MAGNIFICENT MERCOLA: Big Pharma Wants to Put an End to Vitamins and Supplements, and Advertising Business Linked to Deaths and Greenwashing

Here is another two in one for our Magnificent Mercola series. Both of these articles on Mercola.com are important enough to include in one article.

Big Pharma Wants to Put and End to Vitamins and Supplements

Story at-a-glance

• One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements — which are food — to undergo the same approval process as drugs
• In the past, the drug industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tried to ban certain supplements, including vitamin B6 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), by reclassifying them as new drugs
• Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is to buy up supplement brands. Just 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market
• This monopoly over the supplement industry gives drug companies enormous regulatory influence, and that's a way by which they could eliminate independent supplement makers who can't afford to put their products through the drug approval process. Indeed, it seems that's what the Durbin-Braun premarket approval proposal is trying to accomplish
• Take action to protect widespread access to dietary supplements. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022, and its inclusion in the FDA Safety Landmark Advancements Act

Organic Consumers Association on YouTube

Published Jul 5, 2022
59:08 viewing length

In the video above Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), interviews Gretchen DuBeau, the executive and legal director for the Alliance for Natural Health, who in addition to being a lawyer also has a master's degree in applied healing arts, talk about Big Pharma's efforts to eliminate one of its greatest competitors, namely nutritional supplements.

One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements to undergo the same approval process as drugs.

A discussion draft of the legislation was released by the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) in mid-May 2022. As reported by Vitamin Retailer:¹

"On May 17 [2022], the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) released a discussion draft of its legislation to reauthorize FDA user fees for drugs, biologics and medical devices package, which includes the controversial and divisive Durbin-Braun premarket approval concept and more that would be damaging to the industry, according to the Natural Products Association (NPA).²

"'The NPA is significantly concerned with Chair Murray and Republican Leader Burr who failed to reject the radical and dangerous legislation from Senators Durbin and Braun that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements and weaken key privacy protections of the Bioterrorism Act, which protects the dietary supplement supply chain,' said Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D. president and CEO of the NPA.

"'Last time I checked, dietary supplements are not drugs, biologics or medical devices, so why Congress or anyone supporting nongermane legislation that will only add costs to consumers who are doing all they can to stay healthy is extremely troubling.

"Groups who [sic] have supported this legislation, have stated there are protections for technical disagreements with the FDA like those with hemp, CBD, NAC, and several other products. However, if this legislation were to pass, it is abundantly clear these products would be eliminated from the market.'"

For years, the drug industry, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's support, has tried to get nutritional supplements off the market. One of the most often used tactics has been to try to reclassify them as drugs.

Usually, they would target specific nutrients that stood in their way of profits, but legislation such as the Durbin-Braun premarket proposal would allow the drug industry to monopolize the market in one fell swoop.

The fight over vitamin B6 (pyroxidine) is one example of how Big Pharma tried to eliminate a natural substance that stood in the way of a drug patent. In 2007, Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen's petition to the FDA in which it argued that any dietary supplement containing pyridoxal 5'-phosphate — vitamin B6 — were "adulterated" under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, article 402(f).³

In essence, Medicure wanted all vitamin B6 products banned, because they undermined the company's incentive to continue development of it's drug version of B6.

Medicure had gotten wise to vitamin B6's effectiveness against ischemia (inadequate blood flow), and decided to make a drug out of it by simply renaming the vitamin "MC-1." They entered it into the drug bank and then argued that B6 supplements contained "their" MC-1. The drug bank even admits the renamed vitamin B6, i.e., MC-1, is:⁴

"... a biologically active natural product which can be regarded as a chemical entity that has been evolutionarily selected and validated for binding to particular protein domains."

The main reason why drug companies engage in this kind of sleight of hand is because once a substance is classified as a drug, you can jack up the price by 1,000% over the supplement's typical retail.⁵

Perhaps the most recent example of the FDA trying to shut down easy access to nutritional supplements was its 2020 attack on N-acetylcysteine (NAC). NAC has been a widely-used dietary supplement for six decades, yet the FDA suddenly decided to crack down on it in late July 2020 — right after it was discovered how useful it was for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.⁶

According to the FDA, NAC was excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement because it had been approved as a new drug in 1963.⁷ But if that was the case, why did they wait until 2020 to take action?

