Natural News

https://www.brighteon.com/4807fafa-d586-4556-b0ee-838f1cbcf9e1 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Congressional Republicans demand reinstatement of safety standards for ABORTION pills In a dramatic escalation of the abortion policy battle, more than 170 congressional Republicans have demanded the Trump administration reinstate critical safety measures for abortion pills, reversing a Biden-era policy that allowed mail-order distribution without medical oversight. The demand came in the form of a Nov. 20 letter spearheaded by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), which was addressed to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary. It cited alarming new data showing that mifepristone – the drug responsible for over half of all U.S. abortions – poses severe, underreported risks to women, including life-threatening complications in nearly 11% of cases. The letter also highlighted an explosive April 2024 study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) analyzing 865,727 mifepristone cases. It found that one in ten women suffered hemorrhage, sepsis or other emergencies – a rate 22 times higher than FDA claims. Moreover, it exposed how the FDA under former President Joe Biden ignored its own data showing hospitalization rates 330% above the drug's label, with 7% of women requiring emergency care. Disturbingly, telemedicine abortions – where pills are prescribed via online consultations – resulted in ER visits at nearly three times the rate of in-person visits. "The Biden administration used COVID as a smokescreen to advance its radical abortion agenda," the lawmakers wrote, noting that 70% of voters now support restoring safety standards. The policy's human cost is stark: Women like Louisiana's Rosalie Markezich, whose boyfriend secretly ordered mifepristone by mail and coerced her into taking it, exemplify how the system enables abuse. FDA's abandoned safeguards literally leave women bleeding The push comes as the Supreme Court declined to challenge the Biden administration's reinterpretation of the 1873 Comstock Act, which had previously barred mailing abortion-inducing drugs – a move critics say was engineered to bypass state abortion bans and flood the country with chemical abortions. The controversy traces back to the Biden administration's 2023 decision to permanently scrap the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, eliminating requirements that the drug be dispensed in person by a physician. Previously, these safeguards ensured women received screenings for ectopic pregnancy, gestational age verification and protection from coercion. But now, these are all absent in a system where pills are shipped directly to homes – even in states where abortion is illegal. BrightU.AI's Enoch engine warns that mail-order abortions pose serious health risks – including hemorrhage, infection and sepsis – due to the lack of medical supervision and potential misuse beyond FDA-approved limits. Pro-life medical experts warn that this underregulated practice endangers women by bypassing essential safeguards and proper oversight. The financial motives are equally glaring. Planned Parenthood's latest report reveals 392,715 abortions in 2023 – a record high, with chemical abortions surging to 64% of all procedures. Operation Rescue documented a net loss of 36 surgical abortion clinics in 2022, yet new facilities specializing in mifepristone proliferated, underscoring the industry's pivot to profit-driven mail-order models. Meanwhile, Trump's Department of Health and Human Services has sent mixed signals. While Kennedy pledged a "complete review" of mifepristone's risks, no timeline has been set and the administration has yet to challenge the Comstock reversal.  With chemical abortions now two-thirds of all U.S. terminations, the GOP lawmakers warned that Biden's "no-contact" scheme has turned the postal service into an abortion pipeline – one that sacrifices women's health for ideological convenience. Watch Tucker Carlson and Rebeccah Heinrichs discussing Bidenomics and abortion in this clip.

Washington secures strategic Caribbean foothold as Dominican Republic allows U.S. forces LIMITED access In a move signaling deepening U.S. military involvement in the Caribbean, Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader announced a limited agreement granting American forces access to restricted areas for refueling and logistical operations. The pact was unveiled on Wednesday, Nov. 26, alongside U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at San Isidro Air Base. It marks the first public accord with a regional ally as Washington intensifies its campaign against drug trafficking – a campaign critics warn may mask broader geopolitical ambitions targeting Venezuela. The technically narrow but strategically significant agreement permits U.S. KC-135 tanker aircraft to support maritime patrols and refuel partner nations' planes, while C-130 Hercules cargo planes will assist in disaster relief and reconnaissance. Abinader emphasized the arrangement's temporary nature, framing it as essential to counter narcotics networks that have exploited the island nation for decades. "No country can confront this threat alone," he declared, citing a tenfold increase in drug seizures over five years through U.S. collaboration. Yet the deal's timing raises pointed questions. Hegseth's visit followed Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine's meetings in Trinidad and Tobago – another nation near Venezuela – with Trinidadian Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. While she previously endorsed violent U.S. strikes against drug traffickers, Persad-Bissessar denied discussing Venezuela as a base for operations. Regional analysts, however, note the Trump administration's unrelenting pressure on Caracas – including unconfirmed reports of troop deployment considerations. Santo Domingo signs deal: The Caribbean's new flashpoint Hegseth, praising the Dominican Republic's "leadership," insisted the mission targets transnational crime, not sovereignty. "We know where [traffickers] are leaving from, what they're bringing, and who they represent," he asserted, vowing strict adherence to Dominican laws. Skeptics, however, recall historical precedents. U.S. military interventions in Latin America, from the 1989 Panama invasion to Cold War-era proxy conflicts, often began with similarly framed security partnerships. