 3.69 million people since the last nationwide census in 2020, when the population stood at 109.03 million.
A table showing the increase in the Philippines’ population since 1960
The population and the population growth rate (PGR) are two different things. The population refers to the total number of people, while the PGR measures the rate at which that number increases over time. Despite an increase in the overall population size, the PGR has declined, from 1.63% between 2015 and 2020, to 0.80% between 2020 and 2024. The country’s PGR has been generally declining since 1960 to 1970, when it was recorded at 3.01%.
A table showing the decline in the Philippines’ population growth rate since 1960
“The slowdown in the growth rate may be driven by several interrelated factors such as but not limited to declining fertility and birth rate, elevated mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subdued migration activity,” the PSA said.
Australia’s birth rate hits rock bottom with severe consequences for economic future
October 16, 2024
There are warnings that Australia’s birth rate — having hit a record low — is now at a critical level. Bureau of Statistics figures show 286,998 births were registered in Australia in 2023, resulting in a total fertility rate of 1.50 babies per woman. Australian National University demographer Liz Allen said the nation’s birth rate is perilously low. “We’ve hit rock bottom,” she said. The Total Fertility Rate, or TFR, over the past 30 years has slowly dropped from 1.86 in 1993 to 1.5 in 2023. The birth rate for girls and women aged 15 to 19 has fallen by more than two thirds over that period. There’s also been a large decline for women aged 20 to 24 years. She described a “deep-seated attitudinal problem” facing millions of younger Australians. Many, the demographer said, lack enthusiasm about the future, and that relates to their views on climate change, housing affordability and gender equality.
“Nearly every physician took the experimental shots. Now, he says, many are paying the price in silence. “They’re coming to me quietly,” … “They don’t want anyone to know they’ve been vaccine-injured.”“
Note: We ought not to think that this will be confined to the US. The plan was and still is global. The writing is on the wall here in NZ. The state of our ‘health’ system reflects this. I know and you probably know of horror stories emerging from visits to the ED in the night. Of the horrific post safe & effective injuries treated with large helpings of pharma’s products. As Makis points out AI will take the Doctors’ places. Recent discussions with professionals in other arenas tell me that AI is replacing actors and musicians also. Makes sense now doesn’t it? How were we to do without them, given they are passing on in droves? If you doubt this sub to Prof Mark Crispin Miller’s substack. He has teams of folk world wide who are compiling lists of sudden deaths post-safe & effective roll out. Read the post below. EWNZ
Dr. William Makis just issued one of the most chilling warnings yet — a quiet crisis unfolding inside the medical profession itself.
According to Makis, thousands of doctors are now falling ill — heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and a terrifying surge in what he calls “turbo cancers.”
Nearly every physician took the experimental shots. Now, he says, many are paying the price in silence. “They’re coming to me quietly,” Makis reveals. “They don’t want anyone to know they’ve been vaccine-injured.”
Behind closed doors, once-proud physicians are seeking help — desperate for treatments like ivermectin and fenbendazole, while their own profession refuses to acknowledge what’s happening. The result? Doctors are retiring in their 40s. Practices are closing. The healthcare system is hollowing out from within. And what comes next, Makis warns, is even darker: AI will fill the void. “The doctors will drop out… and AI will take their place.”
“It is common practice to dump excess 1080 pellets after 1080 drops have finished (Re Stewart Island dump, see article).When 1080 toxin was first discovered in ground water the source of the toxin was traced to a landfill site above. Un-spread 1080 baits had been buried in the landfill and the toxin had leached out of the baits and seeped down into the ground water where it remained as toxic as the day it was dumped. No breakdown of the poison had taken place over all that time” … these are only DoC’s figures … “OSPRI has traditionally dropped more 1080 poison than DoC. Regional Councils account for around 12% of 1080 use too.”
A post from 2021 revisited. See how lamestream controls the narrative and sways you from making informed choices? I say sway because you all can search out the info for yourselves. Sadly many did not. And are not. Difficult and all as it was and still is … who doesn’t now know somebody who has been terribly affected? Heart problems, clots, can’t breathe, can’t walk, blind, diagnosed with all manner of serious conditions, all waved away as being caused by stress or worse, the imagination … EWNZ
“Thousands of people across the globe started posting photos of themselves on social media receiving the shots. Brittany Hall Perez is one of said individuals. The 39-year-old posted a public Facebook photo on January 13 wearing a mask and holding a vaccination record card.
Her obituary says she died on January 13, meaning the mRNA shot killed her within hours.”
Pursuing Justice on Behalf of Our Clients for Nearly 40 Years
Founded in Los Angeles, California in 1985, the law firm of Wisner Baum has earned a reputation for breaking new legal ground, holding major corporations accountable, influencing public policy, and raising public awareness about important safety issues. Our trial experience across a broad range of practice areas includes over $4 billion in verdicts and settlements.
Paraquat dichloride is a non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide used primarily to kill weeds and grass. Austrian chemist Hugo Weidel and his student, M. Russo, discovered paraquat in the 1880s. Roughly 50 years later, scientists Michaelis and Hill discovered the chemical’s redox properties and named the compound methyl viologen. Scientists discovered the chemical’s weed-killing properties in the late 1950s.
Commercially introduced in 1962 as Gramoxone, paraquat quickly became a top-selling herbicide despite numerous studies linking the herbicide to wide-ranging health issues. The rise in paraquat use coincided with the surge in no-till farming in the U.S. and worldwide.
Common Paraquat Products
Syngenta and Chevron are two of the largest paraquat producers. Some of the most common paraquat products include:
Blanco
Bonedry
Cyclone SL 2.0
Devour
Firestorm
Gramoxone
Helmquat 3SL
Para-Shot 3.0
Paraquate Concentrate
Common Paraquat Side Effects
Research shows that paraquat exposure is dangerous, even at low levels. Paraquat side effects depend on the amount, route, and duration of exposure to the herbicide and the person’s overall health. The herbicide enters the body via:
Skin: Contact or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes, and other epithelial tissues (including the mouth, nose, trachea, and conducting airways, particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other tissue damage are present).
Inhalation: Spray droplets enter the nose or mouth.
Ingestion: The liquid chemical is swallowed.
Acute Exposure – Paraquat Poisoning
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “one small sip [of paraquat] can be fatal, and there is no antidote.” In general, people who accidentally or intentionally ingest paraquat may experience any of the following symptoms:
Acute kidney failure
Coma
Confusion
Heart issues
Liver failure
Lung scarring
Muscle weakness
Pulmonary edema
Respiratory failure possibly leads to death
Seizures
While these cases are rare, paraquat poisoning may also occur via skin contact or inhalation. This report out of China highlights the potential for paraquat poisoning via skin absorption, and this report highlights the potential for paraquat poisoning via inhalation.
Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Link
The body of scientific research linking paraquat and Parkinson’s disease (often referred to simply as “PD”) has continued to grow in recent years. Several studies have concluded that exposure to paraquat increases the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease and that the effect is dose-dependent. The research suggests that farmworkers and pesticide applicators are more at risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. People who live near fields and other areas where paraquat is heavily used may also be more at risk for PD.
” … vaccinated children showed 4.29 times higher rates of asthma, nearly six times higher rates of autoimmune disease, and 5.5 times higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders. Most remarkably, among nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD compared to 262 cases in the vaccinated group. “
“An Inconvenient Study” delivers a gripping piece of investigative journalism that will leave viewers questioning everything they thought they knew about vaccine safety research. When medical journalist Del Bigtree challenged Dr. Marcus Zervos of the prestigious Henry Ford Health System to conduct the most comprehensive vaccinated versus unvaccinated study ever undertaken, neither anticipated the explosive journey that would follow. The documentary’s hidden camera revelation—capturing Dr. Zervos admitting that publishing his completed study would end his career—provides one of the most stunning moments in recent documentary filmmaking. With over 18,000 subjects studied and shocking disparities found between vaccinated and unvaccinated children’s health outcomes, this film exposes what appears to be a deliberate suppression of critical public health data that every parent deserves to see.
Del Bigtree brings unique credibility to this investigation, having evolved from CBS medical journalist to becoming one of the most persistent voices demanding transparency in vaccine safety science. Through his nonprofit ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network), he’s successfully sued government agencies and uncovered the startling absence of proper placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines—victories that provide crucial context for understanding why the Henry Ford study matters so profoundly. The documentary skillfully weaves Bigtree’s personal journey with the larger narrative, showing how his production of the original “Vaxxed” documentary opened his eyes to thousands of parents reporting similar patterns of vaccine injury. His encounter with Colton, a 13-year-old paralyzed by the HPV vaccine who tragically took his own life in 2018, provides emotional weight that grounds the statistical arguments in human reality.
The relationship between Bigtree and Dr. Zervos forms the documentary’s compelling core, with Zervos emerging as a complex figure caught between scientific integrity and institutional pressure. His credentials—having solved the Flint water crisis and conducted controversial hydroxychloroquine research—establish him as someone willing to challenge orthodoxy when lives are at stake. The film’s presentation of the study’s findings is staggering: vaccinated children showed 4.29 times higher rates of asthma, nearly six times higher rates of autoimmune disease, and 5.5 times higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders. Most remarkably, among nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD compared to 262 cases in the vaccinated group. When Zervos admits on hidden camera that he would publish the study “just how it is” if not for the current climate, calling the findings “important” while simultaneously refusing to publish out of career preservation fears, the documentary captures a scientist’s moral crisis in real-time.
