Ætherna

Bulletin Board

BookRetreats
Home >> Feed aggregator >> Sources >> Collective Evolution

Collective Evolution

Conscious Media
Subscribe to Collective Evolution feed

Because Politifact is in partnership with Facebook as a so-called “non-partisan,” 3rd party, fact-checker, they flagged our (Greenmedinfo) page as promoting “false news” and informed us, on April 22nd, that “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Since then, our page no longer comes up when you search for pages with the keyword “GreenMedInfo,” and we have noticed a steep decline in our reach which on an average week would exceed 1 million.

Due to our long held commitment to publishing truthful, evidence-based information on the underreported, unintended adverse effects of conventional medical interventions like vaccination, we have been subject to a wide range of attempts to discredit, defame, and censor us, over the years. For instance, all the way back in 2013, UNICEF published a report titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,” where GreenMedInfo.com, along with other prominent natural health websites, was cited as spreading vaccine “misinformation,” despite the fact that we simply aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine

Lately, the censorship has been scaling up to disturbing levels. In December of last year, Pinterest deleted our account for posting information questioning vaccine safety and promoting research on evidence-based natural medicine. Ironically, they claimed we were endangering the health of their users by posting alternative information, even though Pinterest regularly allows minors to access pornographic and violent contentboth of which have well-established significant deleterious psycho-emotional and physical effects in adults, much less children.

So, how does Facebook determine who is of suitable integrity and impartiality to become a 3rd party fact-checker?

They use certification provided by the “non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false news.” Guess who created the organization that calls itself the International Fact-Checking Network? Poynter.  Check it out yourself here: https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/

Yes, you read that correctly. Poynter, the owner of Politifact — the presumably impartial brand and judge of what is “false” or “true” news — certified itself as trustworthy and impartial.

It does not reflect well on Facebook that it allowed Poynter to certify itself as worthy to police the world’s news feeds in order to mete out algorithmic punishment to those whose views it does not agree with. Thanks to a Veritas exposé, we know how Facebook’s censorship strategy of”boiling works behind the scenes: 

How this machiavellian scheme has gone virtually unnoticed until now is hard to understand. But we hope that our example will help others understand the shadowy agendas at play between Poynter, Politifact, Facebook, and which are hidden in broad daylight for everyone to see.

But the red flags, and organizations involved, don’t stop there. Poytner’s fact-checking operation was funded by a $380,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — an organization notoriously dismissive of the downside of mass vaccination programs, which includes injuries and deaths the government has paid over $4 billion dollars in compensation towards through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund inaugurated by an act of Congress in 1986.

But are they correct about the meme we posted? Is it really “fake news”?

 

And does a mere posting of a meme, whose authorship is unknown but certainly was not produced by GreenMedInfo or its contributors, justify reducing the reach of our entire page, which over 525,000 people around the world have voluntarily and organically opted into receiving information from over the past decade?

Embarrassing as it is for the Politifact editorial team, whose entire premise is that they can be trusted to be fact-based, they didn’t report on our name correctly, calling us Greeninfo.com:

“Now, another anti-vaccine claim has surfaced on Facebook on a page called Greeninfo.com, which describes itself as an “alternative and holistic health service.”

They condemned the post as follows:

The post reads:

“Think combined doses of vaccines have been tested? They haven’t. Not once. EVER. Our children deserve better.”

The post, which provides no details or evidence, has been shared over 600 times since April 15 and was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Let’s cut to the chase:

The claim is false – all vaccines are tested for years before and after being made available to the public, including “combined doses.”

How did they prove this statement?

They reached out to a single individual, Daniel Salmon, who is the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who presumably can verify by his word alone the veracity of the claim. He simply countered in email: “This is not a true statement,” and pointed to a December 2008 documentfrom the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document nowhere references the existence of a true placebo-controlled vaccine safety study, where saline instead of another adjuvanted vaccine was used; nor does the document discuss the fact that the present-day vaccination schedule involves giving dozens of vaccine antigens to children by age 6, where none of the vaccines have been studied together for safety; much less in juxtaposition to a control group who received a true placebo (saline).

This glaring problem is discussed among mainstream medical sites and authorities as well. For instance, MEDPAGE TODAY’s KevinMD.com has an article written by Chad Hayes, MD, titled “The vaccine study you’ll never see,” wherein he admits:

“No, we don’t have a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing our vaccine schedule to placebo.”

Wouldn’t MEDPAGE and KevinMD also be labeled as false news according to the standard applied to our page, for again, simply reposting a meme?

When it comes to the CDC, presumably a trustworthy source because it is believed to be “evidence-based,” their page on Vaccine Safety Concerns for Multiple Vaccines provides little assurance because their statements have no scientific citations. This is a classical example of the CDC’s cult of authority, where they use “science by proclamation” or “eminence-based medicine” to promote their agenda, instead of referencing actual research like we do at GreenMedInfo.com:

Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.

Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually.  Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.

Disturbingly, the CDC acknowledges on the same page as the excerpt above:

“A child who receives all the recommended vaccines in the 2018 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2.”

This reminds us of the absurdly irresponsible statement of Dr. Paul Offit, who while admitting that vaccination is a violent act, considers it safe for an infant to receive 10,000 vaccines at once (revised from a previous statement where he said an infant could receive 100,000 vaccines at one time). Offit’s faith in the safety of vaccines represents a deep conflict of interest, considering he is the patent holder for a highly profitable rotavirus vaccine which has profound safety issues, in that it has potentially infected millions of children with serreptitious, disease-producing retroviruses.

The reality is that no study has ever been performed on the interaction and potential synergistic toxicity of the admnistration of 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2. This was conclusively affirmed by a presentation given by Del Bigtree, where at minute 58:40 he references a 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the safety of the entire immunization schedule, citing the following passage:

“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes … between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children … [Furthermore,] studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

Many other key safety concerns with vaccines emerged from that report, with a series of them summarized by NVIC here:

  • “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
  • “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
  • “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
  • “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
  • “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
  • “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
  • “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
  • “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional 2 subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
  • “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
  • “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
  • “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
  • “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee.
  • “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee; 3
  • “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
  • “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
  • “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
  • “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
  • “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
  • “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for 4 which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)

Given the IOM report’s findings that there has not been a single study conducted to prove the safety of the entire schedulethe meme we posted stands as factually true, and those who have used it as a justification for censorsing and defaming us are clearly acting from political motivations reflective of the interests of their primary funders, such as the Gates Foundation.

CALL TO ACTION 

It’s time to let us know you are listening, and reading this article. Our social media footprint has undergone massive censorship, and as we hope you have seen, this expose’ explains what’s behind it. Please share/like/comment on this article to help us compensate for what may be our soon-to-be exit from social media in general. Deplatforming is happening to the best of us. But there is a solution. Make sure you are signed up to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/2kjN4HH.

Support Independent Media – Join or Donate to GreenMedInfo

Join thousands of supporting newsletter fans who have become actively supporting members and take advantage of powerful features and upgraded content, including e-courses, e-books, and a research library of thousands of documents.

Learn More + Become A Member
or
Make A One Time Donation

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

Link to original article

We are having a Full Moon in Scorpio on May 18th which will fall on the 19th for those in the Eastern part of the world. The energies of it are strongest in the days before and after, however, it will still be a part of the backdrop over the following two weeks. This is the peak of the Lunar cycle which began on May 4th/5th with a New Moon in Taurus.

This is a ‘Seasonal Blue Moon’ which is when we have 4 Full Moons in one season (instead of 3), with the 3rd one being the Blue Moon. This is the original definition of a Blue Moon with the term first being coined by the Farmer’s Almanac over 100 years ago.

We have been in Taurus season since April 20th and this Full Moon occurs in the last 2.5 days of it before the Sun enters Gemini. Taurus is about practicality, thoroughness, food, beauty, and nature. It enjoys sensual pleasures and is a grounded energy. As a ‘Fixed Earth’ sign, it is like a rock, and is the most invested in the physical/material world in comparison to the rest of the signs. It can also be slow, rigid, and lazy.

This Full Moon is in its opposite sign of Scorpio, triggering a push-pull or integration effect between both of these signs. Scorpio is deep, complex, passionate, intuitive, driven, powerful, calculated, observant, primal, regenerating, transformational, mysterious, intense, desiring, and sexual. It is associated with fears, shadows, death, secrets, and the extremes of Love and Hate. Scorpio energy can also be controlling, obsessive, jealous, aggressive, vengeful, and manipulative.

Both signs are associated with money, resources, values, and worth; with Taurus’ expression of these things being more ‘self-oriented’ and Scorpio being more ‘relationship/shared oriented.’ Scorpio is associated with taxes, debt, credit, investments, inheritance, which all include more then one party to be involved. Both signs also share qualities of being loyal, stubborn, and possessive.

Full Moon Opposite Sun and Mercury Aligned With Algol

This Moon opposes Mercury hours prior to peak of it being Full. We may feel a conflict or a push-pull between our thoughts and feelings, or between our minds and intuition. This can can also manifest in our relations with others in which one person or party is perceiving things mentally and the other emotionally.

The potential intensity of the Scorpio moon can also reflect verbal conflicts with this configuration. Similarly, to the themes of Taurus-Scorpio opposition mentioned above, it’s wise to try to integrate or collaborate between these two sides of the mind and emotional instincts/needs.

The Sun and Mercury are close to the fixed star ‘Algol’ which has some similar themes as the sign of Scorpio such as passion and intensity. The most positive quality of Algol is that it is a highly creative star. It is also associated with rage, hysteria, and the expression of shadows. Throughout history there sometimes has been catastrophes and significant war related developments during major planetary alignments with Algol.

Mercury Superior Conjunction on May 21st

On May 21st Mercury makes its exact conjunction with Sun in what is called the ‘Superior Conjunction’. This is sort of like the peak of the Mercury cycle which has been building up since its last conjunction in March during the previous retrograde.

Mercury will be initiating its next phase in which it travels ahead of the Sun over the next month and a half. We are transitioning into a period where we can have greater clarity regarding certain issues that have been playing out or seeded since March.

In comparison to these last few months, our minds can be more aligned with our true needs and self-expression from May 21st onward. During this next phase, we can better implement our ideas and whatever we have been thinking about with greater confidence and direction. Some people may notice some significant developments during this day or the days surrounding it.

It is occurring right at the beginning of Gemini which could emphasize potential beginnings that it may bring to certain people. It may be connected to both Gemini and Pisces themes such as communication, writing, taking a multifaceted approach, learning, adaptability, creativity, spirituality, empathy, and compassion.

Mars in Cancer is Out Of Bounds, Sextile Uranus, and Square Chiron

Mars, the traditional ruler of Scorpio, has recently entered Cancer and will stay there until July 1st/2nd. Although this isn’t something that we may notice very strongly, Mars in Cancer (in comparison to other signs) can make our actions more fuelled by our emotions and sensitivity. We can be more protective, defensive, less directly assertive and more passive aggressive.

In late April, Mars went ‘Out of Bounds’. This is when a planet travels outside of the boundaries in which it usually orbits from our Earth based perspective. It will stay like that until mid-June. This energy is about doing things differently and taking an unusual approach outside of conventional norms. This is good for exploring new territory and tapping into originality.

Mars is moving towards a sextile with Uranus which is strongest from May 21st-23rd. Although this energy is short term, it has similarities to being ‘Out of Bounds’ and can trigger some of the themes mentioned above. This is great for trying new things. We may want to take an unconventional, innovative, liberating, or technological approach to something. It could be good for making positive changes and in some cases we may experience pleasant surprises.

Mars is also moving towards a square with Chiron which is strongest from May 22nd-24th and overlaps with the energy mentioned above. At best, this can be good for taking action towards healing and personal growth. It can support the Mars-Uranus and ‘Out of Bounds’ influence in helping us to do things in a different way. However, this energy can also trigger issues or wounds connected to anger, aggression, or sexuality.

Venus in Taurus Conjunct Uranus

Venus, the ruler of Taurus, recently entered its home sign of Taurus where it will stay until June 8th/9th. Just like Mars in Cancer, this isn’t something that we will notice strongly. Venus in Taurus (in comparison to other signs) can make us seek pleasure more so around stimulating the senses, material things, luxury, and food/substances. We may value quality and practicality more so than usual.

Venus makes an exact conjunction with Uranus hours before the Full Moon, however it may have even been a bit noticeable in the few days prior. This energy can be exciting, stimulating or surprising either socially or romantically or we may meet people who are interesting and unique.

We may be more drawn to, or participate in, unusual or fun experiences or do something that makes us feel free and liberated. We may want to make aesthetic changes to something and this can even be good for expressing creative energy in new ways.

There may be some surprising developments around money and resources which can be positive or negative. In some cases, there can also be a shift around certain values or how we value something. This energy can also reflect instability, disruption, rebellion, or a sudden change in our relations, financially, and can even happen in other ways not related to Venus.

Things To Consider At This Time

What are your feelings telling you at this time and do they conflict with your mind? How can you integrate deep or complex feelings with practical or rational consideration? Do you need to make any changes around values or finances? What are your true desires?

Do you need to take a different approach or shake things up in your social relationships or love life? Do you feel like you need to take a chance and apply yourself in a new or unconventional way? Is there anything that you can be doing that can potentially help you to feel more liberated? Does anything need to be purged or transformed?

These are just some examples of themes that could come up during this period; however, there may be other variations of this energy playing out as well.  If you wish to do any sort of intentional release connected to what has come up at this Full Moon, it is best to do so anytime over the two weeks following, when it is waning. The exact moment of this Full Moon is on the night of May 18th at 9:11pm Universal Time. You can click here to see what that is in your time zone.

Follow me on INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK, and YOUTUBE for more astrology related content.

Looking for astrological insight into what is going on in your life? Or perhaps looking to better understand your life and its potentials? Get a personalized astrology reading with Carmen (author of this article) specific to you based on your exact birth date, time, and location. Click here for more information or to order. 

This message goes out to those readers who have enjoyed one or more of the almost 200 articles I have written for Collective Evolution since April 2018, and more broadly to those who believe in CE’s mission and mandate to provide conscious fact-based  journalism: Now is the time for us to come together as a community.

It is a time when our ability to speak out against the fraud, corruption and manipulation of the social media giants and the powerful financial elite that support them is being severely impacted by these very forces. And unless those who believe in the value of our work and our mandate are willing to put a stake in the ground at this time and really support our efforts to overcome mainstream perception and its agenda to keep people distracted and asleep, our voices may be snuffed out.

The profound irony of the situation is not lost on me. Allow me to explain.

Facebook Reach

A basic explanation of how Facebook works and its impact on CE’s revenues is in order.

Up until a few years ago, the basic algorithm that Facebook used for delivering content into individuals’ daily news feeds was pretty simple: the more the individual actually clicks on the content provided by a source, the more consistently it would be delivered into their news feed. This algorithm was really in service of the people, give them more of what they are indicating that they want to see in their news feed.

Of course this was of great benefit to companies like CE, who were consistently creating content that people wanted to read. And so a few years ago it would not be unusual for a CE article to get over a million views, from some of the over five million people who had ‘liked’ the CE Facebook page that was launching the articles. This number of views in turn generated advertising revenue that more than supported CE’s operating expenses and initiatives that helped them really get their message out.

Fast forward to today, where the Facebook algorithm is increasingly being used as a tool to limit the distribution of content that mainstream forces do not want proliferating amongst an awakening population. New organizations are cropping up in cyberspace that purport to have the authority, knowledge, and discernment to label certain content as inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out ‘fake news’ that is somehow a threat to the public. What’s worse, these organizations and their findings actually have an impact on the reach that media companies like CE get for their articles.

Is this a violation of freedom of speech? Not exactly–it’s even trickier than that. It’s as if you are running a newspaper business, and they tell you that they will not prevent you from writing what you want. Your newspaper sells out daily at all the newsstands. Slowly, they start pressuring the newsstands not to put out all the newspapers you sent them. Then they start buying up all the newsstands, and the newsstands now tell you that they are not sure your content is suitable for their customers–even though they are selling out. Then the newsstands just stop buying and selling your newspapers, and you’re out of business–all because your content is not what the powerful new owners want the public to see.

The Latest Hit Job

Many examples could be given of how this plays out in our modern social media infrastructure that is so crucial in terms of the information the average person gets to see. Let’s examine the latest hit job on CE in detail to get a really clear picture of what is going on and the hypocrisy that is inherent in it.

In early March of this year I wrote an article entitled “Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone, Says Harvard Immunologist“. It was an article revealing that immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych has substantial scientific insights that lead her to believe that unvaccinated children pose no greater health risk than vaccinated children. I would defy anyone to examine this article and find any place in it where I am promoting ‘false news’ or authoring ‘misleading content.’

The article centers around a 2015 ‘Open Letter To Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation’ she wrote where she argues to legislators, some of whom are poised to remove vaccine exemptions from their districts, that “discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted.”

Does making a factual statement and providing the details that a person said something or did something constitute false news or misleading content? Of course not. Nowhere in the article do I personally state that unvaccinated children pose no risk to anyone. I may as an individual believe that this assertion is possible, but I do not promote it as established fact. That’s journalism.

