In Spain, breast cancer is almost a third higher where the big cities are. Where the density of the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically call “technology” is the greatest

“When we were half-way to Chinon we happened upon yet one more squad of enemies. They burst suddenly out of the woods, and in considerable force, too; but we were not the apprentices we were ten or twelve days before; no, we were seasoned to this kind of adventure now; our hearts did not jump into our throats and our weapons tremble in our hands. We had learned to be always in battle array, always alert, and always ready to deal with any emergency that might turn up. We were no more dismayed by the sight of these people than our commander was. Before they could form, Joan had delivered the order, “Forward!” and were down upon them with a rush. They stood no chance; they turned tail and scattered, we plowing through them as if they had been men of straw. That was our last ambuscade, and it was probably laid for us by that treacherous rascal, the King’s own minister and favorite, De la Tremouille.”

From “Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc”, by Mark Twain, 1896

THE DATA, AND THE BULLSHIT PLAUSIBLE-DENIABILITY EXCUSES REFUTING IT

From 1973 to 2005, breast cancer in women in Shanghai, China aged 15-49 increased by 290%, or nearly quadrupled. First author Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s called it “statistically significant”.

From 1976 to 2009, breast cancer incidence with metastases to other organs (bones, brain, lungs, etc., excluding adjoining areas such as lymph nodes and chest wall at diagnosis increased by 207%, or more than tripled among women in the U.S. 25-35 years of age, while older women showed no increase during the same time period.

From 1993 to 2005, the 4.6% increase in breast cancer in women aged 20-39 years in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil was 58% greater than the 2.9% increase documented there in women aged 40-49 years during that same time period.

Porto Alegre’s population of 1,488,252 inhabitants (2020) makes it the twelfth most populous city in the country and the center of Brazil’s fifth largest metropolitan area, with 4,405,760 inhabitants (2010).

Breast cancer is increasing exponentially in women of all ages in Porto Alegre, Brazil. However, the rate of breast cancer is far higher in younger women there because those younger women are the most addicted to their purportedly-harmless, so-called “Smart” phones. The damage from purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation is, in fact, cumulative and dose-dependent.

From 1994 to 2003, breast cancer mortality rates in women 20-44 years of age in Medellin, Columbia increased by some unspecified amount, while mortality rates among women there aged 45-64 years did not increase.

Breast cancer rates among young women in the big city of Medellin, Columbia are increasing, albeit by some unspecified amount, while those of their older counterparts there are not, because those younger women are the far more addicted to their purportedly-harmless, so-called “Smart” phones, and because the damage from the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation that those phones deliver is, in fact, cumulative and dose-dependent.

From 1995 to 2004, breast cancer mortality in Iranian women increased by 151.4%, from 1.40 to 3.52 per 100,000. In 2013, lead author Afsoon Taghavi of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences called the increase “dramatic”. In 2021, lead author Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva omitted the percentage entirely, and in comment simply called it “an increase in breast cancer”.

From 1998 to 2008, the 4.4% increase in breast cancer in women aged 20-39 years in Goiana, Brazil from 1998 to 2008 was 83% greater, or close to double the 2.4% increase documented there in women aged 40-49 years during that same time period.

Goiana is the second-largest city in the Central-West Region and the 10th-largest in the country. Its metropolitan area has a population of 2,654,860, making it the 12th-largest in Brazil.

It is the exponentially-greater density of the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically refer to as “wireless technology” that is driving also-exponentially-greater rates of breast cancer in younger Brazilian women in the big city of Goiana, Brazil, versus their older counterparts, there, because those younger women are the most addicted to their purportedly-harmless, so-called “Smart” phones.

The damage from purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation is, in fact, cumulative and dose-dependent.

One of the things that first author Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva attributed these quantum increases in breast cancer in Brazil to was “increased alcohol consumption among women”. From 1989 to 2010, the past-year use of alcohol among adolescents in Brazil decreased by 32%, from 62.2% to 42%.

From 1999 to 2006, the breast cancer rate in Porto Alegre, Brazil was 97.67% higher, or double that in Cuibana, Brazil (25.5 per 100,000 vs. 12.9 per 100,000).