The film’s methodological approach demonstrates sophisticated understanding of epidemiological research while remaining accessible to general audiences. Rather than simply dismissing potential criticisms, the documentary shows how the Henry Ford team conducted multiple sensitivity analyses, adjusting for follow-up time, healthcare-seeking behavior, and various confounders—yet the alarming disparities persisted. The visual presentation of data, particularly the graph showing that by age 10 only 43% of vaccinated children remained free from chronic health conditions compared to 83% of unvaccinated children, makes complex statistics immediately comprehensible. The film strengthens its case by contextualizing the Henry Ford study within other independent research, including Dr. Peter Aaby’s shocking findings from Guinea-Bissau where DTP-vaccinated children had five times higher mortality rates despite being protected from the target diseases.
The documentary’s investigative techniques create undeniable dramatic tension while raising important questions about scientific transparency. The decision to use hidden cameras, while controversial, proves justified when Zervos’s candid admissions reveal the gulf between private acknowledgment and public silence. The film effectively contrasts heart-wrenching parent testimonials—particularly the devastating account of triplets who simultaneously regressed after vaccination—with the cold institutional responses that dismiss their experiences. Attorney Aaron Siri’s deposition of vaccine luminary Dr. Stanley Plotkin provides another documentary highlight, with Plotkin admitting under oath that five-day safety trials cannot detect autoimmune or neurological conditions that develop after that window, essentially acknowledging that vaccine safety science rests on assumptions rather than data.
From a cinematographic perspective, “An Inconvenient Study” excels at building narrative tension through careful pacing and strategic reveals. The filmmakers wisely hold back the actual study results until after establishing the credibility of both Bigtree and Zervos, making the eventual revelations land with maximum impact. The hidden camera footage, while grainy, carries the authentic tension of genuine investigative journalism—this isn’t polished propaganda but raw documentation of a scientist’s confession. The film’s emotional range, from parents’ anguished testimonials to Bigtree’s visible frustration when Zervos refuses to publish, creates a human dimension that prevents the documentary from becoming merely a data presentation. The inclusion of the cease-and-desist letter from Henry Ford Health’s attorneys in the film’s conclusion adds a layer of institutional intimidation that reinforces the documentary’s central thesis about suppression.
“An Inconvenient Study” stands as essential viewing for anyone concerned about children’s health, scientific integrity, or institutional transparency. The documentary’s power lies not in telling viewers what to think but in exposing information that has been deliberately withheld, allowing audiences to draw their own conclusions. When Dr. Zervos states that “nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job,” he inadvertently explains why this study remained hidden and why Bigtree felt compelled to expose it through unconventional means. The film’s call for other institutions to replicate this research feels less like activism and more like basic scientific principle—if the Henry Ford study is flawed, prove it through replication, not suppression. For parents making health decisions for their children, medical professionals questioning orthodox positions, and citizens concerned about institutional capture of science, this documentary provides crucial information that has been systematically kept from public view. Its ultimate message—that parents deserve access to all safety data before making medical decisions for their children—should resonate regardless of one’s position on vaccines, making “An Inconvenient Study” one of the most important documentaries of our time.
Most people go through their entire lives never questioning where money comes from. They assume governments create it, that banks merely store and lend it, and that economic crises are natural phenomena like weather patterns. Stephen Mitford Goodson’s “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind” demolishes these assumptions with documented evidence spanning three millennia: for over three centuries, private banks have created 97% of the world’s money supply from nothing, as interest-bearing debt. Banks don’t lend existing money – they create new money by typing numbers into computers, then charge compound interest on this fiction while seizing real assets when the mathematically impossible debts can’t be repaid.
Goodson’s authority comes from his position as a former Director of the South African Reserve Bank who witnessed firsthand how central banks operate. Unlike academic economists who theorize from ivory towers or journalists who speculate from outside, Goodson sat in the boardroom where monetary policy gets made. He saw the mechanisms of control, understood the deliberate creation of booms and busts, and recognized the same patterns of manipulation he would later trace through Roman copper coins, medieval tally sticks, colonial scrip, and modern electronic transfers. His sudden death in 2018, like so many monetary reformers before him, fits a familiar pattern.
The historical evidence reveals consistent outcomes: whenever governments issue their own money debt-free, civilizations flourish with full employment, stable prices, and cultural achievement. Medieval England’s workers labored just fourteen weeks yearly when tally sticks served as money. Tsarist Russia grew 10% annually with the world’s lowest taxes under state banking. Hitler’s Germany eliminated unemployment while doubling GDP in six years using state-issued currency. Modern North Dakota maintains budget surpluses while every other American state drowns in debt. Every one of these successful systems was destroyed through war, revolution, or assassination. The French Revolution, the American Civil War, both World Wars, the Bolshevik Revolution, the recent destruction of Libya – all were fundamentally about destroying state banking systems that threatened private usury.
The mechanism of enslavement works through mathematical impossibility. When banks create money as debt, every dollar in circulation requires more than a dollar to repay because of interest – but that extra money doesn’t exist unless more debt is created. Society must sink ever deeper into debt just to maintain the money supply, while compound interest transfers real wealth to parasites who produce nothing. When the Federal Reserve creates a trillion dollars with keystrokes, then collects interest on it forever, that’s counterfeiting with legal protection. Sir Josiah Stamp, former Bank of England director, stated it plainly: banks own the earth through their power to create deposits, and with a flick of the pen will create enough to buy it back again even if you took it away.
Today’s cascading crises are predictable outcomes of this system reaching its mathematical limits. The demographic collapse across developed nations – with fertility rates below replacement from Germany to Japan – stems directly from compound interest forcing both spouses to work ever-longer hours for diminishing purchasing power, making children unaffordable. The 2008 crisis that destroyed millions of lives while banks received trillion-dollar bailouts was the system working exactly as designed: create the bubble through easy credit, crash it through credit restriction, then seize real assets during the panic while taxpayers fund the rescue. Goodson documents how every leader who tried to reform this system – Lincoln, Garfield, Kennedy, Qathafi – was assassinated, while every nation that created sovereign money – Napoleonic France, Imperial Russia, National Socialist Germany, modern Libya – was destroyed through wars marketed to the public as ideological conflicts.
The implications of Goodson’s work challenge our entire understanding of modern history. Wars are fought to enforce banking monopolies, not ideologies. Democracy operates as theater while private banks hold true sovereignty through money creation. Our enslavement is mathematical rather than political. The current system’s end game is civilizational extinction, as usury makes human reproduction itself unaffordable. Yet the solution has been proven successful hundreds of times throughout history: governments must reclaim their sovereign right to create money debt-free for the public good, as the American colonies did with colonial scrip, as Lincoln did with greenbacks, as North Dakota does today. You’ve never heard these success stories. You don’t know banks create money from nothing. You believe wars are fought for freedom rather than to enforce debt slavery. This ignorance is carefully cultivated, because as Henry Ford warned, if people understood the banking system, there would be revolution before morning.
The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS contaminated “almost all” of the popular baby formula brands tested recently by Consumer Reports, it says in a new report.
These results are troubling. The study analyzed 41 popular baby formula brands, including well-known names like Enfamil and Similac, startups like Bobbie, and a range of store and imported brands, for the presence of chemicals like arsenic, lead, BPA, acrylamide and PFAS.
Because the study tested just one sample per brand, more research is needed to be certain which ones contain forever chemicals.
Even more concerning is that many of the PFAS compounds detected have not been thoroughly studied, leaving uncertainty about their potential health risks, especially for infant safety.
PFAS are everywhere, from cookware and food packaging to waterproof clothing and cosmetics. They contaminate water, food such as baby formula, soil, air and household dust, contributing to widespread exposure.
Consumer Reports’ scientists detected PFAS in most of the formula samples, with one particularly concerning compound standing out: PFOS, detected in several samples. It is one of the most notorious PFAS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard. It was phased out in the U.S. under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency after revelations of PFOS health hazards.
The EPA now regulates PFOS in drinking water with a maximum contaminant level of 4 parts per trillion, due to its classification as a carcinogen.
Because of its known toxicity and potential long-term health impacts, the presence of PFOS in any baby formula is especially alarming. PFAS don’t break down in the environment, and they build up in the human body over time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99 percent of Americans, including newborn babies.
EWG’s PFAS map shows PFOS contamination in nearly half of the nation’s drinking water. Without any information to the contrary, it’s possible to surmise that some of the PFOS Consumer Reports detected comes from contaminated water used for the formula.
This possible source of PFOS in formula raises urgent questions about manufacturing processes and the need for stronger industry oversight and stricter safety standards to protect infants from exposure to hazardous chemicals.
PFAS exposure risks for babies and children
Babies and young children, whose bodies are still developing, are particularly vulnerable to PFAS exposure, which can have lifelong consequences. Their small size, growing organs and developing immune systems make them especially susceptible to the harmful effects of these bioaccumulative chemicals, which remain in the body for years.
Even small amounts of PFAS in formula can add to cumulative exposure, putting infants’ growth and health at risk.
Research has found PFAS in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, revealing direct prenatal and early-life exposure. Babies born with PFAS in their cord blood are more likely to have elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels – biomarkers linked to future heart disease. PFAS exposure also disrupts bile acids, which are essential for digestion and metabolism, so the risk of chronic health issues may go up as these children grow.
Even very low doses of PFAS can also weaken babies’ immune systems, making them more prone to infection and reducing vaccine effectiveness. PFAS exposure has also been linked to thyroid dysfunction, which can impair growth and brain development. In the gut, PFAS may alter the balance of microbial cells, disrupting digestion and weakening immune defenses.
PFAS pollution has caused a widespread public health crisis. Over 143 million Americans are exposed because of their drinking water. These forever chemicals have contaminated the water supply at 8,865 sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories.
Yet despite mounting evidence of harm, our government mostly fails to regulate PFAS contamination of food, including baby formula.
Following Consumer Reports’ alarming findings, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to strengthen oversight of the baby formula industry. The agency pledged to increase testing for heavy metals and other contaminants in formula, a welcome step.