However look at what the ‘fact-checking’ effort pictured above really is. This newly-formed online watchdog is taking a fully UNPROVEN ASSERTION, that ‘Choosing not to vaccinate increases risk of potentially serious illness to self and others,’ and utilizing it as ESTABLISHED FACT without providing evidence. It is this ‘fact-checking’ group that is promoting misleading content and doing what they are accusing us of doing. All that I am doing is sharing the opinion and actions of an Immunologist who would like healthy debate and dialogue to be going on, challenging assumptions that are passed off as fact and providing fact-based testimony to substantiate her opinion. And she does so in the interest of the health and well-being of our children.

But here’s the kicker in all this. How does this company afford to operate? Who butters their bread? As Joe Martino reveals in a rare rant below (not to be missed) they are funded by groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, probably the most powerful advocacy group for mass vaccination in the world, working in lock step with the pharmaceutical industry. Do we see perhaps a slight conflict of interests between a group supposedly going on the internet doing objective fact-checking of content, and a massive financial supporter that is deeply invested in the mass proliferation of vaccines across the globe?

They contributed a staggering $382,997 to these ‘fact-checkers’. Do you think that these fact-checkers are not fully compromised by the agenda of the rich and powerful? Can you imagine what CE would be able to accomplish with that kind of money?

Full Disclosure And Transparency

I would like to offer full transparency as to how this ‘strike’ against CE affects the company and impacts me personally.

When I started off with CE in April 2018, I was offered a 3-month contract that would pay me $3400/month, and I was grateful for it. Living in Toronto, this amount is considered just above a living wage. When my contract was over, and because dwindling advertising revenues due to Facebook algorithm changes had already negatively impacted CE, I was told that the company would love to retain me, but that at this time they could only afford to offer me $2040/month, allowing for reduced hours. This affected not only me, but all employees of the company.

I understood, and accepted it with gratitude. This has been the best company I’ve ever worked for. I love and respect Joe Martino as a man of great integrity, courage and wisdom, and I share this feeling with all the great people who work here. In fact I consider CE to be a model for how evolved companies should operate in the future. There is no hierarchy, we are all treated with great respect, our input is always welcomed, and self-responsibility is engendered in a way that makes each of us want to go above and beyond to make things work.

However, as Joe reveals in the video above, these strikes against CE (all of which have reeked of censorship and the growing establishment control over content) has seen a reduction in our reach to the public that results in a monthly loss of about $10,000 in advertising revenues. This is equivalent to three times my previous full-time salary. We are at the stage where any more shortfall in advertising revenues will affect the company’s ability to pay its employees, including me.

In truth, if I could afford it, I would work for this company for free. I feel we have an important mission and I feel like I am a big part of it. However the reality is, with a 5-year old at home, I have to eventually get back to earning a living wage. And I certainly hope that I can do it as a member of Collective Evolution.

The Takeaway

The irony is, all this chaos and uncertainty may actually be the catalyst for something very positive. The efforts by Facebook and other social media players to drastically reduced our advertising revenues has forced us to look at a different revenue model, which involves community funding. In truth, getting off of the conventional advertising model and being directly supported instead by those who believe in what we are doing is more aligned with our values.

Now, rather than passively clicking on whatever content comes to them from their Facebook news feed, our supporters will have to make conscious choices as to what content they will access and give their attention to, if they want to see anything other than a monotonous litany of mainstream propaganda. And in taking the important step to directly support companies that are trying to make our world a better place, our community will begin moving off the mainstream grid and increasingly gain power to effect change in the world.

The support we have already gotten as a result of people joining CETV is one of the main reasons we are still in a position to fight for our existence. If you don’t know about it, CETV is our online video platform that features the news broadcast ‘the Collective Evolution show’ and other great weekly shows. Consider joining here.

We have many other great ideas that we are dying to implement that will truly bring our community together, but we are still working our way out of survival mode. If everyone pitches it, we could probably exit survival mode overnight and really get things into gear. So I’d like to offer a slogan I came up with for our CMM (Conscious Media Movement) Campaign, which you can donate to here: Help us survive, then together let’s thrive!

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding measles outbreaks right now, and a lot of mainstream media bombardment in North America whereby unvaccinated children are wrongfully blamed for multiple measles outbreaks. This media hysteria capitalizes on terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” instead of actually acknowledging the points that are being made by vaccine awareness advocates, many of whom are scientists and doctors. The point is, when people are trying to shut down and block credible information and critical thinking, you know something is up.

When it comes to the measles, blaming these outbreaks on unvaccinated people makes absolutely no sense at all. Why? Because, since the introduction of the measles vaccine, outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Furthermore, ample evidence has been presented showing that vaccinated people might also be shedding their virus and infecting others with it.

For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)

There are dozens of studies on measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations that found that the cause of these outbreaks was not due to failure to vaccinate, but rather because of a failing vaccine. I will provide more examples further in the article, but for now, I want to get to some recently published information.

This research was published in the journal Vaccine, titled “Assessing measles vaccine failure in Tianjin, China,” and it’s another study showing measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.

“Despite increasing global measles vaccination coverage, progress toward measles elimination has slowed in recent years. In China, children receive a measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at 8 months, 18– 24 months, and some urban areas offer a third dose at age 4–6 years. However, substantial measles cases in Tianjin, China, occur among individuals who have received multiple MCV doses.” 

The study explains how there has been an increase in global measles vaccinations, and they’re right. Despite this fact, mainstream media in America continues to blame low vaccination rates for these outbreaks, when that could not be further from the truth. Luckily, the CDC has a super-easy, interactive map that illustrates this data very clearly, and it would be great if members of the mainstream media actually started to take a look at the data. Vaccination rates in the States are actually very high. So why are they blaming the unvaccinated? Washington State, for example, has a 90 percent MMR vaccination coverage.

The study from China goes on to explain:

 Twenty-nine percent of those in the surveillance dataset and 54.4% of those in the case series received at least one dose of MCV. The minimum and median time-to-diagnosis since vaccination revealed an increase in time since vaccination for incremental doses. Considerable measles cases in Tianjin occur in vaccinated children, and further research is needed to understand the reasons for vaccine failure.

Another study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26,443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since  2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” (source)

A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases – whose authorship includes scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA – looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak, which showed that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission). The study concluded that “measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.” (source)

Furthermore, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products.

From 2013 to 2017, measles killed 2 people, but the vaccine killed 127 people. The odds of dying from the measles are 0.01 – 0.02 percent, meaning you have a greater chance of getting hit by a lightning bolt multiple times. Furthermore, if your child contracts the measles, they will be immune for life, but that cannot be said for vaccinated children.

Our Episode About Vaccines On CETV

On a recent episode of CETV, we discussed the mainstream media and the way they fear monger and blame the unvaccinated without addressing important facts. We talked about the history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, provided multiple clips from scientists and doctors sharing information related to the above, and cited examples of fraud, specifically with regards to the MMR vaccination and the CDC.

Below you can watch our discussion, and the first hour is free. To watch the other 2 hours of this episode, become a member of CETV.

Another Episode Specifically About The MMR Vaccine

In a later episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Richard and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines.

A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in many of the children.

Related Recent & Important Articles On Vaccines

Biochemical Engineer Drops Bombshell Facts About Measles & The MMR Vaccine In Washington

Worlds Leading Authority On Aluminum Toxicity Has GoFundMe to Study Aluminum In Vaccines Shut Down

We now know that aluminum, once injected, does not leave the body but travels to distant organs and the brain. More information on that in the article linked above.

More Examples of Measles Outbreaks In Highly Vaccinated Populations

A measles outbreak in vaccinated individuals occurred in Israel during 2017—reported on by the CDC—where all but one patient had laboratory evidence of a “previous immune response” (secondary vaccine failure), and the one patient who did not display such evidence reported having received two doses of the vaccine (primary vaccine failure). In addition, the index patient—the one who launched the chain of transmission—had received three doses of the measles-containing vaccine.

If we go back in history a little bit:

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (source)

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received the measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance.” (source)

In 2010, there were a number of children in Croatia who had contracted measles that were fully vaccinated (source). The interesting thing about this case was the fact that not only had they become infected with measles from the vaccine strain, rather than the normal “natural” strain, but they were also contagious.

According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded that “outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” (source)

An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” looked into an outbreak of 137 cases of measles in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.” (source)

According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity…” due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded that “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.” (source)

According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded that “incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.” (source)

According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccines before their first birthday. (source)

According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak. (source)

Furthermore, what about the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients? Studies have shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain up to a year after injection.  There are several other concerning vaccine ingredients like aborted human fetal cells, formaldehyde, and MSG. Why are these never looked at when studies are being conducted? You can read more and access information and studies about aluminum here.

The Takeaway

How safe are our vaccines? Why does the mainstream constantly use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” to brainwash people instead of actually addressing the points made by vaccine awareness advocates? Why are they always attacking instead of just discussing? It’s OK to question vaccines, think for yourself, utilize critical thinking, and seek out information that mainstream media seems to ignore.

Legendary UFO researcher Stanton Friedman has passed away at the age of 84. Stanton was a long time UFOlogist, one of the “originals” who played a huge role in bringing credibility to a topic that was previously only ridiculed. Friedman was an accomplished writer who published dozens of papers about UFOs and wrote and co-authored several books. As CBC News points out, “He was also a familiar face in documentaries, radio and television, including multiple appearances on Larry King Live, and lectured about UFOs for hundreds of colleges and professional groups across the United States, Canada and many other countries.”

Friedman, like many others, was convinced that intelligent extraterrestrials have visited and are still visiting our planet. He was a nuclear physicist and an extremely intelligent man, just as many others in this field are with similar backgrounds to his.

He is one of many who recognized that the evidence in support of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting our planet is far greater than the evidence we use to accept other well-known concepts like black holes. The evidence in support of extraterrestrial life is vast. It’s full of optical data (video footage, radar trackings), other physical evidence, high-ranking whistleblower testimonies from hundreds of sources, and much more. This is what Friedman did such a good job at: presenting the evidence in a credible, academic manner.

Friedman knew that the disclosure of this reality would affect all aspects of humanity, and that it was and still remains the best kept secret in human history thanks to the “official campaign of secrecy and ridicule.” ( Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter )

This subject has permeated the mainstream in many ways. It’s gained a tremendous amount of credibility, and once you dive deep into the rabbit hole, you begin to ask yourself so many other questions that cannot yet be answered. The fact that we are not alone and are being visited is one small part of this giant puzzle. It’s simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discovering more about the nature of our reality.

Thanks to people like Friedman, we continue to unravel this strange and interesting phenomenon.

He was most well-known in the UFO community for bringing credibility to the Roswell incident. He was also a big proponent of the MAJESTIC 12 documents and believed that they were authentic. You can read what he had to say about those here.

For almost sixty years the public has been hearing about flying saucers and then UFOs. Press coverage has ebbed and flowed, but polls have always shown a very high awareness score. Motion pictures, tabloids, and TV programs have picked up the slack with a mélange of fiction and some truth. Unfortunately, much of what we have been told by the “powers that be” has been false. Many different government agencies have shared in the misrepresentation and have provided outright LIES as well. These include the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, United States Air Force, etc. The press and certain other academic and supposedly scientific groups, such as SETI (Silly Effort To Investigate) have often blindly accepted and promulgated nonsense without any effort to get at truth.  – Friedman

In honour of the legend, I thought I’d leave you with one of his many lectures. Friedman did a lot of investigations, visiting real sites and real archives where important documents are held.

The Takeaway

The UFO field is filled with credible information, and once you begin to analyze it, the more you know the more you realize you don’t know. At the same time, one thing seems to be certain, and that’s the fact that:

“There are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything we can deploy, that we have no means of stopping them coming here … [and] that there is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations. That it behooves us, in case some of these people in the future or now should turn hostile, to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want. This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the subject of ‘rubishing’ by tabloid newspapers.” – Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, and Chairman of the NATO military committee

A lot of people in this field have disagreed on many things, but the point is that we are not alone, and that in itself has huge implications. As time goes on, the truth will continue to seep out like it has been doing for decades.

Stanton will be dearly missed.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—“Many of the things I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they weren’t true. And, if they are not true, then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that. And they won’t do that because in the United States, truth is an absolute defense against slander.” 

This must-watch video details the many problems with the development and safety of Merck’s third-highest grossing product, Gardasil. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, ask that you watch and share this video so that you, and others, may make an informed decision of whether or not to give your child, boy or girl, a Gardasil vaccine. It can also be a useful tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine, that is actually causing health problems with young people, could have been approved by FDA and then recommended by CDC. The video is full of jaw-dropping facts about Gardasil and the clinical trials leading up to its release upon an unsuspecting public.

Transcript of “The Science” presentation:

Download “The Science” Transcript

Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—Science Day Presentation for Gardasil

Hi, I’m Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I’m making this video for the sake of parents who are trying to make an informed decision of whether or not to give their child, their boy or girl the Gardasil vaccine.

I’m also making this video as a tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine—if it’s actually causing all of these problems with young girls—could have been approved by FDA and then mandated by CDC.

Virtually all of the things that I’m going to talk about in this video are available to the public on public documents as I’m going to show.

Finally, I want to say this about Merck which is the company that makes the Gardasil vaccine.

Many of the things that I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they were not true. And if they’re not true then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that and they won’t do it because in the United States truth is an absolute defense to slander. And second of all Merck knows that if they sue me, I’m going to immediately file a discovery request, and many, many, more documents are going to emerge that illustrate even more fraud by this company on the American public and the people all over the world.

Finally, as a footnote I’m not going to talk today about the specific biological mechanisms that allow this vaccine to cause harm in human beings. That information is out there it’s in dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific documents. Many of these are described on our website and I urge people to go to the Children’s Health Defense website to educate themselves on those issues.

Today we’re going to talk about the clinical trial about Merck’s fraud in that process…and this is Merck’s claim:

The HPV vaccine will “eliminate cervical cancers and other HPV associated cancers.”

The danger of dying from HPV cancer in this country is 1 death in 43.5 thousand people.

Imagine you have a deck of cards but instead of 50 cards. There’s 43,500 on a on a big, big table and one of those cards is a black card. If you get that, you die.

So, Merck’s deal is that it’s going to remove that black card from the deck. But in order to play the game and make sure that Merck removes the black card, everybody who participates has to put in $420 because that’s the cost of the three-dose Gardasil vaccine.

So, here’s Gardasil by the numbers. So, the cost of the three-jab series average is about $420. There are 76 million children who essentially have been mandated by CDC to receive these vaccines. A blockbuster product from Merck, and global revenues from this vaccine today are about $2.3 billion dollars. It’s the third largest product in the company’s inventory.

The cost of saving one American life is 18.3 million dollars. People could argue whether or not that’s a reasonable value of a human life. What I would say was is that the criteria that we should use for evaluating reasonableness—is there a cheaper way to save more lives? And people would argue that Pap smears are the most effective way that 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths have already been eliminated by Pap smears. And this is the most effective technology.

Incidentally in another context HHS has already put a value on human life and the value is $250k. That is the maximum number that the vaccine compensation program will pay for killing an American citizen.

Prior to marketing the vaccine, the FDA licenses the vaccine, and in that licensing process Merck had to show that the vaccine was safe. According to Federal regulations the word “safety” means “relative freedom from harmful effects, taking into consideration the character of the product in relationship to the condition of the recipient at that time.”

So, what is the condition of the recipients of that target group for this vaccine. And this vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Cervical cancer’s median age of death is 58. It is first diagnosed at age 50 (median).

A teenage girl or boy has zero chance of dying of this illness. Which means the threshold for giving this medication is very, very high.

Secondly it is mandated in some jurisdictions So the government is actually—government officials are actually—coming in and ordering people to take this medical intervention. So, we have to be sure that the threshold for risk, “the risk profile” for that medical intervention should be very, very low.

Third, unlike other medical interventions Gardasil recipients are perfectly healthy. So, when you give medication to a healthy individual you have to make sure that the risk profile is practically zero. And in order to determine risk, there is a standardized protocol. And it’s called double-blind placebo studies. What does that mean?

It means that the drug company that’s trying to license this product gives the medication to one group of people, maybe 5,000 or 10,000 people, and gives a placebo, an inert placebo, either an identical looking pill that is inert—it’s either saline or sugar—to a similarly situated group of 5,000 or 10,000 people and it’s double blind meaning that neither the patients nor the researchers knew who got the placebo and who got the actual medication.

And you can see here, here’s what the NIH says about the National Institute for Health placebos: an inactive substance that looks like a drug.

So here are typical examples:

Lipitor was given during its study phase to about 17k subjects. Half of them received Lipitor half of them received a sugar pill that looked identical to Lipitor and they were observed and studied for up to 3.3 years.

Why for so long? Because many of the injuries that are caused by medication are latent—they don’t show up for two or three or four or five years cancer for example may not show up for four or five years after the exposure. Autoimmune diseases and allergies and these kind of things take a long time to diagnose. Enbrel for that reason was delayed for 6.6 years and against a control group that received a saline injection.