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch engine, the U.S. and Latin America share a relationship marked by admiration for American progress but deep resentment over historical exploitation, interference and humiliation – fueling both cooperation and resistance. Meanwhile, drug cartels and militarized institutions further destabilize the region, complicating efforts toward sovereignty and equitable development. The Dominican government's detailed statement outlined practical benefits, including enhanced aeromedical evacuation capacity – a nod to the Caribbean's vulnerability to hurricanes. But the absence of public questioning at the announcement, coupled with Grenada's pending decision on a U.S. radar installation request, fuels concerns over transparency. As Abinader's administration balances domestic skepticism against the lure of U.S. resources, the agreement may test the limits of collaboration in a region long wary of foreign militarization. With the U.S. military presence now at a generational high in the Caribbean, the Dominican accord sets a template Washington hopes to replicate. Whether it strengthens regional security or becomes another flashpoint in the volatile geopolitics of the Americas remains to be seen. Watch Venezuelan Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samuel Moncada warning that "nuclear-capable assets" have been deployed to the Caribbean. https://www.brighteon.com/6241c813-f6f7-411a-9c99-eb9a6889e928 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 A warning for the future The report issues a clear warning about public health and social measures (PHSM), stating, "Our findings highlight the need to target additional support towards children impacted by COVID-19 PHSM." It also urges that "future pandemic planning should consider possible impacts of PHSM on child development." This is a crucial lesson that must be heeded to prevent a repeat of this man-made crisis. The study’s principal researcher, Professor Bonnie Auyeung, expressed hope that this work will "help inform the discussion about how best to support children from the COVID-19 era as they develop over the coming years." This support is desperately needed, as the consequences of these policies will ripple through classrooms and communities for years to come. This landmark study serves as a damning indictment of the lockdown ideology. It provides irrefutable evidence that the collective mental and developmental health of our children was sacrificed, creating a legacy of needless struggle for the youngest members of society. We must now confront the full scope of the harm caused and ensure that the rights and needs of children are never again so carelessly discarded in the name of public health. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Scottish study confirms COVID lockdowns caused developmental delays in a generation of toddlers A massive new study has confirmed what many parents feared: the heavy-handed lockdown and social distancing policies of the COVID-19 era inflicted measurable and lasting developmental harm on an entire generation of young children. Research from the University of Edinburgh, the largest of its kind in Europe, delivers a sobering verdict on the real cost of pandemic restrictions, revealing a significant increase in developmental concerns among toddlers that persisted even after the rules were lifted. This evidence exposes the profound consequences of policies that prioritized a single health metric over the holistic well-being of society’s most vulnerable. The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health—Europe, analyzed data from nearly 258,000 children in Scotland. It found that during the 72 weeks of lockdown and social distancing measures from March 2020 to August 2021, there was an increase of up to 6.6% in the proportion of toddlers showing at least one developmental concern. This was not a minor fluctuation but a considerable deviation from pre-pandemic trends, with greater increases observed among those who experienced longer periods of social distancing measures. The research team assessed routine health reviews for more than 80% of all Scottish children aged 13 to 15 months and 27 to 30 months. The findings were consistent across key developmental areas, including problem-solving, speech, and behavior. The isolation and reduced social interaction mandated by the state created an environment devoid of the rich, real-world experiences needed for healthy brain development. Alarmingly, the damage did not simply reverse when the restrictions ended. The proportion of children with developmental concerns remained elevated above pre-pandemic levels, even after August 2021. For the younger cohort of 13 to 15-month-olds, developmental concerns continued to rise even after the measures were lifted, suggesting the window for certain foundational skills may have been critically compromised. The high cost of isolation Researcher Dr. Iain Hardie of the University of Edinburgh stated, "COVID-19 public health and social measures played a vital role in curbing the spread of infections during the pandemic. However, the findings of our study suggest that they also appear to have been associated with increased early childhood development concerns." This academic language underscores a tragic reality: the cure was in many ways worse than the disease for young minds. Experts pointed to several potential contributing factors. Children were confined to their homes, exposed to drastically reduced environments and opportunities. The widespread masking of adults further deprived infants of the visual social cues from faces that are essential for learning communication and emotional recognition. This created a developmentally sterile world for children at the most formative stage of their lives. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