As reported by NPI at the time,⁸ there were more than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health's Dietary Supplement Label Database when the FDA started sending out warning letters⁹ to companies that marketed NAC as a remedy for hangovers.

Members of the Council for Responsible Nutrition also worried the FDA might start to target NAC more widely. So far, that hasn't happened, but Amazon immediately stopped selling all NAC products after those warning letters went out, whether the sellers marketed it as a hangover remedy or not.

Also, the selection of "hangover" for those warning letters seemed arbitrary at best. The fact is that several scientists had called attention to NAC's benefits against COVID, and shortly afterward, the FDA came up with this ridiculous excuse to limit the availability of it. It just smacked of conflict of interest.

Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is by simply buying up supplement brands. Nestlé Health Science, for example, has acquired Garden of Life, Vital Proteins, Nuun, Pure Encapsulations, Wobenzym, Douglas Laboratories, Persona Nutrition, Genestra, Orthica, Minami, AOV, Klean Athlete and Bountiful.¹⁰

Bountiful, in turn, owns brands like Solgar, Osteo Bi-Flex, Puritan's Pride, Ester-C and Sundown, all of which are now under Nestlé's control. The Bountiful brands alone generated net sales of $1.87 billion in the 12 months ending March 31, 2021, so the $5.75 billion agreement to acquire a majority stake, signed in August 2021, didn't necessarily burn a big hole in Nestlé's pocket. According to J.P. Morgan analyst Celine Pannuti, quoted by Natural Products Insider:¹¹

"Through the acquisition of The Bountiful Co., Nestlé can build a 'leading position' in the 'fragmented category' for vitamins, minerals and supplements, which 'has delivered the highest and most consistent growth in consumer health care over the past 10 years.'"

In all, a mere 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market. The graphic below is from Neal Smoller, PharmD, the holistic pharmacist's website.¹²

It doesn't show the ownership of all available brands, but it gives you an idea of just how small the ownership circle has become. As noted by Smoller, many competing brands are even owned by the same corporation, rendering the notion of free market competition null and void.

Take Action NOW to Protect Your Supplements From Disappearing

As noted by NPA president and CEO, Daniel Fabricant:²⁰

"The war is far from over. We need America's health and wellness advocates to continue writing their members of Congress through the NPA Action Center. Grassroots involvement over the coming weeks is absolutely critical to defeating this radical and dangerous proposal."

I join Fabricant in urging you to contact your senators and urge them to oppose the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022, and its inclusion in the FDA Safety Landmark Advancements Act. A list of contact numbers can be found here. On that same page, the NPA also has a sample script with key talking points.

If you take supplements and you want to continue the freedom to take them in the future, it is VITAL that if you live in the U.S. that you let you representatives know. Not only would I email them in the link below (be sure to customize it and change it) but I would also call your representatives! It worked previously and will work now, but you need to be involved.

Alternatively, you can take action by sending an email. The Alliance for Natural Health makes it easy on SaveSupplements.com. Phone calls are more effective, but if for some reason you don't want to call, Alliance for Natural Health has created a prewritten email that will be automatically sent to the U.S. president, senators and representatives.

Importantly, owning the lion's share of supplement companies puts the drug industry in a unique position to get rid of them whenever they so desire. They could intentionally make the company tank simply by cutting advertising, for example. Cutting quality could have a similar effect, while simultaneously cheating customers who rely on dietary supplements for optimal nutrition and health.

Most important of all, however, this monopoly over the supplement industry gives drug companies enormous regulatory influence, and that's a way by which they could eliminate independent supplement makers who can't compete financially. Indeed, that seems to be what the Durbin-Braun proposal is all about.

