What Impact Did the Lockdowns Have on American Children and Obesity?

Americans are well known around the world for having a significant issue with obesity as shown on this graphic from the National Institutes for Health:

 

...and this graphic from the CDC:

 

...and this graphic which lists national obesity rates by nation:

 

 

When it comes to childhood obesity in the United States, we find this:

 

"For children and adolescents aged 2-19 years in 2017-2018:

 

The prevalence of obesity was 19.3% and affected about 14.4 million children and adolescents.

Obesity prevalence was 13.4% among 2- to 5-year-olds, 20.3% among 6- to 11-year-olds, and 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds. Childhood obesity is also more common among certain populations.

Obesity prevalence was 25.6% among Hispanic children, 24.2% among non-Hispanic Black children, 16.1% among non-Hispanic White children, and 8.7% among non-Hispanic Asian children.

  

With that background, let's look at the aforementioned research.  We are now well aware of how governments used lockdowns to prevent the spread of the SARS-0CoV-2 virus and the fact that these lockdowns had a significant negative impact on individuals' mental and physical health.  Let's look at a recent study on the CDC website which examines how the body mass index for children was impacted during the pandemic thanks to school closures, household income disruptions which resulted in changes to household food purchases, increased stress, increased screen time and fewer options for physical exercise:

  

The report opens by explaining the database used in the study.  Data were obtained from IQVIA's Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records database and were used to compare longitudinal trends in body mass index (BMI in kg/m2) among a cohort of 432,302 young Americans between the ages of 2 and 19 years.  Data from the pre-pandemic period from January 1, 2018 to February 29, 2020 was compared to data from March 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020.  To qualify, children had to have at least two BMI measurements including one from prior to the pandemic and one during the pandemic with the pandemic measurement falling after the first three months of the pandemic (i.e. after May 31, 2020).  Here is what the authors found:

 

1.) Prior to the pandemic, obesity prevalence was 16.0 percent including 4.8 percent with severe obesity.  The monthly rate of BMI increase nearly doubled during the pandemic period when compared to the prepandemic period and the rate of change in the proportion of children with obesity was 5.3 times as high during the pandemic (0.37 percenctage point increase per month) than before the pandemic (0.07 percentage point increase per month).  The estimated proportion of obese children rose from 19.3 percent in August 2019 and 22.4 percent in August 2020.

  

2.) Children in all BMI categories (excluding those who were underweight) experienced significant increases in the rate of BMI change, increase in body weight per month and over a six month period during the pandemic as follows:

 

a.) overweight - 2.13 times

 

b) moderately obese - 2.34 times - gain of 1.0 pounds per month with total gain of 6.1 pounds

 

c.) severely obese - 2.00 times - gain of 1.2 pounds per month with total gain of 7.3 pounds

  

This compares to a 2.7 pound weight gain over six months for a child with a healthy body weight prior to the pandemic.

  

3.) When looking at age ranges, children between the ages of 6 and 11 years saw the greatest increase in their rate of BMI increase at 2.5 times the prepandemic rate of increase.  As well, the more obese that a child was, the higher the increase in their rate of BMI increase.

  

While it may seem relatively insignificant, the fact that the response to the pandemic resulted in significant increases in body weight for American children is of great concern for the future state of their health since childhood obesity is likely to result in adults with obesity as shown here.  Accelerated weight gain among the already obese can put these children at risk for future health conditions including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and depression.  Thanks to government responses to the lowest risk cohort for severe and deadly COVID-19 infection outcomes, public health and elected officials may have traded one health problem for another, yet another unintended consequence of government ineptitude.  Instead of being so fixated on getting every child vaccinated, public health should be concerned with childhood obesity which can lead to lifelong and serious health problems.

 

The World Economic Forum - Threats to Klaus Schwab's Vision of the New Global Order

While I rarely quote from the legacy media because of their reputation for nonfactual reporting, a recent story in an overseas media platform drew my attention and this posting is based on a news item dated November 27, 2021.  

  

As anyone who has been paying attention over the past two years (give or take a couple of months), our overlords have begun to roll out their plans for what the world will look like after the pandemic.  This is being undertaken using the Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution and Build Back Better monikers which, on the surface, sound like the world will become a utopia for the useless eater/organ donor class.  The greatest proponent of this philosophy is Klaus Schwab, leader and founder of the World Economic Forum which is taking the publicly proclaimed lead on this issue.  Schwab is joined by the world's elite/private jet class in transforming the world to a private-public partnership where governments and the world's most influential corporations take the lead in a new world order.  The WEF's vision has flown pretty much under the mainstream media's radar even though they are a key part of the program since it is their promotion that will brainwash the masses into accepting their new role in a society that suffers from hyper inequality.  That said, there are a growing number of the proletariat who have become aware of the WEF's agenda and have done what they can to ensure that the public is well informed on the intents of the global aristocracy.

