When I was 12, I - like many inhabiting this age bracket - have to say I regarded myself as rather cool. In many ways, it was quite an improbable self-evaluation, since my favourite band was Take That and I was firmly convinced that denim crop tops with dungaree straps were the last word in high fashion, but I did have one very credible qualification for the label...

Older friends.

My two closest friends at the time, were P (two-and-a-bit years older than me) and A (one-and-a-bit years older than me) - sisters who lived next door - but as A was a bit of an academic superstar, she was a year ahead at school, meaning both of them bore the icy cold credentials of being two school years ahead of me.

Now come on, you know how cool it is to have friends even in the year above, never mind two, so I was, shall we say, modestly pleased with myself in this regard.

("What are you doing after school, Miri?" - "Oh, I'm going to P's house." - "Oh, P from 8E?" - "No... she's not in our year... She's in year 10." - Ooh, the cool, the deep freeze, it burns!)

Anyway, the point of this little subthermal soliloquy was to introduce the fact that, in my early adolescence, I was very incentivised to demonstrate my superior maturity levels to P and A, because the most hideous and unbearable insult imaginable would have been to hear them say that they regarded me as "too young" for anything.

So, one Saturday afternoon, when they decided they wanted to visit the nearby Birmingham Bull Ring Centre with a view to getting various parts of their anatomy pierced, I gamely agreed to accompany them.

For anyone not familiar with such exotic emporiums as they existed in the 1990s, the Birmingham Bull Ring was at the time a rather shabby, and indeed quite shady, mish-mash of various cheap clothing stores (which probably sold a lot of the dungaree denim tops mentioned earlier), pound shops, and - the holy grail of early adolescence - accessories shops and piercing parlours, which seemed to only employ staff with extreme myopia when it came to discerning who "looked sixteen".

P and A were on their second and third ear-piercings respectively, but I had yet to have mine pierced for the first time, and decided that today was the day.

Now, what you don't know at the age of 12 - even when you're spectacularly cool and with your two-years-above best friends - is that it's extremely important, when getting anything pierced, to choose safe metals such as stainless steel or gold, because these are hypoallergenic.

However, unscrupulous piercing parlours targeting stupid children do not reliably adhere to these measures, and instead use nickel, because it's much cheaper.

What happens if you get pierced with nickel?

Or, let me put it another way (because piercing is a form of this), what happens if you get injected with nickel?

I now have a lifelong acute allergy to nickel, to the extent I cannot wear even a belt containing the metal because - even though the belt does not touch my skin and indeed has a thick layer of fabric between it and me - it will still provoke the emergence of an angry, and highly uncomfortable, raised red rash almost immediately.

I was not born with this allergy: it's not "genetic". It was caused by being pierced (injected) with something allergenic.

Now, just imagine that some superhero saviours - such as, I don't know, Donald Trump and Robert "Bobby" Kennedy - swooped down upon the UK's belt-retailing emporiums, and declared:

"Good news, shoppers! These unscrupulous agents and vile vendors will no longer be able to peddle their poison to the nation's youth! Nickel-containing belts are now nationally banned!"

Okay, well, sure, that's helpful for people who already have a nickel allergy... and banning things people are allergic to will make the world a safer, healthier place for those already suffering with allergies...

But here's the obvious point...

Whilst Bobby is busy belt-banning, he's deflecting all attention away from the real crooks and villains of the piece - not those retailing nickel-containing belts, which we all should be able to wear with no problem - but those causing the nickel allergies in the first place, by injecting children with allergens that cause severe and irreversible allergy (because that's what injecting people with things does: it causes allergies, and this has been known since 1913 when Charles Richet won the Nobel Prize for so-proving).

I think you might just see where I'm going with this...

As was explored recently in James Delingpole's excellent interview with ex-pharmaceutical executive Sasha Latypova (and James' follow-up article), it seems that the so-called "MAHA" - Make America Healthy Again - movement, fronted by the aforementioned heroic superstars Trump and Kennedy - is slowly but surely moving any focus away from the cause of America's chronic health epidemics (childhood vaccinations), and instead onto the symptoms of mass food allergies, and food's role in exacerbating conditions like autism (e.g., many parents report their autistic children do much better on a gluten-free, casein-free diet... yet gluten and casein did not cause these children to become autistic, any more than nickel-containing belts cause people to be allergic to them).

