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

On Friday, the journal Andrology published a peer-reviewed paper showing large decreases in sperm counts among men after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA Covid jab.

Based on counts from men who donated sperm to three fertility clinics in Israel, this finding is devastating – medically and politically.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

By Alex Berenson

It cuts to the heart of the hottest button question of all about the mRNA shots, whether they have hidden fertility risks. That issue has simmered since early 2021, following my reporting that data showed the shots had caused excess miscarriages in rats – and other reports showing that measurable amounts of vaccine reached the ovaries and testes in tests in rats.

Ever since, media “fact-checkers” and public health authorities have dismissed and mocked the concerns and anyone who raises them:

Now – after a half-billion men have received mRNA shots – the sceptics appear to be right. Again. The Israeli paper offers hard evidence that the vaccines may present a systemic risk to men’s sperm counts. What was a conspiracy theory is now just a theory. AGAIN.

The paper raises questions about the mechanism of action that must be answered immediately. And on top of the myocarditis risk, the finding is more evidence that encouraging – much less forcing – men under 40 to take the mRNA vaccines was a catastrophic mistake.

However, the authors qualified their findings by reporting that after five months, sperm levels recovered. Thus, the decreases were only temporary, they wrote.

Put aside the fact that a five-month decrease hardly qualifies as temporary for someone trying to start a family – or compared to a “vaccine” that loses effectiveness against Omicron within weeks or months.

As other writers have pointed out, the actual data in the paper do not really support the argument that sperm levels returned to normal after five months. In fact, by some measures, levels continued to decline.

Rather than acknowledging this fact, the authors offered the best possible spin on their data, while at the same time publishing the figures themselves near the end of the paper so that other researchers could see the reality for themselves.

This tactic is now commonplace among researchers putting out data that might raise concerns about the mRNA shots. It is likely a response to the overwhelming political pressure to hide the deepening crisis around the safety and efficacy of shots that governments have given to over a billion people worldwide.

Below is the crucial chart, which shows that “total motile count” – the number of sperm in the ejaculated semen – plunged 22 per cent three to five months after the second shot (T2) and barely recovered during the final count (T3), when it was still 19 per cent below the pre-shot level.

Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors, Andrology, 17 June 2022

Even more importantly, the fall in sperm counts CANNOT be blamed on short or even medium-term inflammation as mRNA-generated spike proteins cause our immune cells to ramp up the systemic production of anti-spike antibodies. If that were the case, one would expect to see a short-term decrease in sperm count that reverses over time. Instead, total sperm counts are unaffected shortly after the mRNA shots, then decrease months later and hardly recover.

To play down this unpleasant reality, the researchers instead focused on the fact that median rather than average counts did recover after five months. (The median is the numerical midpoint of a series; If a series goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, the median will be 3, but the average will be 30 divided by 5, or 6.)

Both the median and the average can be valuable statistics. Using the median rather than the average will hide extreme outliers. In this case, the fact that the average fell much more than the median is a sign that some of the men probably had near-zero sperm counts in both the second and third time periods – and that fact is arguably more important than the median change.

All of which is to say that this data cannot be easily explained away and should not be ignored, as badly as the media would like to do so. The fall in sperm counts is part of an emerging and increasingly dark picture about the long-term health impacts of the mRNA shots – and should all by itself convince parents not to risk exposing their children to these powerful biotechnologies.

About the Author

Alex Berenson is a former New York Times reporter and the author of 13 novels, three non-fiction books, and the Unreported Truths booklets. His latest book, Pandemia, on the coronavirus and the American response to it, was published last year. You can subscribe and follow Berenson on his Substack HERE.

Further reading from The Exposé:

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Climate Change, Abortion and the Sexual Revolution Are Abortion And Contraception The Solution To The Climate Crisis? , Katarina Carranco