 

Now, let's look at the recent news item on the WEF which appeared on the SwissInfo website:

 

 

Here is a quote from the article with my bolds:

 

"Members of the Open Forum event have increasingly been intimidated and even received death threats from conspiracy theorists during the Covid pandemic, a spokesman for the forum organisers told the Swiss news agency, Keystone-SDA, on Friday.

 

It was decided to cancel the event in January as it was difficult to ensure security at an open doors event, the spokesman added.

 

Additional measures have been taken, including regular postal mail checks, he said but gave no further details.

 

The Open Forum panel discussions at a local school in Davos were launched in 2003 following criticism about the closed-door main WEF event."

I love how they refer to anti-WEFer's as "conspiracy theorists".  We are far from seeing conspiracies given that the World Economic Forum has been very clear in outlining its vision for the post-pandemic world.

Here is a bit of background on the Open Forum from the WEF's website:

 

See, the global rulers really DO care about what the useless masses have to say!  But, apparently not enough to actually put themselves at risk by attending the Open Forum sessions.

 

Recall that the World Economic Forum believes and uses its online platform to promote the following:

 

1.) Cold Showers:

 

2.) Eat Weeds:

 

3.) Eat Insects:

 

4.) ...and, most importantly, own nothing:

 

And, let's not forget that Schwab is a big promoter of a transhuman/post-Homo sapiens world as quoted from Chapter 11 Section 2.3 in his Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution missive:

 

"The future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint. Emerging biotechnology agendas promise to improve and augment human lifespans and to enhance physical and mental health. The opportunity for the integration of digital technologies with biological tissues is also growing, and what that portends for the next decades is inspiring a range of emotions, from hope to wonder to fear.”

 

After all, it is the very least that the grubby, sweat while we work class can do to save the world's resources for the ruling class, isn't it?

 

Unfortunately for the WEF who believe that the world is comprised of chess pieces that make predictable moves, the behaviour of all human beings cannot be predicted.  Each of us has the capacity to make choices that are in our best personal and collective interests.  While the vast majority of humans just go along with the flow, a significant minority will choose their own path and will believe that the World Economic Forum's view of the world will lead to a dystopia that must be halted in its tracks.  Perhaps the latest development in Klaus Schwab's world will cause him to ponder the wisdom of trying to herd human beings which, apparently, is akin to herding cats.  It looks good on paper but doesn't work in reality.

 

Klaus, it's like you said just over a year ago, you had better prepare for an angrier world:

 

...because it looks like it may be here.  Maybe it's just time for Klaus to take that well-deserved retirement.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Euthanasia In Germany

On November 19, 2021, Germany's Verein Sterbehilfe or Euthanasia Association announced that they would allow euthanasia under certain specific circumstances.

  

Here is the webpage in German followed by a translation to English using Google Translate:

 

Here is the English translation of the entire announcement with my bold:

 

"Euthanasia and the preparatory examination of the voluntary responsibility of our members willing to die require human closeness. Human closeness, however, is a prerequisite and breeding ground for corona virus transmission. As of today, the 2G rule applies in our association, supplemented by situation-related measures, such as quick tests before encounters in closed rooms. (i.e. code for rooms where individuals are euthanized)

 

In the difficult task of balancing the protection of our members, employees and doctors with the practical organization of our everyday life in the association, Dr. Martin Goßmann, the head of our medical team, is on hand to advise.

 

More details can be found in our Code of Ethics."

 

Under Germany's 2G rule, which allows free movement for only vaccinated or recovered individuals, euthanasia services in Germany will only be provided to those individuals who have either been vaccinated or have recovered from COVID-19

 

Ironically, under the group's About Us page we find the following:

 

"Self-determination is the guiding principle of our time. But what does that mean in concrete terms for the individual in shaping the end of his life?"

  

Apparently, self-determination doesn't apply to whether the individual choosing euthanasia chooses not to be vaccinated.

Irony abounds in the nation which brought the world euthanasia centers also known as Aktion T4 in 1939.

