The UN’s latest attack on economic growth comes wrapped in moral language. Its global initiatives are marketed as justice through economic restraint, while its advocates promise less poverty, greater equality and a safer climate.

In reality, their policies would deliver less production, less investment and fewer opportunities. That is managed decline, not prosperity. It will make all societies poorer, Vance Ginn warns.

The Poverty of the UN’s Degrowth Agenda

By Vance Ginn, as published by The Daily Economy on 26 June 2026

The latest attack on economic growth comes wrapped in moral language. Its advocates promise less poverty, greater equality and a safer climate. Their policies would deliver less production, less investment and fewer opportunities. That is managed decline, not prosperity.

The UN-backed ‘Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth’ proposes 80 policies meant to reduce society’s dependence on growth. A separate ‘Global Justice Report’, led by Thomas Piketty and researchers at the World Inequality Lab, puts numbers behind this vision.

The reports differ, but they share the same central mistake. They treat growth as an obstacle to justice rather than the force that has lifted billions of people.

What Degrowth Would Mean

The Piketty-led model would push rich countries toward output of roughly €60,000 per person, or about $69,000, by 2100. It would hold annual per-person growth in wealthy regions near zero. That figure requires context.

US GDP per capita was about $89,962 in 2025. The proposed level is about $21,000 lower, or roughly 23 per cent below current American output per person. GDP per capita is not the same as a worker’s salary. It measures the total value produced in the economy divided by the population. For another comparison, personal income per capita was running near $77,800 in early 2026.

Not content to slow some distant, future excess, the plan envisions an America that produces less than we do today. The model would also cut annual work hours by more than half, shifting labour away from construction and manufacturing. As Veronique de Rugy notes, “a comprehensive programme for global managed decline … making everyone poorer” isn’t just a likely forecast – it’s the plan’s whole design.

But building fewer homes will not solve a housing shortage. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Restricting work will not help families trying to move ahead.

Growth Is Human Progress

Economic growth is not just a line on a government chart. It is the process through which people create more value from limited resources. That process gives us better medicine. It makes food easier to afford. It allows workers to earn more while spending fewer hours producing the same goods.

Productivity is the engine of rising living standards. When a worker produces more value per hour, wages and leisure can rise together. Degrowth reverses this process, reducing production and hoping people will enjoy the loss. 

Emile Phaneuf and Christopher Lingle put the stakes plainly in ‘Degrowth Kills People—Yes, Literally’. Wealthier societies are healthier, safer and better able to survive crises. Scarcity carries a human cost.

The Poverty Record Is Clear

The strongest argument against degrowth is what growth has already accomplished. Around 60 per cent of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1950. By 1990, the share was about 40 per cent. The World Bank now estimates that it fell to 10.4 per cent in 2024 and could fall to 10 per cent in 2026.

The number of people in extreme poverty also fell sharply, even as the world’s population grew. Under the World Bank’s updated $3-per-day standard, about 847 million people remained in extreme poverty in 2024. That is still far too many. But the direction matters.

Since 1990, roughly 1.5 billion people have escaped extreme poverty. Much of that progress occurred in Asia as countries expanded trade, welcomed investment and allowed more private enterprise. They did not become wealthier by closing factories.

The World Bank also finds that poverty reduction accelerated after 1990. The average decline doubled from about half a percentage point per year before 1990 to roughly one point annually afterwards. That is what economic liberalisation made possible.

Poverty Is Not Inequality

Degrowth advocates often move between poverty and inequality as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

A poor family does not gain because a wealthy family loses money. A worker is not better off because a factory closes and makes an inequality chart look more balanced. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Equality achieved by destroying wealth is shared deprivation.

As I have argued at American Institute for Economic Research (“AIER”), the better question is why government policy blocks people from earning, investing and moving upward. The goal should be to expand opportunity, not punish success. Growth does not guarantee that every outcome is equal. It does create more room for people to improve their lives. Stagnation makes mobility harder.