It’s a good question. After all, climate crisis advocates blame human activity as the leading cause for climate change. So why not push for global access to abortion and contraception under the guise of climate activism to address the “source” of all climate change—humanity? Well, this is precisely what the abortion industry has attempted to do; however, to arrive at this point has proved to be quite a challenge. For quite some time, the abortion industry has been associated with the population control and eugenics movements. These links have been hard to camouflage, especially given the central agenda of several international abortion corporations and their founders such as International Planned Parenthood Federation (Margaret Sanger) and Marie Stopes International. Simply put, both groups have had a long and indelible history of eugenics in the name of racism. However, in an attempt to shift the focus from eugenics and population control abortion, advocates have cleverly latched onto a different campaign that helps covertly push their agenda while not obviously promoting eugenics and population control. In doing so, they have been able to use this guise as a Trojan Horse to sneak their movement into other political arenas with broader agendas. The goal: to reap the benefits of an increasingly large and seemingly important cause that has international cooperation and money. How have they come to achieve this cunning scheme? Groups in the abortion industry has slowly been distancing themselves from the eugenics and population control movement and rebranding themselves in a different type of campaign that promotes women’s “rights” (albeit it distorted rights). With this rebranding, they fall under a broader movement that provides them more flexibility and sway to push their ultimate goal — international abortion laws under the guise of “woman’s rights” and “women’s health.” Through their association with the “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (SRHR) movement, the abortion industry claims to advocate women’s “rights” while naming abortion and contraception as an obvious subset of rights for women under this broader spectrum. This new “rights” category has made it possible for abortion advocates to use women’s autonomy as a guise in order to rebrand the movement as a champion of a movement now at the forefront of agendas across the world: Climate Change. The climate crisis has been advertised as a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. According to the Davos Agenda and a plethora of like-minded organizations, we can expect a very bleak future if humanity does not clean up its act by 2050. In light of this “pressure,” the SRHR movement has been able to flaunt its support of this high-priority agenda, parading with pride as an integral and powerful supporter of the humanitarian work needed to fight climate change. Thus, they can then be categorized as an environmentally sustainable activist group as well. As proclaimed by IPCC Working Group Co-Chair Valérie Masson-Delmotte, “It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed.” The heightened temperatures worldwide increase weather patterns that propagate natural disasters that can cause strain on the world in different areas. According to climate crisis advocates, this strain affects the food supply chain when crops fail and brings hardship to affected countries, especially those that are already poverty-stricken countries. In such situations, the SRHR advocacy groups want to focus on the lack of access to “health services” in places affected after such events. We know that when SRHR groups talk about “access to health service,” they really mean that women should have access to contraception and abortion “care.” This, they continue, is especially true in regions affected by natural disasters, because the climate crisis is generating unusually grave hardship in poor countries. The conclusion? As Star Trek’s Dr. Spock would argue, this proves that access to abortion and the distribution of contraception before such hardships begin can aid in fertility reduction and thus alleviate the distress in impoverished countries, once Climate Change rears its ugly head. Of course, on inspection, they are really arguing that people, and not the weather, are the problem. “Family Planning” Solves Climate Change … Or Something. Natural disasters are not the only excuse the SRHR advocacy groups use to avoid “difficult situations” before they come. They claim that an inevitable and necessary step to combat climate change is with “family planning.” We are aware that family planning is a phrase used to sugar-coated what they really mean ­– more contraception and abortion. “Overpopulation” has always been a staple of the abortion industry – but as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once observed, the term applies only to “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Right. There are just enough of us, but waaaay too many of you, and you and your [unwanted] kind are causing Climate Change, we aren’t. And that murderous arrogance is central to SRHR groups and their agenda as they claim to fight the twin evils of overpopulation and global warming. Another fertility reduction strategy features the “empow”erment of girls and women through (sex) “education” and advancing “health and gender equality.” The International Planned Parenthood Federation insists that contraception and abortion are basic human rights that women, especially in impoverished countries, lack. They imply that these backwards peoples are incapable of caring for themselves, so of course they lack the “ability to have control over their own bodies and ultimately, their future.” Of course, that means that we superior beings must help them. How? By “educating” these wayward women – effectively reducing greenhouse gases and global warming (our goals) while “empowering” them (their goal, if they know what’s good for them). One of the most prominent organizations promoting this is the Guttmacher Institute, which published a report entitled “Adding It Up: Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health 2019,” in which they stated the following: “Many experts view universal access to voluntary family planning as a ‘climate-compatible’ development strategy. Reductions in unintended pregnancy through contraceptive use and women’s empowerment can help slow population growth, which in turn reduces demands on the environment. In addition, by influencing both the size and overall health of future populations, improved sexual and reproductive health care has a positive effect on the ability of households, communities, and countries to adapt and respond to environmental change.” Clearly the abortion lobby’s association with the climate crisis has not changed its population-control agenda. Rather it has empowered them to make their population-control agenda more relevant by means of embedding fear through climate crisis theory and claiming their movement as the solution. But do not be fooled: because we have already seen that overpopulation is a myth. In our recentinterview with Professor Angelo Bertolo, he demonstrated how Malthusian belief in decreasing the population goes against the grain of history, and how large populations are necessary for the most successful civilizations.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

FDA “approves” COVID Vaccine for 6-month-old Babies despite 179K deaths within 60 Days of Vaccination in England alone

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despite the UK’s Office for National Statistics revealing that between January 2021 and March 2022 a total of 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination, and a further 109,408 people died within 60 days of vaccination in England.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

In order to justify implementing Draconian restrictions in the name of Covid-19, the UK Government, with the help of the mainstream media, would publicise daily the number of Covid-19 deaths to have allegedly occurred that day. The metric used then, and still being used now, is any death occurring within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 is counted as a Covid-19 death.