 

Iran's Nuclear Weapon Breakout Timeline - Bracing the World for War

Let's open this posting with a quote from General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command from this article in Time Magazine about Iran's nuclear program and how it is progressing in the post-JCPOA period:

 

"Our president said they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. The diplomats are in the lead on this, but Central Command always has a variety of plans that we could execute, if directed....They’re very close this time. I think they like the idea of being able to breakout.”

  

In this posting, we will look at a very recent report from the Institute For Science and International Security (ISIS) which analyzes the information provided in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) quarterly Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the latest of which is dated November 17, 2021:

  

As background, under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA which went into effect in January 2016.  Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to not produce either rate highly enriched uranium or plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon (uranium enriched to 5 percent is used in nuclear power plants and 20 percent is used in research reactors or for medical equipment).  The agreement limited the numbers and types of centrifuges that Iran could operate as well as the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium.  Iran also agreed to implement protocols that would allow the IAEA to unfettered access to its nuclear facilities to prevent the nation from secretly developing nuclear weapons.  U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, reinstating all previous sanctions that were removed as part of the deal with Iran and the P5+1 signatories.  Since that time, Iran has taken steps to ramp up its nuclear program as shown in this quote from a backgrounder on the Council on Foreign Relations website:

 

"In response to the other parties’ actions, which Tehran claimed amounted to breaches of the deal, Iran started exceeding agreed-upon limits to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in 2019, and began enriching uranium to higher concentrations (though still far short of the purity required for weapons). It also began developing new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment; resuming heavy water production at its Arak facility; and enriching uranium [PDF] at Fordow, which rendered the isotopes produced there unusable for medical purposes.

 

In 2020, Iran took more steps away from its nuclear pledges, following a series of attacks on its interests. In January, after the U.S. targeted killing of a top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, Iran announced that it would no longer limit its uranium enrichment. In October, it began constructing a centrifuge production center at Natanz to replace one that was destroyed months earlier in an attack it blamed on Israel. And in November, in response to the assassination of a prominent nuclear scientist, which it also attributed to Israel, Iran’s parliament passed a law that led to a substantial boost in uranium enrichment at Fordow.

 

The following year, Iran announced new restrictions on the IAEA’s ability to inspect its facilities, and soon after ended its monitoring agreement with the agency completely."

  

Let's look at the aforementioned report by the Institute for Science and International Security.  According to ISIS, the most recent report from the IAEA shows that the following progress has been made in Iran's nuclear enrichment program:

  

"Iran has enough enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in the form of near 20 and 60 percent enriched uranium to produce enough weapon-grade uranium (WGU), taken here as 25 kilograms (kg), for a single nuclear weapon in as little as three weeks. It could do so without using any of its stock of uranium enriched up to 5 percent as feedstock. The growth of Iran’s stocks of near 20 and 60 percent enriched uranium has dangerously reduced breakout timelines. 

Iran could continue producing more weapon-grade uranium, using its substantial stock of uranium enriched between two and five percent. In just over two months after the commencement of breakout, Iran could have produced enough additional WGU for a second weapon. After about 3.5 months, it would have enough for a third weapon. The additional production of enough WGU for a fourth weapon would be slower, taking six months, reflecting the depletion of Iran’s pre-existing stocks of enriched uranium. 

Iran appears to have continued producing near 20 percent enriched uranium metal, although the IAEA does not provide details in its latest report. Despite Iran’s claims of civil use, uranium metal is a key material in nuclear weapons. Iran’s move to create the wherewithal to make uranium metal as well as making the metal itself is concerning because Iran is both instituting a nuclear weapons capability and increasing its knowledge and experience in this key area. 

Iran experimented with using near 20 percent enriched uranium as feed in advanced centrifuges at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), likely gaining important new knowledge in producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) using advanced centrifuges. This is also the first time Iran has started feeding a centrifuge cascade with uranium enriched more than 5 percent at any of its three enrichment plants, possibly gaining additional, irreversible knowledge in setting up and using equipment designed for smaller feed quantities and higher enriched uranium feed. 

In essence, Iran is effectively breaking out slowly by producing 60 percent enriched uranium and continuing to accumulate it. As of November 6, Iran had a stock of 17.7 kg of near 60 percent enriched uranium (in uranium mass or U mass), or 26.1 kg (in hexafluoride mass). If Iran accumulated about 40 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium (U mass), it would have enough to be able to further enrich it and quickly produce 25 kg of weapon-grade uranium (U mass) in just a few advanced centrifuge cascades. 

