Day: February 10, 2023

(Natural News) New research published in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus on February 2 shows that vaccine uptake is directly correlated to infant mortality – meaning the more vaccinations a baby receives, the greater the likelihood of sudden death.

Authors Gary S. Goldman, PhD, an independent computer scientist, and Neil Z. Miller, a medical researcher, confirmed once again what they determined more than a decade ago: that there is a positive statistical correlation between infant mortality rates (IMRs) and the number of vaccine doses a baby receives.

Entitled ” Reaffirming a Positive Correlation Between Number of Vaccine Doses and Infant Mortality Rates: A Response to Critics,” the paper states that “positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs is detectable in the most highly developed nations.”

Replicating the same statistical analysis they used back in 2011 to arrive at the same conclusion, Goldman and Miller affirmed once again that vaccination programs are the bane of childhood health. What was billed to us as beneficial for public health is actually a detriment to it, the new study confirms.

(Related: Even before covid, studies showed that the more vaccine injections a baby is given, the greater his or her likelihood of suffering from sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS].)

Countries that don’t vaccinate their children much see very few sudden infant deaths, data shows

Goldman and Miller’s first paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal Human and Experimental Toxicology. It explains that IMR is one of the most important indicators of socioeconomic well-being and public health conditions in a country.

“The U.S. childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year – the most in the world – yet 33 nations have lower IMRs,” the first study explains.

“Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants.”

The “r,” in this context, refers to the correlation coefficient, a number that ranges from -1 to 1. Any number above zero is considered to be a positive correlation, while any figure between 0.6 and 0.79 is considered to have a “strong” positive correlation.

This means that at 0.70, vaccines are at the upper end of “strong” in terms of having a positive correlation to IMR – a figure of 0.8 and above is considered to be a “very strong” positive correlation.

The “p-value,” in this context, refers to the extent to which the predictor’s value, in a linear regression analysis, is related to changes in the response variable. Any p-value below 0.05 is considered to be statistically significant, suggesting that the predictor and the response variable are related to each other and move in the same direction.

All in all, both the first study and this latest one confirm that in countries like the United States where the childhood vaccination schedule is voluminous, IMRs tend to be much worse – this compared to countries that do not vaccinate their children much and have better IMRs.

“In 2011, we published a study that found a counterintuitive, positive correlation, r = 0.70 (p < .0001), demonstrating that among the most highly developed nations (n = 30), those that require more vaccines for their infants tend to have higher infant mortality rates (IMRs),” Miller told The Defender about he and Goldman’s latest work.

“Much more research needs to be done in this field, but more studies will only achieve limited positive change until more individuals and families begin to make the connection between vaccines and adverse events.”

“Also, legislators and health authorities must permit people to accept or reject vaccines without intimidation or negative consequences.”

Vaccines are covert genocide hidden in plain sight. To learn more, visit Vaccines.news.

Sources for this article include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

NaturalNews.com

(Natural News) The Republican-led Oversight and Accountability Committee at the House of Representatives grilled several former Twitter executives Wednesday, Feb. 8, over their possible role in censorship and First Amendment violations.

The former Twitter executives were asked to clarify the company’s decision to limit the reach of a New York Post investigative article on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop just weeks before the 2020 election.

Thanks to the vigorous questioning of the Republican committee members, Twitter’s former chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, and former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, were forced to admit that it was “wrong” and a “mistake” for the social media platform to block access to the crucial story right before the election.

Several GOP members of the committee also accused the former executives of censoring members of Congress and violating their First Amendment right to free speech. (Related: Latest “Twitter Files” drop proves Twitter has SECRET BLACKLISTS of prominent conservatives.)

Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado accused Twitter of censorship after her account was shadowbanned for tweeting a joke suggesting Hillary Clinton wanted to rig the 2020 election.

“You silenced me from communicating with the American people over a freaking joke,” said Boebert. “Now who the hell do you think you are?”

“The Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed, a sitting member of Congress was suppressed, a sitting president was banned from Twitter,” Boebert added. “You know, I bet that Putin is sitting in the Kremlin wishing he had as much election interference as you four here today.”

“You abused the power of a large corporation and Big Tech to censor Americans,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. “I’m so glad that you are censored now and I’m so glad that you’ve lost your jobs. Thank God Elon Musk bought Twitter.”