This new proposed legislation would technically ban most supplements, as few supplement makers have the financial resources required to meet drug approval requirements. The only ones with pockets deep enough to do that would be the mega-corporations.

Putting vitamins and nutrients through the drug evaluation and approval process would automatically eliminate many supplements from the market and result in higher retail prices for whatever remains. It would also allow drug companies to rename basic nutrients, label them drugs, and jack up the price even further.

We cannot let this happen. Dietary supplements are FOOD, plain and simple. They should not be treated as drugs, which must undergo rigorous testing to evaluate effects and safety. Supplements have a long history of near-spotless safety and don't need drug-style testing.

Deaths associated with use of dietary supplements are extremely rare compared to the death toll from prescription drugs, yet supplements are routinely singled out as being potentially dangerous,^13,14 either due to lack of testing, lack of regulation or both. The thing is, supplements don't need safety testing, as they are food, and they are, in fact, fully regulated.

In 2015, CBC News published a Marketplace report¹⁵ in which they claimed a number of supplement makers had ripped off customers by failing to live up to the claims on their labels. Two months later, they had to retract the report,¹⁶ when it was proven their tests were inaccurate. That's just one example of how the pharma-owned media tries to give supplements a bad rap.

Meanwhile, in the real world, not a single death has ever been reported as a direct result of taking a supplement. On the contrary, data provided in a 2012 report by the UK-based Alliance for Natural Health International (ANHI), showed nutritional supplements are the safest foodstuffs available.

Your risk of dying from an herbal product or dietary supplement is less than 1 in 10 million, comparable to your risk of being killed by lighting. ANHI also calculated that adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than nutritional supplements.¹⁷

So, the one thing that can be conclusively said about supplements is that they may be the safest category of any consumable product. On the whole, junk food and drugs are FAR more likely to harm or kill you.

What's more, lack of human trials does not mean supplements are unregulated. They're regulated by both the FDA¹⁸ and the Federal Trade Commission¹⁹ (FTC). The FDA regulates the finished product and individual ingredients, while the FTC regulates the advertising of supplements. So, while not regulated as drugs, but rather as a food, they are fully regulated.

Advertising Business Linked to Deaths and Greenwashing

THE WEB OF PLAYERS TRYING TO SILENCE TRUTH

Mercola on Bitchute
Published Feb 12, 2021
13:36 viewing length

Story at-a-glance

• Advertising agencies wield great power over public opinion, and prosecutors are increasingly starting to look at PR firms' roles in cases where corporations are accused of serious malfeasance or fraud
• Hundreds of climate-related court cases are now looking at the role advertising firms played in greenwashing
• We're seeing a similar trend happening in the drug industry, where ad agencies are starting to be held to account for the "legal lies" they spin on behalf of their clients. In February 2021, McKinsey & Company, a management consultancy firm, paid $573 million to settle a case in which they were accused of complicity by giving marketing advice to manufacturers of opiates, which have killed more than half a million people
• May 6, 2021, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sued Publicis Health, accusing the company of "collecting more than $50 million in exchange for marketing schemes to get doctors to prescribe Purdue's opioids to more patients, in higher doses, for longer periods of time." Publicis tried to have the case dismissed, but failed
• Aside from hiring big advertising companies to push their wares, drug companies keep the truth from being known through the use of fact checkers

Advertising agencies wield great power over public opinion, and prosecutors are increasingly starting to look at PR firms' role in cases where corporations are accused of serious malfeasance or fraud. For example, CampaignAsia.com recently reported that:¹

"Hundreds of new greenwashing-related court cases have increased the pressure on PR and advertising agencies, as prosecutors begin to widen their net in terms of who should bear responsibility for the controversial practice ...

"Since May 2021, 369 climate-related lawsuits against agencies have been concluded, with 218 of those (58%) ruling against the PR and advertising firms ... Over the past five years the number of lawsuits relating to the role of PR and advertising in climate change has doubled. The cases are mainly US-based, but span 39 countries in total."