Alternatively, 40 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium is more than enough to fashion a nuclear explosive directly, without any further enrichment, although Iran’s known nuclear weapons designs use WGU. 

Iran’s current production rate of 60 percent enriched uranium is 42 kg per year (U mass), meaning that it could accumulate its first amount of 40 kg in about 6.4 months, or by the spring of 2022."

Here is a table showing the growth in Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium:

 

 

The IAEA is most concerned about Iran's production of 60 percent enriched uranium (HEU) which began on April 17, 2021 which are not in line with its long-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plans submitted to the IAEA on January 16, 2016.  Here is a quote from the ISIS report:

 

"During this reporting period, Iran continued to produce 60 percent enriched uranium, or HEU. This level of enrichment is associated with a key step in the traditional stepwise process of climbing from natural uranium to 90 percent enriched uranium, or WGU. Iran also instituted the production of HEU, albeit on a limited scale, by feeding 20 percent enriched uranium into a small number of IR-4 and IR-6 centrifuges.

Sixty percent enriched uranium can be used directly in nuclear weapons. About 40 kg (U mass) is more than enough to make a nuclear explosive, compared to the less than 25 kg (U mass) of 90 percent enriched uranium the Institute uses as sufficient for Iran to manufacture a nuclear explosive. Iran’s accumulation of 60 percent enriched uranium remains a highly provocative, dangerous step."

 

Moreover, the manner in which Iran has proceeded to enrich to 60 percent, starting from near 5 percent enriched material, is innovative, suggesting Iran continues to gain valuable experience in producing HEU, and by extension even WGU. It is practicing breakout under a civilian cover, and also learning to reduce the number of steps that it would need to go from natural uranium to WGU."

 

With the growth in Iran's stockpiles of 20 percent and 60 percent enriched uranium, the breakout timeline (the time required from Iran to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon) has become "dangerously short". Given that 25 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium is required for a nuclear weapon, the ISIS report claims the following:

  

"Iran now has enough 20 and 60 percent enriched uranium to use as feed for the first 25 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium, producing about 10 kg of weapon-grade uranium from the 60 percent stock and 15 kg of weapon-grade uranium from the 20 percent stock. Each weapon-grade uranium stock can be produced in parallel, significantly reducing the timeline for production of 25 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium....

 

Currently, under the scenario outlined above, the result is that within about three weeks, Iran could produce its first quantity of 25 kg of weapon-grade uranium."

  

With this information in mind, one has to wonder how long it will be before both the United States and Israel take military action to destroy Iran's ability to further enrich its stockpile of uranium, dragging the world into yet another war, particularly given this:

...and this...

The COVID-19 Vaccination Assembly Line

Just a very brief posting on something that many of us have anticipated over the past two or three months as it became apparent that 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not prove to be effective over the medium-term.  Here's the latest from the Times of Israel:

 

 

Only time will tell us whether this is due to a new variant, the fact that children down to the age of five years are not yet fully vaccinated or the fact that the current COVID-19 vaccines have a very short effective "shelf life" once they are injected.  With Israel being the COVID-19 vaccine "canary in the coal mine", one has to wonder how long it will be before other nations follow the fourth dose protocol.

And, once again, this is what happens when drugs are not fully tested before they are rolled out for public consumption.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, COVID-19 Vaccines and its Links to Big Pharma

One of the promoters of vaccines for children has been the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).  Here is the webpage from their website Healthy Children which outlines their recommendations for vaccinating children down to the age of 5 years:

 

 

Here is what parents who wish to have their children vaccinated for COVID-19 need to remember with my bold:

 

"The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all eligible children age 5 and older, and adults, should get the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as they can. Your child is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose of the vaccine. Encourage your child to keep doing their part to protect others by wearing a face mask and following other steps to keep people with a high risk of infection safe. Then they can get back to activities they enjoy like sports, choir, plays and parties with some added confidence that they are protected!"

  

Now, thanks to the Internet Archive, let's look back to July 21, 2021 when this was on the AAP's website under "Our Supporters":

 

By July 24th, 2021, the same webpage was altered to look like this:

 

According to research by the Verify Team whose mission it is to "stop the spread of false information", the AAP received $150,000 in financial support from Pfizer to support their Community Access to Child Health (CATCH) program which the project ending on June 30, 2021 which Verify claims explains the change to the AAP's website.  In other words, there is nothing to see here, move along you useless eaters/conspiracy nut jobs.