In 2018, the population density of Cuiaba, Brazil was 3.8 inhabitants/km2. In 2021, the population density of Porto Alegre, Brazil was 3,005 inhabitants/km².

Porto Alegre, Brazil’s population density is 78,978% greater than that of Cuiba, Brazil (3.8 inhabitants/km2 vs. 3,005 inhabitants/km2).

The breast cancer rate in Porto Alegre, Brazil is double what it is in Cuiba, Brazil is because the cumulative impact of the purportedly-harmless wireless technology that is collectively being utilized by all of those extra people in Porto Alegre, vs. Cuiba.

From 2000 to 2004, breast cancer incidence in Spain increased 60% compared to 1980 to 1984, from 54.7 cases per 100,000 to 83.8 cases per thousand. In comment, first author Marina Pollan described it with “the incidence rate increased sharply”, while omitting any mention of the specific percentage.

And, despite loving writing about cancer because it is, in fact, her job, she also didn’t offer any suggestion as to what had caused the sudden, exponential increase in breast cancer in Spain from 2000 to 2004. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

From 2000 to 2004, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castello and Granada from 2000 to 2004 was .86 below average for the country as a whole. While, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Girona, Tarragona and Navarra from 2000 to 2004 was 11.3% above average for the country as a whole.

From 2000 to 2004, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Girona, Tarragona and Navarra was 29% higher than the average rate of breast cancer in the provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castello and Granda.

Why, what could the variable possibly be?

“Catalonia in the northeast of Spain is home to popular cities of Barcelona, Tarragona, and Girona. The region also has the Costa Brava, which offers many breathtaking views. Catalonia’s provinces are Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona.”

“A visit to Cuenca is a return to a simpler, less hurried world”…”Tourism in Albacete - The largest city in Castilla-La Mancha is situated on a vast, flat stretch of farmland of great natural value”…”Despite being a coastal province, Castellón is the second most mountainous municipality in Spain”…”Granada is a mid-sized · In addition to a rich multicultural history, the Alhambra and other monuments, a student-driven nightlife, and skiing and trekking in…”

In Spain, breast cancer is almost a third higher where the big cities are. Where the density of the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically call “technology” is the greatest.

THE ARTICLES

In January 2021, the journal Oncology published an article entitled “Breast Cancer Mortality in Young Women in Brazil”. The lead author on the study is Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva.

Can you see how the title of the paper on exponentially-increasing breast cancer mortality on young women in Brazil is written neutrally, so that you have no idea of the terrible trend I just mentioned? Reading the only-general “breast cancer mortality”, you don’t know if that mortality increased, decreased, or stayed the same. It’s a surprisingly slipshod bit of work for someone who is a Scientist by trade, don’t you think?

The paper goes on to say “There was an increase in breast cancer mortality rates in young women in the majority of Brazilian states, with an upward trend in all regions. The correlation with the Municipal Human Development Index, income, and education had a significant impact on the mortality rate for women from 30–39 years old in both time frames evaluated and for women from 20–29 years old, only from 1996 to 2000.”

Can you see how the paragraph tells you that there’s been an only-generally-described “increase in breast cancer”, and an also only-generally-described “upward trend in all regions”? Can you see how income and education had an impact that was only-generally-described as “significant”? Where “a significant impact” could mean that educated women got more cancer, and it could mean that they got less. The cloud of hedging generalities is a surprisingly slipshod bit of work for the team of people, headed by Ms. Silva, all of whom at least purport to love them some Science like it’s their jobs.

The exhaustively-researched scholarly paper goes on to say “The incidence of breast cancer in young women has shown a significant increase. In the Brazilian capitals of Porto Alegre (1993 and 2005) and Goiânia (1998 to 2008), there was a considerableincrease of it in the 20 to 39 age group (3). Likewise, in the United States, it was observed a growth from 24.6 to 31.7 per 100 thousand women in the same age group, in 1975 and 2015, respectively (4).”