Botox, there was a national emergency to get Botox to market so people could get their wrinkles cured, was studied for 51 weeks and it was studied against a saline injection.

Now I’m going to show you one of the really outrageous frauds that Merck committed during the clinical trials. This is an insert that is part of every vaccine package. And you can go on the Internet right now and look up that Merck product and search and find these two tables.

In the initial table you can see a there are three columns and this is a table that just looks at injuries at the vaccine site for redness and itching and bruising and pain at the vaccine site and they use one…there were 5,000 girls—5,088 girls who got the Gardasil vaccine.

Number two, there were 3,470 girls who got the AAHS control, what is that? That is the adjuvant in the vaccine. That is a toxic neurotoxin, that’s put in the vaccine to make it more long-lasting to provoke an immune response in the subject of the vaccine.

And most people believe that it is that aluminum adjuvant that is causing all of these injuries in the girls who are getting the vaccine. And there were 3,470 people who received just the neurotoxin with no antigens and no other vaccine components.

And you have a third group which is the placebo group. What I want you to look at is at these numbers. That in the Gardasil and AAHS control there is virtually the same number of injuries.

And when you get to the saline placebo, that injury rate is cut in half.

Now let’s go to the table where they talk about real systemic injuries…autoimmune diseases, and instead of showing us real science, which is to show us what happened to the saline group, they hide the saline group as a way of fooling you, your pediatrician and the regulatory agency by compressing it into the aluminum group and they never tell us. They say this is a combination of the aluminum adjuvant and the saline placebo. They don’t tell us how many in each category were compressed there. The real thing that you need to watch here is what happened.

These are all very, very serious injuries. These are injuries that in some cases people would feel were worse than death—and that affect people and debilitate for a lifetime in many cases.

And if you look at the bottom of the Gardasil group an astonishing 2.3 percent of the girls in the clinical study who received the Gardasil vaccine got ill from autoimmune diseases, many within seven months of taking the vaccine.

And look what happened in the aluminum group—the same number exactly. 2.3 percent.

Nobody, no parent would allow their daughter to take a substance that had a one-in-40 chance of giving them a lifetime disability.

World Health Organization says that using a spiked placebo, or a faux-cebo as Merck did with Gardasil, puts you at a methodological disadvantage that “it may be difficult or impossible to assess vaccine safety.”

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed the polio vaccine…who developed the pertussis vaccine, who developed the rotavirus vaccine—the Stanley Plotkin award is the Nobel Prize of vaccinology it’s given to the top vaccinologist every year—and what he says is:

Unless you have a true control group you are in LA LA LAND.

Finally, the American Medical Association says the absence of double-blind placebo testing and short-term studies of chronic disease are “the indicia of marketing masquerading as science.”

And that’s what Merck gave us.

The Cochrane Collaboration—thirty thousand scientists from all over the world who came together to create an independent assessment of medical protocols which they saw as being increasingly controlled by the industry—The Cochrane Collaboration said the use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms and the comparative group thereby masking harms created by the HPV vaccine.

And that indeed was Merck’s point…to hide those harms.

So, if you do the math women are 100 times more likely to suffer serious adverse events from the Gardasil vaccine than they are to be protected from cervical cancer.

So now we have a very different bargain in this card game that we’re playing with Merck.

If 43 thousand cards and the black card—the death card is gone—but now, there are a thousand blue cards which if you pick one of those by mistake you have a good chance of getting an autoimmune disease. Nobody would take that bargain.

So, in order to get the FDA license to market this vaccine Merck did a number of studies, which are called protocols. We don’t know how many they did because they’re not telling us they never disclosed it.

The one we’re most concerned with is protocol 18. The reason protocol 18 is critical is because that was the basis for FDA giving Merck the license to produce and market the vaccine.

Why is that? Because protocol 18 is the only one in which the target audience for this vaccine. 11- and 12-year old girls was actually tested, and had a control group. The other ones looked at big cohorts of women were 16 to 25-year old and 16 to 26-year old women.

Protocol 18 looked at girls and boys from ages 9 to 15. It was a total of 1200 children. and almost 600 controls. That is a very, very, tiny group of people to study in order to determine the safety of a product is going to be marketed to billions of children around the world.

Now I’m going to show you one of the key fraudulent flimflams that Merck used to get this license. FDA said they approved Gardasil based on protocol 18 because protocol 18 was of particular interest because it’s the only protocol in which Merck used a true saline placebo instead of the aluminum adjuvant as a control.

That’s what Merck told FDA and the CDC but Merck was lying. It actually did not use a true saline placebo. It used what Merck called the “carrier solution.” Which is all of the components of the vaccine except for the aluminum and the viral particles the antigen.

Among the compounds that we know were in the carrier solution are Polysorbate 80 which we have no idea what the safety profile is because it’s never been tested for safety independently in vaccines. Sodium borate which is borax which is banned by FDA in food products and all food products in the United States, and is banned altogether in Europe, genetically modified yeast, (there’s no safety test ever been done on it in vaccines) L-histidine, the same, and possibly DNA fragments.

I say possibly because we know there are DNA fragments in the final vaccine, we don’t know how they got there. And Merck has lied about the DNA fragments from the outset.

And despite these potentially toxic components of compounds that are in the vaccine, the 596 children that were given the carrier solution fared much better in the other than any other cohort in the study. The girls and boys who receive the carrier solution were the only significant cohorts with no serious adverse events for the first 15 days.

And here’s another one of the gravamen of the fraud that Merck committed in its Gardasil trials, but it turns out in the protocol 18 study, it appears Merck cut the amount of aluminum that was given to the vaccine group in half. They tested a completely different formulation. If true, we theorize that they took the aluminum out to reduce the number of injuries and to mask the really bad safety profile of this vaccine.

And since the protocol 18 data are not based on the Gardasil vaccine formulation, the trial itself constitutes rank scientific fraud.

Here’s another bag of tricks that was used by Merck in order to skew the clinical trials results in favor of Gardasil.

Merck and its researchers use what they call exclusion criteria—for example people who had zero allergies, people who had prior genital infections were thrown out of the clinical trials. People who had over four sex partners in their entire lives were excluded from the trials. Anybody who had a history of immunological or nervous system disorders, people with chronic illnesses and seizure disorders, people with other medical conditions, people who had reactions to vaccine ingredients including the aluminum, yeast and the benzonase. or anybody with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.

If you really wanted to know whether the vaccine was helping people—if it was effective—wouldn’t you want those people in your study wouldn’t you want people who had a genetic vulnerability to cancer in your study to see if it actually was capable of preventing cancer.

Then Merck had one catch all exclusion category which was any condition which in the opinion of the investigator might interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives. Well, that gave Merck and its paid investigators complete control to throw people out of the study who they thought might make the study look not successful. All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit the study to people who were like All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit this study to people who were like an elite club of superheroes…the people who get the vaccine are not the same people they tested on. They tested it on the Avengers. They didn’t test it on, you know, Joe Bag-of-Donuts … the people are actually receiving this vaccine in day to day life. And by doing that they were able to mask whatever injury might show up in a larger and more vulnerable population who are actually receiving the vaccine.

Experts used an arsenal of sloppy protocols to again, hide vaccine injuries. Among these, Merck gave report cards—the daily journal report cards— only to 10 percent of the people who they tested the vaccine on and told those people only make reports for 14 days after the injection. And the report cards were only designed to collect jab site information. So, redness, itching, bruising, fever.

And they ignored altogether the autoimmune diseases and menstrual cycle problems and fertility problems and pain and dizziness and seizures and all of the other things that we’ve now seen are associated with the vaccine. In fact, there are numerous girls who report that they were injured that they attempted to report those injuries to Merck, and that Merck rebuffed them.

Furthermore, Merck gave extraordinary discretion to its researchers to determine what was a vaccine injury in what was not a vaccine injury and because there was no inert placebo, it was completely within their discretion. If a girl came back with seizures or autoimmune disease or menstrual cycle problems they could just say to the girl, well that’s not related to the vaccine.

In some cases, we know that Merck actively covered up and lied about injuries that it had a duty to report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. For example, in the case of Christina Tarsell, a Maryland girl, who died from the Gardasil vaccine, Merck lied about that death in its official reports of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It told the system that Christina’s doctor had told Merck that her death was the result of a virus.

And the doctor adamantly denies that. Merck has refused to remove the misinformation from the VAERS system.

Furthermore, Merck lied to the girls who participated in these studies, telling them No.1, that the placebo was saline and that it contained no other ingredients. And No. 2, that the study in which they were participating was not a safety study. They were told that there had already been safety studies and that the vaccine had been proven safe.

What did this do for Merck? It made it so the girls were less likely to report injuries associated with the vaccine. Because they believed that the vaccine that they were receiving had already been proven safe and that any injuries they did experience maybe a month or two months or three months after the vaccine must be simply coincidental and had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Despite all of these efforts by Merck to discourage those from reporting vaccine injuries during the clinical trials, half of the girls in the Gardasil group and half of them in the aluminum adjuvant group reported serious injuries after receiving the vaccine.

In order to conceal the link between these injuries and the vaccine, Merck invented a brand new medical metric that had never been heard of before called “new medical conditions” and it dismissed all of these new injuries which affected 50 percent of the girls who received the vaccine and the adjuvant as “new medical conditions”, unrelated to the vaccines, simply sad coincidences.

Many of these diseases were serious diseases—blood lymphatic diseases, anemia, endocrine diseases, autoimmune diseases, G.I., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, vaginal infections musculoskeletal injuries, arthritis, neoplasm, Hodgkin’s disease, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, depression, reproductive and breast disorders, menstrual irregularities, and pain. Over 3 percent of the girls—1 in 30—in both groups required surgical and medical procedures.

So, this card game that we’re playing with Merck has now become a really bad bet.

Merck has removed the one black card but you now have a 1 in 40 chance of drawing a blue card and getting an autoimmune disease that may afflict you for the rest of your life and you have a 1 in 2 chance of having some other serious medical condition.

So now let’s look at Merck’s central claim which is that the Gardasil vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.

Merck’s in a sweet position here, let’s face it because the target group vaccine is 11-year olds, and the median age of death for cervical cancer is age 58. Merck essentially is making this bargain.

It’s telling the 11-year old girl if you take our vaccine 47 years from now you won’t die of cervical cancer. And of course, that truth is you can’t make a vaccine that proves that it’s going to prevent cancer 47 years from now. There’s no way to test for that.

So, Merck used a shortcut. It said we’re going to prove that it prevents these what it called surrogate end points. The best thing that Merck had come up with was CIN2 and CIN3 lesions which it called precancerous lesions even though most of those lesions never mature into cancer.

So how can you call something precancerous when it was never going to turn into cancer?

And here’s what a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology said about Merck’s scheme: CIN3 is an imperfect diagnosis of precancer, and an intermediate surrogate for cancer.

Their own attorneys told them for these products, the indication is the surrogate, not the ultimate.  Promotion cannot make any claim, vis-a-vis the ultimate end point, based upon the fate of a surrogate endpoint.

Merck has another problem. Recent peer reviewed scientific studies indicate that perhaps only a third of cervical cancer cases are even associated with the HPV vaccine. That would completely put the lie to Merck’s claims that Gardasil is going to eliminate cervical cancer altogether.

So now we have a really dubious deal because we need to put that black card back in the deck because now, we have doubts about whether or not this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer at all.

But the news gets worse. Gardasil may actually cause cancer. Gardasil’s insert states Gardasil has never been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity. And Gardasil’s ingredients include possible carcinogens including human DNA.

And look at this…This is Merck’s own pre-clinical trial records and those records show that girls or women, who already had HPV—had been exposed at some point in their life to it—actually had a negative efficacy of 44.6 percent.

What is negative efficacy? It means those girls had a 44.6 increased risk of getting those precancerous lesions. To make things even worse, there are recent scientific studies that suggest a phenomena of what is known as type replacement—some 200 different strands of HPV, some of them are more cancerous than others, and the current HPV vaccine goes after 9 of those 200 viral types. What these studies indicate is by eliminating those particular strains of the virus it opens up an ecological niche in the woman so that more lethal and virulent viruses can actually colonize that spot and dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer.

So now Merck’s deal is looking really grim. Not only do we have a one-in-40 chance of getting an autoimmune disease and a 50 percent chance of getting some serious medical condition but now the cancer risk has been reinserted and actually amplified.

And now let’s look at some of the non-cancer injuries that Merck found in its preclinical studies.

The miscarriage rate in the preclinical studies after Gardasil doubled the background rate. The birth defects in the Gardasil group were five times the rate of birth defects from the control group. As to reproductive disorders an astonishing 10.9 percent of the women in the pool group reported reproductive disorders within seven months of receiving Gardasil compared to 1.2 percent in the placebo group. The death rate in the Gardasil group and the clinical trials was 8.5 per 10 thousand.

Death risk from this vaccine according to Merck’s own studies is 37 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.

Oh, now look at the deal that Merck has offered us they’ve actually increased our risk of dying by 37 times.

So now let’s look at post-licensing surveillance. So, Merck can argue that we might have missed something in our pre-licensing studies but surely if there were any injuries being caused by this vaccine we would see them in post-licensing surveillance.

And the problem with that is that the post-licensing surveillance system, the principle one, is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The system is a voluntary system that simply does not work. It’s broken. In fact, in 2010 HHS hired another federal agency the agency for healthcare research quality and a group of Harvard researchers to study Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and those researchers found fewer than 1 percent of adverse events of vaccines are ever reported.

But even under that system, Gardasil has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.

In fact, when you compare it to Menactra which is a meningitis vaccine that’s given to the same age group—teenagers—Gardasil had an 8.5 times more emergency room visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disabilities than Menactra.

The vaccine court which is within HHS has made awards for numerous deaths and very, very serious injuries from the Gardasil vaccine. So, HHS itself admits that this vaccine kills people and it’s given compensation to the families that were injured.

The same wave of serious injuries and deaths that have been seen in nations around the globe, when they adopt mandates for the Gardasil vaccine. Even Gardasil’s own insert, the package insert that the company provides, acknowledges that the injuries that can be caused by this vaccine include death, pancreatitis, fatigue, malaise, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, anaphylaxis, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, nervous system disorders, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, that’s brain injuries, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neuron diseases, paralysis, seizures, Transverse myelitis, and vascular disorders.

In Australia, in 2015, the Australian Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration reported that the adverse rates in girls is 17 times the incidental rate for cervical cancer throughout their lifespan. The country only looked at a handful of conditions including demyelinating disorders, complex regional pain syndrome and premature ovarian failure. There are many, many other injuries that included hospitalizations that were not subject to that study.

India suspended its Gardasil trials after numerous deaths and serious injuries.

A south Asian Journal of Cancer found that “a healthy 16-year old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small, but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”

Japan de-recommended Gardasil three months after it had added the vaccine to the immunization schedule. Japan’s health ministry discovered adverse events reported after Gardasil’s approval were many times higher than other vaccines on the recommended schedule—these included seizures severe headaches partial paralysis complex regional pain syndrome and an undeniable causal relationship between persistent pain and the vaccination.

Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for the HPV vaccine was as high as nine percent and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried 30 percent of their babies.

In 2015 the Japanese Association for Medical Sciences issued official guidelines for managing symptoms of injuries caused by the Gardasil vaccine and the association announced there was no proof that this vaccine even prevents cervical cancer.

Alarmingly Merck’s own studies indicate that the Gardasil vaccine may disproportionately impact Asian women. For example, in protocol 19 there were 8 deaths among 3800 women and 7 those were Asians. That was 87 percent for Asian women, while only 31 percent of study participants were Asian.

Denmark in 2015 announced the opening of five new HPV clinics to treat women who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine. The day that they announced that opening there were 1300 applicants for treatment in those clinics.

In Colombia in 2014 800 girls in the town Carmen de Bolivar were grievously injured by Gardasil vaccine. Protests erupted all over Columbia. The attorney general of Colombia ordered the National Health Service of that country to immediately begin treating girls who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine and 2017 Colombia’s highest Constitutional Court ruled that the HPV vaccine would no longer be considered mandatory in Colombia and ordered that girls who showed symptoms after receiving the vaccine be given appropriate medical care.

Pompilio Martinez, who now teaches at the National University of Colombia, described the HPV vaccine as “a crime against humanity.”

Recent studies have shown that in nations with robust HPV vaccination programs and heavily vaccinated populations—in the UK and Sweden and Australia—were actually seeing dramatic upticks rises in the rate of cervical cancer rather than the downtrends that Merck promised everybody.

Now I’m going to show you some of the reasons why your pediatrician is insisting despite all of this evidence that your daughter or son gets the HPV vaccine. And the reason is the pediatrician is getting his information from agencies that have compromised through financial entanglements with Merck.

This is what the FDA is telling the public about vaccine safety:  it says that vaccines are regulated by FDA and undergo a rigorous review of laboratory and clinical data to ensure the safety efficacy and purity and potency of these products.