This questionable method of counting Covid-19 deaths led to dozens of Freedom of Information requests being made to various Government institutions requesting to know the number of people who had died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

If the method’s good enough for counting Covid-19 deaths to justify ruining children’s education, decimating the economy, and destroying lives, then it’s good enough for counting Covid-19 vaccination deaths, right?

However, each and every single time, the response received was as follows –

“We do not hold this information”

Source

But this was a lie, because one Government institution did hold this information, and they’ve finally published it over 17 months after the first time of asking.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.

On the 16th May 2022, the ONS published its 6th dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status, which can be found here, and it finally contains the number of deaths within 28 days of vaccination.

Table 9 of the dataset contains figures on ‘Whole period counts of all registered deaths grouped by how many weeks after vaccination the deaths occurred; for deaths involving COVID-19 and deaths not involving COVID-19, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, England’.

Here’s a snapshot of how the ONS presents the data –

Source

As you can see, the ONS still don’t make it easy for us by revealing the overall number of deaths, but with some patience and simple maths we can easily find this out ourselves.

The following chart shows the overall number of deaths within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022 –

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 7,953 people died with Covid-19 within 28 days of vaccination, and a total of 61,513 people died of any other cause within 28 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022.

The following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by both age group and the number of weeks after vaccination –

And the following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by age group only –

A lot of people will probably argue that this is to be expected with so many people being vaccinated. But these same people won’t bother actually backing their argument up with any evidence. Because if it’s to be expected, how exactly do they explain this for example? –

The above chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England. The data has been extracted from the previous ONS dataset on deaths by vaccination status between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22.

The green line is the mortality rate among the unvaccinated, which while fluctuating has remained pretty stable throughout. The other lines however represent different vaccination statuses, and they are extremely concerning because the mortality rates are miles higher.

The largest statistical difference occurred in November 2021. The mortality rate among the unvaccinated equated to 33.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years, whereas the mortality rate among the double vaccinated equated to 107. A difference of 220.4%.

The argument that 69,466 deaths within 28 days of vaccination are to be expected because so many people are vaccinated has all of a sudden collapsed, hasn’t it?

But that’s not the worst of it. The UK Health Security Agency counts Covid-19 deaths as those that have occurred within 60 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, so it’s only fair we also work out how many people have died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

Here’s the table taken from the UKHSA Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Report showing Covid-19 deaths within 60 days of a positive test –

Source – Page 44

Here’s a chart showing the overall totals by vaccination status of the above figures –

Yes, that does equate to 92% of all Covid-19 deaths in England during March 2022 being among the vaccinated population.

Here’s a chart showing the number of deaths within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics dataset

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 14,049 people died with Covid-19 within 60 days of vaccination, and a total of 168,825 people died of any other cause within 60 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 178,874 people died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022 in England.

There has never been an emergency in regard to Covid-19 infection among children. Two years of evidence show the alleged disease has only adversely affected the elderly and vulnerable. Children have been unlucky to suffer symptoms more severe than those associated with the common cold.

So why is the FDA risking the lives of babies and toddlers when official statistics show Covid-19 vaccination can prove to be fatal?

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

FDA “approves” COVID Vaccine for 6-month-old Babies despite 5-month-old Baby Dying after being Breast-Fed by COVID Vaccinated Mother

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despite a five-month-old baby tragically dying after becoming seriously ill within hours of his mother receiving a dose of the experimental Pfizer / BioNTech Covid vaccine.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

The incident was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System (the USA’s version of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in the UK) on the 4th April 2021 by the clinician who had attempted to save the life of the baby just a couple of weeks earlier.

The report (which can be found here using VAERS ID – 1166062) details that the mother of the baby received a second dose of the Pfizer jab on the 17th of March 2021, whilst at work. But the next day her five-month-old breast-fed infant developed a rash and was inconsolable. The baby refused to eat and developed a fever.

The Doctor who made the report describes how the mother brought the extremely ill child to the local Emergency Room where assessments were carried out. It was discovered the baby had elevated liver enzymes. The infant remained in hospital for treatment but tragically declined and passed away just two days later on the 20th March 2021.

The infant had no known allergies, birth defects, disabilities or pre-existing conditions, and was not exposed to anything other than the Pfizer vaccine via his mother’s breast milk.

The report also lists several other conditions that developed prior to the infant’s tragic death, on top of the elevated liver enzymes as detailed in the Doctor’s write-up. Elevated liver enzymes indicate inflammation or damage to cells in the liver, and can be caused by alcohol or drug misuse.

The five-month-old baby also developed thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. This is a condition that results in blood clots forming in small blood vessels throughout the body. This in turn results in a low platelet count and low red blood cells due to their breakdown. This then often causes kidney, heart, and brain dysfunction. This is the very condition which has been proven to be caused by the AstraZeneca viral vector “vaccine”. So it now looks like we have evidence the Pfizer jab can cause the same ailment.