Not even the much-maligned modern bogeyman seed oils can be blamed for the explosion in poor health, including obesity, because seed oil use was absolutely abundant in the 1960s and '70s (as well as all sorts of processed and packaged food) and people were, overwhelmingly, slim (the obesity rate in the 1960s was 1.5% - and no, this was not because everyone was "doing hard manual labour all day and burning everything off" - we're talking the 1960s, not 1660s. Most people had physically undemanding jobs in shops, offices, schools, etc, much like today).

The reason for the obesity epidemic is, overall, nothing to do with diet or over-eating / under-exercising. We eat a staggering 700 calories a day less today than we did in the 1960s, including less sugar and less fat, and so any increased activity levels they had back then (and they did move around a bit more, but nowhere near as much as is claimed by the "they were all constantly doing hard manual work" crowd) should be accounted for by our calorie deficit - e.g., if they were burning an extra 400-500 calories a day through activity as opposed to people today, the fact that we eat 700 calories less should more than balance that out.

But it doesn't.

People today are, on average, much heavier (to the magnitude of several stone, not just a few pounds), and are getting more so each year.

But it's not an over-eating problem (given that, overwhelmingly, we don't).

It's not a seed oil problem (since seed oils proliferated in decades when people were nearly all slim).

So what else do you think it could be?

Perhaps the same thing causing all the other chronic modern health conditions to skyrocket?

If you look at when obesity levels suddenly started to spike in all Western countries, you will see it coincides exactly with the vaccine schedules exploding.

So yet more evidence, it seems, that vaccines remain the number one cause of 'coincidence'...

What is known is that, as the vaccine schedule exploded and obesity rates rose accordingly, human metabolism began to dramatically slow down.

In fact, our BMRs (basal - resting - metabolisms) have slowed down so much in the last fifty years that this alone is enough to account for the rise in obesity. It's not that people are eating vastly more, or exercising vastly less, it's that the entire mechanism in their body for burning off food has been dramatically slowed down.

This has been demonstrated irrefutably by many studies, but we can easily see it for ourselves, too - not just because people are heavier, but because there is another distinct change in how they look: more youthful appearances.

It has been observed again and again how much younger people look today, compared to same-aged people of the past. It's not to do with how people were dressed back then, it's that the very architecture of their faces is clearly more mature, and - even those who had comfortable lives and weren't exposed to any conditions that might be likely to age them faster - clearly aged much more quickly than people do now.

People have joked about the 1991 film 'The Father of the Bride', where the 45-year-old parents of said bride are portrayed as old fuddy-duddies, replete with twin sets and pearls, which is a far cry from how 45-year-olds generally appear today.

(Although, as the film shows, this "elderly" couple were still not too old to have an "oopsie baby", in sharp contrast to today, where we are informed that everyone becomes infertile at the age of 30.)

We're not imagining it when we notice how youthful people look now as compared to the past, even the pretty recent past: it's because the same mechanism that is responsible for burning off food, is also responsible for controlling the rate at which we age - metabolism.

So, if you have a slow metabolism - yes, you will gain weight more easily - but you'll also look younger.

This is why the only known way for reliably extending an organism's life is to put it on a low calorie diet, because restricting calories causes the body to react by slowing the metabolism (which is exactly why low-calorie diets tend to fail in the long-term as a weight control measure), and a slower metabolism means a slower rate of ageing which means a longer life.

Now, this of course begs the question - why would the evil overlords who rule the world and are obsessed with depopulation, want to do anything that would extend anyone's life? In other words, if they have engineered a worldwide slowdown in metabolism (they have), isn't that a bit contradictory to their goals?

Well, no, in fact it is not: because a slower rate of ageing is only one effect of a slowed metabolism.

Here are some others:

*Weight gain

*Fatigue

*Hypothyroidism

*Depression

*Increased risk of chronic medical issues including cardiovascular disease

Conversely, a fast metabolism correlates with:

*Weight loss / stable weight

*More energy

*Better blood sugar control

*Happier mood

*Lower risk of chronic health conditions

So, knowing that the overlords want a scared, sick, docile population that is easy to control (including coaxing towards ending any "suffering" they may be experiencing through state-sanctioned suicide), which do you think they are more incentivised to create?