Former Twitter executives may not face any real consequence for their actions until Republicans retake White House

In an episode of “The Ben Armstrong Show,” the New American journalist Ben Armstrong noted that while it feels good to see those former Twitter executives get relentlessly questioned by Congress, it is unlikely any of them will face any real consequence for their actions while the Democratic Party is in control of the White House.

“I cannot tell you that these Twitter employees are going to face any real consequences like they should,” he said. “At least Elon Musk fired them and they’re not employed anymore. But will they face any real consequences for colluding with the federal government and breaking laws and shattering the Constitution with our Department of Justice? I don’t see how that’s even possible.”

Armstrong pointed out that Republican members of Congress can only question these Twitter executives all they like, but they can’t take them to court. All they can do is refer their potentially lawbreaking activities to the Justice Department, which could pursue charges.

But because the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden currently controls America’s executive, it is unlikely the Justice Department will do what it should be doing. “Our Justice Department will let them go because our Justice Department agrees with shredding and destroying the Constitution.”

Learn more about social media censorship at Censorship.news.

Watch this episode of “The Ben Armstrong Show” as Ben Armstrong goes into detail regarding what happened during the first hearing with the former Twitter executives.

This video is from the channel The New American on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Congress is set to expose what may be the largest censorship system in US history.

Twitter execs knew ‘Russian collusion’ narrative about Trump during 2016 election was false but said nothing about it.

Twitter allowed pharmaceutical corporations to spread misinformation online to undermine competition.

Online censorship even worse than ‘Twitter Files’ reveal, as leftists plan to ban ALL content they disagree with.

SABOTAGE: Key data on Twitter’s role in suppressing free speech hidden and deleted without knowledge of bosses.

Sources include:

Brighteon.com

Reuters.com

Newsweek.com

(Natural News) A lesbian “mother” of two sons has decided to stop pushing transgenderism on them – but is the damage already done and irreversible?

To protect her identity, “Rose,” as the woman is calling herself in online blogs, was a self-described “social justice warrior” (SJW) who is “co-parenting” the two children with her female lesbian lover. Rose has since shed the SJW identity but continues to live as a lesbian woman.

Rose seems to be on the right track, though, as she has come to the stark realization that she was destroying – and possibly already did destroy – her sons’ lives. The boys are now growing up in confusion, having previously been told that they were genderless and raised in such a manner.

In a February 6 follow-up post to another she wrote back in August called “True Believer,” Rose explains her journey out of the transgender cult. (Related: The transgender cult loves to target and trick autistic and other vulnerable children into converting to transgenderism.)

“We raised both our sons as gender neutral as possible, with gender neutral clothes, toys, and language,” Rose writes.

“While we did use he / him pronouns and others in their life called them boys, we did not call them boys, or even tell them that they were boys. We made all language gender neutral.”

The one boy at around four years old started asking his “mom” whether he was a boy or a girl. She initially told him that decision was up to him, and has since stated that telling him this “would come back to haunt me for years, and continues to haunt me now.”

“What I know now is that I was ‘leading’ – I was leading my innocent, sensitive child down a path of lies that were a direct on-ramp to psychological damage and lifelong irreversible medical intervention,” Rose wrote in her follow-up, entitled “Return to Reality.”

“All in the name of love, acceptance, and liberation.”

Will Rose’s sons ever heal from the profound damage that she and her lesbian lover inflicted on them?

It took Rose a while to get there, but she now realizes that how she raised her sons all those years was a huge mistake. And it took a “huge cognitive shift,” she says, in order to come to the realization ” that I had believed that I was doing something ‘good,’ but that it was actually not based in reality.”

“That in reality, the track that I had put my son on would have ended in irreversible damage to him. Not my ‘transgender daughter,’” she writes. “My son.”

After leaving the transgender cult, Rose caught flack not only from the other members of that cult, but also from normal people on the other side of the argument who can see the potentially irreversible damage she caused to her two precious children.

Rose says that both of her sons “are doing very well” now, but that she does not fully “know the actual impacts of socializing a young child in these formative years as the opposite sex, or what all needs to unfold in the process of desistance.”

Rose still trusts that “time would heal,” though she admits it may not be as simple as that. She continues to feel profound anguish over what she did, and especially over the realization that she may, in fact, have already inflicted irreversible harm that can never fully be healed.

“I cannot change the past,” she says. “What I can do is share my story in hopes it can serve to pull one more brick out of the wall.”

More of the latest news about the transgender cult can be found at Transhumanism.news.