But it remains unclear whether tests for PFAS will be included or whether the FDA will establish safe limits for these toxic chemicals in infant nutrition. Without stronger regulations, children will continue to be at risk of harm from this insidious threat.
We urgently need stricter regulations and greater accountability from industries that have allowed PFAS to infiltrate everyday life.
Consumer Reports’ findings are a wake-up call for regulators and manufacturers to prioritize infant safety by eliminating PFAS from formula and strengthening oversight.
What parents need to know
No parent should have to worry whether their baby’s formula contains toxic chemicals. Parents can take practical steps to help reduce their baby’s exposure, including
Using filtered water when preparing powdered formula. Since PFAS can contaminate tap water, a water filter can help reduce exposure. The most effective option is a reverse osmosis system installed under the sink or at the tap, but these systems can be costly. Fortunately, many countertop pitcher filters have also proven effective in lowering PFAS levels, according to EWG tests.
Pushing for stronger regulations. Parents can make their voices heard by supporting consumer safety initiatives that demand the FDA set stricter standards for PFAS and other contaminants in baby formula. Greater oversight and enforcement are essential to protecting infant health.
No family should face the burden of toxic exposure from essential nutrition. By taking steps to reduce risk and advocating for stricter safety measures, parents can help protect their children’s health and push for long-overdue industry accountability.
The film reveals how the government (along with police), from the very beginning tried to suppress the truth of what really went on.
There are persistent claims (by family supporters and some commentators) that:
A large tranche of evidence was effectively withheld or placed under very long restrictions (“embargoed for 100 years”).
One thing that does come out in the film is that a police whistleblower provided the family with footage, recorded in early 2011 by cameras lowered into the mine through bore-holes, showing a pair of glasses, rubber hosing and a wooden pallet and at least two intact bodies.
This is covered here.
On June 19, TV3’s Newshub aired more footage taken inside the Pike River Coal mine in New Zealand’s South Island, which exploded in November 2010, killing 29 men. The video, recorded in early 2011 by cameras lowered into the mine through bore-holes, shows a pair of glasses, rubber hosing and a wooden pallet.
It also clearly shows at least two intact bodies, and there are less clear images of what may be more bodies. These images have not been made public but have been viewed by the families and reporters.
The video is part of several hours of footage suppressed by police for more than six years. It was released to the victims’ families only after some excerpts were leaked and broadcast in April. That video showed members of Mines Rescue working inside the drift tunnel that leads into the main body of the mine. It discredits repeated National Party government claims that the mine is too dangerous to re-enter to investigate the precise cause of the explosion and to recover bodies.
The film, only just released, practically ended with an agreement between the Labour Party and NZ First with a “commitment to re-enter the Pike River mine”
After the agreement, on 20 November 2017 the Government announced the establishment of the Pike River Recovery Agency “to work in close partnership with the Pike 29 families … plan for decisions on the manned re-entry of the drift of the Pike River mine”.
The film shows a scene with a smiling, toothy, Jacinda Adern that mplies she is the hero.
There are two heroes amongst the families on the West Coast. One is trade unionist, Helen Kelly who appears briefly in the movie.
The other is Winston Peters who consistently supported the position of the families.
However, in the film Peters us conspicuous by his absence and Adern is portrayed as the hero.
Much was made in NZ media of bodies being found
This report says the families were “one step closer to discovering why CEO, Peter Whittle escaped prosectution.
However, it is clear that the cover-up continued.
From 2021
WINSTON PETERS ALLEGES THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT COVERING UP THE MINE DISASTER
Some of the best coverage came from WSWS, a British, Trotskyist publication that shows its true political colours when describing Winston Peters as a “right-wing nationalist”who is posing as a supporter of the families, presumably for cynical political reasons.
The Labour Party-led government is racing to shut down the underground investigation of Pike River coal mine. It aims to prevent the recovery of evidence that could lead to prosecutions of those responsible for the disaster which killed 29 workers in November 2010.
The article hones in on the disgusting Andrew Little, now mayor of Wellington – one of the most digusting figures amongst a very bad bunch.
The government is relying on the trade union bureaucracy, which has maintained a conspiracy of silence about the cover-up of one of the country’s worst industrial disasters. E tū, formerly known as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), had 71 members at Pike River when it exploded; its current national secretary Bill Newson told the WSWS in May that the union “supports the government’s position regarding not re-entering the main mine.”
Minister for Pike River Recovery Andrew Little, who ordered the shutdown of the investigation, was the head of the EPMU when Pike River exploded. This is a clear conflict of interest, since the union was complicit in the disaster. It took no action to stop workers entering the mine, despite knowing about the unsafe conditions. In the days after the disaster, Little defended the company’s safety record.
The government’s move to seal and walk away from the mine as quickly as possible raises disturbing questions of vital importance to the working class in New Zealand and internationally: What is the government seeking to bury, and why?
On July 30, Winston Peters, leader of the right-wing nationalist New Zealand First Party, visited Greymouth, near Pike River, to pose as a supporter of the families. Peters served as deputy prime minister and foreign minister in Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led 2017-2020 government, which also included the Green Party. NZ First lost all its seats in parliament in the October 2020 election, getting only 2.6 percent of the votes.
And, yes, the mine HAS been sealed – something the mine owners and the authorities wanted from the start
The mine has been sealed after the re-entry of the access drift. It is no longer open for further human entry beyond the drift (and the drift itself is now closed). The focus now has shifted to borehole imaging and investigation rather than full human re-entry into the deeper workings (ChatGPT)
DOC has taken steps to develop the site as a memorial and legacy project: the Pike 29 Memorial Track was officially opened in February 2024, connecting the Paparoa Track to the mine‐valley.
The key oversight/government function has shifted: DOC now manages the site and holds the mine records; the PRRA’s core job is done
I’ll leave the final word to ChatGPT, which reflects my own thinking
Bodies still unrecovered – symbolic of a nation’s unhealed wound. The miners remain entombed, and so the event lives on in suspension.
Royal Commission embargo – even if for procedural reasons, it feels to many like truth deferred; the official narrative remains partially sealed.
Site handed to DoC – once seen as a desecration when raised by Key’s government, now presented as closure under Labour. It marks the bureaucratic transformation of tragedy into heritage — tidy for institutions, painful for families.
No criminal convictions – not for lack of evidence, but because the system itself balked. The unlawful deal that let Peter Whittall avoid prosecution was later condemned by the Supreme Court, yet still left no accountability.
Public fatigue – the story, so long and grim, has receded from the headlines. The movie revives empathy, but for a moment; institutions remain unmoved.
So what is one to say?
Perhaps only that Pike River has become a mirror — of how modern states manage moral disasters. The language of “closure” replaces justice; “risk management” replaces responsibility. A memorial track is built, and the living are invited to walk through a landscape the dead cannot leave.
It’s not cynicism to observe this — it’s simply to note that when a society can’t finish a story, it builds a monument instead.
An exposé of the Irish famine (book review) … further illustration of how genocide is not new, and how the victors write our histories … a must read. I encourage you to sub to Unbecoming’s excellent substack. EWNZ
By Chris Fogarty – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
For over 170 years, the world has been told that Ireland suffered a natural famine between 1845 and 1850 – a tragic tale of potato blight and a foolish population’s over-dependence on a single crop. This story, taught in universities, memorialized in museums, and repeated in countless history books, has one fundamental problem: it’s a deliberate lie. Christopher Fogarty’s “Ireland 1845-1850: The Perfect Holocaust and Who Kept it ‘Perfect’” demolishes this narrative with military deployment records, shipping manifests, and Ordnance Survey maps that reveal what actually happened. While only the potato crop failed, Ireland continued producing massive quantities of grain, cattle, dairy, and other foods – all of which were removed at gunpoint by 67 British Army regiments, approximately half of Britain’s entire military force, and shipped to England while the producers starved. The death toll wasn’t the officially claimed 21,770 but approximately five million people, half of Ireland’s population.
The evidence Fogarty presents reads like a prosecutor’s case file. He names every British regiment involved, tracking their movements through Ireland’s 32 counties via National Archives records. He identifies General Sir Edward Blakeney as the Commander-in-Chief who orchestrated this operation from before 1845 through after 1851 – a man Queen Victoria honored with the Order of the Bath in 1849 as he neared completion of his genocidal mission….
A recent study confirming the herbicide’s carcinogenic potential has been the subject of fierce criticism. However, this criticism is based on flawed scientific grounds, Le Monde has reported.
The recent publication of a study indicating an increased risk of various tumors in laboratory rats exposed to glyphosate has sparked numerous comments on social media and in the press, aimed at downplaying or denigrating this research.
These results, published on June 10 in the journal Environmental Health, only confirm the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which estimated in 2015 that the studies available at the time provided “sufficient evidence” of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity in animals.
The attacks on this study, led by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, offer an exemplary array of the sleight of hand of “doubt manufacturing,” a rhetoric aimed at undermining confidence in scientific results, often used to delay or fight regulatory decisions.
“The journal is unknown, so the study is flawed.”
Eric Billy, an immuno-oncology researcher, was among the most vocal critics of the Ramazzini Institute study (which was actually an international study with authors from all over the world not just the Ramazzini Institute), which he deemed “flawed.” In a series of messages published on June 14 on his X and Bluesky accounts, which received numerous retweets, this employee of the pharmaceutical company Novartis first accused its authors of having “chosen a more lenient journal to avoid criticism,” explaining that he would have expected to read this article in the journals “Nature, Science, or Cell,” which he believes are of higher quality.
WHY IT IS IRRELEVANT
Environmental Health, published by the SpringerNature group, is actually one of the most influential journals in its field. Its citation rate places it 32nd out of 687 indexed journals covering the fields of public health, environmental health, or occupational health, according to the 2024 ranking by scientific publisher Elsevier. Prestigious journals like Nature or Science do not generally publish tests like the one conducted by the Ramazzini Institute.