The Plan Undermines Itself

The Piketty proposal depends on a global fund financed by taxes on income and wealth. Yet it would weaken the economies expected to finance that fund. It also assumes poorer countries can keep growing while rich countries consume and invest less. That does not add up.

Developing countries need capital. They also need customers. If the United States and Europe stagnate, both will become scarcer. A development plan cannot succeed by weakening the world’s largest sources of investment and demand.

Degrowth also creates a political problem. Someone must decide how much people may work. Someone must choose which industries shrink and which goods are no longer produced. Those decisions will not remain inside an academic model.

Markets coordinate millions of choices through prices and voluntary exchange. No global commission has enough knowledge to replace that process. Managed scarcity eventually requires managed lives.

Prosperity Is the Better Path

Rejecting degrowth does not mean ignoring pollution or other real harms. Property rights matter. So does accountability. Innovation can reduce environmental damage without forcing society backwards.

As Joakim Book explained in his review of ‘The Capitalist Manifesto’, prosperous societies have more resources to adapt and invest in cleaner technology. Poor societies must focus on survival. The world’s poorest people do not need comfortable academics deciding they have reached “enough.” They need the freedom to work, save, invest and build.

Degrowth is a luxury belief because its advocates already enjoy the abundance they would restrict. Poverty cannot be overcome by rationing scarcity. It is overcome by economic freedom that lets people create abundance.

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/07/01/the-un-wants-to-impose-degrowth/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post The UN wants to impose degrowth on the world; it will make everyone poorer by design appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

A Japanese study found that repeated covid mRNA vaccinations are associated with poorer overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer.  The pre-print study was published on 15 April.

The following day, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) finalised a draft for an international pandemic agreement, which includes promoting the sharing of mRNA vaccines.  The draft is set to be adopted by “representatives” from WHO member countries at the World Health Assembly next month.

In what should be a shocking move but is no longer, WHO is pushing forward with its agenda despite the ever-growing evidence of serious adverse effects and higher death rates following mRNA vaccination.

Landmark Study Finds Repeated mRNA Vaccination Increases Vulnerability to Cancer Progression

By Dr. Guy Hatchard, 19 April 2025

This article goes deeply into the principles of the laws of nature governing life everywhere, it presents fundamental problems outlined in recently published scientific papers and then suggests the solution.

Fortunately, some responsible scientists around the world are continuing to investigate the fallout from the global mRNA covid-19 vaccination programme which delivered 13 billion doses in total.

Japanese scientists have completed a study of the effect of covid-19 vaccination on Pancreatic Cancer (“PC”) patients in their hospital system entitled ‘Repeated Covid-19 Vaccination as a Poor Prognostic Factor in Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study’. The study is having a global impact; within a day of its publication, it has already been downloaded 4,000 times.

The study begins with the obligatory homage to mRNA technology damning it with faint praise as “a significant technological advance,” which is a misrepresentation still necessary to ensure the paper’s acceptance for publication (yes, journals are still clinging on to the fantasy).

It then plunges into the detailed story of cancer vulnerability. It examined the impact of covid-19 vaccinations on the survival of 272 PC patients in their hospital admitted between January 2018 and November 2023.

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive cancer with a low survival rate (about 10-12% after 5 years). It is often detected at a late stage when it is already invading nearby structures, eventually metastasising to other parts of the body. The Japanese study found that repeated covid-19 booster vaccinations are associated with poorer overall survival in patients with PC.

Patient outcomes had improved each year by 2020; however, it began to deteriorate in 2021 and outcomes in 2022-2023 were significantly worse than those in 2018-2021.