Where the hedging generalities “significant increase” and “considerable increase” are used to cloud and obfuscate the actual percentage increases in breast cancer. Magnificently, Ms. Silva and her team have refused to print the percentages of the increases in cancer, instead burying them in a separate footnote links that you have to click, and open, and read. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

Actually, I’m being too kind. If you click the link, this is what you get: “3. Santos SS, Melo LR, Koifman RJ, Koifman S. Incidência e mortalidade por câncer de mama em mulheres menores de 50 anos no Brasil. Cad Saúde Publ Rio Janeiro (2013) 29:2230–40. doi: 10.1590/0102-311x00030713

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar”

After you click the second link, labeled “CrossRef Full Text”, to get to the study being referenced, it takes you to yet another link, which you must then click, in turn, to at last get to the paper being referenced.

Then, once you are in that new scholarly paper, you have to click a link again, to open a table, where the author has, in journalistic parlance, “buried” the data we’re attempting to analyze.

The data is there, all right…however, the rates of increase and decrease are not analyzed by age group against one another. That’s surprisingly slipshod, given that the paper was written by someone who loves them some Science like it’s their job.

For the record, the lead author is Sabrina da Silva Santos. The paper was published in November 2013.

When you read my analysis, which compares the data for the two age groups, you will understand why generational Satanist Ms. Santos, er, declined to provide an analysis of the data she and her earnest, hardworking team so carefully collected.

The 4.6% increase in breast cancer in women aged 20-39 years in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil from 1993 to 2005 was 58% greater than the 2.9% increase documented there in women aged 40-49 years during that same time period.

“Porto Alegre’s population of 1,488,252 inhabitants (2020) makes it the twelfth most populous city in the country and the center of Brazil’s fifth largest metropolitan area, with 4,405,760 inhabitants (2010).

The 4.4% increase in breast cancer in women aged 20-39 years in Goiana, Brazil from 1998 to 2008 was 83% greater, or close to double than the 2.4% increase documented there in women aged 40-49 years during that same time period.

“Goiana is the second-largest city in the Central-West Region and the 10th-largest in the country. Its metropolitan area has a population of 2,654,860, making it the 12th-largest in Brazil.”

Whereas, in Aracaju, Brazil, the .5% increase in breast cancer in women aged 20-39 years from 1996 to 2004 was 819% less than the 4.6% increase documented there in women aged 40-49 years during that same time period.

“Aracaju is a beautiful city in Brazil that has a lot to offer travelers, from its luxurious hotels, fine cuisine, rich culture, and picturesque views.”

In João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil, breast cancer among women aged 20-39 years decreased by 3.4% from 1999 to 2006. While it increased 1.7% in women there aged 40-49 during the same time period.

From 1999 to 2006, the 1.7% increase in breast cancer in women aged 40-49 in Joao Pessoa, Brazil was roughly double the 3.4% decrease in breast cancer documented there in women aged 20-39 years old there during the same time period.

“Powerful coastal sunshine keeps beaches bustling year-round in Joao Pessoa”. “Joao Pessoa is a Brazilian small town in the northeastern coast, between Natal and Recife”.

Breast cancer in older women in Joao Pessoa is increasing because the relatively wealthy middle-aged women there collectively have the most time on their hands to keep the Death bricks up against their skulls for the longest periods of time. It’s actually decreasing in the young women there because their lifestyles are healthy enough to overcome the malefic influence of the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation delivered by their so-called “Smart” phones.

Da Silva Santos’ 2013 paper continues: “Among the selected Brazilian cities, the highest rates were in Porto Alegre (25.5/100,000), São Paulo (23.2/100,000), and Goiânia (21.4/100,000), and the lowest was in Cuiabá (12.9/100,000).”

Can you see how Sabrina Da Silva Santos provided the numbers, but carefully hedged by omitting the percentage difference between them? That’s surprisingly slipshod for someone who loves them some Science like it’s their job, don’t you think?

That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.

From 1999 to 2006, the breast cancer rate in Porto Alegre, Brazil was 97.67% higher, or double that in Cuibana, Brazil (25.5 per 100,000 vs. 12.9 per 100,000).

In 2018, the population density of Cuiaba, Brazil was 3.8 inhabitants/km2.

In 2021, the population density of Porto Alegre, Brazil was 3,005 inhabitants/km².

Porto Alegre, Brazil’s population density is 78,978% greater than that of Cuiba, Brazil (3.8 inhabitants/km2 vs. 3,005 inhabitants/km2).