“A number of reliable and high-quality toxicity studies, like the one you share with us, are published in specialized journals,” explains Meagan Phelan, spokesperson for publications published under the Science banner. “Although these are essential elements of substance assessment, these tests are not considered conceptual advances and, as such, Science does not generally publish them.”
“Exposed animals live as long as others”
The Ramazzini study did not reveal any significant difference in mortality between rats exposed to glyphosate and unexposed control rats. This point was highlighted by Mr. Billy to put the study’s conclusions into perspective. And it hit the mark: it was later reported in Le Figaro, which saw it as the “first lesson” of this work.
WHY IT’S MORE COMPLICATED
The fact that the study did not reveal any significant differences in survival rates between the two groups was not presented by the Ramazzini researchers as a result in itself. Their protocol was, in fact, designed to detect the carcinogenic potential of a product, not its effect on the animals’ survival: all of them were sacrificed two-thirds of the way through their lives, at the age of 104 weeks. Now, it’s easy to understand that if human smokers were compared to non-smokers, the mortality differences would be small if all individuals were euthanized at the age of 50.
In reality, the absence of a mortality difference between groups of animals over the duration of the test is mainly a guarantee of the quality of the study, for statistical reasons. An animal that dies prematurely will have been exposed for a shorter time to the substance tested, and the probability of tumors developing in its group will therefore be reduced. Its statistical weight in the analysis will therefore be different. A high survival rate in each group, both treated and control, guarantees the “maintenance of statistical power” of the experiment, according to the good practice guides in toxicology (maintained by the OECD).
“The chosen rodent strain is not appropriate.”
Several commentators have also criticized the Ramazzini Institute researchers’ choice of the so-called “Sprague-Dawley” rat strain. Eric Billy argues that the use of this type of rat “has already been strongly criticized by the scientific community due to an abnormally high frequency of spontaneous tumor lesions compared to other rodent strains,” recalling that this strain was used by Gilles-Eric Séralini in his famous and controversial study on GMOs.
WHY THIS IS INCORRECT
In reality, the high rates of spontaneous tumors observed in the “Sprague-Dawley” strain only concern certain sites (tumors of the mammary gland, pituitary gland, etc., found at comparable rates in the treated and control groups). Furthermore, the researchers have at their disposal an abundant literature to take into account the specific characteristics of this strain.
Not only is the “Sprague-Dawley” strain not problematic in itself, but it is the most widely used. In 2024, researchers showed that more than 55% of the 263 carcinogenicity studies of active ingredients conducted in recent years on rats used this strain. The carcinogenicity of Ruxolitinib, a drug substance marketed by Novartis, was, for example, tested on this strain. As for Dr. Séralini’s study (published in 2012, before being retracted and then republished), the choice of strain was not, in itself, among the criticisms made. As summarized by IARC experts in 2015, it was the entire protocol implemented that was criticized.
“The doses tested are unrealistic”
Like several other critical voices, Eric Billy is surprised by the high doses of glyphosate to which rats were exposed in the Ramazzini Institute study, stating that “even the lowest dose tested far exceeds actual human [dietary] exposure” and that “the other two doses are therefore a hundred and a thousand times higher than this human exposure.” The same argument and the same figure are used in Le Figaro.
WHY IT IS IRRELEVANT
This argument is frequently raised to challenge the relevance of the results of animal studies. However, millions of humans exposed for decades cannot be compared to a hundred rats exposed for 24 months. The purpose of these tests is to characterize the carcinogenic potential of substances, not to assess the risks faced by the population at actual exposure levels (sometimes much higher than dietary exposure, for people living near farms, farm workers, etc.).
In fact, the Glyphosate has already been associated with an increased risk of certain lymphomas in farmers in four meta-analyses and one pooled study—the highest levels of evidence in epidemiology. Animal studies allow us to interpret these results, suggesting that these associations are indicative of a causal link. And even if we give credence to the “too high dose” argument, the objection remains unfounded.
The Ramazzini study indeed examined the effects of glyphosate at considerably lower doses than all previous similar studies. In the seven studies selected by European authorities during their latest assessment of the herbicide molecule, the lowest doses tested were 12 to 420 times higher than in the Ramazzini study, and the highest exposures were 10 to 33 times higher.
“The route of exposure is not adequate.”
In the Ramazzini study, the animals were exposed to glyphosate through drinking water, not food. Mr. Billy maintains that this is inadequate, arguing that humans are more likely to be exposed through food.
WHY IT IS IRRELEVANT
Among the animal studies on glyphosate submitted to health authorities or evaluated by IARC, none has been deemed inadmissible because it opted for a similar exposure route. Drinking water is, moreover, considered acceptable for assessing “food or environmental chemicals, including pesticides,” just like diet, according to OECD Good Practice Guide No. 451.
This false controversy is a classic argument. In 1953, the Sloan Kettering Institute’s first work on the carcinogenic potential of tobacco involved observing the development of tumors on the shaved skin of rodents after smearing it with cigarette tar extracts. The American Tobacco Company criticized the scientists’ use of a “high concentration of smoke extracts—entirely different from the smoke a person might inhale from a cigarette,” while stating that “all scientists agree that there is no known relationship between skin cancers in mice and lung cancers in humans.”
Like the Ramazzini researchers, those at the Sloan Kettering Institute were not seeking to exactly mimic human exposure to the agent being tested (no one smears cigarette tar on themselves), but to test its carcinogenic potential.
“The number of animals is insufficient”
In his critical thread, Eric Billy makes a calculation estimating that, to achieve greater statistical robustness, the Ramazzini researchers should have used at least three times as many rats, or 160 to 220 individuals per group.
WHY THIS IS INCORRECT
Such requirements are fanciful. No chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity study of glyphosate conducted on rats has ever enrolled so many animals. All studies similar to those of Ramazzini one have included around 50 rats per group. And for good reason: this is the threshold recommended by the OECD guidance document.
“In this case, it is completely ridiculous to require more animals per group,” asserts American biostatistician Christopher Portier, former director of the US National Toxicology Program, whose work is an authority on the subject. According to this specialist, an expert witness for plaintiffs in several ongoing trials in the United States, the Ramazzini researchers “managed to demonstrate a statistically significant trend toward an increase in certain tumors in the treated animals, even though there were only 50 per group. Why would the experiment be repeated with more animals to gain more statistical power?”
In reality, it is when a statistically significant effect is not found that it is possible to argue that the number of animals is too small, and that it may be useful to increase statistical power. “The only disadvantage of having 50 rats per group, rather than 160 or 220, is ‘missing’ an effect, certainly not seeing an effect that doesn’t exist,” concludes Mr. Portier.
This article benefited from discussions with researchers at the Ramazzini Institute and critical review by three researchers (INRAE and INSERM) involved in toxicology work involving animal studies.
What is the “manufacturing of doubt”?
As science historians Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University) and Erik Conway (NASA) have shown in a landmark book (Merchants of Doubt, 2012), the “manufacturing of doubt” was developed in the 1950s by tobacco companies to deny or relativize the effects of cigarettes.
This rhetoric turns science against itself, by distorting the intellectual tools at the heart of scientists’ approaches (methodical doubt, demands for rigor, distrust of claims perceived as spectacular, etc.). It is thus very effective on members of the scientific and medical communities who do not work directly on the targeted subjects, as well as on audiences attached to rationality and the defense of scientific values, or even journalists who sometimes repeat such circulating arguments without thinking twice.
A highly effective propaganda technique, “manufacturing doubt” sometimes requires lengthy explanations to unmask, especially since it sometimes mixes legitimate criticisms with others based on untruths, misinterpretations, or simply erroneous considerations. It constitutes a toolbox constantly used for decades by a variety of industrial sectors wishing to protect their activities from any health or environmental regulation.
“Injuries are 10–15 times higher … 30–50-year-olds are dropping dead… The victims fear backlash or can’t accept they were misled …The media and tech giants actively suppress these stories … “
Note: Barry Young, NZ data analyst also revealed shocking details he discovered in our data and was promptly shut down, vilified and silenced… take note Kiwis … it appears that the safe & effective is not & it is still being promoted (more links here) EWNZ
Wall Street Whistleblower Reveals Grim Truth Behind Rising Deaths of the Young and Fit
Edward Dowd, a veteran data analyst and ex-BlackRock executive, has just blown the lid off a terrifying trend: 5,000 people are dying every week, and the insurance industry knows why.
Linked directly to Covid mRNA ‘vaccines’, the spike in excess deaths is especially devastating among young adults.
Dowd says the silence is deadly, and the numbers are undeniable.
One of the world’s leading data experts has revealed that the insurance industry is now seeing up to 5,000 deaths every single week that are linked to Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
The staggering death toll was disclosed by Edward Dowd, a renowned Wall Street data analyst.
Dowd dropped the bombshell during a recent interview on the Commodity Culture podcast.
While sounding the alarm about the discovery, Dowd revealed that the number of healthy young adults “dropping dead” has skyrocketed.
He also notes that “vaccine” injuries are now “10-15 times higher” than before the mass Covid “vaccination” campaign.
Worryingly, however, he says that “vaccine” injury victims and families of the dead are too afraid to speak out because they “fear backlash.”
Dowd argues that the reports on mRNA injection-related deaths and injuries are being shut down by Big Tech and the corporate media.
In the United States alone, Dowd revealed that insurance data shows “3,000–5,000 vaccine-linked deaths a week.”
“Injuries are 10–15 times higher,” he added.
“30–50-year-olds are dropping dead.
“The victims fear backlash or can’t accept they were misled.
“The media and tech giants actively suppress these stories,” he warns.
(click on the image belowto watch video at rumble.com)
Dowd, a former executive at the world’s largest investment firm, BlackRock, has been sounding the alarm about surging deaths among the Covid-vaxxed for some time.