A society of high-metabolic, happy, energetic and healthy people... or a society of sick, miserable, slow-metabolic people (who, okay, look a bit younger)?

So that's why they've done it, and they must have done it through injection, because if it were certain foods slowing down people's metabolisms, simply removing that food from the diet would solve that problem.

But people all over the world with radically different diets are all affected by this epidemic of slowed metabolism, and to make something that chronic and that widespread, then - just like all the other modern chronic and widespread conditions - it must have come through injection.

It's great for many industries that food keeps being blamed for spiralling obesity and diabetes rates; it's great for Big Veganism (give up animal foods and get thin!), for Big Keto (give up carbs and get thin!), for Big Exercise (give up enjoying your evenings and spend them all at the gym! And yes you do need to invest in that personal trainer too) - and most of all, of course, it's great for the vaccine industry that is actually causing people to be so intolerant to foods their immediate ancestors could consume with no problems.

We can all look at our elderly relatives and see their diets are typically horrendous. My 91-year-old grandmother, for instance, lives on ready meals and ice cream (she has so much of it in her freezer, she has had to be cautioned by her children not to buy any more as it won't fit...), has a particular antipathy towards anything that might resemble a vegetable, and has quite the penchant for Baileys (she had two large ones the last time we went out to lunch - and why not indeed!).

If your average 40-something ate like she does, they would be obese and diabetic. Yet she is neither of these things: in fact, with the exception of some short-term memory loss, she is in excellent health.

Yes, that's "anecdotal" but these "anecdotes" proliferate up and down the country (and the plural of anecdotes is...).

So while we're pointing at fat, diabetic younger people and saying, "it's the sugar! It's the fat! It's the seed oils!", we are conveniently not looking at the older generation who eat all these things too and don't have anywhere near the levels of chronic lifelong health problems younger people now seem to.

Our metabolisms have been poisoned to make us intolerant to a wide range of previously normal (if not optimally healthy) foods... just as my ears were poisoned in the Birmingham Bull Ring Centre and now I can't wear normal belts (or, I assume, denim tops with dungaree straps, although admittedly I haven't tried for a while).

And, just as the solution to my nickel-allergy is not to ban all nickel-containing items (although of course this alleviates the symptoms), the solution to the worldwide Western epidemic of chronic health issues - including obesity and diabetes - is not for the Trump administration to ban certain foods.

Now, I've always said I don't trust Trump and that he's an obvious actor and fraud, and at this point most thinking people agree with that: but there's a much wider range of opinion regarding "our Bobby", with very many people seeing him as a true health champion and saviour.

And listen, I really hope those people are right. Of course I do. I've had some contact with Mr. Kennedy myself, when he published one of my letters in an article of his. Seemed like a nice guy (he called me "the best", an endorsement of which I was very proud, at the time).

But watching his behaviour since, I'm afraid I simply no longer trust him. I laid out some of my reservations here and here, and more recently, I have become increasingly concerned that, as and when he is given a place in Trump's administration, and they continue their crusade to "Make America Healthy Again", they are going to completely shift the focus away from vaccines and onto food. Look carefully, and you can already see the emphasis shifting in Bobby's Tweets, with less and less mention of injection and more and more of what people are eating.

Now, while of course it would be better that people made healthy food choices generally speaking, the fact that they often don't simply does not account for the explosion in poor health we are currently seeing. As Sasha Latypova says:

"There are of course environmental pollutants and bad food ingredients. However, the human body is designed to withstand toxins in the environment and food by orders of magnitude greater degree than injection of even benign proteins. That's why the cabal is hellbent on forcing injections. Otherwise they wouldn't bother and just spray/poison through food in certain areas, and it would be much easier. That's why focus on poisoning from vaccines is crucial. That's why all the wall to wall coverage of "toxic food" is a distraction, on purpose from what really poisons people."

So there you have it: the focus on food is the ultimate limited hangout and gatekeeping, meaning anyone who relentlessly tries to shift the focus towards what we are eating and away from what we are injecting, is not to be trusted.

And of course, it goes without saying, that you should also never trust any 12-year-old with older friends if they tell you they're going out for the day to "just get clip-ons"...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.