But this is a very different story the FDA is acknowledging in-house, (and this comes from a 2007 document—this is the year that Gardasil got its license from the FDA), FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances mean that American lives are at risk. FDA is evaluations and methods have remained largely unchanged over the last half century. The world looks to FDA as a leader today. Not only can the agency not lead, it cannot even keep up with the advances in science.

But, the most troubling problem at FDA is it has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with corruption. The panel within FDA that licenses new vaccines and anoints them as safe is called the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the acronym is VRBPAC. And in 2000 Congress investigated VRBPAC because of charges of corruption from outside the agency.

And here’s what the congressional committee found: the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Conflicts of interest rules employed by FDA have been weak enforcement has been lax. Committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies are given waivers to participate in committee proceedings. In many cases significant conflicts of interest are deemed to be in conflict at all.

And here are some specific examples of the conflict of the advisory committee that approves vaccines:

  • Three out of five FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December of 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members had a 9 plus million dollar contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop the rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members received approximately a million dollars from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.

Once they get by FDA, vaccine companies then go to CDC, where another committee, which is called ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, will then take that vaccine that FDA has licensed and they will put it on the recommended list which means it becomes essentially mandatory for 76 million American children.

A listing on CDC’s recommended list is the holy grail for vaccine companies. It means a bonanza of wealth for those companies. If ACIP votes to add your vaccine to the recommended list, it means:

  • mandating the vaccine to millions of American children, (half of those are paid for by the government);
  • Immunity from liability for the manufacturers so nobody can sue them no matter how dangerous that vaccine is, no matter how toxic its components no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that vaccine manufacturer for damages liability;
  • Inclusion of the Vaccine for Children’s program which is a program that guarantees that half the vaccines that you manufacturer are going to be purchased by the CDC at full cost.

This means billions of dollars for companies that are fortunate enough to get their vaccines listed on this recommended list. It means that you’re going to sell 74 million vaccines to people who have no choice—you have no marketing cost you have no advertising cost, you have limited testing expenses, and you have no liability for injuries caused by your vaccine.

In 2006 and 2007 while Gardasil was getting its approvals, ACIP did not pretend to base its recommendations on scientific evidence. It only adopted evidence-based standards in 2011.

But what did it base its recommendation on? It turns out it was mainly just friendships and money.  The conflicts at ACIP are as bad as the conflicts within the FDA.

This is from the same year—2000— investigation by Congress quote the CDC grants blanket waivers to ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject regardless of their conflicts for the entire year. ACIP members are allowed to vote on vaccine recommendations even when they have financial ties to the drug companies related to similar vaccines.

The ACIP’s prolific use of working groups to track vaccine policy is outside the specter of public scrutiny, opens the door to special interest access. ACIP’s policy of allowing government employees to vote encourage the system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without advice or consent of the governed.

Here is a typical committee panel that approved Merck’s rotavirus vaccine. The majority of ACIP’s members were conflicted and their most recent vote. Again, this is Congress’s words not mine.

  • The chairman served on Merck’s immunization Advisory Committee the same committee that approved Merck’s vaccine.
  • Another member who shares the patent on a vaccine underdeveloped for this same disease at $350,000 grant from Merck to develop this vaccine and was a consultant from Merck.
  • Another member was under contract with the Merck Vaccine Division.
  • Another member received salary from Merck and other payments.
  • Merck another member was participating in vaccine studies with Merck.
  • And another member received grants from Merck.

And unfortunately, that congressional investigation had virtually no impact on the way CDC does and continues to do business. For example, a 2009 report by the inspector general of HHS on the same conditions existed at CDC had systematic lack of oversight. Ninety seven percent of committee members’ conflict disclosures had omissions. 58 percent had at least one unidentified potential conflict. 32 percent of the committee members had at least one conflict remained unresolved and the CDC continues to grant waivers.

This shows that CDC is really just an arm of the vaccine industry it shouldn’t be regulating the industry. It’s part of it.

This is CDC’s entire budget $11.5 billion, and almost half of that almost 5 billion dollars goes to purchasing and promoting vaccines. And this little sliver here is the Immunization Safety Office.

That’s how much money, less than 1 percent of the total goes to vaccine safety.

Not only that but Merck exercises control over CDC through the CDC Foundation. Merck contributes millions of dollars every year to the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation has received six hundred and twenty million dollars from Merck and other pharmaceutical companies to pay for 824 programs at the CDC.

Merck representative sit on the CDC Foundation Board and control the agency activities.

This is what the British Medical Journal said about those conflicts:

“Most of us were shocked to learn that the CDC takes funding from the industry. It is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits.”

Corruption is systemic at FDA too shockingly 45 percent of FDA’s budget comes from the industry. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars in fees annually to FDA to fast track drugs. Between 2000-2010 pharmaceutical companies paid 3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drug approvals, and those payments by industry have caused FDA and CDC to treat the vaccine makers not as a regulated entity but as partners and clients and friends.

According to Michael Carome, who is a former HHS employee “Instead of a regulator and regulated industry, we now have a partnership that relationship has tilted the FDA away from public health perspective to an industry friendly perspective. And that’s why your doctor does not know the truth about Gardasil.”

This is another thing your doctor probably doesn’t know. The government agency NIH actually developed the key component for the Gardasil vaccine and NIH owns part of the patent and receives royalties on it. Not only does NIH the agency receive millions and millions of dollars annually from the vaccine, but also the individual scientists who worked on the vaccine within the agency are entitled to make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year in royalty payments from Merck.

Oh, every time your pediatrician sells one of those four hundred and twenty dollar vaccines to your child or you, NIH scientists and HHS scientists and the agencies themselves are making money on that transaction. And that’s why your doctor doesn’t know what’s happening because he’s getting his information or her information from those agencies.

So, there are many, many, other shocking conflicts that I don’t have time to talk about today between Merck and the other regulated vaccine makers and the industry that’s supposed to be protecting the public from that regulated industry.

I just want to talk for a moment about one example. From 2002 to 2009 Julie Gerberding was the director of CDC and she oversaw all, all of this crooked science that went into the approvals in 2006 and 2007 of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. She was rewarded by Merck.

When she left the agency in 2009, she was hired by Merck as the president of its vaccine division and Merck gave her a salary of 2.5 million dollars a year, and 38 million dollars in stock options. And that kind of dough buys a lot of loyalty from regulators.

They know what’s at the end of the line for them if they behave and if they do what Merck and the other company has asked them to do. And these are the reasons that your pediatrician, who’s giving your daughter that Gardasil vaccine believing that it may someday save her life doesn’t know about the risk and perils and the inefficacy that are attended to that vaccine cause that regulators from whom he’s getting or she’s getting her information have been corrupted by this company.

And most of you probably know this is a difficult issue for people like myself who are concerned with vaccine injuries to address, because the press will not cover these issues because there’s 5.4 billion dollars that go from these companies to advertising on TV and radio and newspapers and on the web every year and nobody wants to lose advertising revenue. And the Congress has been bought off the regulatory agencies have been captured and we can’t use the courts because you can’t sue a vaccine maker for injuring yourself or your child.

We’ve figured out ways around those laws and we’re going to sue Merck. And if you are Merck and you’re listening to this tape.

We’re going to come for you and we’re gonna get justice for these girls and these boys who you’ve injured because of your greed.

And if you’re a mother or a father who are listening to this, we’d like your support. It’s just the fact that the more monetary support the Children’s Health Defense has, the more of these cases that we can bring and we’re going to get justice. And we’re going to bring these cases, and sue companies like Merck until we get that justice. We want your money and we want your support and we want your membership.

But more than anything, we want you to protect your child on this vaccine and for other injuries and for that reason we made this tape. Not only so that you can be informed about the science and you can ask the questions of your pediatrician or you can give him a copy of this tape and ask him to watch it and respond to it.

And if you’re a pediatrician I would ask you to actually look at the science and not resort to appeals to authority because, to say “well I know it’s safe because CDC says it’s safe”, or WHO says it’s safe or the AAP says it’s safe because all of those agencies and organizations have been corrupted by pharmaceutical industry money. You need to actually look at the science.

And you need to read the science critically and if you do that, you’ll find that the things that I’ve talked about in this tape are real. That these injuries are real and that we have got to save our children from this cataclysm.

I want to thank you for listening to this video and urge you to join Children’s Health Defense.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Belief in subterranean worlds has been handed down as myths or legends among generations of people from all over the world. For example, Socrates spoke of huge hollows within the Earth that were inhabited and vast caverns where rivers flowed. The Cherokee Indians tell that when they first came to the southeastern United States, they found many well-tended gardens but not the people who cared for them. Eventually, they discovered a group of people who lived underground and came out only at night to tend the gardens. They harvested the food and took it underground to their cities.These people were small, had blue skin and large black eyes. The sun rays were too harsh for them so they built their cities underground and only came out at night using the light of the moon. The Cherokee called them the “Moon People.”

The quote above comes from Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw and has been researching the Star People for many years, collecting encounters between them and Native Indians. I recently published two articles detailing indigenous stories of encounters with the “Star People.” One was regarding an indigenous elder who shared a story about the “Star People” that crashed on his reservation, which you can read here. The second article, published a few days ago, was about an elder who showed Dr. Clarke a petrified alien heart, which he claimed belonged to the Star People, and you can read that here.

These people were also mentioned in a 1797 book by Benjamin Smith Barton, who explains that they are called “moon-eyed” because they saw poorly during the day. Later variants add additional details, claiming the people had white skin and that they created the area’s pre-Columbian ruins. Barton cited his source as a conversation with Colonel Leonard Marbury.

In her book, Clarke recounts a story told to her by an 84 year-old elder, who she called “Uncle Beau.” According to him, “The old ones tell stories about people from the stars who lived underground near Tanana. There are many stories the old ones told about the Star People who live among them and went underground near Tanana. The Inupiat believe they came to Earth on a spaceship.”

Clarke then asked him if he’d ever seen a spaceship, to which he replied:

Plenty of times. I was born here in Athabaskan territory. I was here before Alaska became a state and my people lived here for thousands of years before any white man ever came here. There were spacecrafts visiting Alaska when it was called Alaxsxaq, and they will be visiting long after there is no more Alaska. I think they have always been here, just as the old ones said. The government knows about it, but there is little they can do. They were here long before there was a government. I think at this point, the military just tries to contain them and keep it quiet. They don’t want us to know about it.

There is also a military base near where Beau lives, and when Clarke asked if he had ever talked with anyone at the base about UFOs, he responded:

One of my niece’s boys used to work at the base about 10 years ago. They employed about one hundred civilians at the base. He said that one morning he went to work and the base was closed. They told the workers to go home. When he reported for work the following day, one of his friends who was stationed there told him that a UFO had landed the previous night. He said there was a place up there where the UFOs go underground. He said (his nephew) it was guarded night and day. No one was allowed near the site, but he said his friend who has a high security clearance told him about it.

He went on to explain how he thinks it’s a place where “the aliens and the military collaborate and where the aliens can go underground freely without us regular people seeing them. I don’t know what they are doing together, but I think that is how they use the place. My nephew’s friend said the aliens look like us. So maybe they are the ancestors.”

Now, having been working in this field for a long time, I’ve come across some very interesting connections. Tanana, Alaska, is right next to mount Hayes, Alaska. For those of you who don’t know, the US Government in conjunction with the CIA and Stanford Research Institute initiated a program called STARGATE, and one of its functions was to study remote viewing, which is the ability to perceive and describe a distant location regardless of distance. It’s an ability that allows the ‘viewer’ to be able to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometres away (even more) from their physical location — a location that they have never been to.

Long story short, it was extremely successful, reputable, and accurate for intelligence collection. After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate.

To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the [remote viewing] phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions.” (source)

Multiple remote viewers from that program, after it was declassified, all of a sudden started talking a lot about extraterrestrial phenomena. One of the things discussed was the locations of multiple ET bases here on Earth. One of the program’s top viewers had successfully remote viewed 4 extraterrestrial ‘bases’ stationed on Earth.  One was located underneath Mount Ziel, another was under Mount Perdido in Spain, another was under Mount Inyangani in Zimbabwe, and another was underneath Mount Hayes, Alaska. You can read more about that specific story here.

Lyn Buchanan, one of the STARGATE army remote viewers, claims that he was tasked to find out information on extraterrestrial groups that were/are visiting the planet. He also mentions these bases. You can read more about that here. (You can read more about that here: source)

These names are ever present within the CIA’s electronic reading room, so you can look them up and verify their credibility. After the declassification of the program, most of the people involved within the program also became publicly known.

So, what’s the point? Mount Hayes is right next to Tanana, Alaska, where Elder speaks of (as mentioned earlier in this article). And with regards to his nephew, there are multiple military bases within the vicinity such as Eielson Air Force Base. 

It’s interesting that I read this story shared by Dr. Clarke and then come across this connection with the remote viewing program.

Joe and I recently sat down and went a lot deeper into underground civilizations and how it relates to the extraterrestrial phenomenon. Below is a clip from our hour-long discussion on the topic on The Collective Evolution Show. Check out the clip below, and if you want to watch the entire broadcast you can sign up for CETV.

Another interesting story as told by Dr. Clarke comes from Mary Winston. At age 87, she was regarded as one of the only traditional artists still living. There are so many stories from indigenous elders about the Star People, it’s truly amazing and overwhelming.

According to Winston:

We have a story that our ancestors were brought to this land in great metal flying machines by the Star People. The ancestors lived on a cold planet, much like the arctic region. So they brought us here to colonize this planet. At that time ice covered the Earth. It was not like the Earth of today. We knew of the Star People from our grandparents. The stories were passed down for thousands of years. We were brought here by the Star People who live at the top of our world. They live under the North Pole. That is the top of the world. My grandfather talked with them when he was alive. He said they looked like us but that they had bigger eyes because on the home planet everyone lived underground. He said when we were first brought here we had big eyes too, but the sun and snow made our eyes small slits.

Clarke goes on to cite several other very interesting interviews with indigenous elders about living underground on our planet.

The Takeaway

Several ancient texts from various cultures mention beings from ‘another world’ that exist within our own. One such world, referenced in Tibetan Buddhist and Hindu traditions, is Shambhala, which is described as a hidden kingdom within our own planet, a place we do not understand and is difficult to find. We’ve never really been down there ourselves, at least as far as we know.

It’s interesting to imagine what the Earth looks like at its core. Even though instruments can be used to determine the make up of it, to see it in its entirety would be fascinating.

Perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss these stories.

When it comes to pedophilia in Hollywood, it’s not a secret anymore. Multiple famous child actors like Elijah Wood have spoken up about this problem that plagues the industry. Corey Feldman, one of the biggest childhood actors of all time, said that pedophilia is “the biggest problem in Hollywood.” This is an issue that is tied to a great deal of power, and it seems some very powerful people are involved and that’s why the issue continues to occur. Smallville actress Allison Mack, for example, was recently arrested for her involvement in a “sex cult,”  a few months after these revelations, billionaire Clare Bronfman was indicted on racketeering charges. These charges were connected to her role as “Operations Director” for NXIVM (the sex cult that Mack was involved in and arrested for). Clare Bronfman is the daughter of Charles Bronfman, a Canadian/American businessman and philanthropist. You can read more about that story here.

Why don’t these wealthy elite ever face consequences? Was mack just the “fall” person? The Bronfman family has been referred to as the “The Rothschild’s of the New World” by author Peter C. Newman, a well-known Canadian journalist and writer. The Bronfman family has also been in business with the Rothschild family for quite some time. One of many examples is their wealth management company, Bronfman Rothschild.

All of these people are connected to enormous amounts of power and wealth.

Then we have the case of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who has very close ties to global elitists, actors, actresses, politicians and the royal family. In more recent news, U.S. Attorney Byung “B.J.” Pak of the Northern District of Georgia asked a federal judge for a 60-day period to consult with Epstein’s victims, followed by a lengthy briefing schedule that, according to lawyers for two of the victims, could delay justice for months if not longer. These victims all mention high profile people, ones that Epstein has been seen publicly with on many occasions, like Prince Andrew. You can read our last article on him, here.  In this article, you can see a picture with one of Epstein’s accusers with Prince Andrew, as well as one with Andrew and Epstein.

Steve Pieczenik is a former high ranking United States Department of State official and a Harvard trained psychiatrist, he had this to say about the Clintons and Epstein’s plane, known as the “The Lolita Express.”

“We know that both of them have been a major part and participant of what’s called The Lolita Express, which is a plane owned by Mr. Jeff Epstein, a wealthy multi-millionaire who flies down to the Bahamas and allows Bill Clinton and Hillary to engage in sex with minors, that is called Pedophilia.” (source)

The point is, all of this stuff is well known, and not long ago, along came Isaac Kappy. Kappy has been in Hollywood circles, not as a huge star but he’s been there. He was in Thor and Terminator: Salvation, among other hit films and did a lot of writing. Approximately a year ago, he began speaking up about Hollywood sex cults and pedophilia, and he named a lot of names like Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Seth Green and many many more.  These videos are all over Youtube. At the same time he began speaking out, many mainstream outlets all of sudden, like TMZ, were publishing weird information about him, like the idea that he was supposedly involved in abusing and choking Paris Jackson, a former good friend of his, for example. It was weird to say the least, especially given the fact that it happened when he began to share what he was sharing. Again, you can find many of his videos about that all over Youtube.