He is considered one of America’s leading data experts.
Through his expert analysis of insurance industry data, Dowd has become a prominent figure in investigations into the impact of the global Covid “vaccination” campaign.
As Slay News previously reported, Dowd dropped a chilling warning in April after uncovering evidence showing that the number of excess deaths of working-age Americans is skyrocketing.
According to an alarming warning from Dowd, insurance industry data shows that excess deaths are soaring among people aged 18 to 64 years old.
These deaths started exploding after the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were rolled out for public use in early 2021.
However, the deaths appear to show no signs of slowing down, despite the pandemic being long over and “vaccination” rates dropping off.
In January 2022, Life Insurance CEO Scott Davidson reported that death rates among working-aged people aged 18 to 64 were “up 40 percent over what they were pre-pandemic.”
He explained that a 40 percent spike in deaths was completely unprecedented.
Davidson compared a 10 percent rise in deaths to a once-in-200-year flood.
According to Dowd, excess deaths are now “off the charts.”
Davidson also noted that excess deaths that started surging in 2021 were non-Covid deaths.
(click on the image below to watch video at rumble.com)
Meanwhile, other highly vaccinated nations around the world are continuing to sound the alarm about surging deaths.
An explosive new alert has emerged from Singapore regarding the nation’s skyrocketing excess death rate among those who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
The chilling data has raised serious questions about the true toll of the aggressive global Covid “vaccination” campaign.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that “excess deaths” are the number of deaths above what would be expected based on historical trends.
According to bombshell data from the Human Mortality Database (HMD) and peer-reviewed studies, the country experienced a sharp and sustained rise in excess deaths immediately following the rollout of Covid “vaccines.”
The spike is an ominous signal that the vaccines may have played a significant role in the surge of mortality.
The data paints a disturbing picture of a country that, despite being one of the most vaccinated in the world, is facing unprecedented levels of death.
In March 2022, excess mortality in Singapore spiked to an astonishing 49.9% above expected deaths.
The broader period between February and April 2022 saw an average of 24.0% higher deaths than usual.
Alarmingly, however, this wasn’t a temporary uptick.
Excess deaths have continued surging long after the pandemic.
As of December 2024, the most recent data reveals that excess deaths in Singapore have stabilized at approximately 25-30% above the historical baseline.
The data suggests that this elevated mortality rate has become the new normal for the fully “vaccinated” nation.
The New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) have provided a fact sheet on their covid-19 ‘vaccine’ (experimental injection) concerns. EWNZ
PREPARED BY INDEPENDENT DOCTORS OF NEW ZEALAND
ABOUT THE ISSUE
Over 300 medical professionals and 55,000 New Zealanders have strong concerns about covid-19 vaccines. Since 2021, formal communications have been sent to government officials and regulators documenting serious safety issues with covid-19 mRNA vaccines
KEY SAFETY CONCERNS DNA CONTAMINATION CONFIRMED
Laboratory testing by virologist Dr David Speicher and nine independent labs worldwide has confirmed all tested vials are heavily contaminated with synthetic DNA
The FDA has received a landmark Citizen Petition (21 January 2025) demanding immediate revocation of approvals for Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax
DNA levels exceed the 10 ng/dose limit by up to 145 times
Lipid nanoparticle encapsulation may allow synthetic DNA to integrate with our own DNA, with potential to cause permanent genetic changes and heighten cancer risk
Billions of cancer-causing SV40 (monkey virus) DNA insertions per dose have been found
At least one of the tested contaminated Australian batches was administered to New Zealand children
Read &/or download the pdf for more info at the link
This is all sounding not unlike the 1080 ruse in NZ… not forgetting the glyphosate one either. All those claims these products are harmless are blatant lies! EWNZ
“There is no upside to this poisoning of Australian farming land, but rather, a wide array of agonising downsides from the brutal programme of poisoning of insects, animals, earth, waterways, and humans. There is not even a clear body of evidence that this supposed “pest control” programme is actually working to reduce the fire ant population. However it is putting many farmers under such added stress that they are breaking down under the strain of the bullying by bureaucrats, and are starting to abandon the farming lifestyle altogether – which then in turn puts food production supply lines under great stress, causing a rise in food costs to Australians already struggling to feed their families.”
This is a video discussion with Liz Gunn, Ginger Bartlett, Tania Fouquet & Bronwyn Holm.
As part of the larger worldwide pushback against what is now seen by millions of aware people as ‘The Climate Change Rort’, we speak to Bronwyn Holm, Ginger, and Tanya about the blatant government overreach and bullying on display with the Fire Ant Eradication Programme in southeast Queensland., Australia.
Ginger and Tanya discuss the government’s forced and unnecessary application of toxic chemicals on farming properties, despite there being zero evidence of fire ant presence on these rural lands.
The toxins are poured on to the land by the overweening and cruelly indifferent bureaucratic enforcers, who have been given vast powers to behave in tyrannical ways by the WEF puppet politicians.
The poisons end up causing widespread environmental damage, the suffering deaths of family pets, as well as serious harm to the health of the farmers who find their lands invaded- and their rights as owners of private land completely over-ruled and ignored.
There is no upside to this poisoning of Australian farming land, but rather, a wide array of agonising downsides from the brutal programme of poisoning of insects, animals, earth, waterways, and humans. There is not even a clear body of evidence that this supposed “pest control” programme is actually working to reduce the fire ant population.
However it is putting many farmers under such added stress that they are breaking down under the strain of the bullying by bureaucrats, and are starting to abandon the farming lifestyle altogether – which then in turn puts food production supply lines under great stress, causing a rise in food costs to Australians already struggling to feed their families.
Included in this widespread discussion about the current intentional globalist cull of farmers, and the manufactured ‘food provision and cost crisis’, is a clarion call for Affidavits- sworn statements of truths of the suffering by Australian farmers – and other tangible evidence about the failures of this pest control scourge, from all farmers who are sick of being pushed around and who want to join up to offer a strong challenge to the Fire Ant Programme.
What is happening in Queensland is part of a much larger picture of unprecedented global government cruelty to our valuable farmers, especially in Western countries.
It’s also part of the Marxist Agenda 2030, from the UN, which has a plan to bring The People to our knees through famine and war and societal division, in order that they can usher in fully digital ID and control, as well as centralised financial control of the human race that they aim to treat like second class citizens of the world, in just the same way that has been done in China.
The People of Australia are called instead to stand together, and to stage collective action, now, against their globalist government, to protect Australia’s land and the food security – for which farmers are needed in vast numbers.
When Australians stand up and push back on this unacceptable bullying of farmers, using fabricated ‘excuses’ like the imagined ‘Fire Ant Problem’, then the world will follow suit.
Please Australia, stand with your farmers and join them, and farmers we ask you all to be united, fearless, and outspoken in your stance against the thoroughly discredited – but highly propagandised – Climate Change Con.
For over a century, vaccination has been repeatedly linked to severe neurological injuries including brain damage—with many modern studies showing a 3-10 fold increase in common chronic illnesses.
To dodge this massive liability, all research into vaccine injuries (and many other catastrophes like Agent Orange) was suppressed so that health authorities could claim there was “no evidence” of vaccine harm.
Another scheme was to redefine the brain injury as “autism” rather than encephalitis (which the US government was legally required to provide injury compensation for).
Previously, children with significant vaccine brain damage were referred to as “mentally retarded.” However, after a multi-decade campaign cancelled “retarded” they were instead diagnosed as autistic—a vague term which blurs severe and minor disability together, thereby effectively concealing the severe cases from the public’s awareness.
This article will reveal the manipulative techniques and wordplay that have been used to conceal vaccine injuries from the public’s awareness, as now is the time when we can at last end this atrocity.
I’ve long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society. Again and again, I’ve watched professional PR firms create narratives that most of the country believes, regardless of how much it goes against their self-interests. What’s most remarkable is that despite the exact same tactics being used repeatedly on the public, most people simply can’t see it. When you try to point out exactly how they’re being bamboozled by yet another PR campaign, they often can’t recognize it—instead insisting you’re paranoid or delusional.
That’s why one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry. Once you understand their playbook—having “independent” experts push sculpted language that media outlets then repeat—it becomes very easy to spot, and saves you from falling into the traps most people do. The COVID-19 vaccines, for instance, were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime.
One of the least appreciated consequences of this industry is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns. This explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong”—if a belief were actually true, it wouldn’t require a massive PR investment to instill in society. Due to PR’s power, the viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out other cultural beliefs.
In this article, we’ll take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this newsletter and how others have benefitted from it, click here!
The Frequency of Vaccine Injuries
When vaccinated and unvaccinated children are compared, chronic illnesses are 3-7X as common in the vaccinated individuals. Because of this, there is a longstanding embargo on ever conducting this type of research (allowing the status quo to remain that “no evidence exists” between the vaccine and the injury).
Recently, Senator Ron Johnson revealed that a robust study comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated had been conducted at a premier medical institution in 2020, but due to the results it showed, despite previously committing to publishing the paper, its authors chose not to, due to how much it violated the medical orthodoxy.
It’s important to note that beyond these results being earth-shattering, they are also entirely in line with every other long-term comparative study that has ever been done on vaccines—all of which I synopsized here (along with the characteristic signs that allow one to identify the frightfully frequent vaccine-injured children).
Erasing Encephalitis
A key theme of George Orwell’s book 1984 is that language defines a culture. If ideas aren’t present in language, the populace can’t conceive of them (which is why 1984’s ruling party eliminated words like ‘freedom’, ‘rebellion’, and ‘justice’ from the new language).
Another way language controls the public consciousness is through the use of ambiguous term which are not clearly defined, so that depending on the needs of the situation, the audience can be steered towards the desired interpretation of it, even if those interpretations sometimes overtly contradict each other (effectively allowing the PR firm’s client to “have their cake and eat it).