The breast cancer rate in Porto Alegre, Brazil is double what it is in Cuiba, Brazil is because the cumulative impact of the purportedly-harmless wireless technology that is collectively being utilized by all of those extra people in Porto Alegre, vs. Cuiba.

Da Silva Santos’ 2013 paper continues: “In the absence of family history, until recent decades breast cancer in pre-menopause was considered a relatively atypical event, especially in women under 40 years."

Santos lets us know that breast cancer has gone from being a rarity among young women to an epidemic, but she doesn’t offer any suggestion as to why that is the case. That’s an example of the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.

Da Silva Santos’ 2013 paper continues: "In addition, published reports have suggested an increase in breast cancer incidence and mortality in young women from different populations in various parts of the world. Cardona & Agudelo 14 observed an upward trend in breast cancer mortality rates in women 20-44 years of age from 1994 to 2003 in Medellin, Colombia, although the mortality rates from this cancer in women 45-64 years of age remained constant in Colombia during the same period.”

I clicked the link. I translated the study. Only a summary is provided, and it does not contain the information on breast cancer mortality. Da Silva Santos has deliberately obfuscated the numbers, hiding them behind the positive-spin hedging generality “an upward trend”.

Da Silva Santos’ 2013 paper continues: “An increase in breast cancer mortality rates was also observed in Iran from 1995 to 2004, and was greater in women 15-49 years of age compared to 50 years or older 15.”

So, I had to do an internet search for “15. Taghavi A, Fazeli Z, Vahedi M, Baghestani AR, Pourhoseingholi A, Barzegar F, et al. Increased trend of breast cancer mortality in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012; 13:367-70.”

I got “Results: The age standardized mortality rate of breast cancer increased dramatically during these years from 1.40 to 3.52 per 100,000 and its mortality was increasing 151.4% for Iranian women, although it seemed that the rate leveled off from 2002 to 2004. Moreover the increasing rate was higher for those aged between 15-49 compared to age >50 years old.”

Where lead author Afsoon Taghavi, who works in the Department of Pathology of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, obfuscated the specific increase in young women, vs. older women, hiding it behind the hedging generality ‘the increasing rate was higher for those aged between 15-49 compared to those greater than 50 years old.”

Still, I was able to distill some statistics from the cloud of disinformation being spewed by the united Scientific establishments of all the nations, inclusive of Iran.

From 1995 to 2004, breast cancer mortality in Iranian women increased by 151.4%, from 1.40 to 3.52 per 100,000. Lead author Afsoon Taghavi of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences called the increase “dramatic”.

Here’s Afsoon Taghavi’s picture:

[image]

(Afsoon Taghavi, Ph. D., who called a 151.4% increase in breast cancer among Iranian women from 1995 to 2004 “dramatic”, and offered no suggestion as to why it might be taking place)

Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s 2021 Oncology paper continues: “Recently, Wu et al. 10 detected a statistically significant increase in breast cancer incidence in women 15-49 years of age from 1973 to 2005 in Shanghai, China, with an AAPC of 2.9 (95%CI: 2.5-3.4).”

Where Silva’s general hedge “statistically significant” is followed by a cloud of statistics that are not clearly delineated. She wanted to avoid saying “from 1973 to 2005, breast cancer in women in Shanghai China aged 15-49 increased by 290%, or nearly quadrupled.

Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s 2021 Oncology paper continues: “In the United States, a study by Johnson et al. 11 in women 25-35 years of age showed a statistically significant increase in breast cancer incidence with metastases to other organs (bones, brain, lungs, etc., excluding adjoining areas such as lymph nodes and chest wall) at diagnosis, from 1976 to 2009 (AAPC: 2.07; 95%CI: 1.57-2.58), but without a corresponding increase in older women.”

Where Silva’s general hedge “statistically significant” is followed by a cloud of statistics that are not clearly delineated. She wanted to avoid saying “from 1976 to 2009, breast cancer incidence with metastases to other organs (bones, brain, lungs, etc., excluding adjoining areas such as lymph nodes and chest wall at diagnosis increased by 207%, or more than tripled among women in the U.S. 25-35 years of age, while older women showed no increase during the same time period.

Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s 2021 Oncology paper continues:

“Additionally, an increase in breast cancer incidence was seen in France (1991-2003) in women up to 49 years of age 12 and in Spain (1980-2004) in women 25-44 years of age 13.”

Where, spectacularly, the first author of a Scientific paper in the journal Oncology omits the specific percentage increases, and hides them instead behind the hedging generality “increase in breast cancer”.

So, I had to go down to the footnotes and copy “13. Pollán M, Pastor-Barriuso R, Ardanaz E, Argüelles M, Martos C, Galcerán J, et al. Recent changes in breast cancer incidence in Spain, 1980-2004. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:1584-91.”

Then I had to go online and look up the paper. Marina Pollan published it as first author in the National Cancer Institute’s online journal in 2009.

I’m sure you noticed that, in the title of the scholarly paper documenting exponential increases in breast cancer, the only-general “recent changes in breast cancer” is neutral - you can’t tell what, specifically, those changes were. That’s quite slipshod, don’t you think, for a team of people all of which at least purport to love them some Science like it is, in fact, their job?

In it, we read “A total of 80 453 incident cases of invasive breast cancer were identified. Overall age- and registry-adjusted incidence rates rose by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7% to 3.1%) annually during the 1980s and 1990s; there was a statistically significant change in this trend in 2001 (95% CI = 1998 to 2004; P value for the existence of a change point <.001), after which incidence declined annually by 3.0% (95% CI = 1.8% to 4.1%). This trend differed by age group: There was a steady increase in incidence for women younger than 45 years, an abrupt downturn in 2001 for women aged 45–64 years, and a gradual leveling off in 1995 for women aged 65 years or older.”

Ms. Pollan avoided clearly stating that, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, breast cancer rates in Spain increased by 2.9%. Then, from 2001 to 2004, breast cancer among women in Spain decreased by 3%. Except for one group: women younger than 45 years, who continued to see a steady but unspecified increase.

The smoke-blowing Ms. Pollan continues: “A total of 80 453 incident cases of invasive breast cancer were identified among the 100 098 780 woman-years covered by the 16 Spanish registries from 1980 through 2004. Overall, the age-adjusted incidence rate increased sharply from 54.7 cases per 100 000 woman-years in 1980–1984 to 83.8 cases per 100 000 woman-years in 2000–2004 (Table 1). In general, the highest age-adjusted rates were observed in the northeastern provinces of Girona, Tarragona, and Navarra (rate ratios of 1.14, 1.11, and 1.09 with respect to all the registries combined for the period 2000–2004, respectively), whereas the lowest rates were observed in the southeastern provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castelló, and Granada (rate ratios of 0.80, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.91, respectively). Nevertheless, these geographic differences in age-adjusted breast cancer incidence rates seemed to be narrowing between 1990–1994 and 2000–2004 (ratio of the 75th to the 25th percentile of breast cancer incidence rate = 1.26 in 1990–1994, 1.18 in 1995–1999, and 1.15 in 2000–2004). Detailed information on biennial age-adjusted rates for all 16 registries is provided in Supplementary Table 1 (available online).”

I clicked the link. It says “The page you’re looking for cannot be found. Here are a few suggestions to help you find your way: If you entered a web address please check it was correct. Go to the Oxford Academic home page. Search across the Oxford Academic site. If you believe this to be an error, please contact us.”

The data from 2009 broken down by age has been shoved down the Memory Hole by Oxford Academic.

Here’s Marina Pollan’s picture:

[image]

(Maria Pollan, Instituto de Salud Carlos III | ISCIII · Area of Environmental Epidemiology and Cancer, MD, MPH, PhD, 526 publications, who described a 60% increase of breast cancer incidence in span from 2000 to 2004, versus 1990 to 1994 with “the incidence rate increased sharply”, while omitting any mention of the specific percentage. And, despite loving writing about cancer because it is, in fact, her job, she also didn’t offer any suggestion as to what had caused the sudden, exponential increase in breast cancer in Spain from 2000 to 2004)

I’ve included her photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.