The latest news on Kappy is quite sad, as it appears he has passed away. It’s being reported that he recently jumped off a bridge in Arizona and committed suicide. Apparently, several witnesses were around and tried to stop him from doing so.

Kappy is not the only one who has been vocal about these issues, apart from the examples above, there are people like the example below as well.

Below is a tweet from Sarah Ruth Ashcraft, a supposed MK Ultra child sex slave victim,

This is me at 13, the age I was when @tomhanks purchased me from my father for sex as a dissociated #mindcontrol doll. I wonder how much he paid? I wonder how much $$$ my father made for breaking my mind & selling my child body throughout my life. Will I ever get to know? pic.twitter.com/nxOzCk5kHS

Obviously, this type of rhetoric has been labeled false and mainstream circles are using their platforms to ridicule and make jokes of it, as they still do today. Whether the claims of Kappy specifically are real or not, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that high-level child trafficking amongst powerful people is a serious reality.

With all of the revelations that have come out lately, especially within Hollywood, someone like Kappy garnered a lot of attention and a lot of credibility.

His last Instagram past was one of self-reflection, one where he felt ‘bad’ for calling out the darkness of others instead of healing the darkness that lives within himself. He was very critical of himself and explained how he has been a ‘bad guy.’ His social media accounts were halted not long after he began speaking up and naming names.

It’s unfortunate what happened. I personally believed based on everything I have looked at that this man was speaking the truth, that he had a lot of inside information and he did know a lot of people that were involved in this type of thing. It’s because I’ve come across information, for example, that’s come from people like retired Detective Jim ‘Jimmy Boots’ Rothstein, who was a member of the New York City Police Department, and various ‘out of state’ agencies for over a decade where he was assigned to investigate sex trafficking.  His job brought him to travel the world investigating how these rings operate. He shared what he saw over his career as an investigator into human trafficking. He estimates 35-40% of Politicians are involved in the coverup. You can read more about that here.

Ex Nebraska policewoman, Kathryn Bolkovac, who served as a UN peacekeeper and worked under DynCorp, a military contractor, where she learned about elite level sex trafficking involving the UN, the State Department & Military has also revealed some disturbing realities.  The latest example to come out of the UN would be from the ex-chief advisor for the United Nation’s Child Labour Program, Peter Dalglish, who was recently arrested for pedophilia. In early 2017 the United Nations Secretary-General admitted to 145 incidents involving 311 victims in 2016 alone, mainly in peace operations. We covered this earlier this year.

There are literally so many examples.

There is also no doubt in my mind that this man, Kappy, was possibly suicidal, but who really knows the circumstances of his death. It’s not hard to find his videos and testimonies online if you’re looking at them. I believe he was a very brave person for saying what he was saying, especially coming from the circles he was coming from and being close to a number of celebrities and Hollywood figures.

But again, the reality of high-level child trafficking is not up for debate. The International Tribunal For Natural Justice is a great place to start if you’re looking for more information from some very credible sources.

Our Interview With A Real Elite Level Child Sex Trafficking Victim, Anneke Lucas

One of the reasons that first-hand information about the true nature of elite Satanic ritual abuse and pedophilia is so rare is that child sex slaves are destined to be killed off–brought to the chopping block, in the case of Anneke Lucas and the elite Belgian pedophile ring she was ensnared in–once they were no longer useful to the network and their continued existence posed a threat. What makes it all the more remarkable that Anneke Lucas was removed from the butcher’s block mere moments before she would be killed was the fact that those in the network who knew her as intelligent, defiant, and powerful–even at the age of eleven–must have had some concerns that at some point, she may recover enough from her trauma to expose the network and its heinous Satanic practices.

The video clip below from CE’s exclusive 4-part interview  (CETV, A platform we created to combat the censorship we are experiencing and allow us to continue with our work) with Anneke launched on January 17 describes a portion of the training she was forced to go through.

Richard Enos conducted the interview, a writer here at Collective Evolution who has published a number of articles on the topic. He received a lovely note from Anneke before the interview:

I’m writing to thank you for your articles about the nature of power, pedophilia and Satanic practices. As a survivor, it is refreshing to find someone writing about these issues with such clarity, with both awareness of the problem and the dawning awakening of humanity to this darkness.

The Takeaway

Never before has so much ‘wrongdoing’ in various areas been exposed. It continues to happen here on planet Earth, and despite the fact that mainstream media continues to ridicule and remain silent on topics as such that are an unfortunate reality, truth continues to come out. Our world is shifting, the way people perceive our world is shifting, and ‘dark’ realities are simply part of the human experience that long went unknown. Once we start knowing, and become aware, it’s clearly something that the majority of humans do not resonate with and thus that intention alone helps shift the reality of this experience. Truth is being exposed, and the more it is, the more difficult it becomes for such experiences to continue. It’s simply a micro reflection, one of many, of several realities on Earth that do not resonate with the human soul. We are living in a time of great change, and one thing is for certain, ignorance is not the answer, but rather shining light into the ‘darkness’ is.

Secrecy runs rampant in our world, and multiple investigations have uncovered that trillions upon trillions of our tax dollars are going towards programs that we have no idea even exist. It’s amazing how much money is scraped off of each paycheque, and how much money multiple small and big businesses pay.

We are told that it’s necessary, that this is the money going towards various programs that are responsible for building our schools, employing people for necessary services and infrastructure, among many other things. It’s truly amazing how much money governments rake in from taxes, and it’s even more astonishing how much of this money is funding black budget programs and other programs that aren’t in favour of the people.

Black budget programs include Special Access Programs (SAPs). These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”

How much money are we talking about? The most recent investigation was conducted by economist and Michigan State professor Mark Skidmore, alongside some of his graduate students as well as Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They discovered trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from the Department of Housing & Urban Development as well as the Department of Defense. You can read more about that here.

In episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail, if you’re interested in that. CETV is a platform we created to combat the censorship we are currently experiencing, as our revenue streams have been taken away and are now extremely limited.

Some of these programs involve the construction of deep underground military bases, known as (DUMBS). Furthermore, some of this money is also going towards the construction of under-ocean, and in-bottom (of the ocean) military bases.

These bases employ a very high and sophisticated level of technology, and what is happening down there is extremely secretive.

In 1987, Deputy Director of Engineering and Construction for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lloyd A. Duscha, gave a speech at an engineering conference titled “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons.” In the first paragraph of his speech he states the following:

After World War II, political and economic factors changed the underground construction picture and caused a renewed interest to “think underground.” As a result of this interest, the Corps of Engineers became involved in the design and construction of some very complex and interesting military projects. Although the conference program indicates the topic to be “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” I must deviate a little because several of the most interesting facilities that have been designed and constructed by the Corps are classified.  Lloyd A. Duscha, “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” in Tunneling and Underground Transport: Future Developments in Technology. Economics and Policy, ed. F.P. Davidson (New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., 1987, pp. 109-113.)

I’ll leave you with that, but if you’d like to learn more and listen to our discussion, you can do so in Episode #11 of the Collective Evolution show on CETV. Below is a little tidbit of that discussion:

You can listen to this entire segment of episode 11 on our podcast here.

Collective Evolution has been creating awareness about the potential dangers of sunscreen since the beginning of 2009. When we started to, despite presenting credible peer-reviewed scientific publications and interviews with doctors and scientists, many simply thought this wasn’t true. The idea that our federal health regulatory agencies are really looking out for our health and the idea that we can put absolute trust into these agencies as well as the products that they approve are no longer valid. Enormous amounts of corruption have been exposed over the past decade, which goes to show that we really need to rely on ourselves, utilize our critical thinking, and do our own research instead of allowing government authoritative bodies to do it for us.

Sunscreen, and the entire cosmetics industry for that matter, is a great example of how a lack of oversight exists when it comes to the approval of these products. How were they ever approved and marketed as safe?

A new study published Monday in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA found that several active ingredients in different sunscreens enter the bloodstream at levels that far exceed the FDA’s recommended threshold without a government safety inspection.

The study used 4 commercially available sunscreens, which all resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the safety levels established by the FDA. These safety levels themselves should also be questioned, as any amount of toxic chemicals is not really safe in the body, even in trace amounts.  The study also points out that it’s questionable that the FDA waved “some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens.” Clearly more are needed. The study concluded that “the systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings,” although, strangely, it did mention that the results “do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.”

It’s odd that the authors would state that, perhaps they did so because it’s a study that was conducted by the FDA? You would think that “plasma concentrations” that exceed safety levels would have the authors urging individuals to seek out less harmful sunscreen products, since these are available at multiple natural health stores.

The big takeaway here is that, what goes on your skin goes into your skin, and it doesn’t take long. The study mentioned observed chemicals seep into the bloodstream via sunscreen in just 24 hours.

It’s interesting how this particular study caught the attention of the mainstream, when numerous studies have shown the same thing. For example, a study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Clinica de Salud del Valle Salinas demonstrated how taking even a short break from various cosmetics, shampoos, and other personal care products can lead to a substantial drop in the levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals present within the body. (source)

After just a three-day trial with the girls using only the lower-chemical products, urine samples showed a significant drop in the level of chemicals in the body. Methyl and propyl parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, dropped 44% and 45%, respectively, and metabolites of diethyl phthalate, used often in perfumes, dropped by 27%, and both triclosan and benzophenone-3 fell 36%.

Pretty, crazy, isn’t it?

Back to sunscreen! As far back as 2004, a study conducted at the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba, Canada, sought to develop a method for quantifying common sunscreen agents. Results demonstrated a significant penetration of all sunscreen agents into the skin, meaning all of these chemicals are entering multiple tissues within the body. (source)

What type of chemicals are we talking about? Oxybenzone is present in multiple popular sunscreens, for example. There are multiple studies that have outlined the dangers of this chemical, as it’s linked to several ailments. For example, a study out of the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology from the University of Zurich determined that oxybenzone may also mimic the effects of estrogen in the body and promote the growth of cancer cells.

Prompted by multiple studies, a study out of the Queensland Cancer Fund Laboratories at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Australia recognized the significance of systemic absorption of sunscreens. Researchers discovered that oxybenzone inhibited cell growth and DNA synthesis and retarded cycle progression in the first of the four phases of the cell cycle. They determined that sunscreen causes mitochondrial stress and changes in drug uptake in certain cell lines.

These are a few of multiple examples, and it’s only for one chemical out of the multiple hormone disrupting, harmful chemicals found within sunscreen.

Furthermore, various studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients, like oxybenzone, actually increase the absorption of other harmful chemicals, like herbicides, which we are constantly exposed to as well.

Agricultural workers are encouraged to use sunscreen to decrease the risk of UV-related skin cancer. Our previous studies have shown certain commercial sunscreens to be penetration enhancers. The focus of this project is to determine whether active ingredients in sunscreen formulations (i.e., the UV absorbing components and insect repellants for the sunscreen/bug repellant combinations) also act as dermal penetration enhancers for herbicides in vitro. Additional studies demonstrated that the penetration enhancement seen across hairless mouse skin also occurred with human skin. Thus, the active ingredients of sunscreen formulations enhance dermal penetration of the moderately lipophilic herbicide 2,4-D. (source)

Again, the main point here is that what you put on your body goes into your body. If you’re putting on sunscreen, or make-up, and you read all of the ingredients, all of those ingredients are also entering into your bloodstream.

So, What’s The Solution?

Are we really supposed to avoid the sun? It doesn’t seem too natural, as it provides us with an enormous amount of nourishment. Not just us, but all life on Earth. Was fear of the sun simply used as a marketing tactic to avoid it and sell these products? Sure, sunburns are bad and can cause cancer, but simple sun exposure is not bad for you. We burn because our skin is not used to so much sun exposure, as we now live unnatural lives out of the sun. When we all of a sudden spend more time outdoors, our skin doesn’t have the time to adjust, and so it burns.

If you want to wear sunscreen, the answer is simple: Seek out sunscreen products without harmful chemicals. Go to a natural health store, do your own research, look online, seek out natural alternative products, and perhaps slowly begin to spend more time outside so your skin adjusts and becomes less prone to burning.

Should we really be spending more time in the sun? According to a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the life expectancy of people that avoided sun exposure was reduced by about 2 years compared to those who regularly sun bathed. The study even pointed out that nonsmokers who stayed out of the sun had a life expectancy similar to smokers who had the highest level of sun exposure. (source)

In the study, the researchers looked at data from 29,518 Swedish women. The women were 25-64 years of age at the start of the study. The study was originally designed to evaluate the rate of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, so sun exposure was one of the variables that was being examined.

The results showed that women who regularly sun bathed lived longer because they had a lower rate of death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and deaths that were not due to cancer or CVD as compared to those who avoided sun exposure. However, these women did have a higher rate of death due to cancer, which was in part because they lived longer.

Because nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, the researchers concluded that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.

This isn’t a big surprise, as the sun gives us vitamin D, which plays a huge role in our overall health, especially when it comes to our cardiovascular strength, organ function, blood pressure, bone health, and our immune system. We need sun exposure, and if we are putting on sunscreen every time we are out in the sun as a result of fear propaganda, we are not getting all of those health benefits.  Please understand that this list of important benefits represents a fraction of the many ways in which vitamin D helps optimize your health. And, although you can obtain vitamin D from natural food sources, experts agree on one thing: Sunlight is by far the best way to get your vitamin D. The so-called experts who advise you to avoid all sunlight and religiously apply sunscreen are actually encouraging you to increase your risk of cancer, not lower it.

A huge and growing amount of research has now shown that avoiding sun exposure has created an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. Current estimates are that at least 50% of the general population and 80% in infants are deficient in vitamin D. Low levels of D3 are now known to play a major role in the development in many of the chronic degenerative diseases. In fact, vitamin D deficiency may be the most common medical condition in the world and vitamin D supplementation may be the most cost effective strategy in improving health, reducing disease, and living longer. Those deficient in vitamin D have twice the rate of death and a doubling of risk for many diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma and autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. – Dr. Michael Murray (source)

There are so many more studies that back up the information shared in this article. One study revealed that melanoma patients who had higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients, and patients who already had melanoma and got a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type. Perhaps there are more prominent causes of skin cancer than the sun?

An Italian study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in June 2008, also confirms and supports earlier studies showing improved survival rates in melanoma patients who were exposed to sunlight more frequently in the time before their melanoma was diagnosed.

This suggests sunlight can actually help skin cancer.

Let’s be clear, healthy sun exposure may not cause skin cancer, but a bad sunburn and unhealthy exposure can. We do need shade, but spending a day out in the sun may be natural and not as dangerous as it’s been made out to be. You can also cover up with clothes, which is more effective than sunscreen as it doesn’t block 100 percent of UV rays.

Many natural oils have also been shown to have SPF protection, so you could do some more research on this if you’re interested.

Below is a video of Dr. Elizabeth Plourde, a licensed Clinical Laboratory Scientist who also has degrees in Biological Science and Psychology. Dr. Plourde has degrees from California State University, Pepperdine University and San Diego Univeristy for Integrative Studies. Currenty, Dr. Plourde uses her experience in her fields of study as well has her work in medical laboratories to focus attention on the hazards of sunscreen, among other things.

The Takeaway

A lot of fear has been pumped into the population, to the point where people are terrified to go out into the sun without putting on sunscreen every single time. We are now only starting to understand the long term health consequences of such a practice, and this could be one of many environmental causes contributing to several age-related diseases. Don’t be too scared — it’s not like you’ll develop cancer or a hormone disrupting disease after using conventional sunscreen once. This requires long-term exposure to these chemicals, which is in part why so many people don’t care about what they put on their bodies.

At the end of the day, there are other things you can do, but just know that sunlight is really nothing to fear. It’s very healthy in appropriate amounts, and given the amount of time we spend indoors, the more sunlight we are exposed to the better.

Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People for many years and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians. This article shares one of many encounters, but I recently shared another she described in an article published a few days ago.

Here is a great quote at the beginning of her book, Encounters With Star People, Untold Stories of American Indianswhich is where this information comes from.

I first learned about the “Star People” when my grandmother told me the ancient legends of my people. My childhood reality included narratives that traced the origins of the indigenous people of the Americas to Pleiades; stories of little people who intervened in people’s lives; and legends about the magical gift of the DNA of the “Star People” that flowed in the veins of the indigenous tribes of the Earth. I embraced the stories of the celestial visitors who lived among the Indian people as part of my heritage.

The book is fascinating to say the least, and describes many encounters of ‘star beings,’ both benevolent and malevolent in nature. Since I’ve been a UFO/extraterrestrial researcher for a very long time myself, it’s very interesting to see how some of these stories corroborate with some of the information I’ve come across from other sources over the years.

The following story comes from an elder who believed that “aliens not only once walked upon this land, but that they continued to do so. To prove his declaration, he displayed an alien artifact of a most personal nature – a petrified heart, which he maintained belonged to an ancient alien.”