For example, Fauci was a master of using slippery language to constantly get whatever he wanted with no accountability through implying but never explicitly stating his desired conclusion (which the media would then run with). A classic example is having everyone in lockstep assert vaccines are “safe and effective” without ever defining what that actually means, thereby allowing that meaningless statement to be treated as “vaccines are 100% safe and effective,” yet simultaneously, having no accountability for lying as those who repeat it never actually said that. This was best demonstrated when Fauci (who continually told us the vaccine would definitely prevent us from getting COVID) was grilled at a recent Congressional hearing, where in response to:
But we knew from the trials that people who got vaccinated still were subject to getting COVID, so was the COVID-19 vaccine 100% effective?
Fauci stated:
I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.
Note: in a recent article I also highlighted how the ambiguous phrase “brain death” was created to make people believe unresponsive individuals were in fact dead, thereby both removing the societal cost of perpetually caring for them and securing a reliable supply of donor organs.
One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerves and brain). Prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature—including many identical to what are seen in modern-day autism.
Furthermore, it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Consider for example, the language at this 1983 debate between doctors which took place on the Donahue Show (which at the time was the largest talk show in America)—that to my knowledge was the last time a publicized debate on vaccines was allowed to happen…
“There has been an explosion of suffering and death from diet-related disease in the UK so I don’t think it’s credible to claim that the committee has been very effective,” said a London professor.
The following report was first published on winepressnews.com on January 8th, 2025. The following report is by the BMJ Group, first published on September 12th, 2024:
More than half of the experts on the UK government’s nutrition advisory panel have links to the food industry, reveals an investigationby The BMJ today.
At least 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with the likes of Nestle, sugar manufacturer Tate and Lyle, and the world’s largest ice cream producer, Unilever, reports freelance journalist Sophie Borland.
And at least six out of the 11 members of SACN’s Subgroup on Maternal and Child Nutrition have ties to food firms, including baby food manufacturers and formula milk brands.
SACN is a powerful group of people appointed as independent experts to advise the government, which in turn influences policy, explains Borland. Since being set up in 2000 it has produced high profile guidelines on daily salt and sugar intake, vitamin D supplements, and feeding babies.
But there is concern that both SACN – and the previous governments reviewing its recommendations – have not done enough to curb rising obesity levels and food-related ill health.
The BMJ looked at the interests declared by SACN members – in publicly available documents published on the government website – within the past three years.
Among them is David Mela, a retired senior scientist from Unilever, who has done consultancy work for Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Coca Cola’s Israel franchise CBC Israel, and Cargill, which produces cocoa and chocolate products among other things.
Another member, Julie Lovegrove, is chair of an expert group at the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe, whose member companies include Pepsico, Cadbury’s US owner Mondelez, and General Mills, the American firm behind Cheerios and Haagen Dazs.
Members of SACN’s Maternal and Child Nutrition subgroup include Ann Prentice, a council member of the Nestle Foundation, and Marion Hetherington who has undertaken work for Danone and baby food brand Ella’s Kitchen, the latter on an unpaid basis. The group’s chair, Ken Ong, has also received research funding from Mead Johnston Nutrition, which makes formula milk.
The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) responded on behalf of SACN and all members named in this article, saying SACN members are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest annually – and new ones at the first appropriate committee meeting, which are included in the minutes and published on the SACN website.
It added: “No members of the committee are directly employed by the food and drink industry, and all have a duty to act in the public interest and to be independent and impartial.”
But Chris van Tulleken, associate professor at University College London and author of a best-selling book on ultra-processed food, says: “Even small financial conflicts affect behaviour and beliefs in subtle or unconscious ways,” while Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, says: “We’re concerned that the committee and its integrity might be undermined by those ties to the food industry.”
Experts tell The BMJ the make-up of SACN needs to be reviewed in light of members’ ties to the food industry. However, Kat Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, says these ties are partly a result of the lack of money in relevant research.
Alison Tedstone, former chief nutritionist for Public Health England, also suggests that refusing to allow experts with industry ties on SACN would “diminish” its expertise and could delay future legislation.
Yet Van Tulleken insists: “Despite two decades of work from a conflicted SACN there has been an explosion of suffering and death from diet-related disease in the UK so I don’t think it’s credible to claim that the committee has been very effective.
“There are some excellent independent experts but they are a minority and in my view their work has been hampered by conflicts of interest with the industry that has created this health crisis. SACN must become independent of the food industry.”
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It isn’t just the ‘safe & effective’ itself that’s killing us, but its consequences all throughout society—including the airliners, many small planes and helicopters, and the military
This essay builds primarily on Eric Dubay’s “Schools = Forced Government Indoctrination Camps,” which synthesizes and presents the historical transformation of American education into a system of control. Dubay’s work itself draws heavily on the pioneering research of John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, whose decades of investigation and documentation provide the foundational evidence for understanding how schools became indoctrination centers.
John Taylor Gatto, the award-winning New York teacher who quit because he was “no longer willing to hurt children,” offers an insider’s testimony that validates everything Dubay documents. His “Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher” strips away the veneer of education to reveal the actual curriculum: confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, provisional self-esteem, and constant surveillance. These aren’t failures of the system—they are the system.
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt brings the receipts. As a senior policy advisor in the Reagan administration’s Department of Education, she had access to the documents that prove the deliberate nature of education’s destruction. Her book “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” provides the paper trail—the foundation reports, government memos, and policy documents that show this was never about education. It was always about control.
Together, these three sources paint a picture that many will find difficult to accept: that the schools we trust with our children were designed as factories to produce compliant workers and consumers, not educated citizens capable of self-governance. The evidence they present isn’t theoretical or conspiratorial—it comes from the architects of the system themselves, who wrote quite plainly about their intentions to use schooling to create a manageable society.
Understanding this history matters now more than ever. As we witness populations accepting unprecedented restrictions on their freedom, as we see adults unable to evaluate conflicting claims or think beyond expert pronouncements, as we observe the widespread inability to imagine alternatives to existing systems—we’re seeing the intended outcomes of a century-long project. The dumbing down wasn’t a mistake. The destruction of critical thinking wasn’t accidental. The production of dependent, anxious, controllable populations was the goal.
This essay synthesizes the work of Dubay, Gatto, and Iserbyt to tell the complete story: how American education was captured, transformed, and weaponized against the very people it claims to serve. The truth they reveal is uncomfortable, even painful. But until we understand how thoroughly we’ve been processed by this system, we cannot begin to reclaim our capacity for independent thought and autonomous action. And without that capacity, we remain what the system designed us to be: human resources awaiting instruction.
Introduction: The Uncomfortable Truth About Modern Schooling
Before 1852, American education consisted of one-room schoolhouses, independent teachers, and students of all ages attending of their own free will. A child in 1840s America might spend a few months learning to read from the Bible, master arithmetic through practical farm calculations, and study rhetoric from books that would challenge today’s college students. The literacy rate in Connecticut showed only one in every 579 people was illiterate. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” sold 600,000 copies to a population of just 3 million—of whom twenty percent were slaves and fifty percent indentured servants.
Today’s reality presents a stark contrast. After twelve years of mandatory schooling, one in five American adults is functionally illiterate. Students graduate unable to think critically, emotionally dependent on authority, and conditioned to accept their place in economic hierarchies they don’t understand. This transformation didn’t happen by accident or incompetence. As John Taylor Gatto discovered during his thirty years as a New York City teacher—including three awards as Teacher of the Year—the system works exactly as designed. The problem is that it was never designed to educate.
The architects of modern schooling stated their intentions plainly. In 1906, William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, declared that ninety-nine students out of one hundred are “automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom.” This wasn’t a lament but a goal. John D. Rockefeller, whose General Education Board would reshape American schools, was even more explicit in his mission statement: “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets, or men of letters… The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”
Charlotte Iserbyt, a former senior policy advisor in the Reagan administration’s Department of Education, spent decades documenting how this agenda unfolded through the 20th century. Her research reveals a paper trail of deliberate decisions to transform American education from a system developing individual potential into one producing manageable populations. The methods evolved—from Prussian discipline to Soviet psychology to Silicon Valley algorithms—but the objective remained constant: replacing critical thinking with conditioned responses.
This is not a story of good intentions gone wrong. It’s a documented history of powerful interests using schools to solve what they saw as the problem of too much democracy, too much individual liberty, and too many people capable of questioning authority. Understanding this history isn’t merely academic—it’s essential for recognizing why millions of adults today struggle to evaluate evidence, question experts, or imagine alternatives to the systems that confine them.
The Architecture of Control: From Local to Federal
The transformation of American education from local community schools to a federalized system of control happened through calculated steps spanning seventy years. Between 1852 and 1918, every state adopted compulsory schooling laws—not because communities demanded them, but despite fierce resistance at every turn. As Edward Ross wrote in 1901, plans were underway to “replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education, and mass media.” The state would shake loose from church and reach out to school, making children belong “more to the state and less and less to the parent.”
The initial laws seemed modest. Ten to twelve weeks of attendance for children aged nine to twelve. But incrementally, like a ratchet that only turns one way, the requirements expanded. The school year lengthened from three months to nine. The age range stretched downward to kindergarten and upward through high school. By the 1970s, four-year-olds entered preschool, and by 2000, twenty-six-year-old doctors were still being institutionalized in formal education. Each extension came wrapped in the language of opportunity and progress, never acknowledging that longer schooling meant longer separation from family, community, and meaningful work.
The federalization began in earnest with the 1870 founding of the National Education Association, which immediately announced that science courses nationwide must restructure to teach evolution as fact, not theory. This wasn’t about science—it was about establishing that centralized authorities, not local communities, would determine what children learned. The pattern repeated with each federal intervention: create a crisis, propose a solution requiring centralized control, then never relinquish that control regardless of outcomes.
