How did this 12-year-old boy know the truth…73 years BEFORE it was “discovered”?
ALARMING: 50% Increase in Miscarriages & Infertility Since the “Roll-Out”
OB-Gyn Kimberly Biss, MD, says they are seeing about a 50% rise in infertility and miscarriages & about a 25% increase in abnormal Pap smears and irregular cervical malignancies since the roll-out.
As Billy Meier, age 12, wrote in…1949:
“The whole thing will not be changed by the fact that here and there women may experience difficulties in childbearing as a result of the vaccination against the crown virus, perhaps even becoming infertile or also having to reckon with annoying cycle disturbances.”
How did this 12-year-old boy know the truth…73 years BEFORE it was “discovered”?
Another confirmation of Billy Meier’s error-free, prophetically accurate scientific information for those who can…think for themselves.
Hopefully, that includes you.
There has been a 1% increase in infertility each year world wide since WW2. It may be that the world eco systems natural health protection of the planet has prevented greater child rearing? The decrease has happened in both men and woman for the past fifty years at least. No sure why maybe because of the addition of petro chemicals that has continued to increase since the 1950 time period. Sorry I can’t remember the source but it may be the world health association?
Nature does fight back using infertility, but in the case of human beings, it’s not enough that it would bring the whole overpopulation catastrophe back to a normal number of births.
From Contact 448:
Billy:
Now a question in regard to overpopulation: in the animal world it is true that when overpopulation comes about this is reduced again in a natural way, on one hand as a result of a mass dieing off, but on the other hand also because infertility occurs for a certain time, whereby no more descendants can be produced.
Now, how does it go with humans – do the same factors emerge or is the problem only to be solved by humans just in regard to a strict regulation of births, as we publicize?
In my opinion it is to assume that the humans, in their high-handedness, can only be brought to reason through a corresponding law of strict birth regulation because, in their delusion, they simply want to have many descendants and think that they have a right to do so.
Indeed, many humans die as a result of plagues which indeed also do not otherwise emerge, as well as, however, through wars and other acts of murder, but that does not effect overpopulation in such a way that it would be reduced.
Should intervention occur, through the laws of nature, which leads to the decimation of the overpopulation, as for example, even through mass deaths as a result of plagues, or through the man and woman becoming infertile, then the humans are so crazy in their delusion that, when many humans die, they produce just as many descendents.
And when men and women of the human species become infertile, then they fall into the irresponsible delusion that they must produce descendants through artificial begetting.
I see the whole matter in this way.
Ptaah:
Whereby you see the whole problem correctly.
Actually, nature already defends itself against human overpopulation on the Earth, and indeed, in that the human, that is to say, the female and male gender, become ever more infertile, which as you correctly say, is also the case in the animal world when overpopulation occurs.
With the female sex in the so-called civilised world – as we have established – appearances of infertility already show themselves in every fifth woman, whereby, however, also the male sex in this regard is effected, whose begetting capability decreases in strong measure.
Yet attempts are irrationally and irresponsibly made to reconcile this problem in the way that you have explained, in that, namely, artificial insemination is turned to.
Thereby, however, the natural reduction of overpopulation is irresponsibly worked against, whereby all imaginable problems of humanity incessantly increase.
Also, through the plagues and the mass deaths which result from them, overpopulation can no longer be brought back into normal limits, consequently still worse plagues emerge and have to spread out as pandemics if the Earth-humans do not listen to our advice and do not grasp legal measures in order to radically throttle and minimise the number of births.
Billy:
The future of terrestrial humanity requires great, courageous and progressive ideas, thoughts and deeds.
But also clarifications are necessary: clarification must be battled for constantly and repeatedly and indeed in regard to overpopulation as well as in regard to religions.
Especially Catholic Christianity must be pilloried because no other religion demands and promotes overpopulation as vehemently as it does with the dim-witted saying, “Go forth and multiply.”
Time after time, I keep arriving at the same conclusion, especially in relation to the prophecies, predictions & dire warnings Eduard and the Plejaren have relayed.
I can only imagine what Eduard and the Plejaren think and feel when the prophecies become predictions. No wonder it’ll take around 800 years before we humans become logical, practical and come to our senses; that is, if we still have a planet capable of sustaining life.
My aforementioned conclusion is this. These absolutely have to be the times when being right sucks.