His name was Sam, and he was a respected elder in his community. He worked at his community school as a surrogate grandfather counselling troubled youth. Clarke had developed a relationship with Sam, who was 92 years old at the time of this experience that Clarke shared in her book. One day, among many others, they had a very spiritual conversation, and life on other planets came up. He told Clarke that “our ancestors knew a lot more about the Universe than anyone has acknowledged, I have something I want to show you.”

According to Clarke he pulled back the blanket on his lap and held up a bundle.

My grandfather gave me this when I was a boy. He was almost 90 years old at the time. I was six or seven.” He unwrapped the object and handed it to me. “It’s a petrified heart,” I said, somewhat shocked by the object I was holding.

Clarke then proceeded to ask a number of questions. The elder answered, as Clarke describes:

“This is the heart of a star traveler. If you look closely, you will see that it is not quite like a human heart.” I turned it over in my hands and looked at it. Within the adult heart are two parallel independent systems, each consisting of an atrium and a ventricle. This heart was different. Instead of four chambers as found in the human heart, it had five chambers with three auricles and three ventricles. When I pointed that out to Sam, he nodded. “The Start People have hearts that are slightly different from ours. They beat much slower, too. According to my grandfather, the heart belonged to a star traveler. It was given to him by his grandfather who obtained it from his grandfather and so on and so on. Back in the old days, the Star People lived on Earth. They mated with our women and we became one with them.”

The last point is interesting, that they used to live here among the indigenous populations. This corroborates with various other indigenous stories shared from many others as well. As far as mating and interbreeding, stories about ‘gods’ interbreeding with human beings is also in the lore of not just indigenous people, but can be found in Christian lore too, specifically the “Nephillim.

The elder went on to explain to Clarke that they were here until the white man came, according to the elder:

They knew the white man was coming to this land. They warned us and suggested that we leave this planet. Many spaceships came to take the people away. Some of the people went back to the stars to live. Many were strong-willed and stubborn and decided to stay behind. They believe they could resist the white men since they knew he was coming. They would have the advantage of surprise. It was not so. The white man’s weapons were greater, their words stronger, their numbers bigger. Some of the people even believed them to be gods and chose them  over their own people. Our ancestors from the stars never came back to save us. We were left to our own destiny.

 He then went on to describe his experiences with the star people and how he has been taken aboard crafts and seen many worlds. Many worlds and civilizations that lived in the past, off the land and not as technologically advanced yet. He was also told about the ones who abduct people, and how many star groups avoided them, claiming that “they are no longer humans. They intentionally bred from their race the ability to feel love, compassion, and pain – all emotions. They believed it would make for a better world. One without emotions could lead to greater advancement.”

The abduction phenomenon is very real, and backed by a lot of great research from multiple professors and researchers. I published an article about it not too long ago, and if you’re interested, you can read that here.

Sam passed away at the age of 97. A photo appeared in the local paper of him in a headdress of eagle feathers and a beaded shirt. The headline read, “The Last Chief of the Northern Plains dies.”

The Takeaway

Whether or not this story and others in Clarke’s book are true is not the point, although I have very little doubt that many of them are. It’s truly a shame what happened in our recent past with regards to colonization, leading to the loss of many stories that were once prominent in indigenous culture because indoctrination ensued. That was a dark time, a time that humanity is just beginning to climb out of and I feel that it’s important to share stories that were once a strong tradition amongst the indigenous people. We are not alone, and we are much more than we’ve been made to believe we are.

The notion that we need to have an authority figure tell us what to do and what not to do is coming more and more into question in modern times. In fact, wresting away the power we have given to our authority may turn out to be the single most important challenge we face in our collective awakening.

To some extent, we can look at human history as the struggle between those who have aspired to hold the mantle of authority, each one promoting their paradigm in a kind of competition with the aim of consolidating and expanding their power over the people. The rise of democracy has turned this struggle from one that mainly employed brute force to one that uses the subtle arts of persuasion and manipulation to garner consent for their rules and rulership.

All this to say that when something that our authority had previously called ‘illegal’ (meaning its commission could result in fines or imprisonment) is suddenly legal, it is worth examining whether this truly represents a victory for personal freedom, a small step towards the unshackling of the bonds of authority.

The Psilocybin Mushroom Initiative

In the shadow of the trend towards the legalization of marijuana in Western society, the decriminalization of so-called ‘magic mushrooms’ in Denver has come in a little bit under the radar. Here is what voters in Denver were asked to consider in Initiated Ordinance 301, Psilocybin Mushroom Initiative

Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt an ordinance to the Denver Revised Municipal Code that would make the personal use and personal possession of psilocybin mushrooms by persons twenty-one (21) years of age and older the city’s lowest law-enforcement priority, prohibit the city from spending resources to impose criminal penalties for the personal use and personal possession of psilocybin mushrooms by persons twenty-one (21) years of age and older, and establish the psilocybin mushroom policy review panel to assess and report on the effects of the ordinance?

Note that this move does not actually remove the illegality of the personal use or possession of psilocybin, for actually making it legal would be a sign that our authority truly wanted to give some of its power back to the people. Rather, they chose to make it a law to ‘prohibit the city from spending resources to impose criminal penalties’ in order to keep the reigns of control over the matter and more easily reverse it if their ‘review panel’ deems it too dangerous.

The Arguments For And Against

The organization Decriminalize Denver made the following argument in favor of decriminalizing psilocybin mushrooms on its website:

We envision a society where individuals can use psilocybin mushrooms without fear of criminal or civil penalties. Psilocybin is shown to reduce psychological stress and suicidality, reduce opioid use and dependence, and be physiologically safe and non-addictive.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado stated that Decriminalize Denver’s “effort matches the Libertarian Party of Colorado’s platform planks of ‘The Individual’ and ‘Victimless Crimes.'” Meanwhile, the Denver Green Party stated that the “psilocybin effort encompasses six of the Green Party’s Ten Key Values: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Non-Violence, Respect for Diversity, and Personal and Global responsibility.”

Opposing the measure, Jeff Hunt, director of Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute, stated, “Denver is quickly becoming the illicit drug capital of the world. The truth is we have no idea what the long-term health effects of these drugs are going to do to the people of Colorado … At a certain point, parents are going to look at the city of Denver and say, ‘I don’t want to take my kids to that city.’ And I don’t think tourists are going to want to come to this state.” (source)

The Results And What They Suggest

According to online results from the Denver Elections Division, 89,320 people voted in favor of decriminalizing, while 87,341 others voted against it.

People may have had many reasons for voting for or against the issue. Perhaps many didn’t care. One could argue that what one flaky, oddball city in the United States decides to do has no major impact on a country, let alone the movement of consciousness in the world. However, one fundamental thing can be said about the decriminalization of the personal use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms in Denver: a majority of the population has said that it would prefer to leave the decision to the individual rather than to the state.

It may very well be that this represents a further awakening of society to the potentially positive benefits of natural psychedelics in the same vein as the positive benefits for marijuana were promoted, first for strictly medical reasons and then for general consumption. It could represent a victory over Big Pharma who undoubtedly would have wanted to maintain a monopoly on the market for products that treated psychological stress and maintain the demand for opioids.

I will leave the question to others as to whether the consumption of psychedelics in and of itself is beneficial for the individual and society. CE has touched upon this in several articles including ‘New Study Shows The Science of How Psychedelic Drugs Repair Neurons In The Brain‘ and ‘How The New Science of Psychedelics Can Teach Us About Depression, Trauma & Much More…

Perhaps the best CE has touched on the psychedelic question is in a podcast episode having a deep discussion on it here.

The questions here are whether or not we are seeing signs that our authority’s grip on power is weakening, if our growing awareness is leading to a reduction in the prosecution of victimless crimes, and if a growing number of us as individuals are reaching more for the reins of self-responsibility while actively looking for ways out of the yoke of control long held by our authority.

If this is taking place–and I think in the long view it ultimately must be, though perhaps not accelerating as quickly as many of us had hoped–then we may be able to take solace in some of the changes we are seeing taking place in our society that would not have been considered possible just a short time ago.

The Takeaway

Our individual sovereignty is a right and is the natural order of things, endowed by creation, as the Constitution states. I believe it is the most important thing to devote our energy to, the most important thing to fight for. I believe it is our destiny as a collective. It is incumbent upon us as members of the Awakening Community to bring notice to the small steps we are taking in that direction, and perhaps the decriminalization of ‘magic mushrooms’ in one city in America is such a step.

Hydrogen peroxide is praised for its antiseptic and healing properties. In fact, there is a new urban myth proclaiming that hydrogen peroxide is universally beneficial for all the body organs and tissues. Regarding dental health, this couldn’t be further from the truth as evidence shows that hydrogen peroxide is actually toxic for the cells in the inner part of the teeth, also known as the dental pulp. Without a doubt, hydrogen peroxide does a really good job at bleaching and disinfecting teeth; hydrogen peroxide- based bleaching gels are essential for dentists and there is solid evidence demonstrating the efficacy of these protocols. On the other hand, there is a lot of uncontrolled information and advice, recommending hydrogen peroxide as an ideal everyday mouthwash. Taking into account that over-the-counter hydrogen peroxide concentrations can be as high as the formulas used by dentists in bleaching sessions (20-30%) and the growing popularity of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative therapy, the danger of potential long-term teeth damage by using high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide as a casual mouthwash are unknown, underestimated and largely under-discussed.

Hydrogen peroxide releases superoxide anions (powerful free radicals), which are responsible for its significant bleaching and antiseptic properties. However, its beneficial properties stop right here because research shows that it can penetrate the tooth enamel and dentin and reach the very inner tooth chamber called dental pulp. Hydrogen peroxide has low molecular weight and the ability to destroy proteins, which facilitate diffusion through enamel and dentin. The dental pulp is where the blood vessels and nerves of each tooth reside, which makes this area particularly sensitive. A unique class of cells, called odontoblasts also reside in the periphery of the dental pulp area, which support the teeth by depositing new dentin layers throughout life and are also believed to play a protective/reparative role in response to dental carries or other environmental factors that harm teeth. The problem with hydrogen peroxide is that it has a cytotoxic effect on the dental pulp cells, which means that it literally kills them. A study published in 2013 in the Journal of Endodontics shows that even low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide trigger molecular mechanisms in pulp cells, which activate programmed cell death.

According to another study published in the same journal in 2013, even the bleaching protocols used by dentists seem to be harmful for the dental pulp, since the damage in that area is directly correlated to the number of bleaching sessions. Odontoblasts, are directly damaged or show a significant decrease in their metabolic activity as a result of the bleaching sessions using 35% hydrogen peroxide gel. It is believed that this effect may result in tissue irritation and tooth sensitivity. A study published in the journal Scientific World Journal in 2013 shows that the higher the concentration of hydrogen peroxide, the faster it reaches the inner tooth tissues. The authors tested 35% and 20% concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and report that the 35% hydrogen peroxide diffused faster into the pulp chamber than the 20% hydrogen peroxide bleaching gel.

It is speculated that lower concentrations of hydrogen peroxide may have significantly less toxic effects on dental pulp cells, because there is more time to dilute and degrade the peroxide that reaches the pulp. However, the long-term or even short-term effects of daily use of hydrogen peroxide as a mouthwash have never been evaluated. If a few bleaching sessions can cause detectable damage in the dental pulp, then, based on the existing evidence, it is reasonable to assume that using hydrogen peroxide mouthwash on a daily basis may not be the safest option at all.

References

Wu TT, et al. 2013. Hydrogen peroxide induces apoptosis in human dental pulp cells via caspase-9 dependent pathway. J Endod. 39(9):1151-5.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23953289

Torres CR et al. 2013. Influence of concentration and activation on hydrogen peroxide diffusion through dental tissues in vitro. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013:193241.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24163616

Cintra LT et al. 2013. The number of bleaching sessions influences pulp tissue damage in rat teeth. J Endod. 39(12):1576-80.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24238450

Dias Ribeiro AP, et al. 2009. Cytotoxic effect of a 35% hydrogen peroxide bleaching gel on odontoblast-like MDPC-23 cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 108(3):458-64.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19716511

Arana-Chavez VE, Massa LF. 2004. Odontoblasts: the cells forming and maintaining dentine. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 36(8):1367-73.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15147714

Eleni Roumeliotou is a mom, clinical nutritionist, environmental toxins expert and founder of Primal Baby, a health sanctuary for modern families. Through her work, Eleni helps parents and parents-to-be create a safe, non-toxic environment for their baby to grow up and thrive. She also helps pregnant women adopt the right diet and lifestyle to minimize complication risk and ensure the immediate and long-term health of their little one.

Link to original article. For more information from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their Newsletter here

Note: With this article, Children’s Health Defense is launching its second eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBookThe Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule. This part of our new eBook outlines the political developments in the late 1980s that allowed these changes to happen and describes the widespread conflicts of interest that continue to overshadow the U.S. vaccine program.

Vaccination has been a cornerstone of U.S. government public health policy for decades. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—initially called the Communicable Disease Center—opened its doors in the early 1940s with a mandate primarily focused on malaria eradication, it rapidly pushed to “extend its responsibilities to other communicable diseases,” including many of the illnesses subsequently targeted by vaccination.

The CDC has operated as the standard-bearer for the nation’s vaccination efforts ever since. However, a close look at the agency’s behavior—and the statements of internal whistleblowers—reveals that, for all intents and purposes, the CDC functions as a subsidiary of a “rapacious” pharmaceutical industry in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous “outside parties and rogue interests” that all benefit from their endorsement of a highly profitable vaccine orthodoxy. The powerful vaccine “gospel” has swept up regulators, medical trade associations, physicians, science journals, the popular press and others “in a kind of consensus dogma” that has become “more important than the children [these institutions were] supposed to protect.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as heretics.

Economic and political interests have steered U.S. vaccination programs since at least the 19th century, when the medical establishment and its government and industry allies recognized that vaccination provided a new income stream and a compelling opportunity “to augment their authority in a competitive medical marketplace.” Historical documents show that, from the earliest days, vaccine proponents have promoted a one-sided agenda, sidelining deeper inquiry into safety and efficacy and castigating individuals who dare to raise questions. In a blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black, Dr. William Bailey belligerently declared in an 1899 issue of Public Health Papers and Reports (a precursor to the American Journal of Public Health) that vaccination’s “enemies are organized and aggressive in their warfare against it.”

Over a century later, it is clear that vaccine policy-makers are the ones whose “organized and aggressive” public relations (PR) apparatus is relentlessly waging war on questioners, effectively branding them as heretics. Independent scientists who cast doubt on vaccine orthodoxy find themselves facing personal attacks rather than impartial scrutiny of their research.

In recent months, the “war” has intensified, seemingly with buy-in from legislators, regulators, researchers and the private sector. Consider the following:

  • In November 2018, payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program crossed over the $4 billion threshold, and the government reported a surge in autism rates (1 in 40 children)—yet when two congressional Committees held kangaroo-court vaccine hearings a few months later, they ignored vaccine safety issues and instead used the proceedings to demonizethe unvaccinated.
  • Reflecting the “outsized dependence of both political classes and media outlets on pharmaceutical industry contributions and advertising revenue,” a Congressman requested that private social media and Internet companies censor information critical of current vaccine policies and products. In a cogent response, another Congressman asked, “If vaccines do not cause injuries, why has the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund paid out $4,061,322,557.08 for vaccine injuries?”
  • 2019 has marked a ballooning of legislative attempts to violate the bedrock principle—and fundamental human right—of free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. Citizens seeking to uphold their religious and philosophical rights to vaccine exemptions face increasingly punitive actions. Even medical exemptions are under attack.

There is more and more evidence of a coordinated effort to suppress any and all information that might be unfavorable to the vaccine program. Some of this verges on the slapstick, such as the last-minute cancellations by four pro-vaccine-mandate speakers who declined to show up at a scheduled event at Yale to debate “The Science of Vaccines” with Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in March 2019. Other incidents are less entertaining:

  • In February 2019, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), gave false information to Congress, denying that measles vaccination can cause encephalitis (brain inflammation), even though vaccine package inserts have always listed encephalitis as a risk of measles vaccination.
  • In January 2019, a renowned medical expert signed a sworn affidavitexplaining how he told Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers in 2007 that “vaccinations could cause autism” in a subset of children. The DOJ fired him as an expert witness, kept his opinion secret from the public and misrepresented his opinion in federal court in order to continue to debunk vaccine-autism claims.
  • In a March 2017 publication, CDC authors acknowledged that many individuals involved in California’s 2015 measles outbreak were “recent vacinees,” briefly citing “unpublished data” showing that the vaccine strain of measles caused the infection in almost two-fifths (38%) of the tested cases.

Nonetheless, the CDC continues to demand that parents unhesitatingly allow their children to receive endless vaccine doses during pregnancy, infancy, childhood and adolescence. If someone (even an experienced doctor) dares to propose a less immunologically burdensome approach, the PR machine instantly jumps into overdrive to discredit him or her, despite the fact that respected, peer-reviewed science—including from the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—supports these concerns.