The data reported by CampaignAsia come from the report,² "Smoke and Mirrors: The Legal Risks of Fossil Fuel Advertising," published in May 2022 by a climate-change activist organization called Clean Creatives.

The report names WPP, IPG, Dentsu, Publicis and Omnicom — four holding companies that in turn run dozens of individual PR agencies — as being particularly vulnerable to greenwashing lawsuits, as they all work to improve the public image of fossil fuel clients "while they continue to pollute the earth."

According to Clean Creatives director Duncan Meisel, PR companies take "significant reputational, business and legal risks when they work with fossil fuel companies to spread climate disinformation," as their work not only hurts the planet but could also land them in court. Meisel also warns that ad agencies may be duped themselves by clients who withhold damaging information, and that such naiveté could end up being costly.

Investing in "green" companies has skyrocketed in recent years, but many of these companies aren't what they claim to be. According to climate change think tank InfluenceMap, a majority of "green" equity funds fall short.

Of the 723 funds marketed using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) claims, more than half failed to meet the Paris Accord rules on carbon emissions and clean energy, and "more than 70% of the funds with broader ESG goals are also misaligned with global climate targets," Time magazine reported.³

InfluenceMap noted that BlackRock Inc. — the world's largest investment firm, which has vowed to make sustainability a core investment strategy — still invests in fossil fuels. The same goes for other major investment companies.

State Street Corporation, for example, which is the third largest, owns a portion of Marathon Petroleum and Philips 66 which, according to InfluenceMap, are "two of the world's most egregious fossil fuel lobbying companies preventing policy-based climate action."⁴

Similarly, a May 2021 report⁵ by the Economist concluded some of the largest ESG funds in the world are "stuffed full of polluters and sin stocks." According to a 2019 report by the Wall Street Journal,⁶ "Eight of the 10 biggest U.S. sustainable funds are invested in oil-and-gas companies, which are regularly slammed by environmental activists."

Aside from oil and gas, other top ESG investments include tobacco companies and casino operators,⁷ neither of which is particularly well-known for high ethical standards. In a March 2021 USA Today op-ed, former chief information officer of sustainable investing for BlackRock, Tariq Fancy, said the quiet part out loud:⁸

"In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community."

We're also seeing a similar trend happening in the drug industry, where ad agencies are starting to be held to account for the "legal lies"⁹ they spin on behalf of their clients.

For example, in February 2021, McKinsey & Company, a management consultancy firm, paid $573 million to settle a case in which they were accused of complicity by giving marketing advice to manufacturers of opiates — including the maker of Oxycontin, Purdue Pharma — which have killed more than half a million people.¹⁰ CampaignAsia writes:¹¹

"Lauren Papenhausen, a partner at White & Case, said the McKinsey settlement is 'particularly noteworthy in that it signals a willingness on the part of the government to pursue not only manufacturers, but also those who provide them professional services.

"While one might view the settlement as unique to the particular context of opioids, it raises the question of whether governmental concern over particular marketing strategies is a sign of enforcement efforts to come.'"

A late June 2022 article by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health also highlighted obtained litigation documents¹² showing McKinsey's role in the opioid epidemic:¹³

"They show how McKinsey advised opioid makers Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson and Mallinckrodt to help them increase sales, despite the growing public outcry over the opioid epidemic ...

"Materials include scopes of work, proposals, and invoices; presentations prepared for internal discussion and for clients (including Purdue Pharma and Endo Pharmaceuticals); spreadsheets outlining project staffing; and emails responding to news about increased restrictions on opioids.
 

"The collection also houses letters from regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in response to new drug applications from opioid manufacturers; preparation materials for regulatory advisory committee meetings; opioid-related transition documents for state and federal agencies; and other internal files.

"'These documents now form a unique and invaluable public resource to help us comprehend the magnitude of harm done to the millions of Americans affected by the opioid crisis,' said Jeremy Greene, MD, PhD, MA, William H. Welch Professor of Medicine and the History of Medicine in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
 

"'More generally, they shine a bright light on the murkier intersections of science, industry, and financial interest that continue to characterize the U.S. health care system' ...