No tests have been carried out to confirm whether or not any of the experimental Covid “vaccines” are safe for use during pregnancy or during breastfeeding. Sadly those silly enough to still get it are suffering the grave and tragic consequences of their actions with the deaths of either their unborn or newborn children.

This isn’t the first heartbreaking death of a baby due to the Covid vaccines, and unfortunately, thanks to the FDA’s outrageous decision to extend the emergency use authorisation of both the Pfizer and Moderna injections to infants and toddlers, it will not be the last.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

FDA “approves” COVID Vaccine for 6-month-old Babies despite Deaths among Children increasing by 53% in 2021 following Covid-19 Vaccination

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despite an investigation of UK Office for National Statistics data revealing that since the Covid-19 vaccine began to be rolled-out to teenagers there was a 53% rise in the number of deaths due to all-causes among males aged 15-19 in 2021.

And each spike in deaths correlates perfectly with a spike in the administration of the first, second, and third doses of the Covid-19 injection to this age group.

Further investigation has also found that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low among this age group following Covid-19 vaccination, the number of deaths was still considerably higher than the negligible amount of deaths that had occurred before the Covid-19 vaccine was introduced to this age group.

Suggesting Covid-19 vaccination may have had a negative effect on the immune systems of the teenage boys, or deaths may have been misattributed as Covid-19 deaths, as has been so easily done since March 2020, to cover up the fact that the Covid-19 injections may have played a roll in the deaths.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

The above graph has been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

The graph shows the number of deaths registered each week throughout 2020 and 2021 among teenage boys aged 15-19, and we can clearly see that from week 18 onwards in 2021 there was a noticeable rise in deaths due to all causes among teenage boys compared to 2020, with things taking a turn for the worse from week 23.

For instance in week 26, despite the Covid-19 virus allegedly wreaking havoc throughout the UK, there were just 2 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales. But fast forward one year and we can see that there were 19 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales during week 26. That represents a 850% increase.

The reason the increase in deaths among male teens occurring from week 18 onwards is concerning is because according to the following chart provided by the UK Health Security Agency in the Vaccine Surveillance reports, this is the point where a spike in vaccinations of 18 and 19 year-olds began, and around the same time some 16 and 17-year-olds began to be given the Covid-19 injection.

Source

Overall, according to the ONS reports there were a total of 434 deaths due to all causes among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 1 and week 52 in 2020. However, between week 1 and week 52 in 2021 there were a total of 577 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales.

But what’s concerning here is that the number of deaths between week 1 and 17 in both years are almost identical, with 170 deaths occurring in 2020, and 172 deaths occurring in 2021.

The concerning difference in deaths only occurred after the Covid-19 vaccine was introduced to this age group. With 264 deaths occurring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2020, but 405 deaths occurring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

This means deaths among males aged 15-19 increased by 53% following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age-group compared to the same period in 2020.

Many people may try to shoot this statistic down by claiming Covid-19 was actually to blame, so we also analysed the number of Covid-19 deaths registered weekly among Males aged 15-19 in England and Wales throughout the whole of 2020 and 2021.

The following graph has again been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.

As we can see the number of Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales has been pretty scarce over a period of two years. No more than 3 deaths have been registered in a single week. So therefore we can clearly see that Covid-19 does not play a major part in the 53% increase in deaths between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.

But this data does show something rather concerning, in that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low they did actually increase significantly following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this population.

Between week 12 (start of Lockdown 1 in 2020) and week 17 in 2020 there were a grand total of 4 Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales. During the same period in 2021 there was only a single death registered.

However, look at the difference between week 18-52 in 2020 and in 2021.

There were 2 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2020, but there were 11 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2021, despite the Covid-19 vaccination being introduced to this age group.

Therefore, following Covid-19 vaccination, Covid-19 deaths increased 450% compared to the number of Covid-19 deaths during the same time-frame in 2020 when there was no Covid-19 vaccine available.

This data therefore suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines have either had a negative effect on the immune systems of 15-19-year-old males, or deaths among this age-group have wrongly been misattributed as Covid-19 to cover-up the fact the Covid-19 vaccine may have had a roll in the deaths, and we can safely conclude that the Covid-19 vaccine is to blame for those deaths because of the following correlation we have unearthed.

The following three charts are taken from the UK Health Security Agency’s Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022, and they show the cumulative weekly vaccine uptake by age for dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 of the Covid-19 vaccine.

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 18 and 19 year-olds between week 22 and week 27, and a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 16 and 17-year-olds between week 31 and week 36.

What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 2nd doses administered to 18 and 19-year-olds between week 31 and week 37, as well as the start of 2nd doses being administered to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds from week 18 onwards.