When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

Waning Public Confidence

Although a barrage of assurances, both nationally and globally, continues to tell consumers that vaccines are safe, confidence in vaccine programs is declining worldwide. The medical journal Pediatrics reported in 2013 that nearly nine in ten U.S. pediatricians (87%) had encountered parents who questioned the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, up from 75% of children’s doctors in 2006. The surveyed pediatricians also reported receiving frequent requests to follow an alternative vaccine schedule (almost one in five parents) and, over the seven-year period, a doubling of the percentage of parents refusing at least one vaccine. Where honored, parents’ wishes for a slower and more selective vaccine schedule are amply rewarded, with practice data demonstrating better health outcomes and a far lower risk of autism.

Even the most ardent vaccine proponents recognize that the erosion of public trust is at least partially their own fault—the result of factors such as “heightened [public] awareness of the profit motives of the vaccine industry,” lack of transparency on the part of industry and conflicts of interest among policy-makers. These observers even admit that “financial and bureaucratic reasons” prompt “vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals… not…to acknowledge the risks of vaccines.” When companies perpetuate misleading vaccine safety claims—exaggerating the benefits and concealing the risks—and regulators obligingly politicize their vaccine recommendations and decisions, trust is damaged still further.

In 1967, when childhood vaccines were much fewer and farther between, Dr. Graham Wilson (one-time Director of the Public Health and Laboratory Service for England and Wales) warned of the need to pay ongoing attention to vaccine safety, stating:

It is for us, and for those who come after us, to see that the sword which vaccines and antisera have put into our hands is never allowed to tarnish through over-confidence, negligence, carelessness, or want of foresight on our part.

Forty years later, Congressional Representative Dave Weldon, himself a physician, harshly criticized the federal agencies charged with ensuring vaccine safety for failing to heed Wilson’s cautions.

The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science.

The U.S. government’s Healthy People 2020 initiative states that “childhood immunization programs provide a very high return on investment,” but Americans should be asking just who is garnering the positive returns. Globally, the vaccine industry is on track to more than double its worldwide revenues by 2024—from $32 .5 billion in 2015 to a projected $77 billion—but highly vaccinated children in the U.S. and elsewhere are suffering. As described by Children’s Health Defense in the eBookThe Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, children’s health has worsened dramatically since the late 1980s—“precisely the same time that the U.S. started expanding the types and total number of vaccines required for school attendance.” Over half of American children have at least one chronic illness, and neurodevelopmental disorders and pediatric autoimmune conditions have climbed to historically unprecedented levels. There is abundant evidence that vaccines are making children sicker, not healthier—representing an unquestionably negative return on investment for children, families and society.

In THIS eBook, CHD takes the position that conflicts of interest and unethical behavior encumber the key public and private players involved in U.S. and global vaccination programs to such an extent that public skepticism is not only understandable, but justified. The loss of confidence in vaccine safety must be addressed with independent, unbiased science. As we publish subsequent parts of the eBook, we will illustrate how lack of integrity and ethical betrayals are impeding sound public health policy and vaccine safety science, while gravely undermining children’s health.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

It’s no secret that many people believe that Facebook has become a massive tool for censorship. Multiple social media platforms are now banning anything and everything that opposes certain political thoughts or corporate agendas, regardless of how credible it is and how much evidence there is to back up those claims. A lot of news that isn’t really false has simply been labelled as ‘fake news.’ It reminds me of what’s happening with vaccines today, for example, as the mainstream media (which never receives any type of censorship or “fake” labels) never seems to address the concerns and points that are made by multiple vaccine safety advocates, even when those concerns are expressed by scientists and doctors. Instead, mainstream media uses terms like ‘anti-vax conspiracy theorists’ and ‘fake news’ to make their point, while simultaneously influencing the minds of the masses.

Elitist groups like NewsGuard have been appointed to determine for the population what’s real and what’s not, and they’re really going hard against alternative media and placing enormous amounts of restriction and censorship on them in conjunction with Facebook. NewsGuard in particular is funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR, and NewsGuard seems to have a clear agenda in favour of mainstream media. You can read more about that here.

Furthermore, if you look at some of Facebook’s employees, it’s not hard to see why they are censoring specific types of information. For example,  ex-DARPA Director and Google Executive Regina Dugan was an employee at Facebook. Nathan Gleicher worked at the US governments counsel for the US D.OJ. and is now the head of Cyber Security at Facebook. Joel Kaplan, a Deputy Chief of Staff for the US, is Facebook’s VP of Public Policy. There are several employees with similar backgrounds. Not many people know that Facebook has become a revolving door of employees between the corporation itself and the US government. We see this with various corporations like Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as pharmaceutical companies and the Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This is why we must carefully examine the recent piece Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes published in the New York times, calling for the break up of the social media giant due to the “staggering” and “unchecked” power of CEO Mark Zukerberg.

Before we go any further, I want to mention that a lot of blame has been put on Zuckerberg for Facebook’s actions as of late, particularly when it comes to the censorship of information, mass surveillance, and sharing of information that most people thought would remain private. But is it really only Zuckerberg? Or has Facebook been ‘taken over’ by ‘higher’ powers and made Zuckerberg the ‘fall guy,’ or the one to blame? Something to think about.

In his oped, co-founder Hughes points towards Facebook’s “sloppy privacy practices,” “violent rhetoric and fake news,” and the “unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention.”

He goes on to say that “there is no precedent for Zuckerberg’s ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.”

Again, at least in my opinion, it’s quite clear to me that this is not just Zuckerberg. The US government has come under intense scrutiny as of late with regards to mass corruption in several different areas, from financial to healthcare and more. Somebody else could be pulling the strings, right?

Facebook’s ban and deletion of accounts, including those belonging to multiple media outlets and public figures who have voiced their opinions and shared information exposing the government, has been called a ‘modern day book burning.’ It’s happened to us here at CE as well. We’ve been demonetized by Youtube and heavily censored on Facebook. This is exactly why we created CETV, so we can try and stay afloat due to the fact that all of our revenue streams have been taken away.

Hughes went on:

“Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered.”

Regardless of whether Mark alone is a puppet or not, the issue is that Facebook and other social media platforms have teamed up with corporations like NewsGuard (mentioned above) and are actively censoring people’s rights to free speech and information.

What Does This “Break-Up” of Facebook Imply? What’s Going On Here?

Anything mainstream media posts is always questionable, regardless of whether the author has any ill-intentions or not. The platform The New York Times, for example, is pure establishment media. It’s one of multiple platforms like CNN that more and more people are starting to see through and perceive as tools for “the invisible government” that owes “no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” (Roosevelt)

When former mayor of New York City John F. Hylan said that “The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation . . . The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties . . . [and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country,” he wasn’t joking. Today we know this to be a fact, given the documents that’ve been released showing the close connections between mainstream media and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, we now have multiple award-winning journalists from these news agencies blowing the whistle, emphasizing that they are and have been nothing but major mouthpieces for intelligence agencies, governments and corporations.

Make no mistake, through social media platforms like Facebook, information has been able to spread far and wide across the world. In large part, a lot of the information shared on Facebook that threatened various political and corporate agendas was also responsible for shifting the way many people now perceive our planet. This is still a problem for the global elite. It’s unclear why Hughes is calling for some sort of change with regards to Facebook’s censorship and the way they are designing their algorithms, but perhaps it’s in order to promote free speech or cause the destruction of Facebook.

If he is advocating for the destruction of Facebook, which is still a platform used to spread important information despite the limited reach, censorship and algorithm changes, then he could be advocating for the global elite. But even the global elite’s agenda in regards to Facebook is unclear — they could want Facebook gone, or they could use it to collect data and information on people as well as use it as a surveillance tool.

The Takeaway

The funny thing about censorship is that it’s been happening for decades, ever since JFK warned us that  “dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.” He also said that “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” (source)

That statement is still very relevant today, as the elite are constantly justifying their censorship efforts by simply calling things ‘fake’ instead of actually addressing the points made.

Sure, there is fake news out there, but what’s happening is quite obvious. It’s reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, where we now have a ministry of truth that tries to silence anybody who opposes it.

Our world is not as it seems, and there are those who want to shape the narrative in their favour and control the perception of the masses. That being said, all of these censorship efforts aren’t really working in the elite’s favour because the more they do it, the more people start to recognize how ridiculous it really is.

I’m going to leave you with this great quote from Edward Snowden to ponder on:

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we as citizens, we as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.” –Edward Snowden (source)

The term “big pharma” is really making its rounds as more and more people become aware of the fact that the major corporations that manufacture the majority of our “medicine” are actually criminals. The latest example comes from a recent case where a federal jury found multiple top executives of Insys-Therapeutics, a well-known pharmaceutical company that sold a fentanyl-based painkiller (opioids), guilty of racketeering charges and contributing to America’s current opioid epidemic.

Racketeering is a crime committed through extortion or coercion. Intimidation and force are also associated with this charge, and it’s often linked with organized crime, which seems to be a fitting definition for our modern day medical industry. This corporate domination is exactly why, in 2014, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet stated that “the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source) It’s why Arnold Symour Relman emphasized that the “medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research.” He thought it was  “disgraceful” that the academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.” (source)

This isn’t a secret, but it’s quite odd how substances like opioids get approved by our federal health regulatory agencies, which have clearly been compromised as well.

In this case, the jury deliberated for two weeks before issuing a verdict against the company’s founder, John Kapoor, as well as four former executives of the company. They found that not only did these people conspire together on how to drive sales of their drug in several unethical ways, but they bribed doctors to proscribe their product and mislead insurers about patients’ needs for the drug as well.

According to the New York Times:

The verdict against Insys executives is a sign of the accelerating effort to hold pharmaceutical and drug distribution companies and their executives and owners accountable in ways commensurate with the devastation wrought by the prescription opioid crisis. More than 200,000 people have overdosed on such drugs in the past two decades. Federal authorities last month for the first time filed felony drug trafficking charges against a major pharmaceutical distributor, Rochester Drug Cooperative, and two former executives, accusing them of shipping tens of millions of oxycodone pills and fentanyl products to pharmacies that were distributing drugs illegally.

Shortly after Insys was given approval to sell their opioid drug, they found one very significant problem. Their drug, a sprayable form of fentanyl called Subsys, was designed to treat cancer patients with acute pain. However, they soon found that their market of cancer patients wasn’t quite big enough to match their profit goals, so they started falsifying information to make it look like patients had cancer so they could sell more of their drug.

The U.S. Department of Justice document reads:

Several pharmaceutical executives and managers, formerly employed by Insys Therapeutics, Inc., were arrested today on charges that they led a nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud healthcare insurers.

Pretty wild, isn’t it?

This is great, but how deep does the deception go? How much power do these corporations and their executives hold? Below is a great quote from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that explains the issue quite well:

The pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. (source)

We don’t really live in a democracy, we are living in a ‘corporatocracy.’ There are many products manufactured by pharmaceutical companies that are highly questionable in light of evidence like the example above. Take, for example, when pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went undocumented.  (source)

Another great example comes from documents showing that pharmaceutical companies are deliberately concealing information for the sole purpose of getting us to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule. They show that British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years. The 45 page paper with detailed evidence can be downloaded here: The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds? by Lucija Tomljenovic, who was part of the Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada at the time.

A few years ago, a group of more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out a public statement, while remaining anonymous, outlining the big problem of corporate influence and the effect it has on health policy decisions. The documents were referred to as the Spider Papers.  The authors really stressed just how big of a problem this is.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that fraud and corruption exist within many powerful pharmaceutical companies and within other major corporations that manufacture the products we use and consume.

This particular case with regards to opioids is a great step in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go.

Just as we would street-level drug dealers, we will hold pharmaceutical executives responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic by recklessly and illegally distributing these drugs, especially while conspiring to commit racketeering along the way,” said Andrew E. Lelling, the United States attorney in Massachusetts who pursued the case. (source)

But we still have to ask important questions, like why did the FDA just approve a painkiller 1,000 times stronger than morphine?

In the CE article ‘Study Reveals Big Pharma Paid Doctors Millions of Dollars To Push Opioids,’ Kalee Brown makes a cogent argument that the opioid epidemic, which is responsible for at least two thirds of the record 72,000 overdose deaths in the U. S. last year, is the product of a carefully crafted strategy that stems from a sinister alignment of  self-interest between Big Pharma, doctors, and the government. This strategy, it would seem, has no limits to its wickedness:

It’s no secret that Big Pharma is a money-making machine. Many even suggest that they design drugs with negative side effects so you remain sick, thus growing their market of sick consumers — a view supported by the reality that doctors get compensated for selling you drugs, not for getting you off of them.

Something to think about…

The Takeaway

Awareness on such issues is important. We live in an age where spreading information like the evidence shared in this article is incredibly difficult, as information is now heavily censored and blocked. Mainstream media controls the perception of the masses, and big pharma is one of multiple corporations who have been able to compromise them. At the end of the day, our ‘medicine’ makers can be corrupt, but there is a solution, and that’s us. There is no doubt about the fact that people are becoming more health conscious, more interested in alternative health, and more likely to seek out better ways to treat/medicate themselves instead of simply believing a doctor who only relies on pharmaceutical drugs without questioning them.

What happens when we ‘die?’ We can’t quite answer that question, but we can perhaps say that something indeed does happen. The evidence for reincarnation, for example, is quite unbelievable. There have been a number of cases of children who clearly remember their past lives, describing in detail their previous family members as well as how they died and other factors that have been confirmed by their supposed past families. This is precisely why Carl Sagan said that reincarnation is worthy of “serious scientific study.” Other near death studies have suggested that consciousness does not depend on our biology, as those who are close to death or pronounced dead and then come back to life have told tales and described details about their surroundings at the time that would have been impossible had they not been ‘outside’ of their bodies. This information was presented to the United Nations, and you can read more about that here and watch the full video presentation.  

There could be multiple things that happen when one passes away. Perhaps their soul can go multiple routes, as if it has a choice? Perhaps consciousness is something separate from the soul? Perhaps bits and pieces of our consciousness stick around while our soul goes off to a new experience? Who knows, but again, the evidence suggesting something does indeed happen is pretty interesting to say the least.

A study conducted a couple of years ago added to the mystery, as researchers from the University of Milan found that there is a “very high prevalence” of people who have experience with receiving messages from their deceased loves one, like seeing or hearing them. The study, however, labels these as “post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences,” and the researchers don’t seem to be open to the idea that these experiences could actually be real.

Through their work, they believe that 30 to 60 percent of people experience this type of thing, or at least widowed subjects.

They published their findings in the Journal of Affective Disorders. 

Jacqueline Hayes, an academic at the University of Roehampton, has studied the phenomenon for a long time. She’s been interviewing people from across the UK who have lost spouses, parents, children, siblings and friends. She told the Daily Mail: “People report visions, voices, tactile sensations, smells, and something that we call a sense of presence that is not necessarily related to any of the five senses. I found that these experiences could at times be healing and transformative, for example hearing your loved one apologise to you for something that happened – and at other times foreground the loss and grief in a painful way.”

The report follows research from the University of Southampton, which suggested there might be such thing as life after death. That study, published in 2014, found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after clinical death, which was previously thought impossible.

Russel Targ, a renowned physicist and co-founder of the US government/Stanford remote viewing STARGATE project also shared an interesting experience he had with his deceased daughter. During a formal meeting with other people that he was not involved in, his daughter asked one of those people to give a message to her father, Russel. This is one experience he had that convinced him that consciousness does indeed survive after death. He expressed this in an interview with UFO researcher Richard Dolan. You can watch that here in its entirety.

The scientific investigation of mediumship actually started approximately 150 years ago. Members of the British and American Societies for Psychical Research studied it heavily, which involved many prominent physiologists, psychologists and scientists.

Over the past few years, scientific research on mediumship has gained more popularity too. This could be due to the fact that recent research has confirmed that mediumship is not associated with conventional dissociated experiences, psychosis, dysfunction, pathology or over-active imaginations. (source)  In fact, a large percentage of mediums have been found to be high functioning individuals. (source)

“Most prior research on this phenomenon has focused on whether mediums can genuinely report accurate information under blinded conditions, and whether their personalities deviate in significant ways from population norms. But little is known about their physiological and electrocortical processes. Scientists have long proposed and used electroencephalography to study mediums in trance (deeply dissociated) states (Prince, 1968Mesulan, 1981Hughes and Melville, 1990Oohashi et al., 2002Hageman et al., 2010), but to our knowledge mental mediums who do not experience trance states have not been studied using these techniques.”

A team of researchers, including scientists from the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), published the very first paper on mediumship in the Journal Frontiers in Psychology in 2013. (source)

Paul Mills at the University of California, San Diego, Julie Beischel and Mark Boccuzzi at the Windbridge Institute, and Arnaud Delorme, Dean Radin and Leena Michel from IONS teamed up to design and conduct a study to collect psychometric and brain electrophysiology data from six individuals. They had all previously reported accurate information about deceased individuals under double-blind conditions, and did so again in this study. Correlations between the accuracy of mediums’ statements and their brain electrical activity were examined, and the differences in brain activity were studied when they intentionally evoked four subjective states: perception, recollection, fabrication, and communication.

Each participant performed two tasks with their eyes closed. In the first one, the participant was given only the first name of a deceased person, and was then asked 25 questions about them. After each question, the participant was asked to quietly perceive information that was relevant to the question for 20 seconds and then respond verbally. Each response was recorded and then scored for accuracy by individuals who knew the deceased people.

Out of the 4 mediums, the accuracy of 3 of them was significantly above chance, and the correlation between accuracy and brain activity during the 20 seconds of supposed communication with the dead was outstanding. Researchers discovered that brain activity during the 20 seconds of silent mediumship communication was significant in the frontal theta for one participant.

These results (and researchers) don’t point to this as definitive proof of mental communication with the deceased, but the accuracy ratings in the tasks and the unique brain activity measured in the second activity certainly call for further scientific inquiry into this under-studied phenomenon.

The Takeaway

The idea that consciousness exists beyond the physical realm is still greeted with harsh skepticism, but with all of the interesting evidence out there, this shouldn’t be the case. It should actually be studied further with an open mind, but the fact remains that no matter how strong and plausible the evidence is for something, if it upsets and disrupts the current accepted framework of knowledge, it will often be greeted with harsh opposition and ridicule. Countless amounts of ‘sane’ people have had experiences that suggest to them that their loved ones aren’t really ‘gone,’ but are simply in another place, so why do we assume that these are only hallucinations? Why do we instantly jump to that conclusion instead of actually entertaining the idea that there is indeed some sort of life after death, regardless of the fact that we may not be able to fully understand it yet?

For a very long time, “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses” has been “an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

This secret government has been discussed by multiple politicians and presidents around the world for decades. The quote above comes from Edward Bernays (Propaganda 1928), and we talk about this “secret government” in a recent episode on CETV discussing the black budget. We provide multiple examples in there of the “invisible government” that owes “no allegiance” and acknowledges “no responsibility” to the people. (Roosevelt)

This article is about the censoring of opinion and information that’s currently taking place. One of these ‘fake news’  watchdogs is NewsGuard, and they are aiming to hold independent media accountable for their stories. Funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR, NewsGuard seems to have a clear agenda in favour of mainstream media. You can read more about that story here.

This is exactly why we created CETV, because we’ve been demonetized on Youtube, and our other revenue streams have greatly decreased due to the massive amount of internet censorship that’s taking place. The elite have labelled credible information as ‘fake news,’ and have decided to determine for the people what is real and what is fake. CETV is our platform to combat this censorship.

Since when does anybody have the right to censor information? Why can’t the people be allowed to decide for themselves what’s real and what’s not by examining sources and doing their own research? Why should we give our minds away to the powerful people who are now determining what one can say, what one can’t say, what’s real, and what’s not real?

This fake news effort is not really an attempt to vet the news, which has become clear to most. With this effort, the elite have exposed themselves even more by shutting down any information or narrative, no matter how credible, that seems to threaten specific political and corporate agenda’s as well as profits. The voice of opposition has become extremely threatening, and as a result they are trying to shut down our ability to even question certain things like vaccine safety or genetically modified foods, for example.

When these topics are presented by mainstream media, massive amounts of ridicule usually follow, along with character assassination. The mainstream media never seems to address the points made, but rather uses ridicule and labels certain things as “conspiracy” theories to make their point, among other efforts.

This censorship is a direct breach of our human rights and our freedom of speech. The global elite have long been ‘making up problems’ in order to propose a new solution or rule. 9/11 is an excellent example of this, as that event was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Have we really gotten to the point where authoritative figures need to regulate and control what we say, what we think, and what we feel?

This recently happened to prominent actor James Woods, and this really goes to show why people with such large followings, like Hollywood stars, have always been careful to share their opinions on anything controversial. If they do, their careers could be shut down, among other things.

James Woods has reportedly been banned from Twitter after a post advocating to “hang them all” in response to the Russia report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Apparently, the tweet that reportedly led to his ban read, “‘If you try to kill the King, you best not miss’ #HangThemAll,” and was posted on April 19. There has been no activity on Woods’ Twitter account since that day. That being said, you can still scroll through his twitter feed and this tweet doesn’t seem to be visible.

Donald Trump and many others took to their social media accounts to condemn the block. His account has not been removed, he’s just been blocked from posting anything.

Trump stated on his twitter that:

How can it be possible that James Woods (and many others), a strong but responsible Conservative Voice, is banned from Twitter? Social Media & Fake News Media, together with their partner, the Democrat Party, have no idea the problems they are causing for themselves. VERY UNFAIR!

The last time I shared a tweet from James Woods, it was in the form of a re-tweet. You can read more specifically about this story here.

James Woods first caught my attention when he was sharing Pizzagate information, which was also something that was supposedly “debunked” by mainstream media. In addition to the tweets you see above, Woods has also been quite active in calling out mainstream media news sources.

Below is one of his most recent tweets.

You can check out his twitter account HERE if you’re interested seeing more of his past posts.

His posts aren’t “extremist.” Again, these are simply labels used by the mainstream to mold the minds of the masses. Anything that opposes their agenda, or any person for that matter, is being quietly wiped away, blocked and censored. This is very wrong, and to shut down any type of discussion or information in general is also very wrong.

Edward Snowden said it best:

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we as citizens, we as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.” (source)

It’s quite clear what is going on here, is it not? I mean, let’s take a closer look at the people calling out mainstream media, like Woods has been. Did you know that award-winning journalists from these mainstream platforms are also doing the same?

William Arkin, a longtime, well-known military and war reporter, who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010 is the latest example. He recently went public outing NBC/MSNBC as completely fake, government run agencies. You can read more about that story here.  He is one of multiple whistleblowers, and in that article you will find more articles and links to documents explaining how intelligence agencies have a very close relationship with mainstream media.

The Takeaway

Do we really want to live in a world where our opinions can be blocked and censored?  “It’s crucial that we share our opinions and speak up to create awareness, especially during this time of global deceit. Sure, social media platforms have become tools of mass surveillance and censorship, but the truth will continue to spread. The more attention this gets, the more extreme the response will be from those who are threatened by it. At the end of the day, change cannot be stopped. Our world is experiencing a massive shift in consciousness, people’s perception of what’s happening on our planet is changing, and our years of perception manipulation via big media, education and more are coming to an end.

Despite the fact that things may look Orwellian in nature, we are truly living in exciting times.

The United States faces an ever-worsening food allergy epidemic. An estimated 1 in 12 children (8%) have food allergies, and prevalence has risen by at least 50% since 1997. Childhood food allergies are the most common cause of anaphylaxis (a “severe allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death”). A decade-long analysis of billions of health care claims reported a nationwide increase of 377% in claims for anaphylactic food reactions, and a separate analysis of emergency department (ED) visits over roughly the same period documented a 214% increase in visits for food-induced anaphylaxis—observed in children of all ages but with the highest rates in infants and toddlers. Peanut and tree nut allergies—which have tripled since 1997—are the most frequent triggers of ED visits for anaphylaxis, and over a third (35%) of the children who experience peanut-related anaphylaxis do so following their very first exposure.

… multiple strands of published evidence—including experiments dating back over a hundred years—indicate that injected vaccines are major culprits.

Whereas there is widespread agreement that these food allergy trends spell out bad news for children and families, there is little consensus on the epidemic’s supposedly “enigmatic” causes. This declared bafflement is itself puzzling because—as Children’s Health Defense has written previously—multiple strands of published evidence—including experiments dating back over a hundred years—indicate that injected vaccines are major culprits. The massive expansion of the vaccine schedule since the late 1980s, day-of-birth hepatitis B vaccination, changes in vaccine technology and the growing use of immune-dysregulating aluminum adjuvants are all factors that can explain the immune system overactivation currently manifesting in the form of food allergies. In addition, as discussed in a new article in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, proteins in vaccines often produce “off-target immune responses” and, concerningly, these protein components are entirely untested and unregulated.

Japan chose to remove gelatin from vaccines two decades ago after confirming a relationship between the protein’s presence in vaccines and anaphylactic and allergic reactions. Not so in the U.S….

Proteins in vaccines

Scientists use a variety of components to prepare vaccines—“active immunizing antigens, conjugating agents, preservatives, stabilizers, antimicrobial agents, adjuvants and culture media…as well as inadvertent contaminants that are introduced during vaccine handling.” Researchers acknowledge that any of these components is capable of triggering an allergic reaction, but they believe that proteins such as egg and gelatin may be especially likely to do so.

In fact, allergic reactions to gelatin are well known, “especially in injected medications and vaccines.” Japan chose to remove gelatin from vaccines two decades ago after confirming a relationship between the protein’s presence in vaccines and anaphylactic and allergic reactions. Not so in the U.S., which still includes gelatin in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella (chickenpox) and other vaccines, despite documented anaphylactic reactions related to the gelatin in vaccines. Concerns recently intensified following the news that gelatin is now a vehicle for the introduction of glyphosate into vaccines. Researchers Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, who brought this problem to the public’s attention in a seminal 2017 publication in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, noted that vaccine manufacturers grow vaccine viruses on gelatin sourced from cows and pigs who consume large amounts of glyphosate-contaminated genetically modified (GM) feed.

Far from engendering a carefully controlled immune response directly solely against the targeted virus or bacterium, adjuvant-enhanced vaccines also end up triggering antibodies against non-targeted plant proteins.

In the 2019 Pharmaceutical Research study, the authors’ use of protein sequencing methods shows that it is not just animal proteins in vaccines that are problematic; the sequencing data indicate that at least five plant proteins present in vaccines (soy, peanut, sesame, maize [corn] and wheat) are likewise capable of fostering food allergies. The authors explain that when scientists add powerful aluminum adjuvants to vaccines, the “boosted immune response” becomes a blunt weapon. Far from engendering a carefully controlled immune response directed solely against the targeted virus or bacterium, adjuvant-enhanced vaccines also end up triggering antibodies against “non-targeted” plant proteins. When this happens, there is a “high probability” that the antibodies will cross-react with similar human proteins—with pathogenic consequences. This type of overactive immune response can easily explain not just the epidemic of “food-associated immune-mediated disorders” but also the dreadful rise of autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.

One of the authors’ principal findings is that there is “strong sequence alignment” (regions of similarity) between the five plant proteins and human glutamate receptors. Although glutamate is the body’s most abundant neurotransmitter, it follows the “Goldilocks Principle,” requiring the release of “just the right amount” of glutamate in “the right places for only small amounts of time.” Dr. Russell Blaylock, an expert on the problem of overabundant glutamate (called “excitotoxicity”) has suggested that excessive vaccination and use of aluminum adjuvants are part of an “immunoexcitotoxic” cascade he and others associate with food allergies, gut imbalances and autism. In fact, the scientific literature has firmly established that glutamate abnormalities are a key feature of autism. Thus, it should not be surprising that food allergies are much more common in children with versus those without autism, or that food anaphylaxis outcomes are worse when conditions such as asthma or other allergies are also present.

For its manufacture, polysorbate 80 relies on a variety of plant sources (including wheat and corn) as well as vegetable, legume and nut oils. A note about polysorbate 80

The presence in numerous vaccines of a stabilizer called polysorbate 80 also warrants brief attention. Vaccines containing polysorbate 80 include those against hepatitis B, human papillomavirus (HPV), rotavirus, combination vaccines with a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis component, virtually all influenza vaccines and others. For its manufacture, polysorbate 80 relies on a variety of plant sources (including wheat and corn) as well as vegetable, legume and nut oils. In a prior publication in 2015, one of the co-authors of the Pharmaceutical Research study reported the “impossibility” of guaranteeing that polysorbate-80-containing vaccines are free of “residual allergen proteins from these food sources,” noting that the “residual allergens that may be present…are not even listed in the vaccine package inserts.” A team of allergy experts recently asserted that hypersensitivity to polysorbates “may be underrecognized,” and a study in Brazil implicated another stabilizer called dextran in “hypersensitivity-type adverse events” associated with MMR vaccination.

Medical practitioners who continue to tell these families that they “don’t know what is causing the rise in food allergies” are being disingenuous or worse.

It should be noted that glyphosate is likely to be present in many of the plant sources used to produce polysorbate 80 and other vaccine components, either as a result of “Roundup Ready” crops (e.g., corn and soy) or through glyphosate’s use as a pre-harvest dessicant (e.g., wheat). Glyphosate’s documented ability to disrupt gut health suggests that its presence in food and vaccines could be contributing the rise of food allergies, which are so completely intertwined with gut imbalances.

Living with food allergies is stressful, with the potential for significant emotional, social and financial impacts. Parents describe “living in fear” and having difficulty leading an “ordinary” family life. Medical practitioners who continue to tell these families that they “don’t know what is causing the rise in food allergies” are being disingenuous or worse. If Nobel Laureate Charles Richet could demonstrate  over a century ago “that injecting a protein into animals or humans causes immune system sensitization to that protein”—this is what the author of the 2015 paper calls the “Richet allergy model”—then there is no excuse for depicting the food allergy epidemic as an unsolved mystery.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

The medical industry is quite ‘messed’ up, and this is according to some of the most prominent figures in the field. Collective Evolution has published a number of articles referencing multiple doctors and editors-in-chief of the most renowned medical journals in the world explaining how there is a clear conflict of interest.

This conflict is due to the corporate domination of science, and the truth is, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.” That quote comes from Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), a Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal. (source) There are also many examples displaying the fraud and deceit that run rampant within our federal health regulatory agencies.

Why am I starting this article with this information? Because there is also a flip side. With modern day technology and many medical advancements taking place, the human race actually has tremendous amounts of potential. But in today’s world, advancements that threaten corporate profits never really see the light of day.

For example, if there really was a cure for cancer, but it could not be patented, that would mean that billions of dollars would be lost by big pharma as cancer treatment would be rendered obsolete. It should already be suspicious that chemotherapy and radiation treatment are the only two recommendations that an oncologist can make, despite the fact that so many other treatments are showing tremendous amounts of potential as well.

The Heart Would Match The Patient

One of the more recent and astonishing medical discoveries is an engineered heart that completely matches the immunological, cellular, biochemical and anatomical properties of a patient. This is a major medical breakthrough, and it comes from researchers at Tel Aviv University.

They were able to “print” the world’s first 3D vascularized engineered heart using the patients own cells and biological materials. Their findings were published a couple of weeks ago in Advanced Science.

Never before has a full organ been printed with complete success and been able to be put to use. In regenerative medicine, scientists have only been successful in printing simple tissues without blood vessels.

“This is the first time anyone anywhere has successfully engineered and printed an entire heart replete with cells, blood vessels, ventricles and chambers,” says Prof. Tal Dvir of TAU’s School of Molecular Cell Biology and Biotechnology, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and Sagol Center for Regenerative Biotechnology, who led the research for the study. (source)

This has tremendous potential, and just imagine if this type of technology was made available to everybody with heart disease! It’s the leading cause of death among both men and women in the United States, and heart transplantation is one of the only solutions available. This type of technology could literally provide a new heart without the risks and difficulties associated with a full heart transplant.

Given the money-hungry world we live in, some solutions to problems never see the light of day, even if they prove to be viable. It would be great if the same amount of effort was put into preventative solutions. When it comes to heart disease, for example, a plant-based diet seems to be extremely effective, you can read more about that here. But instead of this, we are looking to find solutions to our problems instead of actually addressing the unhealthy lifestyles that cause these problems in the first place. I thought that was important to mention.

“This heart is made from human cells and patient-specific biological materials. In our process these materials serve as the bioinks, substances made of sugars and proteins that can be used for 3D printing of complex tissue models,” Prof. Dvir says. “People have managed to 3D-print the structure of a heart in the past, but not with cells or with blood vessels. Our results demonstrate the potential of our approach for engineering personalized tissue and organ replacement in the future.” (source)

There is still a lot of progress to be made, but again, this is a huge step in the right direction. As Prof Dvir states, “The use of ‘native’ patient-specific materials is crucial to successfully engineering tissues and organs.”

“The biocompatibility of engineered materials is crucial to eliminating the risk of implant rejection, which jeopardizes the success of such treatments,” Prof. Dvir says. “Ideally, the biomaterial should possess the same biochemical, mechanical and topographical properties of the patient’s own tissues. Here, we can report a simple approach to 3D-printed thick, vascularized and perfusable cardiac tissues that completely match the immunological, cellular, biochemical and anatomical properties of the patient.” (source)

The printed heart still needs to be developed further, and they still need to figure out how to make them “behave” like a heart, but perhaps in a decade or even less there will be organ printers in hospitals around the world. Imagine that!

Pages

Connect with us

Subscribe to our rss and social networks accounts...

On the Subject of US

Ætherna Guild is a free will, clean energy & sustainable living community resource website. More

Navigation

Browse Ætherna's resourceful info!

Ætherna Guild



Energetic Balance Frequencies

Ætherna Guild's Mission

Awaken mankind's universal consciousness to find equitable solutions for a real, honest, best and prosperous Guild, based on unity and sharing, peace, respect and love, in harmony with nature and our environment to foster the achievement of collective goals leading to a higher intelligence and collective consciousness.

A Sovereign Space for One Hearth Guild ॐ

More