 

Now that we have brought up the subject, let's take a closer look at Verify.  It is owned by TEGNA, one of the United States largest owners of local television stations.  If you look at TEGNA's Board of Directors, here is what you will find:

 

Isn't that interesting?  But, I'm sure that there is nothing untoward going on here.  It's just another in a long line of "coincidences".

 

Interestingly, the AAP's "Current Partners" webpage shows the following "Partners" and "Corporate Donors":

 

 

Note the presence of Johnson & Johnson, another manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccine.

 

While it is quite possible that the American Academy of Pediatrics' pro-vaccine agenda for all children down to the age of five years has not been influenced by its donors, if it looks and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

 

As I've said repeatedly during the pandemic; just follow the money and you'll figure out the program.

NATO and Nuclear Expansion into Eastern Europe

A recent speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regarding Europe's nuclear defense posture has raised eyebrows in Russia.  Let's look at some of the details from the speech highlighting what NATO believes are threats from both Russia and China.

  

Let's start with some background.  Here is a map showing the former eastern block nations of the former Soviet Union:

 

As you can see, the heart of the Soviet Union was protected by a significant number of nations along its western flank.  This was important to the leadership of the U.S.S.R. because the nation was invaded from the west through Poland and Romania as shown on this map:

 

Here is a current map showing the current NATO member states:

 

Other than Belarus and the Ukraine, the Russian heartland is far more vulnerable to invasion from Europe than it was in the years after the Second World War.

 

With that background, let's look at some highlights from Stoltenberg's speech.  

  

"In an increasingly dangerous and competitive world, this commitment (to NATO) is as important as ever.

 

Today we face many different challenges.

 

Russia carries out aggressive actions. It interferes in other countries' affairs.

 

It has invested significantly in military capabilities, including new, advanced nuclear weapons.

 

And Russia continues its massive military build-up, as we see now around the borders of Ukraine. And it has shown a willingness to use military force against its neighbours."

 

It's a good thing that Washington never interferes in other nations' affairs, isn't it?

 

Here is his solution to the "Russia problem" noting the use of the words "eastern Allies" which refers to the former Warsaw Pact nations of the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria as members:

 

"Our aim is a world free of nuclear weapons.

 

But as long as others have them, NATO must have them too.

 

The nuclear weapons we share in NATO provide European Allies with an effective nuclear umbrella.

 

This, of course, also includes our eastern Allies.

 

And they are an important signal of Allied unity against any nuclear-armed adversary.

 

So NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements are of particular importance for Europe."

 

As it stands now, the United States has "nuclear-sharing arrangements" with a number of European NATO member nations.  These nations have dual-capable aircraft which are dedicated to the delivery of these U.S-owned nuclear weapons which remain in U.S. custody at all times.  According to Arms Control Center, there are the following nuclear weapons in the NATO member states which do not have their own nuclear programs:

 

"The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose exact figures for its European-deployed stockpiles. In 2021, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned nuclear weapons stored in five NATO member states across six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft; they are instead kept in WS3 underground vaults in national airbases, and the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes used to arm them remain in American hands. To be used, the bombs would be loaded onto dual-capable NATO-designated fighters. Each country is in the process of modernizing its nuclear-capable fighters to either the F-35A, the F-18 Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

  

Obviously, the Russians are concerned about any nuclear weapons ending up in former Warsaw Pact nations along its western edge.  In fact, here's Russia's response through state-owned RT:

 

Just in case you thought that one of the world's "greatest threats" was not receiving any attention from NATO since it is not located in the North Atlantic, here is what Stoltenberg had to say about China:

 

"Meanwhile, China is using its might to coerce other countries and control its own people. It is investing heavily in new technologies, like hypersonic glide vehicles. Expanding its global economic and military footprint in Africa, in the Arctic and in cyber-space.

 

And China is suppressing democracy and human rights at home. We don’t regard China as an adversary but we need to take into account the consequences for our security, the rise of China."

  

Isn't it interesting to see that NATO is even looking to the Far East for yet another threat to its existence?

 

Since NATO is largely an offshoot of American hegemony, one has to wonder how many fronts (i.e. China, Iran etcetera) Washington thinks that it can wage war at one time?  With the hard lessons taught by the U.S. experience in Afghanistan barely in the rearview mirror, the Biden Administration should be doing what it can to prevent the United States from entering yet another losing proposition.  After all, there are no winners in a nuclear exchange.