Abue, M.; Mochizuki, M.; Shibuya-Takahashi, R.; Ota, K.; Wakui, Y.; Iwai, W.; Kusaka, J.; Saito, M.; Suzuki, S.; Sato, I.; Tamai, K. Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination as a Poor Prognostic Factor in Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study. Preprints 2025, 2025041167. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202504.1167.v1

The authors investigated a possible mechanism and concluded as follows (emphasis added):

Notably, our analysis reveals that high levels of IgG4 [an immune suppressant we have discussed in many previous reports including our ‘Open Letter to Medical Professionals and Life Scientists’] induced by vaccination, correlate with a detrimental prognosis in these patients.  These insights provide essential information regarding the interplay between vaccination and cancer progression, which has significant implications for patient management strategies. Our study highlights the necessity for ongoing research into the long-term effects of mRNA vaccinations on cancer prognosis, which remains a pressing concern in the evolving landscape of public health and cancer treatment.

Abue, M.; Mochizuki, M.; Shibuya-Takahashi, R.; Ota, K.; Wakui, Y.; Iwai, W.; Kusaka, J.; Saito, M.; Suzuki, S.; Sato, I.; Tamai, K. Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination as a Poor Prognostic Factor in Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study. Preprints 2025, 2025041167. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202504.1167.v1

The complex statistical analysis involved detailed consideration and matching into groups for age, sex, comorbidities, treatment history, vaccination history, etc. Overall, those covid-19 vaccinated twice had a longer survival than those vaccinated three times (p=0.006). Microbiological testing found a reduced immune response in the three-times-vaccinated group compared to the twice-vaccinated group. The study did not examine outcomes for other cancer types. I leave this omission for your reflection.

The enduring mystery is why our health system is still recommending and encouraging mRNA covid-19 vaccination. The release of this study follows on from the release of dozens of others we have reported (see HERE for example), documenting serious adverse effects and higher death rates following mRNA vaccination. Yet on the same day as the study release, 16 April, the World Health Organisation announced a legally binding agreement among its members (including New Zealand) on how to respond to future pandemics. Central to this agreement, which is set to be ratified in May, is the “sharing” of drugs and vaccines between rich and poor nations. A better word than sharing might be “proliferation.”

The Nature Of Life is to Grow

How can it be that the world’s so-called medical experts have got it so wrong that they are still promoting a vaccination method which itself promotes cancer progression? The answer lies in a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of life. The discovery of DNA in 1953 has established a myth that the key to life has been discovered and nothing much more needs to be said about life’s abstract basis. This has shifted the focus of medical research onto a programme of editing DNA and then measuring what happens. An essentially destructive approach to life.

The deeper import of the discovery of DNA has somehow escaped the field of biotechnology. DNA is the physiological mechanism by which life perpetuates itself. Simply put: the nature of life is to grow.  Any process of editing DNA is going to try to perpetuate itself – almost the definition of cancer.

The immune system is dedicated to defending the unique characteristics of an individual’s DNA. It corrects accidental mutations trillions of times over every 24-hour period. Given this situation, those researching DNA set themselves to solve the ‘problem (???) of how to defend their edits from being rejected by the immune system. In other words, how to give their edited version of DNA a chance to grow. To do so, they have experimented with means to evade or shut down natural immune responses (see HERE for more discussion). Again, we arrive at the door of cancer.

A study published in the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience entitled ‘Expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cerebral Arteries: Implications for haemorrhagic stroke post-mRNA vaccination’ confirms just how successful they have been in perpetuating their rogue genetic edits.

This study found the presence of covid-19 spike protein in the cerebral arteries of almost half of female stroke victims up to 17 months post-vaccination. This was accompanied by evidence of inflammatory cell infiltration. This finding reinforces the results of other studies which have located persistent spike protein in different areas of the physiology. The implication is clear: covid-19 vaccine genetic sequences appear to effectively interfere with the long-term genetic functioning of recipients. This is not a desirable or tolerable outcome.

Our cellular genetic system is remarkable. Every cell contains the whole genome, so the whole is contained in every part. Yet the whole is more than the sum of the parts. These principles of Science of Creative Intelligence (“SCI”) do not just apply to a single organism; each species has cellular DNA at its basis. Together, the world of millions of types of organisms forms a WHOLE network.

