I'm far from the only one who's noticed a significant worsening of the health of younger people over the last few decades. Vaccines are one of the prime suspects, and there is evidence supporting that,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050312120925344
https://archive.is/PwUrN
https://informedconsentdefense.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/garner-full-report-updated.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33266457/

Other environmental factors have changed in that time as well, such as the sharp increase in exposure to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and the dramatic increase in glyphosate usage since GMO roundup ready crops were created in the 90s. Everybody has been exposed to these changes, but these sorts of exposures tend to affect the young and even those in the womb to a greater extent than adults.

Believers in the narrative tend to deny the health crisis we're facing entirely and say it's all because we're just noticing these issues more, "greater awareness" as they say. This fits nicely into the narrative of Progress but doesn't fit the observations of myself or plenty of others who've been paying attention enough to see that the health crisis is real and only getting worse.

---
I know this may seem at first like it has nothing to do with the Covid-19 fiasco, but I promise I will make the connection to the topic.

I think that there's a very strong case to be made that the rise in school shootings in the 1990s, culminating in Columbine in 1999, and the rise in mass shootings slightly later, are the result of SSRIs (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). Violence and self harm are both known side effects of SSRI usage and withdrawal, and although as far as I can tell, no studies have been done to look at this with SSRIs, neurological and thus psychological consequences of drug use tends to be both more substantial and longer lasting if the drugs are used at earlier ages.

The first SSRI, Prozac, hit the market in 1986 (which, in an odd synchronicity given what comes next, was the same year the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed), followed shortly by a number of others. Interestingly, this is just before the number of school shootings started its rise, and a few years before the number of shootings in general started to increase. Given that a surprisingly large number of shootings since then, compared to the historical norm, involve people who appear to be lone wolfs, acting alone and with a degree of disregard for their own safety, the hypothesis that this relates to the known side effects of SSRI, namely increased violence and increased recklessness/suicidal tendencies, seems to fit all the data.

This would also explain a somewhat odd law in the US: HIPAA, passed in 1996. While much of it relates to patient privacy, and seems good on the surface, it had a "side effect" of making population studies effectively impossible, and making studies which could reveal a link between SSRIs and mass shootings impossible by forbidding anyone with the knowledge on whether any given individual was on it from coming forward with the data needed to conduct those studies. This is at the same time as laws protecting consumer data were being dismantled in other areas to feed the nascent Internet's need for data, which suggests something very strange was happening with regards to health data.

This is particularly strange because around the same time as HIPAA was passed in the US, similar laws appears in plenty of other countries, which usually means there's a reason someone powerful wants the laws passed, and the fact it was not limited to one country suggests there's something with global implications, not merely limited to domestic American politics.

If the pharmaceutical companies knew studies on mass shootings would show a link to their new drugs, they'd want to make sure to avoid anyone else looking, and laws that made it impossible would be very appealing to them. This had a somewhat odd side effect, however, which was that it made research that could reveal population level effects, or even just follow up on weird claims the pharmaceutical companies were making, vastly more difficult to do across the board.

The explosive rise in pharmaceuticals brought to market starting out in the second half of the 1990s, and continuing since then, is therefore because they know that the studies which could show their drugs to be dangerous cannot be done, even if the drugs are dangerous. Meanwhile, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act means that they have a perfect moneymaker: even if someone does find a link, the manufacturers have zero legal liability.

As time passed, the companies could, and did, get bolder and more ambitious with what they brought to market, and how they marketed it, knowing that the regulators could not push back very hard because governments were now implicated in a cover up of a link between mass shootings and SSRIs. As long as they didn't push the envelope too far too fast, they could continue to get away with slightly less testing, slightly less effectiveness, and slightly more side effects with each passing year. People grew less and less healthy, but governments could not admit to the cause, and so focused on anything else: tobacco, alcohol, anything other than admitting that it was increasingly poorly tested pharmaceuticals.

Things got worse with the vaccines than anywhere else, because the companies had zero liability, and the government, who's supposed to do the oversight (but couldn't do proper oversight without revealing the gap between what they should be doing and were doing), was on the hook for damages. The result was that while serious cases of fraud or incompetence got caught and exposed with other pharmaceuticals (ex: Vioxx), with vaccines everyone who could find any of the data needed to uncover anything had every incentive to hide even the most egregious harms from vaccines.

Given nearly everyone in the Western World receives a host of vaccines as children, this could explain why a lot of people I know have noticed something changed with people born after 2000 or so, with a lot of them seeming to have reduced cognitive capacity, decreased emotional control, a lack of motivation, and immaturity to them; a trend which has been noted by a lot of other people (the "iGen" phenomena). If a very large fraction of them, possibly a majority, have neurological damage from one or more of the vaccines injected, this would explain why it seems to be happening across the board, even in those families that eat well, don't use a lot of mass media, and take good care of their children's health overall.

This finally links to the ongoing fiasco: all the shrieking the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, no matter how egregious the harms and how obvious the lack of effectiveness, is a desperate effort on the part of the CDC, and FDA; their equivalents in other countries; and pharmaceutical companies, to maintain a cover up which has now lasted more than 30 years, and which implicates them in knowingly causing a massive amount of human misery over that time.

Any serious investigation into what happened during the Covid-19 fiasco would if the above is accurate, eventually, uncover plenty of other harms caused by tons of other drugs, possibly including harm to practically everyone born after 2000 or so with some of the vaccine brought to market since HIPAA was passed. Such an investigation would also reveal government complicity in it, and could easily topple the entire political and cultural order in the Western World.