"'Researchers can leverage these litigation documents to see patterns of industry behavior that could be regulated to protect public health,' said Dorie Apollonio, PhD, MPP, a professor of clinical pharmacy in the UCSF School of Pharmacy. 'This will be critical to identifying reforms that can protect against future epidemics like this.'"

We recently discovered that the situation is even more corrupt than previously thought. A U.S. House investigation^14,15,16 into McKinsey, based on materials obtained through the discovery process of various lawsuits, also revealed McKinsey was advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the safety of opioids, while at the same time advising drug companies on how to maximize sales.

In one instance, McKinsey wrote scripts for Purdue to use in its meeting with the FDA to discuss the safety of OxyContin in pediatric populations. In another, Jeff Smith, a senior McKinsey consultant, worked on a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for OxyContin while simultaneously advising the FDA about the drug's safety.¹⁷

As noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker,¹⁸ "Just think about that for a moment — for years McKinsey played both cop and robber." As reported by The New York Times, April 13, 2022:¹⁹

"Since 2010, at least 22 McKinsey consultants have worked for both Purdue and the FDA, some at the same time, according to the committee's 53-page report ...

"The firm provided no evidence to the committee that it had disclosed the potential conflicts of interest as required under federal contracting rules — an 'apparent violation,' the report said. McKinsey also allowed employees advising Purdue to help shape materials that were intended for government officials and agencies ...
 

'"Today's report shows that at the same time the FDA. was relying on McKinsey's advice to ensure drug safety and protect American lives, the firm was also being paid by the very companies fueling the deadly opioid epidemic to help them avoid tougher regulation of these dangerous drugs,' Representative Carolyn Maloney, the New York Democrat who chairs the committee, said in a statement ...

"A bipartisan group of lawmakers last month introduced legislation²⁰ aimed at preventing conflicts of interest in federal contracting, citing McKinsey's experience with Purdue and the FDA."

Now, we've also come to find that McKinsey²¹ did direct sales for its Big Pharma clients, using in-house sales reps. They actually employed entire sales teams that sold clients' drugs directly to doctors. This revelation came out of the repository²² of opioid litigation documents set up by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emails²³ show Publicis offers a similar service where Publicis sales staff sell clients' products to pharmacies. As reported by The New York Times:²⁴

"The Times found that the firm played a far deeper and broader role in advising clients involved in the opioid crisis than was publicly disclosed ... While the firm held remarkable sway at Purdue, it also advised the largest manufacturer of generic opioids, Mallinckrodt. It worked with Endo on marketing Opana and helped it grow into a leading generics manufacturer.

"It advised Johnson & Johnson, whose subsidiary Tasmanian Alkaloids was the largest supplier of the raw materials extracted from poppies used to make many top-selling opioids. Then, as the full brunt of the epidemic became apparent, it counseled government agencies on how to address the fallout ...

"Drawing on reams of data and proprietary tools, McKinsey vetted deals and advised on corporate strategy. It developed tactics for dealing with regulators and helped secure approval for new products.

"The firm helped clients adopt more aggressive sales strategies, which, on at least two occasions, led companies to shift resources to more potent products.

"It profiled and targeted physicians, in some instances trying to influence prescribing habits in ways that federal officials later warned heightened the risk of overdose. And when opioid prescriptions began to decrease during a government crackdown, the records show, McKinsey devised new approaches to drive sales."

Another advertising company that is in hot water over its role in the opioid crisis is Publicis Health, which crafted many of Purdue's Oxycontin marketing materials.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sued Publicis Health May 6, 2021, accusing the company of "collecting more than $50 million in exchange for marketing schemes to get doctors to prescribe Purdue's opioids to more patients, in higher doses, for longer periods of time."²⁵ Publicis tried to have the case dismissed, but failed.²⁶

Aside from hiring big advertising companies to push their dangerous wares, how else are drug companies keeping the truth from coming out? Enter fact checkers. Over the past two years, it's become quite clear that so-called "fact checkers" are anything but. While they claim to combat misinformation, they're the ones spreading most of it, and they do it on behalf of the drug industry and the advertising companies that run cover for them.

