" Teratogen chemicals account for 5% of birth defects (discussed in my investigation). If pregnant mothers knew that they reduced their chances of birthing a health baby by 5% would they still consume this vitamin for their babies health?"
👉Agent, you are saying 5% of the birth defects are due to chemicals, not of all births. Since only …
" Teratogen chemicals account for 5% of birth defects (discussed in my investigation). If pregnant mothers knew that they reduced their chances of birthing a health baby by 5% would they still consume this vitamin for their babies health?"
👉Agent, you are saying 5% of the birth defects are due to chemicals, not of all births. Since only a small % of newborns have birth defects (the CDC says it's 1 in 33 births), then it would not be a reduction of 5% of the total of healthy babies, it means the reduction of healthy babies from chemicals are 5% of the 1/33 births with birth defects: 1/33 is 3%→5% of 3% is 0.15%, so 0.15% of the TOTAL number of births have defects due to chemicals. Otherwise its a good post and sorry for the trouble.
1) Beware of all CDC statistics in the first place. If birth defect is anything like VAERS (and it appears it isn't much different), the numbers are easily manipulated and/or grossly underreported.
2) Birth defects are only classified as structural abnormalities (like extra chromosomes {{Downs}}, shrunken head, missing eyes and ears, etc...) so they just go with the obvious, and this isn't going to capture much of the early stage developmental issues, which are many. But since the CDC is intentionally poisoning mother and child from fetus to cradle to grave from every angle of intervention, it's like getting sheep damage stats from the local wolf. Special note: they had to change brain damage into a thing called "Autism" to cover & obfuscate for direct effects of the poison pricks. I have to wonder how many babies are beginning their lives with a severe uphill climb from a developmental standpoint.
3) I notice they only use a handful of states to do data collection. So I suspect they just extrapolate that data... which would make it rather rough. But let's just assume it is 1/33... considering how often babies are born- almost 5 per second world wide- it would only take 7 seconds to produce a physically messed up newborn. Does that seem 'normal'?
Also, I have to wonder if they can really hand pick one toxic chemical and designate an accurate % to any kind of damage assessment and criteria... whether that be a newborn or an adult. Given how many we live with and the various methods they are thrown at us and/or we are just exposed to, it must be near impossible to single any one thing out from the toxic smog. So we could just conclude that:
1) Lots of babies are being killed or born completely fucked up.
2) Prenatal (or any) so-called "vitamins" are all various lab cocktails of poison proven to cause damage.
3) If you don't want to be harmed, or have your newborn harmed, don't ingest chemical poisons. You probably have already been poisoned enough to not add anymore.
P.S. - I don't think "Vitamins" have actually been authentically discovered in food. I think they are only newly created lab byproducts given special meaning... expose this, and it's game over. Looking forward to part IV to touch on this.
Thanks FP, yes I cringed when typing in the CDC stats. Regardless, birth defects are, or at least were, much less then the total births (my nose is above my mouth and my arms are above my torso, but my brain doesn't fill my skull completely), my point is that 5% of the birth-defect births is much less then 5% of the total births whether birth defects are 1/10 or minimized by the CDC to 1/33....
" Teratogen chemicals account for 5% of birth defects (discussed in my investigation). If pregnant mothers knew that they reduced their chances of birthing a health baby by 5% would they still consume this vitamin for their babies health?"
👉Agent, you are saying 5% of the birth defects are due to chemicals, not of all births. Since only a small % of newborns have birth defects (the CDC says it's 1 in 33 births), then it would not be a reduction of 5% of the total of healthy babies, it means the reduction of healthy babies from chemicals are 5% of the 1/33 births with birth defects: 1/33 is 3%→5% of 3% is 0.15%, so 0.15% of the TOTAL number of births have defects due to chemicals. Otherwise its a good post and sorry for the trouble.
Good point. Here are a few more for context.
1) Beware of all CDC statistics in the first place. If birth defect is anything like VAERS (and it appears it isn't much different), the numbers are easily manipulated and/or grossly underreported.
2) Birth defects are only classified as structural abnormalities (like extra chromosomes {{Downs}}, shrunken head, missing eyes and ears, etc...) so they just go with the obvious, and this isn't going to capture much of the early stage developmental issues, which are many. But since the CDC is intentionally poisoning mother and child from fetus to cradle to grave from every angle of intervention, it's like getting sheep damage stats from the local wolf. Special note: they had to change brain damage into a thing called "Autism" to cover & obfuscate for direct effects of the poison pricks. I have to wonder how many babies are beginning their lives with a severe uphill climb from a developmental standpoint.
3) I notice they only use a handful of states to do data collection. So I suspect they just extrapolate that data... which would make it rather rough. But let's just assume it is 1/33... considering how often babies are born- almost 5 per second world wide- it would only take 7 seconds to produce a physically messed up newborn. Does that seem 'normal'?
Also, I have to wonder if they can really hand pick one toxic chemical and designate an accurate % to any kind of damage assessment and criteria... whether that be a newborn or an adult. Given how many we live with and the various methods they are thrown at us and/or we are just exposed to, it must be near impossible to single any one thing out from the toxic smog. So we could just conclude that:
1) Lots of babies are being killed or born completely fucked up.
2) Prenatal (or any) so-called "vitamins" are all various lab cocktails of poison proven to cause damage.
3) If you don't want to be harmed, or have your newborn harmed, don't ingest chemical poisons. You probably have already been poisoned enough to not add anymore.
P.S. - I don't think "Vitamins" have actually been authentically discovered in food. I think they are only newly created lab byproducts given special meaning... expose this, and it's game over. Looking forward to part IV to touch on this.
Thanks FP, yes I cringed when typing in the CDC stats. Regardless, birth defects are, or at least were, much less then the total births (my nose is above my mouth and my arms are above my torso, but my brain doesn't fill my skull completely), my point is that 5% of the birth-defect births is much less then 5% of the total births whether birth defects are 1/10 or minimized by the CDC to 1/33....