Salome,
Charles
Marvin vs Virology:
NOTE: We have asked you repeatedly to refrain from such speculative, unproven and conspiratorial claims. We will no longer waste time denying that the virus exists. This type of information would be better suited for conspiracy sites. Thanks (MO)
How do we know that this prediction was made 73 years ago? I agree that it is highly probable but when we assert something as a confirmation that we can’t prove, i.e., Nicki Minaj was talking about a month before the 1949 info was publicly available, I’m wondering if I missed a meeting where we decided people should just start taking our word for things, as that way lies religion.
People have to think, and determine the truth, for themselves, which also means they can and should consider all available information.
In the case of the Meier material, we have literally hundreds of confirmed examples of Meier’s prophetically accurate information.
So far, we have…ZERO examples of hoaxed, backdated, false information.
By any reasonable standards, Meier is…trustworthy. We still don’t have to believe it, though we can say we accept and trust that it was published when claimed.
Can we make a case against it? What happens if we find more such, previously unnoticed or uncorroborated but accurate information?
See today’s blog as well.
I’m aware that the term “trust” was once offered by someone on the forum as a way for FIGU supporting people to describe support of Billy’s veracity when we couldn’t prove or know something to be 100% true in the case, but this was only someone’s suggestion and wasn’t meant to become part of the lexicon in my opinion. I prefer terms like, “highly probable”, “good chance”, “likely” than a term like, “trust” as “trust” is a prominent word used throughout religion. There’s even a famous hymn called, “Trust and Obey (for there’s no other way, to be happy in Jesus, than to trust and obey…”) and the definition of “trust” includes a no-no in my book: “Belief”:
trustnoun
My choice is to only use words like “know” with others when I can refer to prophetic/predictive corroborations that I really do know I can prove 100% “in a court of law” and there are many examples of that as you say, but I think the import of those, in my opinion, can be watered down in an enthusiasm to prove the case for thr “you’ll do’s” as every single person must earn the knowing of truth and make a concerted effort to research and study things and especially this case when making comments about it and in a sure-footed way that something being “highly likely” is everything and worth supporting publicly, even if privately we reserve the right to know, based on a hard-won overview, that reward of doing so includes things like saving one’s own life or the life of another, etc., something that doesn’t require fuel but burns itself from within itself, or a wellspring for the thirsty. Just my opinion anyway.
Hi Matt,
I do understand the problem with the word trust, applicable as it may be.
However, I htink that Robert Joyner probably put it in better terms (https://theyflyblog.com/2017/08/billy-meier-beyond-reasonable-doubt/):
“…the Meier case passes the preponderance of the evidence overwhelmingly…Not only does the information along with the evidence pass scrutiny of the preponderance but borders beyond a reasonable doubt. At any rate, the totality of the circumstances is certainly compelling.”
There is this definition:
“preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.”
And of course the last sentence speaks about “the more convincing evidence” and not the “amount”, both of which Meier has.
Point 1 can be replaced with:
a knowing acquired through knowledge and wisdom
Just like humans languages evolve and change over time because people develop new understanding of the world around them.
With time, we will change our language to German because we will find it more accurate and more efficient. Until then, the peace meditation is the best alternative as English is a loud and aggressive language, in my humble opinion.
Hi MH, the preponderance doesn’t always inform specifics when tose are being looked at or dealt with separately in isolation, such as a cloud in the sky being white, grey or whatever colour when the sky is described as blue which doesn’t mean clouds are then blue, etc.
Hey Brigitte. Is redefining the word ‘belief’ a good idea? What meaning would the various mentions and versions of it in Billy’s info have anymore if such a terrible thing was done, e.g., when it is used to describe religion and delusion and dogma, etc?
The word ‘belief’ or ‘believe’ comes from the Proto-Germanic *laubô (as in the German Glaube) and was “lēafa” in old English and “gloube” in Middle High German and we need to ensure that the root word and its meaning are preserved. The development of words and descriptions is representative of an evolution. From the FIGU dictionary:
Glauben schenken give belief to,
Glaubensdünkel belief-conceit
Glaubensfaktor belief-factor – time-…
Glaubensform belief-form
Glaubensgebäude belief-edifice
Glaubensgehorsam belief-obedience
Glaubensirrgarten garden of the irrational…
Glaubenskult an belief-cults of
Glaubenslehre teaching of belief
glaubensmässig belief-based
Glaubenssatz dogma
Glaubenssumpf belief-swamp
Glaubensvorstellung belief-imagination
Glaubenswahn belief-delusion
English is a BS language as you say but it’s the only one I’m working with and there’s a whole process to get the definition of a word changed and rightly so due to the whole history around that. etc.