We can also see a clear spike in 2nd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds between week 39 and 46, and between week 46 and 51.

What we can see here is a clear spike in 3rd doses being administered to 18 and 19-year-olds, between week 49 and 51, as well as the start of 3rd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds from week 49.

This is concerning because of the fact there were clear spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 23-30, week 33-36, week 39-46, and week 48-51.

Therefore the spikes in doses of Covid-19 vaccine being administered correlate perfectly with the spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 during 2021, as we have shown in the following chart –

We’re sure there will be those who argue that correlation does not equal causation, but if you are going to argue that then please explain in as much depth as we have why deaths among teenage boys were virtually the same between week 1 and 17 in 2020 and 2021 but then increased by 53% between week 18 and 52 following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age group.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Magnetic field reversal and the solar minimum may lead to extinction-level event, study suggests Monday, June 20, 2022 by: Virgilio Marin

(Natural News) An international team of researchers suggests that low solar activity and the reversal of the magnetic field together may have cataclysmic effects that can spell the end of life. In a study recently published in the journal Science, the researchers detailed how the decline of the archaic Neanderthals and extinction of megafauna may be linked to the solar minimum a long time ago and the Laschamp excursion, a period around 42,000 years ago in which Earth’s magnetic field temporarily flipped.

Re-examining the impact of a magnetic field reversal

Earth’s magnetic field serves as a protective shield against harmful cosmic radiation. But when it flips, it becomes weaker and leaves the planet exposed to higher levels of radiation. This is the scenario for roughly 1,000 years during Laschamp.

Past studies suggest that this event had little impact on the planet. But according to the researchers, that’s possibly because the focus was not on the period during which the poles were actually shifting.

The researchers then performed radiocarbon analyses of the rings of ancient kauri trees in New Zealand to reevaluate the impact of Laschamp. This allowed them to track over time the rise in atmospheric levels of carbon-14 that was produced by increased cosmic radiation. The researchers then compared these carbon levels with numerous geologic records from all over the world to date significant atmospheric changes around the time.

Analysis showed that an array of major environmental changes happened at the same time carbon-14 levels peaked. Some of those changes include a massive growth of the North American ice sheet, a shift in the western Pacific’s tropical rain belts and a drying out in Australia, said Chris Turney, a professor of earth science at the University of New South Wales and one of the study researchers. (Related: Amazing Earth: The planet’s magnetic poles can flip more frequently than originally thought.)

Ice core records also suggest that dips in solar activity, known as the grand solar minima, coincided with Laschamp. Such dips can also have significant effects on the planet as the sun becomes unstable during those periods – it can emit solar flares and coronal mass ejections that bring higher levels of radiation to Earth.

The researchers then used a model to see what would happen if solar activity plummeted at the same time as the magnetic field disappeared. The model showed that the combination of these two events might have depleted the ozone layer and triggered climate shifts, electrical storms and widespread auroras.

The team suspects that these environmental changes potentially accelerated the growth of ice sheets and contributed to the extinction of Australian megafauna and the gradual decline of the Neanderthals. They also linked these changes to the increased use of caves as shelter and the emergence of red ocher handprints for cave art and sunscreen.

“It probably would have seemed like the end of days,” Turney said.

That those seemingly random cosmic events 42,000 years ago appear to be connected led the researchers to call this intricate mosaic of a period the “Adams Event.” The name is a tribute to science fiction writer Douglas Adams, who wrote in his book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that the number “42” is the answer to the mysteries of the universe.

What happens if the magnetic field flips now?

Some experts believe that Earth’s magnetic field may flip relatively soon. This protective shield already weakened by around nine percent for the past 170 years, and the presence of the South Atlantic Anomaly – a weak spot in the magnetic field just above South America and the South Atlantic Ocean, which has been growing as of late – is further stoking concerns.

If the magnetic field reverses, satellite networks and power grids will be the most affected. Even now when the magnetic field still mostly stable, solar storms are already damaging satellites, causing power outages and interrupting radio communications. In March 1989, for example, a coronal mass ejection triggered a widespread power failure that cut off electrical supply to over six million people in Canada and across the northeastern U.S. for nine hours.

A magnetic field flip can also affect humans and animals. Increased levels of radiation can potentially increase skin cancer cases while animals like bees, whales and turtles that rely on geomagnetism for navigation might not be able to cope with the reversal.

It’s clear that the reversal of Earth’s magnetic field poses a great threat to humanity. Learn more about potential disaster scenarios during a magnetic field flip and other catastrophic events at Disaster.news.