Sources for this article include:

LifeSiteNews.com

NaturalNews.com

(Natural News) For years, the global warming cult has shamed people for not believing in their religion of doom, for not agreeing that the oceans are rising, that the world is ending because of CO2. According to decades of tidal data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ocean levels have generally stayed the same for centuries, regardless of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

When a minuscule increase in the ocean level is detected, it is observed over a century, and the rise is not even correlated with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Tectonic activity, hurricane damage, the El Nino effect, and changes in ocean currents are just a few of the uncontrollable variables that affect sea level measurements.

Sea level tide gauge data suggests that CO2 has no effect on ocean levels

The NOAA collects coastal sea level tide gauge data at more than two hundred measurement stations across US coastlines, in the Gulf of Mexico, and at seven Pacific island groups and six Atlantic island groups. NOAA has data on ocean levels that dates back to the 19th century. During the 1970s, scientists were actually worried about global cooling and an impending ice age. At the turn of the 21st century, however, global warming and then climate change became the pressing issues of the day. In either event, the ocean levels have stayed generally the same, with populations thriving along the coastlines.

The NOAA tide gauge record at Battery, New York has been around for 160 years. This site has found a slow, steady increase in the sea level, but the rise is minuscule – 11 inches per century. At California’s coastal sites of San Diego, Los Angeles, La Jolla, and San Francisco, the average sea level rise is around four to nine inches per century, but even this minuscule rise has nothing to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The minuscule rise cannot be correlated with rising CO2 levels because the gradual increase occurred during both non-industrial times and during periods of high CO2 output. The slow, steady increase of the sea level occurred at these sites from 1855 and onward, long before the existence of coal-fired power plants, diesel trucks, private jets, and muscle cars. Additionally, the steady rise of the ocean water over the past century has occurred during both rapid temperature increases and periods of global cooling.

Eliminating and capturing CO2 will have no effect on the sea level

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns the world that the sea level will rise significantly over the next decade, significantly more than it has over the past two centuries. However, if we follow the data during high CO2 output over sixty years, the sea level shouldn’t increase any more than it has over the past two centuries. The NOAA data contradicts IPCC’s hysteria.

Despite the spike in CO2 levels over the past sixty years due to human activities, the average sea level has stayed on the same course as it did before CO2 levels rose drastically. This is true across the world, from Atlantic City, New Jersey to Honolulu, Hawaii, to Bombay, India to St. Petersburg, Fl, all the way to Cauta, Spain, Sydney, Australia, and Slipshavn, Denmark.

“Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,” said Dr. Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science for the US government in 2014.

For example, over the next 100 years, the sea level in Cauta, Spain is expected to rise about three inches, as it has over the past centuries. There is no evidence to suggest a ten-foot rise in the sea level, as is projected by former NASA scientists James Hansen.

In Hawaii, the sea level is at the mercy of local plate tectonic movements and global ocean currents. Despite all the shifts in the land and ocean movement over the past century, Hawaii has only observed a tidal rise of 5.6 inches since the year 1900. This minuscule rise has nothing to do with the jump in CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere over the past sixty years.

The greatest increase in sea level appears to be taking place in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The 16-inch increase in the sea level over the past century cannot be directly correlated to rising CO2 levels due to natural changes that took place during the 1988 El Niño. According to the data, the El Niño effect over the Pacific Ocean had the greatest influence on the sea level rise, and was immediately followed by a five-year drop in the sea level at the Atlantic City site.

One of the most interesting trends in sea level over the past century is at the Sitka, Alaska site. The sea level here has steadily trended downward over the decades, not upward. If the trend continues, the sea level will fall nine inches over the next 100 years at this site. Sitka, being 100 miles from Glacier Bay, would be one of the first sites to show a massive rise in the sea level — if melting glaciers were actually causing sea levels to rise. Funny enough, Alaska is gaining seashore and is projected to continue gaining seashore, in the face of high CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The only real threat that populations will have to adapt to is the threat of hurricanes along heavily-populated coastlines. Coastal cities should not have to worry about melting glaciers and rising tides for tens of thousands of years, but they do face the natural threat of hurricanes and tsunamis, and – if the cities are built on an active volcano – then the natural tectonic activity might be the most pertinent threat. The global warming hysteria only robs our communities of tax dollars, destroys our energy diversity and national sovereignty, and distracts us from properly adapting to natural disasters.

Sources include:

CFact.org

TidesAndCurrents.NOAA.gov