World War I provided the perfect crisis. The U.S. Army’s intelligence tests revealed that hundreds of thousands of recruits were illiterate—though literacy had been near-universal before compulsory schooling. Rather than question why forced education produced worse results than voluntary learning, reformers demanded more control, more standardization, more years of mandatory attendance. The military’s need for compliant soldiers who followed orders without question became the template for producing compliant workers who would accept industrial discipline without resistance.
The Reece Committee of 1953 and the earlier Walsh Commission both concluded that private foundations—particularly Rockefeller and Carnegie—had essentially purchased control of American education policy. Norman Dodd, the Reece Committee’s research director, reported a chilling conversation with Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation. Gaither told him bluntly that these foundations operated under White House directives to “use our grant-making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” When Dodd suggested this investigation might proceed, Gaither warned: “If you proceed with the investigation as you have outlined, you will be killed.”
The creation of the U.S. Department of Education in 1979 completed the architecture of control. What began as local parents teaching their children to read had become a vast bureaucracy employing millions, consuming hundreds of billions of dollars, and producing steadily declining results. Yet the worse the outcomes, the more power and funding the system demanded. Failure became its own justification for expansion.
Gatto observed this paradox firsthand: the system’s failures weren’t bugs but features. Every reform that promised to help struggling students actually extended institutional control over their lives. Every program to close achievement gaps widened them. Every initiative to promote critical thinking produced more passive conformity. The architecture wasn’t broken—it was performing exactly as its architects intended, creating what Iserbyt documented as “the deliberate dumbing down of America.”
The Hidden Curriculum: Seven Lessons of Compliance
John Taylor Gatto’s revelation came after winning his third Teacher of the Year award in 1991. In his acceptance speech—later published as “The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher”—he exposed what he actually taught, regardless of the subject on his certificate. These seven lessons form the hidden curriculum of every American school, the real content beneath the surface of math, English, and history.
The first lesson is confusion. Nothing connects to anything else. Students jump from mathematics to literature to physical education at the ring of a bell, with no relationship between subjects, no unified understanding of the world. As Gatto explained, children learn “the un-relating of everything,” an infinite fragmentation that prevents them from ever constructing coherent meaning from their experience. A child studying the Revolutionary War at 10:15 must instantly forget it at 11:00 to memorize plant cells, then abandon those at 11:45 for Spanish conjugations. This deliberate incoherence isn’t poor planning—it’s the point. Confused people don’t ask dangerous questions.
The second lesson is class position. Students are numbered, sorted, tracked, and labeled from their first day. They learn to stay where they’re placed, to envy those above them and despise those below. The lesson penetrates so deeply that adults continue competing for position decades after graduation, never questioning why human worth should be ranked and sorted like industrial products. The gifted program teaches arrogance, the remedial class teaches shame, and everyone learns their place in hierarchies they didn’t create and can’t escape.
The third lesson is indifference. Nothing is worth finishing. No project, no thought, no conversation survives the bell. Students learn to invest themselves completely in the moment’s task, then abandon it without hesitation when authority demands. This produces adults who can’t sustain attention, can’t delay gratification, and can’t complete anything without external compulsion. They become perfect consumers, always seeking the next stimulation, never satisfied, never still.
The fourth lesson is emotional dependency. Stars, stickers, grades, and praise teach children that their worth depends on authority’s approval. The teacher’s mood becomes the classroom’s weather. A smile means you’re good; a frown means you’re bad. Decades later, these same students desperately seek validation from bosses, experts, and celebrities, unable to trust their own judgment about their own value. They’ve been taught that self-respect is arrogance and self-knowledge is delusion.
The fifth lesson is intellectual dependency. Good students wait for teachers to tell them what to think. Of the infinite things worth learning, only those assigned matter. Curiosity becomes cheating—looking ahead in the book, asking about topics not on the test, wondering about connections the curriculum doesn’t make. The successful student is one who can suppress their own interests and enthusiastically perform assigned thinking. This produces adults who wait for experts to explain reality, who cannot form opinions without official guidance, who panic when faced with questions that don’t have authorized answers.
The sixth lesson is provisional self-esteem. Report cards teach that worth is always conditional, always measured, always compared. A child who knows they’re loved regardless of performance is impossible to control. So schools ensure that no achievement is ever enough, no status ever secure. The honor student fears the first B, the athlete dreads the faster rival, everyone learns that identity itself is provisional, subject to constant evaluation and revision by authority.
The seventh lesson is that one can’t hide. Surveillance is constant and total. Hall passes, bathroom monitors, homework that invades home life, guidance counselors who demand emotional transparency, standardized tests that measure the psyche as much as knowledge. Students learn that privacy is suspicious, that secrets are dangerous, that authority has the right to know everything. They’re being prepared for a world of credit scores, social media surveillance, and employment monitoring that tracks every keystroke.
These seven lessons explain why school reform always fails. You can’t fix a system that’s working perfectly. The hidden curriculum produces exactly what it was designed to produce: emotionally needy, intellectually dependent, confused and compliant people who will fill the jobs they’re given, buy the products they’re told to want, and never question the structures that confine them.
The Rockefeller Design: Engineering Society Through Schools
The Rockefeller influence on American education represents one of history’s most successful social engineering projects. Through the General Education Board, founded in 1903 with an initial endowment rivaling the entire federal budget for education, John D. Rockefeller didn’t just reform schools—he rebuilt them from the foundation up to serve industrial capitalism’s need for manageable workers and predictable consumers.
The General Education Board’s mission statement deserves careful reading because it states explicitly what critics of education usually only suspect. “In our dreams,” it declared, “people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own goodwill upon a grateful and responsive folk.” This wasn’t educational philosophy—it was industrial production applied to human beings.
Rockefeller’s lieutenants understood that direct control would provoke resistance. Instead, they used grants and gifts to make schools dependent on foundation money, then attached conditions that seemed reasonable but fundamentally altered education’s purpose. Teacher training colleges received millions, but only if they adopted foundation-approved curricula that emphasized classroom management over subject knowledge. School districts got new buildings if they implemented “scientific” tracking systems that sorted students into future roles. Universities expanded with Rockefeller funds, then found their research agendas shaped by what the foundation would finance.
The strategy worked through three mechanisms that Charlotte Iserbyt documents extensively. First, they funded the experts who would define educational problems and solutions. When the National Education Association needed research, Rockefeller foundations provided it. When superintendents wanted training, Rockefeller programs delivered it. Soon, questioning foundation-backed reforms meant questioning science itself.
Second, they created interlocking networks of influence. Foundation trustees sat on education boards, education leaders joined foundation committees, and everyone attended the same conferences, read the same journals, and cited the same research—all funded by the same source. Dissent didn’t need to be suppressed because dissenters couldn’t get hired, published, or promoted within this self-reinforcing system.
Third, they played a long game measured in generations, not election cycles. While politicians came and went, the foundations persisted, accumulating influence like compound interest. A teacher trained in 1920 under Rockefeller-funded programs would still be teaching Rockefeller methods in 1960. A superintendent who implemented foundation reforms in one district would be promoted to spread them to another. Each generation of educators grew up assuming foundation priorities were simply how education worked.
The Rockefeller foundations didn’t work alone. The Carnegie Corporation, established by another industrial titan who understood that controlling education meant controlling society, pursued parallel strategies. Together, they funded the transformation of reading instruction from phonics to “look-say” methods that produced functional illiteracy. They promoted the replacement of classical education with vocational training. They supported the elimination of history in favor of “social studies” that disconnected students from their past.
The brilliance of the Rockefeller design was making teachers and administrators complicit without their knowledge. Well-meaning educators implemented reforms they believed would help children, never realizing these reforms were designed to limit children’s potential. A teacher using foundation-created curricula genuinely wanted students to succeed—success had simply been redefined as accepting your designated role in the economic order.
By the 1950s, the transformation was so complete that Congressional investigations could barely comprehend what had happened. The Reece Committee found evidence of a deliberate agenda to collectivize American society through education, but the findings were dismissed as conspiracy theory. How could philanthropy be subversive? How could gifts have strings attached? The investigators were right but too late. The Rockefeller design had become the only design anyone could imagine.
The foundations’ own archives, which Iserbyt studied extensively, reveal they knew exactly what they were doing. Internal memos discuss “the importance of social control,” the need to “direct human evolution,” and strategies for “managing the dangerous classes.” They weren’t hiding their agenda—they were counting on a populace too well-schooled to recognize it.
From Citizens to Human Resources: The Workforce Pipeline
The transformation of students into “human resources” marks the complete industrialization of education. This shift in language from “children” and “students” to “human capital” and “workforce development” isn’t merely semantic—it represents the fundamental reconception of human beings as economic inputs rather than sovereign individuals. The U.S. Department of Education’s embrace of “lifelong learning” and “21st-century skills” masks a darker reality: the conversion of schools into workforce training centers for a managed economy.
The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), established in 1990, crystallized this transformation. Its report, “What Work Requires of Schools,” didn’t ask what children need to become fulfilled human beings or engaged citizens. It asked only what employers wanted from their workers. The answer became the new curriculum: compliance, teamwork, acceptance of authority, and just enough literacy to follow instructions but not enough to question them.
School-to-work programs, promoted heavily in the 1990s under both Republican and Democratic administrations, eliminated the pretense that education was about anything other than economic production. Students as young as fourteen were tracked into career paths, their courses determined by workforce projections rather than individual interests or aptitudes. A child who showed mechanical aptitude would be steered toward technical training, regardless of whether they dreamed of writing poetry. One who tested well would be pushed toward college, even if they wanted to work with their hands.