Sources include:

StrangeSounds.org

TheGuardian.com

TheConversation.com

USAToday.com

LiveScience.com

Space.com

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

EXCLUSIVE: Police Report Proves Plainclothes Electronic Surveillance Unit Members Were Embedded Among Jan. 6 Protesters

Embedded ESU members wore a specific 'bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel'

By Patricia Tolson

June 20, 2022 Updated: June 20, 2022

While there is growing speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 protests and recording responses for the purposes of entrapment, evidence now proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among the protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. Evidence also points to a day of security deficiencies and police provocation for the purpose of entrapment.

According to a report—First Amendment Demonstrations, issued Jan. 3, 2021, by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—the MPD began to activate Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) platoons on Jan. 4, 2021. Full activation of 28 platoons was scheduled to occur on the following two days.

Cover page for the First Amendment Demonstrations report, issued January 3, 2021, by the Metropolitan Police Department, Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division. (Obtained by The Epoch Times)

According to the Department of Justice website, “A CDU is composed of law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”

The objective of MPD was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” CDU personnel and Special Operations Division  (SOD) members were to “monitor for any demonstration and/or violent activity and respond accordingly,” according to the report.

There has been speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the protests for the purposes of entrapment. As Red State reported in October 2021, “multiple surveillance videos show masked men opening up the doors to the U.S. Capitol Building to allow protesters to enter. In fact, one video shows them entering while Capitol Police officers simply stand around. Yet, we have no idea who those men are.”

The ‘Covert Cadre’ of ‘Provocateurs’

On a Dec.  7, 2021, episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners, Joseph McBride, identified a man tagged on the internet by so-called “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man, dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red—appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with uniformed personnel and others whom McBride insists are agents embedded in the crowd. McBride said the man is “clearly a law enforcement officer.”

“He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come in contact with some of the other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and are using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly entrapment.

That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.”

On Jan. 13, 2021, J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy, published a first-hand account of his observations. Waller is also President of Georgetown Research, a political risk and private intelligence company in Washington, D.C.; and was founding editorial board member of NATO’s peer-reviewed Defence Strategic Communications journal (2015–2018), and a senior analyst with Wikistrat. He is convinced people were embedded in the crowd to execute “an organized operation planned well in advance of the January 6 joint session of Congress.”

J. Michael Waller, Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy. (With permission from J. Michael Waller.)

According to Waller, a “covert cadre” of people were scattered throughout the crowd to encourage people toward the Capitol, including “fake Trump protesters” he suspected were ANTIFA “wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards.”

The Epoch Times reported on Jan. 1 that senior federal law enforcement officials refused to answer questions about an Arizona man named Ray Epps, captured on video the day before the rally wearing a Trump hat repeatedly encouraging protesters to “go into the Capitol” the next day. Many were suspicious of him. Chants of “fed, fed, fed” drown him out. On Jan. 6, he is seen telling the crowd “we are going to the Capitol, where all of our problems are.”

Ray Epps encourages protesters to go into the Capitol the night before the breach on Jan. 6, 2021. (Villain Report/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

Epps is also seen standing before a bike rack barricade, whispering into the ear of a protester wearing his Trump hat backwards. Moments later, that man is joined by others in tearing down the barricade. Epps is then seen running with the crowd toward the Capitol Building. Despite the evidence, Epps has not had any charges filed against him and his photo has been removed from the government’s list of most-wanted people from the event.

Bobby Powell host of “The Truth is Viral” podcast, has several videos exposing two men, clad all in black, whom he believes are FBI informants. They are seen breaking windows, attacking the Capitol building, and even pushing people inside.

McBride finds it strange that these “provocateurs,” as he calls them, have yet to be charged, despite their having a much more active role in the Capitol incident than some who were charged, including some individuals who never even set foot on Capitol grounds.

The Proof

Unknown to the public until now, the First Amendment Demonstrations report also reveals that an undisclosed number of “plainclothes” MPD ESU “members” were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”

In 2016, the MPD purchased 2,800 body-worn cameras.

It is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were. However, they are never referred to as “officers” or “police.” Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them. In order for other security personnel to recognize embedded ESU members among the protesters, they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel,” the report stated.

Photo of bracelet worn by plainclothes members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Electronic Surveillance Unit, embedded in the crowds on Jan. 6, 2021 to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.” (Metropolitan Police Department First Amendment Demonstrations report.)

Because he didn’t assume the job as police chief until Jan. 2, 2021, Waller believes Contee inherited rather than set up the ESU. However, Waller is confident “this report raises a lot of questions.”

“While it is admittedly an important type of unit to have in the nation’s capital, electronic surveillance requires warrants,” Waller told The Epoch Times. “The word surveillance itself implies intrusive rather than passive monitoring of people, in which case it would be required for the police to get warrants to conduct electronic surveillance on people. What kind of warrants were asked for and under which jurisdiction? Were they issued? If not, why? Are such warrants necessary for the type of surveillance this unit was doing and how does it work? This raises a huge amount of questions about an entirely new kind of surveillance unit by the police chief of the nation’s capital.”

