Dawn Lester, What Really Makes You Ill?
In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I discussed the complete lack of evidence for the existence of ‘pathogenic agents’ of any description and the efforts of the medical establishment to promote vaccines as the only way to prevent what are erroneously referred to as ‘infectious diseases’.
In this 3rd and final part of the series, I will expand the discussion to include a few of the other aspects of the ‘agenda’ as exemplified by the UN document entitled The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, also known as the 2030 Agenda or ‘Global Goals’. Although published in 2015, the 2030 Agenda does not represent a new ‘plan’; instead, it is best described as an updated and extended version of previous ‘plans’; especially Agenda 21.
It is important for people to recognise that these grandiose ‘plans’ have a very specific purpose, which is to persuade everyone that ‘intervention’ is absolutely essential and that the proposed measures, which are based on the findings of various ‘experts’, possess the ability to genuinely solve all our problems. It is therefore essential for the planners that everyone believes in their ‘plans’ and agrees to and supports the implementation of the proposed interventions.
The words used in these documents are therefore carefully crafted, almost invariably with the assistance of behavioural psychologists, to ensure their maximum impact on the general public. It is essential to the ‘would-be-controllers’ that people are left with the impression that the aims and goals of the ‘agenda’ are the most humane, benevolent and philanthropic that anyone could ever create; as can be seen by the Preamble to the 2030 Agenda document which states that,
“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.”
But in this instance, appearances are most definitely deceptive. A more in-depth examination of the document and the associated plans will demonstrate to the reader that the proposed actions will not solve the world’s problems, nor will they be of any benefit to ‘people, planet and prosperity’.
They will of course be of benefit to some people, but they are only very few in number by comparison to the vast number of people who will be negatively impacted by the proposed measures.
It is essential to appreciate that problems can only be solved by addressing their root cause(s). However, it is abundantly clear that the recommendations of the designated ‘experts’ do not address root causes, which means that they will inevitably fail to solve the problems they are intended to address. Instead, the proposed measures can be shown to support a narrative that has been created for a specific reason, but that reason is not for the purposes of genuinely solving the world’s problems.
This can best be demonstrated by the example of the narrative relating to the alleged ‘Covid-19 pandemic’ that was claimed to affect everyone, everywhere, and was used to justify the most draconian measures in almost every country throughout the world. Yet, as has been repeatedly discussed, there is no evidence for the existence of any ‘pathogenic virus’, despite proclamations to the contrary by a large number of so-called ‘experts’ from various fields within science, although mainly from the field of virology, the fundamental problems with which have been discussed in other articles.
But ‘Covid-19’ is by no means the only so-called ‘infectious disease’ being used to scare people and coerce them into accepting medical interventions, especially vaccines. There are reports that claim we are going to experience even more and even worse ‘outbreaks’ of ‘infectious diseases’ that are due to a variety of different factors. Although it was cited in part 1 of the series, it is useful to refer again to the 27th June article entitled Could ‘Disease X’ be just around the corner? Top professor warns Britain needs to ‘strengthen’ its preparations for possibility of a new pandemic amid outbreak of Covid, Monkeypox and Polio in the UK, which states that,
“The factors behind the spread of new and existing viruses are likely due to growing economies of previously undeveloped nations, population growth, rise in the trade in wildlife and the human movement into jungles and forests.”
It’s important to note the attempt to deride the efforts of developing countries to develop and ‘grow their economies’ and to demonise ‘population growth’. These factors have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘disease’, but they must be promoted as if ‘dangerous’, so that people will accept the proposed measures to curtail such activities; as encapsulated within the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) of the 2030 Agenda!
In addition, there is a clear emphasis on ‘diseases’ that are claimed to have a higher incidence in countries within Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa. It is for this reason that organisations such as GAVI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation target their efforts on ‘poor African children’ on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim that they need ‘life-saving vaccines’. Sadly, a large proportion of people believe that these efforts represent genuine philanthropy.
The reason for emphasising these points is to highlight the efforts by ‘vested interests’, also referred to as the ‘globalists’ or the ‘would-be controllers’, to introduce as many interventions as possible to control the lives of everyone, everywhere, no matter how remote their location, under the guise of being able to achieve the aims of the SDGs with respect to issues such as: poverty, reproduction, food production and agriculture, industry and development water and sanitation, to name just a few.
These topics are covered in some detail in chapter 8 of our book, What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong, but a few are briefly discussed below to demonstrate how all-encompassing these interventions can be.
According to the September 2019 WHO Fact sheet entitled Maternal mortality,
“Maternal mortality is unacceptably high. About 295 000 women died during and following pregnancy and childbirth in 2017.”
This is followed by the claim that more than 90% of these deaths occurred in ‘lower and lower-middle income countries’. In other words, poor women are more likely to die as the result of pregnancy or childbirth. The ‘solution’ for this perceived problem will, as always, involve interventions in the name of ‘healthcare’, as the fact sheet indicates,
“Poor women in remote areas are the least likely to receive adequate health care. This is especially true for regions with low numbers of skilled health workers, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.”