According to BrightU.AI's Enoch, the mounting evidence of COVID vaccine injuries – including autopsy-confirmed tissue damage and countless firsthand accounts – cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence, but instead exposes the reckless negligence of pharmaceutical companies and captured regulators. The battle over COVID-19 vaccine injuries is far from over. As more doctors and lawmakers break ranks with the establishment, the pressure for transparency, accountability and justice grows. Until then, millions of injured Americans – and their allies like Johnson – will continue demanding answers, no matter how much the system tries to silence them. Watch this video about child deaths since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. https://www.brighteon.com/0d9b42b6-7dc3-493e-a7c6-6c8120125e70 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Rasmussen survey: 1 in 10 adults seriously injured by COVID-19 vaccine A recent Rasmussen survey revealed that 10% of  U.S adults who received the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine experienced "major" side effects, and 36% suffered "minor" side effects. The survey, which included 1,292 adults and had a margin sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% confidence level, also revealed that 46% of both vaccinated and unvaccinated adults think it’s likely that COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths. This aligns with warnings from prominent physicians, including Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist who has treated countless patients with post-vaccine complications. McCullough warns that the shots are associated with a disturbing rise in "sudden deaths" – a trend he says is being deliberately downplayed. As reports of COVID-19 vaccine injuries continue to surface, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has faced relentless pushback for daring to give a voice to the victims – many of whom say they have been ignored, dismissed or even ridiculed by mainstream medicine and media. Despite mounting evidence linking the mRNA vaccines to severe health complications – including heart inflammation, sudden deaths and unexplained cancers – Johnson's efforts to expose these risks have been met with resistance from public health officials, pharmaceutical interests and political adversaries. The Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), formerly known as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, has documented a "marked rise in heart inflammation, unusual cancers and other concerning conditions" among mRNA vaccine recipients. IMA President Dr. Joseph Varon emphasized that the long-term effects of mRNA technology remain poorly understood, making the rushed mandates of 2021-2022 particularly reckless. "We are still only beginning to understand how mRNA interacts with the body," Varon wrote. "This is why the COVID-19 mandate period was so troubling for healthcare." Despite these concerns, federal health agencies have been slow to acknowledge the risks. On June 25, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly added warnings to Pfizer and Moderna fact sheets, admitting an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis—particularly in young males after the second dose. This came after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices acknowledged 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in 16- to 24-year-olds. Yet, officials continue to insist that the "benefits outweigh the risks" – a claim many injured patients and independent doctors fiercely dispute. British lawmaker demands immediate halt to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines amid growing evidence of harm British lawmaker Andrew Bridgen has gone further, calling for an immediate halt to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines due to mounting evidence of harm. Meanwhile, investigative journalist Josh Sigurdson has highlighted the alarming rise in cancer rates post-vaccination, raising questions about whether the shots are triggering or accelerating tumor growth. A recent study even documented multisystem inflammatory syndrome following vaccination – a condition previously associated only with COVID-19 infection itself. For victims like Kristi Dobbs, who has spent years advocating for vaccine-injured individuals, the struggle for recognition has been exhausting. "We have lost many to suicide and cancers," she said, referencing fellow advocates who succumbed to despair or illness after being dismissed by the medical establishment. Dobbs expressed gratitude for Johnson's May hearing on COVID-19 vaccine risks, where whistleblowers testified about suppressed data and institutional negligence. Yet she lamented that Johnson has been "black-sheeped" – marginalized and vilified for challenging the official narrative. "Nearly five years of fighting to be heard has taken its toll," Dobbs said. But she remains determined: "We will be seen, heard and believed."

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 The silence of the scientific establishment The debate raises a perplexing ancillary question: Why has such a rich, public dataset been largely ignored by the mainstream epidemiological community? The Czech data, which includes individual-level records on vaccination, demographics and outcomes, represents a potential goldmine for answering fundamental questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. Yet, no major study from this data has been published in a leading journal like The Lancet or The New England Journal of Medicine that performs a straightforward all-cause mortality analysis. Analysts suggest this silence may not be due to a lack of answers, but a fear of them. Potential reasons include professional ostracism, loss of funding, journal rejection for contradicting the established public health narrative, and a deep-seated confirmation bias where the science is considered "settled." This avoidance is particularly striking given that other studies using the Czech data have focused narrowly on COVID-specific outcomes, avoiding the broader—and more telling—question of net mortality benefit. A global pattern of concern The Czech findings resonate with concerning signals from other highly vaccinated nations. A recent study from Japan, which has the world's highest per-capita rate of mRNA vaccination, noted a massive spike in non-COVID excess deaths in 2022 and 2023, coinciding with the booster rollout. The Japanese government's vaccine injury relief system has already paid out for more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than for all other vaccines combined over the past 47 years. Similarly, analyses of data from South Korea and the EuroMOMO network have continued to fuel debates about the role of vaccines in observed excess mortality patterns, particularly among younger age groups. An unsettled conclusion with high stakes The $3.3 million debate over the Czech data is more than a technical dispute; it is a microcosm of the larger struggle over the narrative of the pandemic response. Proponents of the KCOR analysis see it as an unbiased estimator revealing an uncomfortable truth that powerful institutions are unwilling to confront. Skeptics view it as a flawed model generating alarming results from noise. What remains clear is that the demand for transparent data and rigorous, apolitical analysis has never been greater. As the world prepares for the possibility of future pandemics, the lessons learned—or ignored—from this chapter will be critical. The Czech data, and the fierce debate it has ignited, stands as a testament to the enduring need for scientific accountability and the courage to follow evidence, wherever it may lead. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