Iserbyt, working inside the Department of Education, watched this transformation accelerate through the 1980s. She documented how Soviet education methods, explicitly designed for a planned economy, were imported wholesale into American schools under the guise of “effective teaching strategies.” The similarities weren’t coincidental—both systems needed to produce predictable outputs for centrally managed economies. The U.S.-Soviet education agreements of 1985, signed by Reagan and Gorbachev, formalized this exchange of “pedagogical techniques” that treated children as products to be molded rather than individuals to be educated.
The language of manufacturing pervaded education reform. Students became “products,” teachers became “delivery systems,” and schools became “production units.” Quality control meant standardized testing. Efficiency meant larger class sizes and scripted curricula. Innovation meant finding cheaper ways to produce the same outcomes. The factory model that reformers claimed to oppose had actually conquered education completely—it just dressed in the language of reform.
Outcome-based education (OBE), promoted by William Spady and implemented nationwide in the 1990s, epitomized this industrial approach. Rather than teaching subjects, schools would produce “outcomes”—predetermined behaviors and attitudes that students must demonstrate. The outcomes always emphasized workplace skills and social attitudes over academic knowledge. A typical OBE goal might require students to “work effectively in diverse teams” or “adapt to changing conditions,” but never to think critically about why they should accept constant workplace surveillance or question who benefits from their adaptation.
The tech industry’s entry into education accelerated this transformation. Companies like IBM and Apple didn’t just sell computers to schools—they shaped curricula to produce the workers they needed. Computer literacy replaced classical literacy. Coding bootcamps replaced shop class. Students learned to interact with machines more fluently than with humans, preparing them for futures in cubicles interfacing with screens rather than communities.
Goals 2000 and America 2000, federal education initiatives that promised to make American students “first in the world in mathematics and science achievement,” actually subordinated all learning to economic competitiveness. The goal wasn’t educated citizens but competitive workers. When students learned science, it wasn’t to understand nature but to staff STEM industries. When they studied mathematics, it wasn’t to develop logical thinking but to fill engineering positions.
This workforce pipeline explains why schools obsess over college attendance rates while ignoring whether students actually learn anything in college. The credential matters more than the education because employers use degrees as sorting mechanisms, not indicators of knowledge. A bachelor’s degree signals that someone can tolerate four more years of institutional processing, making them suitable for cubicle work. Graduate degrees indicate even greater compliance capacity, qualifying holders for management positions where they’ll impose the same system on others.
The conversion of citizens into human resources serves multiple functions for those Gatto calls “the guardians of the system.” It ensures a compliant workforce that won’t organize effectively for better conditions. It creates insecure workers who compete against each other rather than cooperating for mutual benefit. Most importantly, it prevents people from imagining themselves as anything other than economic units, foreclosing possibilities for different ways of living and organizing society.
The Deliberately Dumbed Down: Methods and Outcomes
Charlotte Iserbyt’s meticulous documentation reveals that the dumbing down of America wasn’t accidental decline but deliberate policy, implemented through specific techniques designed to prevent critical thinking while maintaining the appearance of education. Her archive of government documents, foundation reports, and insider communications provides the smoking gun: they knew exactly what they were doing.
The assault on literacy came first and most decisively. The replacement of phonics with “whole word” or “look-say” reading methods in the 1920s and 1930s, funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, created an epidemic of functional illiteracy. Children who could have learned to read any word by sounding it out instead had to memorize thousands of word shapes like Chinese ideograms. Those who couldn’t—particularly boys and active learners—were labeled dyslexic or learning disabled, then shunted into special education where expectations dropped even lower.
Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld’s research, which Iserbyt cites extensively, showed that prior to these reforms, literacy was nearly universal among non-slave populations. After look-say methods took hold, reading problems exploded. By 1993, the National Adult Literacy Survey found 42 million Americans completely illiterate and another 50 million reading below fifth-grade level. This wasn’t failure—it was the intended outcome. As UNESCO’s “Toward World Understanding” stated explicitly, teaching children to read too well would make them resistant to social engineering.
Mathematics instruction followed a similar pattern. Traditional arithmetic—memorizing multiplication tables, learning algorithms, practicing computation—gave way to “new math” in the 1960s, then “whole math” in the 1990s. Students used calculators before understanding numbers, discussed mathematical concepts without mastering basic operations, and worked in groups where one student’s knowledge masked another’s ignorance. The result: cashiers who can’t make change, engineers who rely entirely on computers, and a population that accepts economic statistics without understanding their manipulation.
History disappeared entirely, replaced by “social studies” that severed children from their heritage. Instead of learning about the American Revolution, students did projects on “conflict resolution.” Rather than studying the Constitution, they participated in “consensus-building exercises.” The timeline of human achievement became a catalog of oppression, teaching children to despise their civilization rather than understand it. How can people defend freedoms they’ve never learned existed? How can they recognize tyranny they’ve been taught to call progress?
The methods for achieving this dumbing down came straight from behavioral psychology. B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning, imported wholesale into classrooms as “mastery learning,” treated children like laboratory rats. Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy, which sounds educational but actually derives from psychotherapy, focused on changing attitudes and values rather than transmitting knowledge. Every child became a patient, every classroom a therapy session, every teacher an unwitting psychologist modifying behavior toward predetermined outcomes.
Iserbyt documented how these methods were tested first in inner-city schools on minority populations, refined through experimentation on the powerless, then rolled out nationwide once perfected. Programs with names like “Outcomes-Based Education,” “Mastery Learning,” and “Direct Instruction” all used the same behavioral conditioning techniques: break learning into tiny fragments, reward compliance, punish deviation, never allow students to see the whole picture.
The computer revolution didn’t democratize education—it completed the conditioning process. Educational software tracks every keystroke, records every wrong answer, builds psychological profiles more detailed than any teacher could compile. Algorithms determine what students learn next, how fast they progress, what remediation they receive. The machine becomes the teacher, infinitely patient with compliance, infinitely intolerant of creativity.
The results are visible everywhere. College students who can’t write coherent paragraphs. Employees who can’t solve problems without step-by-step instructions. Citizens who can’t evaluate competing claims without fact-checkers. Voters who respond to emotional manipulation rather than logical argument. A population perfectly prepared for management by experts, incapable of the independent thought required for self-governance.
The most insidious aspect is that the dumbed-down don’t know they’re dumbed-down. They’ve been taught that their limitations are natural, their ignorance inevitable, their dependence necessary. They believe themselves educated because they possess credentials. They think themselves informed because they consume media. They consider themselves free because they can choose between approved options. The deliberate dumbing down succeeded not just in limiting what people know, but in eliminating their awareness that there’s anything else to know.
Conclusion: The Cost of Institutionalized Childhood
After twelve years of compulsory schooling, American children emerge having learned primarily how to respond to bells, how to request permission for bodily functions, and how to accept arbitrary authority. They’ve spent 15,000 hours in preparation for lives of compliance, their natural curiosity systematically extinguished, their capacity for independent thought deliberately atrophied. The cost cannot be measured merely in dollars or test scores but in human potential destroyed, imaginations stunted, and spirits broken.
Gatto calculated that students spend less than 100 hours actually learning to read, write, and compute—skills that motivated children can master in months, not years. The remaining thousands of hours serve no educational purpose. They habituate children to institutionalization, teaching them to depend on experts, to wait for instructions, to seek external validation, to never trust their own judgment. School extends childhood artificially into the twenties and beyond, creating perpetual adolescents who never achieve genuine maturity or independence.
The damage ripples through generations. Parents who were themselves schooled into compliance cannot model independent thinking for their children. Communities stripped of their educational authority lose the capacity for self-governance. Families scheduling their lives around school calendars, homework demands, and extracurricular activities have no time for the conversations, projects, and relationships that once transmitted culture and values. The very idea that parents might be their children’s primary educators seems radical, even irresponsible, to people convinced that only certified experts can teach.
Yet cracks appear in the edifice. The COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 forced millions of parents to see what their children were actually learning—or not learning. Homeschooling, once considered fringe, gained mainstream acceptance as families discovered that children learn better without schools. The internet, despite its dangers, allows motivated learners to access knowledge that schools would never provide. Some young people are rejecting the college-to-cubicle pipeline entirely, creating their own paths outside institutional frameworks.
The solution isn’t reform—it’s replacement. No amount of tinkering can fix a system functioning exactly as designed. Adding computers won’t democratize education when the software embeds the same behavioral conditioning. Smaller classes won’t help when teachers are trained in the same methods. Higher standards mean nothing when the standard itself is compliance rather than thinking. Every reform extends the system’s reach while claiming to improve it.
Real education looks nothing like school. It happens when a child’s interest meets appropriate resources—books, tools, mentors, experiences. It requires time to think, freedom to fail, and permission to pursue tangents. It involves making real things, solving actual problems, and contributing to communities. It cannot be standardized, measured, or certified because each human being’s potential is unique, irreducible to institutional categories.
The path forward requires courage to reject what we’ve been conditioned to accept. Parents must reclaim their children’s education, even at financial and social cost. Communities must create alternatives to school that nurture rather than process children. Most difficult, adults must unlearn their own schooling, recovering capacities for independent thought and autonomous action that twelve years of institutionalization suppressed.
The architects of compulsory schooling succeeded beyond their dreams, creating a population so thoroughly schooled that they cannot imagine education without school, cannot conceive of children learning without curricula, cannot trust themselves to think without expert guidance. But human nature persists despite institutional processing. Children still wonder, still question, still resist—until school teaches them not to. That resistance, that natural curiosity and independence, is the seed from which genuine education can grow, if we have the courage to nurture it outside the shadow of institutional control.
If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
Subscribe to Lies are Unbekoming
Hundreds of paid subscribers
This Substack is a freely available, and searchable, public resource. With written interviews, book summaries, and deep dive conversations.
You must be logged in to post a comment.