There is a constant mutual exchange of influence, information and nourishment going on in this vast network, all based on the structural yet also dynamic intelligence contained in cellular genetics. Order is present everywhere in the system. It is not random. The whole system is grounded in the underlying laws of nature investigated by physics, but crucially, it is also an expression of the supreme intelligence personified in consciousness. Thus, life is built up in layers on the ground of consciousness. The outer depends on the inner.

The important thing to appreciate here is the wholesale assault on the order of the laws of nature that is currently taking place. As we have reported, the genetic engineering of our food sources (grains and vegetables), food processing (using genetically modified microorganisms), organisms (animals and insects), medical interventions and cosmetics is undermining the holistic order in nature and in our lives. All of these modified elements are, according to the nature of genetic systems, vying with one another to survive, grow and take over existing natural processes. They are doing so, not holistically based on millions of years of mutually beneficial evolution, but incoherently and destructively based on millions of man-made and computer-generated DNA edits. This all points in one direction: genetic experimentation needs to stop. It has become a cancer that is rapidly growing throughout society and in the lives of people.

Very early on in the pandemic, eminent scientists like Robert Malone warned about this obvious possibility or rather inevitability, but their warnings went unheeded. Worse, efforts were made to undermine their credibility and cancel their public platform. By this time, vast pandemic profits were in prospect. Money and influence were expended to ensure these were realised. Now the WHO agreement wants to set this prospect in concrete. It needs to be opposed. Fortunately, the US has withdrawn its funding from WHO, an example New Zealand needs to study very carefully. Our science policy needs to take account of scientific findings rather than ignore them.

So Why Aren’t Studies Like Those Cited Above Raising Alarm Bells in the Media?

This year’s AUT (Auckland University of Technology) annual ‘Trust in Media Survey’ found that only 32% of Kiwis trust the media most of the time, down from 53% in early 2020.

Dr. Merja Myllylahti, co-director of the AUT Research Centre for Journalism, Media, and Democracy (“JMAD”), was interviewed this week by Jack Tame of TVNZ. She said criticism of media coverage during the pandemic was unfair because the media was not singing the government’s messaging (???). Myllylahti believes that media organisations are now doing a more transparent job of explaining what they are doing and correcting their mistakes(???).

This lack of self-reflection was extraordinary and confronting. In a totally confusing interview, Myllylahti described open media debate in the US as chaos. Whereas we know that open-access platforms like Substack and X are actually the information transfer and debating forums that have enabled us to share the results of scientific investigation that governments and vested interests have tried to hide from the public.

Incredibly, Myllylahti said she has no idea why Kiwis don’t trust the media (LOL). Even denying there is any such thing as objectivity – almost a rejection of truth and a licence to ignore scientific findings. None of this was called out by Jack Tame who seemed oblivious to what was staring him in the face.

A Test of Truth Needs Three Elements:

• Personal experience – what happens to people.
• Scientific investigation – using logic and experimentation.
• Traditional use – does it last in time?

Initially, government advisors uncritically accepted the advice from the pharmaceutical and biotech industry that mass vaccination would be safe and effective. Then they made a fatal error; they deliberately ignored or discounted the millions of reports of adverse effects. This meant they had rejected one of the foundational principles of knowledge – personal experience. Nor had long-term safety been established, especially as gene therapy was known to have long-term consequences. This was glossed over. Again, with fatal consequences which are still unfolding.

Pandemic policy didn’t have the required breadth of evidence to pass as knowledge. We were told to trust the science, but it wasn’t science that was being offered to us. Pandemic policy became an exercise in ideology, authority, publicity and profit to the detriment of public health. It still is. It is critical going forward to continue to question the faulty policies that WHO, governments, medical authorities, the media and others with vested interests are promoting. This is why the Hatchard Report has a policy of referencing published science, analysing logic and referencing traditional knowledge. We are in a fight for survival, we need to speak up.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/04/23/mrna-injections-and-poorer-patient-outcomes/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Japanese study shows mRNA injections are associated with poorer outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.