There are countless examples of conflicts of interest running amuck in fact checking organizations. To list just a few examples:

• Publicis funded the creation of and is partnered with NewsGuard,²⁷ an online "credibility rater"²⁸ to "provide its clients with more responsible, trustworthy advertising platforms." It's not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard's ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites.

NewsGuard's health-related service, HealthGuard, is also partnered with the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a dark money-funded progressive cancel-culture leader²⁹ with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 injection as "threats to national security."

• As a Google partner,^30,31 Publicis also has the ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele.

• Pfizer (a Publicis client³²) also funds Facebook's fact checking operation,³³ which is why you can't say anything negative about the COVID jabs on Facebook.

• Pfizer also has significant conflicts of interest with Reuters, which has joined in the fact checking enterprise.³⁴ Reuters chairman (and former CEO) James Smith is both a top investor and board member of Pfizer,³⁵ raising suspicions he might have a vested interest in keeping Pfizer's media record clear of incriminating details.

• Another fact checking organization called FactCheck.org is funded, in part, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which holds nearly $2 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock. What's more, its CEO, Richard Besser, is a former (2009) director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which appears to view the protecting of Big Pharma interests as a full-time job.

This network of players is also intricately tied to the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is using pandemic fears to usher the world into a "Great Reset." Publicis is a WEF partner,³⁶ as is Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Google, BlackRock, State Street and a slew of other investment firms — and oil companies.³⁷

Many fact checking organizations belong to the International Fact-Checking Network,³⁸ which is financed by George Soros (through his Open Society Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy), Google and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation³⁹ — all of whom are part of the WEF's technocratic cabal that is pushing for a Great Reset.

This sort of brings us back to where we started, with the greenwashing of polluters. The entire "green" agenda serves that larger "Reset" goal, and the fact that we're now seeing so much greenwashing going on in the "green" investment sphere is just more proof that the whole thing is a scam. The claim that we must quit using fossil fuels and "go green" to save the planet is a ruse to get people to accept a radically lowered quality of life and greater restrictions on freedom.

Big Pharma fits into this larger scheme because the WEF needs a justification for the introduction of biomonitoring and biosecurity in the form of a digital vaccine passport. The COVID pandemic was a manufactured crisis that "necessitated" global vaccination, and a way to confirm vaccination.

Vaccination tracking was the chosen foundation for what will become a much larger and more invasive monitor and control system involving your finances as well. With vaccine passports being largely rejected, plan B is to introduce digital identity, which is more or less the same thing, just more complete from the start.

So, the reason these players — from fund managers to PR companies, drug companies, legacy media, social media platforms, search engines and fact checking organizations — are all protecting each other is because they're all cogs in the same machine. They work together to achieve an ultimate goal, which is to put the world population under a system of global technocratic control.

Related

MAGNIFICENT MERCOLA: The Shocking Truth About the Global Depopulation Agenda

• Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda," produced by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Children's Health Defense, details the World Health Organization's intentions to produce an anti-fertility vaccine in response to perceived overpopulation, and how such vaccines have been used — without people's knowledge or consent — since the mid-'90s

• The WHO has been caught more than once deliberately deceiving women into thinking they were vaccinated against tetanus, when in fact they were being sterilized

• The film clearly illustrates the depopulation agenda is not a conspiracy theory. It's reality, and it's happening worldwide. The HPV vaccine and the COVID shots also have adverse impacts on fertility that are being ignored

• In the decade after the rollout of the HPV vaccine, the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 50%

• While VAERS is the only publicly available system to assess COVID jab injuries, the U.S. government has at least 10 other reporting systems they're not sharing data from. Children's Health Defense is filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the other systems to get a better idea of the scale of harms, but VAERS and anecdotal reports alone suggest the scale of injuries and deaths is enormous. Data from insurance companies around the world also confirm this

Promotion