They’re all related to one another by bloodline. They comprise between twenty and thirty percent of the populace, and are hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth.

It’s how the few have controlled the many, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.

But they say that the hardest part of solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.

Don Croft used to say “Parasites fear exposure above all else.”

From 2000 to 2004, breast cancer incidence in Spain increased 60% compared to 1980 to 1984, from 54.7 cases per 100,000 to 83.8 cases per thousand.

The highest rates were observed in the northeastern provinces of Girona, Tarragona, and Navarra (rate ratios of 1.14, 1.11, and 1.09 with respect to all the registries combined for the period 2000–2004, respectively. That’s an average of 1.11.

The lowest rates were observed in the southeastern provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castelló, and Granada (rate ratios of 0.80, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.91, respectively). That’s an average of .86

From 2000 to 2004, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castello and Granada from 2000 to 2004 was .86 below average for the country as a whole.

From 2000 to 2004, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Girona, Tarragona and Navarra from 2000 to 2004 was 11.3% above average for the country as a whole.

From 2000 to 2004, the average rate of breast cancer in the Spanish provinces of Girona, Tarragona and Navarra was 29% higher than the average rate of breast cancer in the provinces of Cuenca, Albacete, Castello and Granda.

Why, what could the variable possibly be?

“Catalonia in the northeast of Spain is home to popular cities of Barcelona, Tarragona, and Girona. The region also has the Costa Brava, which offers many breathtaking views. Catalonia’s provinces are Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona.”

“A visit to Cuenca is a return to a simpler, less hurried world”…”Tourism in Albacete - The largest city in Castilla-La Mancha is situated on a vast, flat stretch of farmland of great natural value”…”Despite being a coastal province, Castellón is the second most mountainous municipality in Spain”…”Granada is a mid-sized · In addition to a rich multicultural history, the Alhambra and other monuments, a student-driven nightlife, and skiing and trekking in…”

In Spain, breast cancer is almost a third higher where the big cities are. Where the density of the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically call “technology” is the greatest.

Scuttling the “increased awareness” ruse so tirelessly played, here, Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s 2021 Oncology paper continues:

Silva goes on to say “It is unlikely that this increase in incidence can be explained mainly by expansion in diagnosis of the disease, given that young women are not targeted in public policies for breast cancer screening.”

So, what, precisely, is causing the exponential increase in breast cancer in women - particularly young women - around the world?

Silva and her team of earnest researchers go on to attribute it to “changes in lifestyle and reproductive history in Brazilian women in recent decades. These factors include early menarche, delayed age at first pregnancy, nulliparity or fewer gestations, decreased breastfeeding duration, increased sedentary lifestyle and obesity, changes in eating habits, and greater alcohol consumption by women. As well as “the increase in excessive estrogen exposure…the growing use of contraceptives at increasingly early ages and extending for longer periods may also be a risk factor for the disease.”

In terms of the only-general bullshit plausible-deniability excuse “greater alcohol consumption by women”, I offer ZM Sanchez’s study from 2015: “The past-year use of alcohol among adolescents in Brazil between 1989 and 2010 declined from 62.2% to 42.0%”. Where Sanchez provided the numbers, but omitted the far more impactful percentage decrease between them. So, I had to do the math to learn that “from 1989 to 2010, the past-year use of alcohol among adolescents in Brazil decreased by 32%, from 62.2% to 42%.”

While her public persona is that of “Scientist”, Ms. Silva and her team off assiduous researchers have abandoned logic and reason and are using everything but the kitchen sink to distract attention from the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation that is, in fact, the driver of exponentially increasing breast cancer rates among young women the world over.

Here’s first author Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva’s picture:

[image]

(Juliana Dalcin Donini E. Silva, who said that exponentially increasing rates of breast cancer in women in Brazil was the result of “increased alcohol consumption among women”. From 1989 to 2010, the past-year use of alcohol among adolescents in Brazil decreased by 32%, from 62.2% to 42%)

I’ve included her photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.

They’re all related to one another by bloodline. They comprise between twenty and thirty percent of the populace, and are hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth.

It’s how the few have controlled the many, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.

But they say that the hardest part of solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.

Don Croft used to say “Parasites fear exposure above all else.”