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the obvious fact that women everywhere have been giving birth without the interventions of ‘modern medicine’ for many thousands if not millions of years. In fact, modern medicine has an extremely poor track record of delivering ‘healthcare’, as demonstrated by the well-known phenomenon of ‘iatrogenesis’.
Although ‘population control’ and ‘genocide’ are controversial topics, there are recorded efforts to curtail reproduction in order to limit population growth rates, especially in certain regions of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa. These efforts can be shown to date back to at least the 1970s; one example is a 1974 document entitled Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Threats. This document, also known as NSSM 200 or sometimes the Kissinger Report, indicates that ‘assistance’ should be provided,
“…to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic interest.”
It also indicates that this assistance should be provided through USAID programmes, including education programmes for women in ‘developing’ countries to inform them about various issues, such as limiting their family size through different methods of birth control. Importantly, the NSSM 200 makes the revealing comment that,
“Bilateral population assistance is the largest and most invisible ‘instrument’ for carrying out US policy in this area.”
It should be obvious that ‘US policy’ should not be created in order to have an impact on the decisions of people in other countries about how many children they should or should not have, or even whether they should have children.
Food production and Agriculture
Another idea that is used as a basis for gaining greater control over people’s lives is that there is, or soon will be, insufficient food available to feed the ever-growing world population. At the time of writing, this is becoming an even more important issue due to increasing reports about imminent food shortages.
It is important to point out that I am not denying that people suffer from hunger and even die as the result of starvation, but I am disputing the reasons given for this situation, the main one of which is that the Earth does not have the ability to provide sufficient food to feed the growing world population.
The topic of ‘food security’ was discussed in Agenda 21 and carried forward into the 2030 Agenda, especially in SDG 2.4 that refers to ‘sustainable food production systems’. One of the problems with this is that it refers to producing food rather than growing food. The production of ‘manufactured food products’ functions within a very centralised system and leaves the control and distribution of food in the hands of the owners of the multinational corporations that manufacture the ‘food products’. The problems with and consequences of this control over the food supply, including the manufacture of food and its distribution, are discussed in a 1977 book entitled Food First.
One of the ways that can demonstrate the erroneous nature of the claim that insufficient food is currently grown or produced, is the immense volume of food wastage that occurs. The FAO web page entitled SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction states that,
“Every year around the globe 1.3 billion tonnes of food is lost or wasted, that is a 1/3 of all food produced for human consumption.”
The 2030 Agenda proposes to address this problem; as can be seen by SDG 12.3, the aim of which is to,
“By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.”
It should be noted that the UN web page that describes ‘progress and info’ about SDG 12 states that,
“At the regional level, sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of losses at 21.4 per cent, with food being lost in large quantities between the farm and retail levels.”
This ‘statistic’, whether accurate or not, would seem to provide justification for yet more interventions into the food production and agriculture systems within Africa, where malnutrition is claimed to be a significant issue. Yet, African farmers have been successfully producing their own food using farming methods that have evolved and been developed over the course of hundreds if not thousands of years.
The problem is that it is not these methods, but those used by ‘modern agriculture’ that are neither beneficial nor sustainable. The reason is because ‘modern agriculture’ is based on industrialised food production on a huge scale and the perceived need for crops to be grown using a variety of synthetic chemicals as fertilisers, as well as toxic chemicals used as pesticides and herbicides. The industrialised manufacturing of ‘food products’ also requires a huge volume of synthetic and often toxic chemicals used as ‘food additives’.
One method that has proven to be sustainable without the use of synthetic and toxic chemicals is known as Agroecology, which is defined in a Food First ‘primer’ document of the same name as the ‘science of sustainable agriculture’; the document states,
“In sharp contrast to the proposal to industrialize all of the world’s production systems with GMOs and monocultures, Agroecology demands diversification, small and medium land holdings and an emphasis on farming as a livelihood.”
Furthermore, the primer also explains why this method will not be favoured by ‘Big Ag’,
“Instead of a steady concentration of wealth and monopoly power, agroecology works to decentralize and equitably distribute the power and wealth in our food systems.”
Food production methods of this type demonstrate that the Earth can indeed provide a more than adequate supply of food to feed everyone, without the need for anyone to experience starvation.
Malnutrition is the topic of SDG 2.2 that states the aim to,
“By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.”
The June 2021 WHO fact sheet entitled Malnutrition claims that,
“Malnutrition, in all its forms, includes undernutrition (wasting, stunting, underweight), inadequate vitamins or minerals, overweight, obesity, and resulting diet-related noncommunicable diseases.”
One of the organisations that claim to assist those suffering from malnutrition is the WFP, which provides this assistance through a number of programmes that involve the distribution of a variety of products, as indicated by the web page entitled Specialized nutritious food that states,
“The World Food Programme (WFP) uses a wide range of specialized foods to improve the nutritional intake of the people we assist around the world.”
These products include: Fortified Blended Foods (FBFs); Ready-to-Use Foods (RUFs); High Energy Biscuits (HEBs); Micronutrient Powder or ‘Sprinkles’; and Compressed Food Bars. The first products, called Fortified Blended Foods, are described on the web page as,
“…blends of partially precooked and milled cereals, soya, beans, pulses, fortified with micronutrients (vitamins and minerals).”
In other words, these are manufactured processed products, not fresh real foods that are genuinely nourishing. It is possible that such products may help in an emergency situation in the short-term, but they are not ‘sustainable’ nor can they possibly provide a long-term solution to the problem of malnutrition. They do, of course, ensure dependence on the products, which benefits those who control the manufacture and distribution of these ‘products’ as well as the ’aid’ programmes that fund them. This dependence is almost invariably attached to conditions imposed by financial organisations such as the World Bank and IMF, whose policies can be shown to ensure that the vast majority of people remain in a state of poverty instead of helping to ‘end poverty’, which is the acclaimed ‘aim’ of SDG 1.
Unfortunately, there is an even more insidious aspect to efforts to ‘end all forms of malnutrition’, which is that an association has been made between malnutrition and ‘infectious diseases’. This has led to the inevitable, but fallacious suggestion that even more vaccines are required; as can be seen by a September 2022 Science Direct article entitled Malnutrition vaccines for an imminent global food catastrophe that begins with the statement,
“Together with climate change, both the geopolitical events in Ukraine and social disruptions in supply chains from the COVID-19 pandemic could produce global food shortages or even mass starvation events. Promising new interventions include vaccines to prevent infectious causes of malnutrition or infections disproportionately causing death among the malnourished.”
It must be emphasised that the claims in this statement are unfounded; there are no ‘infectious diseases of malnutrition’, despite the statement that,
“…in most of the world’s low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), reduced nutritional intake does not occur in isolation. Chronic infections including diarrheal illness and parasitic infections accelerate both undernutrition and micronutrient-related malnutrition.”
It would probably require an entire article to discuss the problems within that paper and demonstrate the absurd notion that vaccines can solve any of the problems related to ‘malnutrition’; but it would be neither necessary nor useful to do so, because the theory on which vaccines are based has never been proven to be true. There are no ‘infectious agents’ that cause diseases that vaccines can help the body to protect itself against. It is of the utmost importance that people understand this fundamental point in view of the number of proposed new vaccines in development, as described within the article under the heading A new malnutrition vaccine portfolio,
“Based on the discussion in the preceding text, the major infectious and tropical diseases expected to amplify or exacerbate a pending food insecurity crisis, include three parasitic infections – human hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and malaria; and two enteric bacterial infections – shigellosis and ST-ETEC, and tuberculosis.”
It is abundantly clear that the article is based entirely on the theory that there are ‘germs’ of one sort or another that can ‘infect’ the body and cause gastrointestinal problems that result in symptoms such as diarrhoea. This theory, which remains unproven, represents a complete misunderstanding of how the human body actually functions and the purpose of symptoms. What is absolutely certain is that ‘poor children’, and even ‘poor adults’, who are malnourished and suffering from diarrhoea can never be healed through the use of toxic vaccines.
The reasons for the existence and persistence of the health problems associated with the labels listed in the study paper are many and varied; they include factors that relate to the condition of the environment in which people live. In some instances, this is due to the fact that the countries in which these conditions occur are still suffering the consequences of colonialism, despite gaining their independence during the 20th century. Another reason is the ongoing exploitation of resources within many African countries. The claim that there are ‘outbreaks’ of so-called ‘transmissible diseases’ therefore provides an excuse for ‘vested interests’ to justify their interventions that may include ‘boots on the ground’ operations involving personnel such as the EIS officers attached to the CDC for example.
It is important for people to be aware that there is an ‘agenda’ and that the creators of this agenda seek to control every aspect of our lives for their benefit, not ours; and, more importantly, not for the stated reason of ‘solving the world’s problems’.
It is also important for people to be aware that we do face real problems, although they are not exactly the same as those contained within the ‘agenda’ documents.
It is possible to solve these problems, but the solutions can only arise as the result of genuine efforts to understand the real nature of those problems, which means that people need to understand that we have been lied to about almost every aspect of our lives. This in turn means that we need to question everything we have been and are being told about anything that has the potential to impact our lives; we must also question the word of ‘experts’, especially those promoted through the mainstream media; and increasingly, even the ‘alternative’ media.
Once we have begun to question what we are being told, we can start to understand the real nature of the problems and then create the appropriate solutions.
The purpose of this series of articles has not been to scare, but to empower everyone by providing information to help us all make informed decisions, rather than fear-driven ones.
We do have the power to change our lives; there are many people throughout the world who have already begun to create new ways of living based on co-operation rather than combat.
As R. Buckminster Fuller said,
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
The ‘old model’ is one that requires us to believe others rather than ourselves. The ‘new model’ requires us to recognise our inherent abilities and to each take back the responsibility for our own lives.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Could ‘Disease X’ be just around the corner? Top professor warns Britain needs to ‘strengthen’ its preparations for possibility of a new pandemic amid outbreak of Covid, Monkeypox and Polio in the UK
WHO fact sheet Maternal mortality
SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction
Food First primer Agroecology
WHO fact sheet Malnutrition
WFP Specialized nutritious food
Malnutrition vaccines for an imminent global food catastrophe