Waller also said the reference to “members” of the unit, as opposed to “officers” or “agents,” is also very disturbing. While he said “the rest of the memorandum sounds very disciplined in it’s language and specific,” that it doesn’t identify “officers” as members of the Electronic Surveillance Unit “is very troubling.”

“Are they using private contractors? Are they using political volunteers?” Waller posed. “Are using paid agents of different types? We don’t know. This is something the public has a right to know and we need to get to the bottom of it. If the D.C Police is running electronic surveillance on American citizens without warrants, this could be a very serious breach of our civil liberties.”

Even after Capitol occupation and violence on Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill Police made no attempt to apprehend “Q Anon Man,” who is on the Senate steps just a few feet from the Capitol Hill Police line. This photo was taken after the Capitol Hill Police removed protesters from inside the Senate wing of the Capitol. (Courtesy of J. Michael Waller)

Intentional Security Deficiencies

An Oct. 29, 2021 report by Politico exposed that a 17-page strategy report called “The Civil Disturbance Unit Operational Plan,” showed that police made plans for plainclothes “officers” to monitor protesters and carry out five objectives:

  1. To provide an environment in which lawful First Amendment activity can be safely demonstrated.

  2. To prevent any adverse impact to the legislative process associated with unlawful demonstration activity.

  3. To effectively mitigate actions associated with civil disorder; safely respond to crimes of violence and destruction/defacing of property.

  4. To safeguard and prevent any property damage directed at the US Capitol, West Front Inaugural Platform, and all Congressional buildings.

  5. Establish and maintain a fixed march route while excluding access to counter-protestors to minimize potential for violent interactions.”

However, because the CDU was understaffed and unprepared, it failed in all its objectives.

According to a 140-page report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton—”Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol”—Capitol Police’s CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Bolton’s report, which has not yet been widely released to the public, also contends “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”

The CDU was given riot shields, many locked in a bus some distance away, that “shattered upon impact.” They had expired weapons that didn’t work and inadequate training.

Bolton’s report also noted that officials were warned in an intelligence assessment three days before the protest that “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike” and that “Congress itself is the target.”

A man authorities identified as Jerry Braun outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (DOJ via The Epoch Times)

However, reports surfaced that then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett sent a memo to lawmakers informing them that security officials found that “there does not exist a known, credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex that warrants the temporary security fencing.”

Some Capitol Police officers were reportedly told to go home amid staffing shortages, reported Business Insider.

According to the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, “USCP Deputy Chief Gallagher replies” to the Department of Defense (DOD) “via text” on January 3, 2021, “that a request for National Guard support is not forthcoming at this time after consultation” with Chief of Police (COP) Steven Sund.

On Jan. 4, 2021, “COP Sund asked Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefings with law enforcement partners and revised intelligence assessment.”

• COP Sund’s request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tells COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard’s ability to support a request if needed.
• COP Sund notifies General Walker of DC National Guard, indicating that the USCP may need DC National Guard support for Jan. 6, 2021, but does not have the authority to request at this time.
• General Walker advises COP Sund that in the event of an authorized request, DC National Guard could quickly repurpose 125 troops helping to provide DC with COVID-related assistance. Troops would need to be sworn in as USCP.

However, the timeline shows it took over three hours and five frantic requests before the National Guard was deployed.

During his opening remarks before two Senate committees on March 3, 2021, Walker told members of Congress he received a “frantic call” from Sund in the early afternoon advising that the security perimeter of the Capitol was being breached. However, military leaders informed him that deploying troops would not be “good optics.”

During testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Piatt and Flynn denied making such comments.

At the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene informed the committee three people were involved in turning down repeated requests for the deployment of the National Guard. “Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Mayor Muriel Bowser. Also involved, are the SSAA Stenger, who answers directly to Schumer, and HSAA Irving, who answers directly to Pelosi.

National Guard troops leave Washington after being stationed there for four months following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, on May 24, 2021. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

On Jan. 22, 2021, reports began to surface with images of National Guard members who were forced to stay in nearby parking garages in near-freezing temperatures sparking outrage among lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.

In stark contradiction to then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett’s assessment that no “credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex” existed to warrant “temporary security fencing,” there are multiple admonishments in the First Amendment Demonstrations report of the importance “for the members to monitor the fence line” and orders that “all members” were to “monitor 16th Street and the surrounding area for any potential issues or demonstrations.”

“Members assigned to the bicycle rack” were ordered to “restrict pedestrian and vehicle movement upon making the closure of the police lines.”

“The bicycle rack, in conjunction with police cars and blocking vehicles will create a barrier in which no person or vehicle will be allowed to pass,” the report said.