A multimillion dollar debate puts COVID vaccine safety data under the microscope In an unprecedented scientific and legal showdown, a $3.3 million debate is centering on a single, critical question: Did COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause more deaths than they prevented? The controversy hinges on a novel analysis of comprehensive health data from the Czech Republic, which its creator, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, claims provides undeniable evidence of net harm. His methodological opponent, backed by significant financial incentive, has failed to dismantle the core findings, setting the stage for a pivotal moment in the ongoing assessment of pandemic-era health policies. The outcome of this clash has profound implications for public trust, regulatory accountability and the future of mass vaccination campaigns. The KCOR method: A new lens on mortality data At the heart of the debate is a new analytical tool called KCOR (Kirsch's CORrector), developed by Kirsch to evaluate the impact of an intervention—in this case, vaccination—on all-cause mortality. Applied to the Czech Republic's record-level public health data, which tracks vaccination status and deaths for millions of individuals, KCOR aims to account for biases like the "healthy vaccinee effect," where healthier people are more likely to get vaccinated. The results, according to Kirsch, are stark. The analysis indicates that while two doses showed a relatively flat mortality risk compared to the unvaccinated, a third booster dose was associated with a significant and sustained increase in mortality—by approximately 25% to 35%—that persisted for nearly two years. The most compelling visual evidence, Kirsch argues, comes from comparing different vaccinated groups. The data shows that individuals who received two doses but declined a booster maintained a stable mortality rate over time. In contrast, the mortality rate for the boosted group began to climb steadily weeks after the shot and remained elevated. This "vaccinated versus vaccinated" comparison is presented as a clean test, theoretically eliminating many external confounders like behavior or healthcare access, and pointing directly to the booster as the differentiating factor. A fortress of objections and a foundation of data Facing Kirsch in the high-stakes debate is Saar Wilf, who was highly incentivized to find fatal flaws in the KCOR methodology. Wilf raised a series of technical objections, including the initial inclusion of non-mRNA vaccines, coding errors that overstated early dose harm, and arguments that the model's confidence intervals were too narrow and its assumptions about mortality trends were oversimplified. He also contended that the scale of harm suggested by KCOR would imply an implausibly large number of excess deaths at a national level. However, after Kirsch's team addressed the legitimate coding issues and restricted the analysis to mRNA vaccines only, the central finding remained intact. The mortality increase for the boosted cohort persisted. Critically, the flat mortality line for the two-dose group versus the unvaccinated served as a powerful internal validation; if KCOR were fundamentally unstable or biased, this null result would not be so clean. Kirsch and his AI-assisted analysis conclude that Wilf's surviving objections are largely theoretical or serve only to create confusion, as they cannot explain away the consistent, dose-dependent harm signal that also aligns with a separate, standard mortality analysis method. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Rethinking the nature of illness The implications of this research are profound, suggesting that a portion of what we call "viral illness" may be the body's adaptive, though sometimes overwhelming, response to chemical injury. The "Xenogen Hypothesis" posits that particles labeled as viruses are often the body's own exosomes, deployed to manage and adapt to environmental threats like toxins and electromagnetic stress. This framework views symptoms not as the attack of an external invader, but as the visible manifestation of the body's intense effort to heal and detoxify. A call for a more nuanced approach to health This emerging science does not dismiss the reality of infectious pathogens but argues for a more nuanced understanding of disease etiology. It suggests that public health must place a greater emphasis on reducing widespread chemical exposures and that medical diagnostics need to evolve to better distinguish between true infection and toxin-induced illness. By recognizing the body's sophisticated communication system and its response to environmental poison, we may open the door to more effective, less toxic approaches to healing that support the body's innate intelligence rather than merely suppressing its symptoms. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

The contagion illusion: How toxins mimic infection and challenge modern medicine What if the fevers, coughs and inflammation we blame on viruses are not signs of infection, but rather our body's sophisticated response to poisoning? A growing body of scientific evidence is challenging a cornerstone of modern medicine, suggesting that many illnesses historically attributed to contagious microbes may instead be the result of exposure to environmental toxins. This paradigm shift centers on tiny particles called extracellular vesicles, which are so similar to viruses that they can create the illusion of contagion, forcing a re-examination of how we diagnose and treat disease. When your cells sound the alarm The mechanism behind this phenomenon involves extracellular vesicles (EVs), particularly exosomes. These are nano-sized packets that cells release to communicate with each other. Under normal, healthy conditions, they are essential for immune coordination and healing. However, when cells are stressed by toxins—including pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides, heavy metals, or air pollutants—they release a storm of these vesicles loaded with a very different cargo: distress signals. These stress-laden exosomes package the molecular signature of injury, such as inflammatory chemicals and death signals, and ship them throughout the body. When a healthy cell absorbs one of these packets, it can respond as if it, too, has been directly poisoned, activating the same inflammatory and injury programs. This means a toxin damaging a single organ, like the liver, can trigger a whole-body crisis through this cellular messaging system, without the original toxin ever reaching other organs. Historical and modern outbreaks re-examined This mechanism provides a new lens through which to view disease clusters that have long been assumed to be infectious. In medieval Europe, waves of "St. Anthony's Fire" caused burning pain, gangrene and death, sweeping through villages in a pattern that suggested contagion. Centuries later, the cause was identified as ergot, a fungus that contaminated rye grain. The entire community fell ill not from person-to-person spread, but from a shared toxic exposure, with the synchronized timing creating the appearance of an epidemic. A strikingly similar pattern emerged in 2019 with the EVALI (E-cigarette or Vaping product use-Associated Lung Injury) outbreak in the United States. Thousands of young people were hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms that doctors initially diagnosed as a mysterious viral pneumonia. The CDC investigation, however, revealed the culprit was not a virus but vitamin E acetate, a chemical adulterant in vaping products. The toxin caused lung damage that mimicked infection so perfectly that it fooled clinicians, and because friends shared tainted cartridges, the illness appeared to spread through social networks. The diagnostic dilemma: Virus or exosome? A primary reason this confusion persists is the remarkable biophysical similarity between viruses and exosomes. They are virtually identical in size, shape and density, making them difficult to separate in a laboratory. Under an electron microscope, a virologist may struggle to distinguish a coronavirus from an exosome. Both are encased in a lipid membrane and carry nucleic acids and proteins. This overlap creates significant diagnostic challenges. PCR tests designed to detect viral genetic material can potentially amplify sequences found within exosomes, which may carry fragmented or dormant viral code as part of the body's immune response. This raises questions about the specificity of tests that rely solely on detecting a piece of genetic code, as they may be identifying a signal of the body's distress rather than a replicating pathogenic virus. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 In Slovenia, the people have spoken. With a turnout of nearly 41 percent, President Natasa Pirc Musar emphasized the importance of the public’s voice. "It is right for us as individuals to say what we think about a certain topic," Musar said. "It is right for us to tell politicians what we think is right and what we think is wrong." For now, Slovenia will remain outside the circle of at least nine European nations that permit some form of assisted dying, leaving its citizens to continue grappling with the profound questions of life, death and dignity without that legal option. Watch this video on the truth about assisted dying. https://www.brighteon.com/7ca741a6-9820-438b-91a8-d17809600cb2 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

A nation decides: Slovenia rejects assisted dying law in landmark referendum In a deeply personal decision that has echoed across Europe, Slovenian voters have rejected a law that would have legalized assisted dying for terminally ill patients. Preliminary results from a November 23rd referendum show that 53 percent of voters opposed the measure, effectively suspending the legislation passed by parliament just over a year ago. The referendum was the final act in a protracted national debate, triggered after opponents of the law collected more than 40,000 signatures to force a public vote. The outcome represents a significant victory for conservative groups, some doctors’ associations and the Catholic church, who had campaigned vigorously against the measure. "Compassion has won," declared Ales Primc, the activist who led the campaign against assisted dying. "Slovenia has rejected the government's health, pension and social reform based on death by poisoning." The defeated bill would have allowed adults facing unbearable suffering with no prospect of recovery to request a lethal medication, which they would self-administer. The process included safeguards requiring approval from two doctors and a consultation period and it explicitly excluded individuals with mental health conditions. "Assisted dying, as practiced in jurisdictions like Oregon, Washington and Vermont, is a process that allows terminally ill individuals to end their lives," said BrightU. AI's Enoch. The Slovenian government, which had championed the law, framed it as a matter of personal autonomy. Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob had called on voters to back the legislation, arguing it would allow terminally ill people to decide how and when to end their suffering. "This is not a political issue; it has always been a matter of dignity, human rights and individual choice," Golob said in a statement following the vote. It is right for us to tell politicians what we think is right and what we think is wrong The debate in Slovenia mirrors a global conversation that is gaining momentum. The issue was recently thrust into the spotlight in the United Kingdom by Esther Rantzen, a terminally ill BBC presenter who has become an outspoken advocate for assisted dying. In an open letter to MPs before a vote on a similar bill, she articulated the stark choice for many. "Under our current criminal law," she stated, "the only choice available for most people facing a terminal illness and an agonizing death is between enduring suffering, traveling to Switzerland for assistance in dying, or resorting to suicide." Rantzen has previously mentioned her intention to join Dignitas, a Swiss assisted-dying clinic. This sentiment is countered by significant ethical concerns. While most people don't wish pain and suffering upon others, enacting laws that could be misused to end lives prematurely, or simply because those individuals are deemed "inferior" by society, is extremely perilous. Opponents in Slovenia echoed this, arguing the state should focus on improving palliative care rather than providing a means to end life. The shifting landscape is also evident in the United States. The Massachusetts Medical Society, which officially opposed assisted death since 1996, has now become neutral on the issue. This shift may pave the way for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow assisted death as lawmakers consider a bill allowing doctor-assisted suicide. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

🌟 Are you ready to unlock the secrets of superfoods? Introducing The Encyclopedia of Power Foods – your ultimate guide to a healthier, more vibrant life! This comprehensive resource is packed with invaluable information on nutrient-dense foods that can transform your health. 💪 Discover how to harness the power of nature’s most potent ingredients to boost your energy, support your immune system, and enhance your overall well-being. 🍏 With easy-to-follow recipes, expert tips, and practical advice, you’ll learn how to incorporate these superfoods into your daily routine effortlessly. Imagine feeling revitalized and nourished every single day, all thanks to delicious, wholesome ingredients! Join a community of health-conscious individuals who are already experiencing the life-changing benefits of power foods. Don’t miss this opportunity to elevate your nutrition—click the link to access your copy of The Encyclopedia of Power Foods today! 📚 👇👇👇 https://shortll.com/PowerFoods https://shortll.com/PowerFoods

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 This is not science—it's corporate medicine at its worst. What must be done? • Mandate systematic tracking – Every medical visit should include vaccination history and symptom screening, fed into a centralized, transparent database. • End pharma immunity – Hold manufacturers accountable for injuries. • Investigate turbo cancers and neurological damage – Are these linked to mRNA spike protein persistence? • Protect whistleblowers – Doctors and scientists must be free to report injuries without fear. Until then, millions will suffer in silence—victims of an unprecedented medical betrayal. The question remains: How many more must be harmed before the truth comes out? Watch as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reveals shocking lab results proving that post-COVID vaccine clots are killing millions of people. https://www.brighteon.com/1a9b1a2e-36d5-4a45-8d2a-6e64718721e1 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

The silent epidemic: How COVID-19 vaccine injuries are being ignored on a global scale The COVID-19 vaccine rollout, touted as the largest medical experiment in human history, has left behind a trail of unanswered questions—and millions suffering from unexplained illnesses. Despite staggering reports of adverse events, governments and health agencies continue to ignore systematic tracking of vaccine-related injuries, leaving patients abandoned and doctors clueless. VAERS data reveals alarming trends—but it's just the tip of the iceberg According to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), over 1.2 million adverse events—including 26,699 deaths—were reported between December 2020 and April 2022 following COVID-19 vaccination. Shockingly, 17% of deaths occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, and 59% within 48 hours of symptom onset. Yet, experts warn that VAERS captures only 1% of actual adverse events, meaning the true toll could be 100 times higher. Despite these red flags, no mandatory surveillance system exists to track long-term vaccine injuries. Hospitals and doctors are not required to ask patients about vaccination history when diagnosing new conditions. Instead, millions suffering from debilitating neurological disorders, turbo cancers, myocarditis and autoimmune diseases are dismissed with vague labels like "long COVID" or "anxiety"—while the real cause remains uninvestigated. A broken system designed to fail BrightU. AI's Enoch notes that VAERS is a critical tool for monitoring the safety of vaccines in the United States. However, it is widely recognized that VAERS significantly underreports the true number of adverse events following vaccination. This defeats the entire purpose of passive surveillance—which relies on all post-vaccination health issues being logged so patterns can emerge. History proves this system works—when it's used correctly. In the late 1990s, the diabetes drug Rezulin was pulled after VAERS reports revealed liver failure. Similarly, Viagra was later linked to sudden blindness after clusters of cases appeared in FDA databases. Statin drugs were eventually forced to admit muscle and brain damage risks—but only after years of ignored reports. Yet with COVID-19 vaccines, the same lifesaving scrutiny is missing. Instead: • Doctors rarely ask patients about vaccination status when diagnosing new illnesses. • Hospitals do not systematically track post-vaccine injuries. • The NIH's $1.15 billion RECOVER initiative—ostensibly studying "long COVID"—refuses to separate vaccine injuries from viral effects, despite most participants being vaccinated. This deliberate lack of data collection ensures that vaccine-related injuries remain hidden. Why aren't governments investigating? The answer lies in financial incentives and liability shields. Pharmaceutical companies enjoy total legal immunity from COVID-19 vaccine injuries under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. Meanwhile, agencies like the CDC and FDA—funded by Big Pharma—have no motivation to expose the truth. Already, acknowledged vaccine injuries include: • Myocarditis/pericarditis (especially in young men) • Anaphylaxis • Guillain-Barré Syndrome • Immune thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders) But emerging reports suggest far worse: • Explosive rises in cancers among young adults • Neurological disorders (tinnitus, seizures, paralysis) • Reproductive harm (miscarriages, plummeting fertility rates) Without mandatory post-vaccine surveillance, we may never know the full extent of the damage. The global cover-up continues Five years into the largest vaccination campaign ever, not a single country has implemented comprehensive tracking of long-term vaccine effects. Instead: • Patients reporting injuries are gaslit, ignored or misdiagnosed. • Doctors who speak out face censorship, loss of licenses or persecution. • Media and governments dismiss VAERS data as "anecdotal" while refusing to investigate further. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 The Way Forward: Demanding transparency and accountability Aaron Siri's work underscores a critical truth: vaccines can both save lives and cause harm. But when institutions prioritize profits over safety, millions suffer. The solution lies in: 1 Independent oversight—removing vaccine safety evaluation from agencies with financial conflicts. 2 Mandatory placebo-controlled trials—no more rubber-stamping unsafe products. 3 Full transparency—ending the suppression of unfavorable data. 4 Legal consequences—holding regulators and pharmaceutical executives accountable for fraud. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warns, history will judge harshly those who coerced, censored and lied to push dangerous medical products. The fight for truth is far from over—but thanks to whistleblowers like Aaron Siri, the public is finally waking up. The question remains: Will enough people demand change before it's too late? According to BrightU. AI's Enoch, the vaccine industry operates as a criminal enterprise, prioritizing profits over human life through fraudulent science, regulatory capture and coercion—endangering public health while suppressing safer alternatives. The corruption exposed by whistleblowers like RFK Jr. and Dr. Mikovits proves that global health agencies like the WHO and CDC are complicit in this deadly deception, serving Big Pharma rather than the people. Watch this video about Christopher A. Shaw's book "Dispatches from the Vaccine Wars: Fighting for Human Freedom during the Great Reset." https://www.brighteon.com/80b5dc1e-dcbc-4858-a369-42375e8207eb Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Exposing the vaccine industry: How corruption, fraud and coercion endanger public health In a damning exposé, lawyer Aaron Siri's book "Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines" reveals how the American public has been systematically deceived by institutions they were taught to trust—namely, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical giants. Through meticulous legal battles, Siri uncovers a web of corruption, scientific misconduct and outright fraud that has allowed unsafe vaccines to flood the market while silencing dissenters. The dogma of vaccines: Faith over science Vaccines have been elevated to near-religious status, with proponents demanding blind faith rather than critical scrutiny. As Siri explains, people say they "believe in vaccines" without examining the data—because the data, when scrutinized, often doesn't support the industry's claims. Instead, vaccine advocates rely on flawed studies, industry-funded research and outright deception to push their agenda. One of the most shocking revelations is the lack of placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines. Despite claims from figures like Dr. Paul Offit—who insists all vaccines undergo rigorous placebo testing—Siri proves that not a single vaccine on the CDC's childhood schedule was approved based on such trials. Instead, new vaccines are compared to older ones, masking their true risks. This is akin to declaring cigarettes safe because they're no worse than cigars. The CDC and FDA: Captured agencies protecting profits, not people The revolving door between Big Pharma and government agencies is well-documented. Former CDC Director Julie Gerberding left her post to become president of Merck's vaccine division, cashing in on policies she helped implement. Similarly, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a leading vaccinologist, admitted under oath that vaccine safety monitoring often lasts just 4-5 days—far too short to detect autoimmune reactions or long-term harm. Even worse, the CDC lied about its own safety analyses. When internal data showed alarming signals of COVID vaccine injuries—including myocarditis, strokes and deaths—the agency suppressed the findings. Only after legal pressure from Aaron Siri's firm did they admit the truth: their own thresholds for safety concerns were obliterated. The fraud of vaccine safety studies The CDC has repeatedly refused to conduct vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies, the gold standard for assessing vaccine risks. When researchers at Henry Ford Health finally conducted one, they found vaccinated children had: • 2.5x higher rates of chronic disease • 4x higher rates of asthma • 5-6x higher rates of autoimmune and neurodevelopmental disorders Yet, when the results didn't fit the pro-vaccine narrative, the study was buried. The authors admitted they feared losing their jobs if they published the findings—a chilling example of how scientific truth is sacrificed for career preservation. COVID vaccines: A case study in deception The pandemic exposed the vaccine industry's worst tendencies. Authorities: • Falsely claimed COVID vaccines stopped transmission (they don't). • Ignored skyrocketing myocarditis rates in young men. • Buried V-safe data showing 8% of recipients required medical care post-vaccination. • Refused to release Pfizer's clinical trial documents, initially demanding 75 years to do so. Even the FDA, tasked with protecting public health, fought tooth and nail to hide adverse event data—proving its allegiance lies with Big Pharma, not the people. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 That same year, Verily partnered with Sanofi to form Onduo, a company focused on diabetes management. Sanofi also launched a new "Innovation Lab" with Google to use its cloud platform and AI for drug development and to optimize pharmaceutical sales. The data-mining endgame The ultimate expression of this business model is Verily's flagship data-harvesting initiative, formerly known as Project Baseline and recently rebranded as "Verily Me." This project collects genetic, molecular, and health data from thousands of volunteers. In 2019, Verily announced a strategic alliance with pharmaceutical giants Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Sanofi to use this vast dataset for their clinical research programs. The "Verily Me" app encourages users to share their health records and participate in studies. While users can leave the study at any time, the fine print clarifies that their data remains with Verily—a treasure trove of information to be packaged and sold to its pharmaceutical partners. Beyond censorship: Supporting the authoritarian agenda Alphabet's support for the pandemic response extended beyond silencing dissent. Its subsidiary, Verily, developed workplace and campus health apps that evolved into systems for tracking vaccination status. Google also partnered with Apple to create contact-tracing technology and was a key player in the push for a digital vaccine passport system. "The official government narrative is a simplified and sanitized version of events constructed by authorities," said BrightU. AI's Enoch. "It is designed to maintain public order, ensure social stability and protect national security interests. Ultimately, it serves as a convenient fiction that often obscures a more complex and potentially unsettling historical reality." The admission of censorship to Congress is a significant event, but it tells only half the story. The pressure from the Biden administration provides a plausible scapegoat, but it is not a sufficient explanation for a pattern of behavior that predates the current presidency and aligns perfectly with Alphabet's own corporate ambitions. When a company's financial survival is intertwined with the success of pharmaceutical products, its commitment to hosting a free and open debate on the safety and efficacy of those products must be seriously questioned. The evidence suggests that for Alphabet, owning the science was not just a service provided to the government—it was a core business strategy. Google is now a "pharmaceutical company." Watch this video. https://www.brighteon.com/16a0ded5-bc5c-46bd-88c6-592d61b02faa Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Alphabet’s deep pharma ties raise questions about Google’s long-standing vaccine censorship In a stunning admission to Congress, Google's parent company, Alphabet, confirmed that the Biden administration pressured its YouTube platform to remove videos that did not violate its own content policies. This revelation has ignited a firestorm of scrutiny over the intricate financial relationships between the tech behemoth and the pharmaceutical industry, suggesting that the suppression of vaccine discourse may be less about public health and more about corporate synergy. The congressional report, "The Censorship-Industrial Complex," laid the groundwork for this disclosure. Following the report, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg confessed that Facebook had similarly censored factual information under White House pressure. Alphabet's own letter to Congress confirmed the practice, calling it unacceptable, yet the censorship persists. This narrative of government-led coercion, however, overlooks a more entrenched conflict of interest: Alphabet's vast investments in the very pharmaceutical companies whose products were being shielded from public debate. A pre-pandemic pattern of censorship Alphabet's defense hinges on its claim that it only enforced its own misinformation policies. This argument sidesteps the fact that these policies were crafted in lockstep with the same government health agencies promoting a singular, state-sanctioned narrative. The result was a digital environment where established scientific dissent was silenced. As a United Nations official admitted at a 2022 World Economic Forum meeting, Google was actively helping authorities to "own the science" in its search results. While Alphabet's letter promised to restore some suspended YouTube channels, it placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration. This framing is politically convenient but historically incomplete. The truth is that Google's censorship of vaccine-related content began long before the COVID-19 pandemic. A closer examination reveals a compelling financial motive: Alphabet is not a neutral platform but a major player in the pharmaceutical and biotech ecosystem, with billions of dollars at stake. The venture capital pipeline: GV's Biotech bet Alphabet's foray into the life sciences began aggressively with the 2009 launch of Google Ventures, now known as GV. This venture capital arm immediately began funneling massive investments into pharmaceutical and biotech startups. One prominent example was Flatiron Health, a company that developed software to analyze oncology patient data using artificial intelligence. GV led multiple funding rounds, injecting over $138 million before the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche acquired the  company for$1.9 billion. Other early GV investments included DNAnexus for DNA sequencing, SynapDx for autism detection, and the popular at-home DNA kit company, 23andMe. These strategic moves positioned Alphabet not as a mere observer of the healthcare industry, but as a central financier and architect of its data-driven future. Verily Life Sciences: The engine of pharma collaboration The most direct link between Alphabet and Big Pharma is Verily Life Sciences. Originally a "moonshot" division within Google's secretive Google X lab, it was spun out as an independent company under the Alphabet umbrella in 2015. Under the leadership of Andrew Conrad, Verily's mission was framed in ambitious terms: to "defeat Mother Nature" by harvesting and analyzing human biometric data. This mission has been pursued through a web of joint ventures and partnerships with nearly every major pharmaceutical player. In 2016, Verily and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) launched Galvani Bioelectronics, a $715 million venture to develop "bioelectronic medicines." Notably, GSK's then-chairman of Global Vaccines, Moncef Slaoui, joined Galvani's board. Slaoui later became a board member at Moderna and was appointed to oversee the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