However, video evidence shows police waving protesters past bike racks and even removing them to open a path into the restricted areas to encourage people to move toward the Capitol Building.

A March 2, 2021, USCP Report of Investigation regarding the incident, also obtained by The Epoch Times, confirms that on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, “an Unknown Officer violated USCP Directive 2053.013, Rules of Conduct, when they allegedly waived unauthorized persons into a restricted area secured by bike racks toward the US Capitol during an insurrection.” Evidence in the case included the “video posted to twitter, dated 01/06/21 ” and “CCTV of the East Front of the US Capitol, dated 01/06/21.”

On Monday, Feb. 1, 2021, then Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Commander of the United States Capitol Police, Inspector Michael Shaffer, sent an email with the Twitter video of the unidentified officer (UO) to Inspectors Amy Hyman (Senate Division), Thomas Loyd (Capitol Division), Kimberley Bolinger (House Division) and Acting Inspector Jessica Baboulis (Library Division) requesting assistance in identifying the UO. All parties responded to Shaffer that they were unable to identify the UO.

The recommendation was that the report “be APPROVED and the case CLOSED.”

On Feb. 4, 2021, this case was put on hold pending a review by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Public Corruption. No further information is available.

Provocation and Entrapment

In a June 10 interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter,” Julie Kelly—a political consultant in Illinois and senior contributor for American Greatness—described Jan. 6, 2021, as “an inside job” and “something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together to entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear President Donald Trump’s speech. She noted that the FBI used agents to try to infiltrate the so-called militia groups.

Jeremy Brown exposed a video of FBI Terrorist Task Force agents attempting to recruit him to spy on fellow Oath Keepers.

The Department of Justice still won’t answer questions about Ray Epps, an Arizona resident captured on video encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol Building.

On January 6, 2021, Capitol Police fire tear gas into pro-Trump protesters well before the violence began. Even with the tear gas, the crowd remained orderly. (Courtesy of J. Michael Waller)

Kelly also noted how Capitol Police used flash bangs, teargas, and rubber bullets “to inflame the crowd and provoke a lot of the confrontations” seen in videos now being used as evidence to arrest, charge and incarcerate those who attended the rally.

More specifically, she accused Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Democrat Majority Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of “intentionally” leaving Capitol grounds unsecured.” She further alleged it was a “setup” designed specifically to cripple the MAGA movement.

While Bolton’s report said “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership,” the Capitol Police timeline says United States Capitol Police (USCP) personnel “deploy[ed] munitions at the Rotunda door” at 1645 hours (4:45 p.m.) where protesters were alleged to be “pushing in doors and breaking windows.” Three minutes later, USCP deployed “chemical munitions on Lower West Terrace to disperse insurrectionists.”

Police release tear gas into a crowd of demonstrators during clashes outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. Still, the crowd remained orderly. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

Video footage found at Gateway Pundit shows flash grenades being launched by Capitol Police into a group of protesters, consisting of women, children, and elderly people, who were standing peacefully behind barriers. According to American Greatness, Capitol Police were also firing on the crowd with rubber bullets. The approximate time of the confrontation was around 1:36 p.m. However, the USCP Timeline does not mention the deployment of these flash grenades.

Another video, which still exists on TeaParty.org, was filmed by Kash Kelly from ground level where the flash grenades went off. Kelly, who is now himself in prison regarding pretrial release violations regarding a previous charge and the subsequent charges related to his presence in Washington, is shown ensuring the evacuation of women in the area where the flash grenades exploded.

“The police started shooting at people,” Kelly says. “There were kids in the crowd.”

More extensive video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows “the beginning of violence on January 6.”

An unidentified USCP officer is seen repeatedly yelling down to the crowd, assembled peacefully below his position, advising that if they “want to get a good picture” they should “go up into the bleachers.”

“The video shows the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors,” Dietrich says as the video plays out. “The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed? I have picked this video apart and many more, and cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd. There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?”

“What happened next?” Dietrich asks rhetorically. “Chaos. Violence. The crowd fought back. The Capitol was breached.”

As the stunned crowd scurries in the attack, police can be seen spraying people in the face with pepper spray. In another segment, three police officers are beating a protester who is being held on the ground. In a measure that further escalates the tension, police begin deploying tear gas into the already frantic crowd. In a course of 20 minutes, a once peaceful scene descends into total chaos.

In June 2021, reports surfaced that the Justice Department had begun to release its own video footage, including footage from body-worn cameras that allegedly show assaults against police officers defending the U.S. Capitol.

A summary of findings shows that:

  • Evidence shows that until the deployment of munitions, the crowds were peaceful.

  • MPD Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) members were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”

  • Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the Metropolitan Police Department, an ESU is not among them.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department and Capitol Police for comment.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx