Ætherna

Bulletin Board

BookRetreats
Home >> News

News

RenewableUK highlighted last week that Great Britain’s onshore and offshore wind farms generated more electricity than any other source of power last week.
RenewableUK highlighted last week that Great Britain’s onshore and offshore wind farms generated more electricity than any other source of power last week.

Elva Thompson, Contributor
Waking Times

“At a certain point the spiritual seeker always hits a certain stumbling block. Some insidious external force is relentlessly opposing spiritual progress. Traditionally it was blamed on ill-defined, malevolent beings like demons and devils. Almost all mystics have encountered them. These beings are real, and people in the past knew they existed, but did not understand who they were. We have finally gained a greater understanding of who those malevolent beings are and how they operate. They are a certain group of alien beings who have been present on this planet for a long time, and who are very good at opposing our spiritual progress.” ~Don Juan Mateus

Uncomfortable Information

All of us with spiritual inclination, understanding and experience will have met the predator. The dark dreams – the primal, gut twisting spiritual terror that renders us helpless… like a frightened frozen rabbit hypnotized by headlights.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

And, when we try to search for the source of our unease, we find nothing but shifting sand between our spiritual fingers.

Yet, the imprint of a terrifying encounter with ‘something’ is embedded in our psyche – a memory of the horror that long ago, destroyed our innocence; imprisoned us in a sacrificial world, and confined a spiritual being to a fleshy, rotting suit of squirming appetites.

Cognitive Dissonance

Lots of people instantly switch off – become cognizantly dissonant when we try to talk about esoteric matters. They can’t deal with anything that does not conform with the thinking of the status quo hive mind. But it is what it is…we cannot change their minds and neither should we try.

Understand… that most of you reading this blog dance to the beat of a different drummer – whether you know it or not 

On our spiritual journey to wholeness we often encounter information that is contrary to our programming. We often dismiss it because it makes us feel uncomfortable – but that does not mean it is not relevant in spiritual understanding….. especially for those amongst us who wish for a brighter, more compassionate reality.

So, let’s step out of hive mind programming. Take a walk on the wild side of ‘what if’ and contemplate our spiritual fear from a different perspective.

Words of Aboriginal Wisdom

In the video with this article, Credo Mutwa the Zulu shaman and oral historian tells of a time when there was no moon and women did not menstruate. Credo talks of the coming of the Chitauri – the predator. Don Juan’s ‘flyers’ and the Jinn of Islamic understanding.

Credo says his people were rounded up by the Chitauri and taken to caves. When they finally emerged from the darkness, they had sexual organs…  some male – some female.  We read in the scriptures: ‘Male and female he created them.’ Gen5 v2.

What are we to make of this?

Did a Divine Being that walked with Source Creator Gen1 v29… somehow get captured by a demon and genetically modified…closed down for an off planet agenda? Maybe even a food source. After all, in a reality of ‘ as above so below’, we have our inhumane cattle farms… don’t we?  So, I think…boomerang wise, it is a real possibility….

The Counterfeit

The enemy of life cannot create it can only copy, and to achieve control of our thinking it acts as a chameleon constantly whispering all things to all men…holding the carrot of whatever we desire spiritually and physically right before our eyes. It has us figured out because it created us. It knows how we operate and the scope of the limited band of frequencies that it gave us – just 10% of our original capability as multi-dimensional beings.

So the managers of the farm have all the bases that control us covered: sex, food and entertainment – they clog our minds with trivia, tittivate our weaknesses, distract us with the game of ‘me versus you’ and’ us versus them’, while in the background they seek to undermine and destroy us. Oppose our spiritual progress….

Justice

If there is one thing to applaud in this horrible mess we call life, it is Metaphysical Law.

Lucifer is not omnipotent. He is a servant of the Laws he created for this construct. That is why the elite wear certain colours on different days of the week. Consult astrologers – hold blood sacrifices on auspicious days to keep themselves in power. The Law of Cause and Effect is the reason they have to tell us what’s in-store for us – they don’t want the havoc they are going to create to karmically come back through the mirror and slap them in the face. Hollywood is their medium of information. We call it fiction when really it’s fact.

You see, the elite are bound by the Metaphysical Laws that govern the construct. The only difference between the rulers and the people is: they’ know the Laws and we do not. Cosmic knowledge is withheld from us – but even though the scumbags have tried to erase and destroy metaphysical knowledge – in a Duality it has to remain accessible to the seeker.

So, let’s take a look at the past and see what information, we can glean.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Ancient World

A quote from my article Pandora’s Box:

“We read in mythology about Agdistis, the hermaphrodite mother/father being of Oneness that Zeus/Lucifer castrated. By chopping off her male member, Lucifer instantly divided Agdistis into two separate parts. One became split into two and the third dimension of Duality was born. This cosmic act of violence against a divine being is honoured in the sexual mutilation cult of Cybele, and the satanic ceremonies of rape, sodomy and blood sacrifice practiced by the Luciferian ‘illuminated’ covens that are so prevalent today.”

The Timeless Truth

From the ancient world we move into modern times. The intuitive brilliance of scientific researchers like Carl Sagan, has allowed us to put together the missing pieces in the jigsaw of our past. In his book, The Dragons of Eden, Sagan writes about many strange anomalies in our genetic code. One of which is the genetic modification of the female pelvis to allow for birthing babies with larger heads.

In the scriptures we read “and god cursed Eve with painful childbirth.”

In order to keep us obedient, meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver- stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist; a horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, and filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now…” ~Don Juan Mateus

The increase in the size of the human cranium may well have come into being with the addition of the R/Complex…the reptile mind of ‘me first’ that is needed to survive in this fabricated dimension of constant conflict. The owners of this construct would need to ensure that most of its creation survived in its virtual and sacrificial dog eat dog world – hence our programmed ‘instinctual survival reactions’ and the drive to constantly replicate in world of emotionally charged energy.

Is it possible that we have been trapped in a separate reality – a small sliver of energy called visible light? Did we suffer a genetic downgrade? Were we hijacked from our high estate and forced to fall from multi-dimensional beings to chemically induced animals, poor controlled creatures that constantly breed and fight for alpha male status called the pecking order of life.

The Next Downgrade – Homo Borgiensis

Under the guise of convenience and progress, we as a species are slowly being led away from our mystical and spiritual connection with Source Creation. We are being engineered into a ‘smart’ world of electromagnetic pollution, self-aware machines, D wave quantum computers and the sky net electromagnetic grid. The Luciferian elite are trying to alter, modify and manipulate the human genome to usher in full spectrum dominance of the human mind, and with it – a new dark age of slavery and control.

Digital reality means the loss of spiritual reality and with the micro chip the borg is born.

Well, it’s happening right before our eyes and lives.

It’s Happening

The New York Times reported on Nov. 26th, 2018 that a Chinese scientist had claimed to have made the first genetically modified babies using a powerful gene editing technology called Crispr. The claim that China had already made genetically altered humans came just as the world’s leading experts were jetting into Hong Kong for the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing.

You can bet your bottom dollar that gene editing has been going on in secret for a long time and there are genetically enhanced ‘people’ living alongside us today. Although this technology will be presented as a miracle cure for inherited disease: sickle-cell anemia – downs syndrome – cystic fibrosis and many others, it has a very dark side.

The dark side of this gene editing technology is that a super race can be created. The master race – the eugenicists dream of Aryan purity.  I think this is the agenda of the predator – the ‘off planet’  toxic genetic code that has always been a problem on this earth.

In a Duality there is always an opposition to evil and we must be careful that we do not get drawn into the game. There is only the One Life…a life that transcends the Separation that was forced upon us. So let’s honour it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ephesians 6:12-13 “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places. Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day.”

Where There is No Hurt There is No Sin

What does the full armour of God mean? It is the understanding that there is only One Life and everything partakes of it. Therefore to deliberately harm another living being whether animal, bird or reptile is to bring retribution and suffering upon self. Everything we do from this moment on is down to us….

In the words of the wise: “I build a lighted house and therein dwell.”

We are all on a personal journey…mine is to break the matrix programme within myself.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Elva Thompson was born in England in 1947 and moved to Rosebud Lakota reservation in 1987. She is the author of the Heartstar Series; Book One: The Key made of Air, and Book Two: The Gates to Pandemonia. Her other interests include organic gardening, ancient phonetic languages, sonic sound and their application in the healing arts. She is also a medical intuitive and teaches sonic re-patterning using sound, colour, and essential oils. Elva Thompson is on Amazon Author Central @ amazon.com/author/heartstar

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

I realize it may feel some combination of uncomfortable, unprofessional, or unnecessarily provocative. Societal convention has most of us trussing up before going out.

If you are reading this at home, do me a favor and unhook. Then keep reading.

There’s Some Evidence of a Relationship Between Bras and Breast Cancer

Yes, seriously.

Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer authored a book called Dressed To Kill. They interviewed 4,000+ women in five major U.S. cities over two years. Half the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer. They found:

  • 75% of women who slept in their bras developed breast cancer
  • 1 in 7 who wore their bras 12+ hours per day developed breast cancer
  • 1 in 168 who did not wear a bra developed breast cancer
  • Within one month of ditching their bras, women with cysts, breast pain, or tenderness found their symptoms disappeared.

Breast Size, Handedness, and Breast Cancer Risk

A 1991 article in the European Journal of Cancer found that premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users. The data also suggest that bra cup size (and breast size) may be a risk factor for breast cancer.

Cancer Is Not a Disease

Andreas Moritz revealed that Japanese, Fijians, and women from other cultures were found to have a significantly higher likelihood of developing breast cancer when they began wearing bras. His book explains how cancer is an adaptive healing mechanism, arguing that people would die more quickly if the body did not form cancer cells.

Bras and Girdles Can Reduce Melatonin Levels

Japanese researchers found they can lower melatonin by 60%. Melatonin has anti-cancer properties. And Spanish researchers wrote about the use of melanonin in breast cancer prevention and treatment.

There’s No Downside to Being Cautious.

Am I suggesting this scanty fact base offers definitive proof of a causal relationship? No.

Am I suggesting you should be comforted that the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the New York Times all believe it to be bunk? No.

That’s a longer discussion, but it’s sufficient to say that politics and economics create active bedfellows and the absence of a commercial imperative might have something to do with the dearth of research.

Many of us don’t need to wait in order to do something that intuitively seems to make a lot of sense. Frankly, in view of the alarming rate of breast cancer prevalence in this country (12.3% of women) and the growing trend to remove body parts in an attempt to improve our odds, it seems we might be receptive to a bit of behavior modification.

Things to Consider Doing:

Go braless as much as possible.

It actually gets easier. When these muscles and ligaments are forced to bear the weight of our breasts, muscle tone returns. The more you wear a bra, the more you need to wear a bra. Chest muscles and breast ligaments atrophy, which then makes it feel uncomfortable to go braless.

15 year French study conducted by Besancon CHU professor Jean-Denis Rouillon found that “medically, phyisiologically, and anatomically, breasts gained no benefit from their weight being supported in a bra.” There was some evidence that eliminating bra use helped ease back pain. He described bra wearing as a “false need.”

Remove your bra when you get home. Don’t wear a bra to bed. And if you’re self-conscious when going out, try wearing camisoles, thicker material, or nipple pads. It does make sense to wear a support bra while exercising.

Wear Loose Bras in Softer Materials and Avoid Underwires

Tight bras and underwires restrict lymphatic drainage, promoting congestion and stagnation of toxic waste materials that are supposed to be flowing out for excretion. Further, the closing of lymphatic vessels reduces the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to the cells.

Michael Schachter, MD, FACAM wrote that bras and tight clothing can impede lymph flow and contribute to the development of breast cancer.

John MacDougall, MD wrote in The Lancet that repeated inflammation from constricting bras are implicated in painful breast cysts and lumps, scar tissue develops, and milk ducts become plugged, all of which is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer.

The metal in underwire bras can create an “Antenna Effect” according to the father of Applied Kinesiology, George Goodheart, DC. Repeated pressing of metal over an acupuncture point can cause longer-term stimulation of neuro-lymphatic reflex points corresponding to the liver, gallbladder, and stomach. “It will likely make her sick; slowly and quietly,” said John Andre, ND, DC.

Here’s a list of no-underwire bras recommended by Donna Eden, Vicki Mathews, and Titanya Dahlin. Donna adds that plastic underwires have the same negative impact as metal underwires.

Slide the Wires Out!

There’s no need to toss your expensive underwire bras. If you cut a small opening at one end of the wire, you can manually remove it from each cup. You’ll probably find that your bra supports you nearly as well without them. Oh, and don’t be fooled. They make look like plastic, but they’re actually plastic-coated metal. If you find you still need the support, you can buy and insert plastic wires. Andre explains how.

For additional research on the harms of bras read our article Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues or get the book “Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras.”

Originally published: 2014-07-14 13:06:54 -0500

Article updated: 2019-03-10

Louise Kuo Habakus is the co-author of Vaccine Epidemic, the Executive Director and co-founder of the Center for Personal Rights, the founder of Fearless Parent, and the Executive Director of Health Freedom Action.

For more info from Greenmedinfo, you can sign up for their Newsletter HERE

Greenmedinfo Article Link

Paul Fassa, Health Impact News
Waking Times

Adult stem cell therapy is enjoying widespread success around the world, but if the FDA gets its way, it may soon be banned here in the U.S.

There have been nearly 12,000 adult stem cell therapies performed in the United States with an over 90 percent success healing rate for mostly joint and spinal conditions. It involves using the patient’s own stem cells, so no patent-able drugs are involved.

They are targeting the most influential stem cell scientist in the U.S., Dr. Kristin Comella in Florida.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Differentiating the Types of Stem Cell Therapy

Many consider stem cell therapy the future of medicine. A stem cell can rebuild or create new cells in tissues, even in organ tissues other than those from which they had originally existed. 

They could be considered seeds for growing body tissues. They are mostly able to function for cellular repair and growth no matter what organ is in need of repair or healing from chronic inflammation.  

There is a considerable controversy surrounding stem cell therapy research, a branch of regenerative medicine.Much of the controversy has to do with not differentiating between adult stem cell therapy and embryonic stem cell therapy. 

Embryonic stem cell therapy is the controversial one. It cultures or creates stem cells from terminated or aborted fetuses. 

Currently, the FDA is harassing stem cell clinics that do not derive their stem cell solutions from aborted fetus tissue. They extract the stem cells from the patient’s own adipose tissue and inject them into areas where that same patient needs repair. It’s an autologous process called adult stem cell therapy.

U.S. Stem Cell based out of South Florida is one of the clinics being targeted by the FDA, and the clinic’s Chief Scientist is Dr. Kristin Comella, PhD

Many other nations have been using adult stem cell therapy successfully over the past 15 years, leaving the USA dead last in this field. The FDA is trying to make sure it stays that way and allows costly pharmaceutical versions to prevail. 

Dr. Kristin Comella and her clinic have been under attack from the FDA. 

This short 3-minute video was produced interviewing Dr. Comella and some of her patients.

Examining and Comparing the Different Types of Stem Cell Therapy

Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) therapy has received most of the media’s attention and government support. But it is the most controversial because it involves extracting tissues from terminated human embryos, aka aborted fetuses.

In addition to moral and ethical issues, human embryonic stem cell (hESC) solutions create cells so rapidly where they’re injected they lead to cancerous tumors. To avoid that, researchers have to use immuno-suppressant drugs to curb the embryonic stem cells’ tendency toward cancer. 

Using pharmaceutical drugs to curb hESC cancer side effect issues leads to other unexplored and unexpected side effects from those patented stem cell solutions. 

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But the profit motive for embryonic stem cell therapies was strong and a lot of government funds had been put into its research. Pharmaceutical companies were motivated because they could patent stem cells created from embryonic tissues.

Bone marrow stem cell therapy was among the first to depart from flawed hESC (human embryonic stem cell) therapies developed over the past two decades. Bone marrow stem cell therapy was the segue into the adult stem cell therapy movement.

Bone marrow extractions are painful, requiring general anesthesia. It’s relatively difficult and expensive compared to adipose (fat) tissue stem cell harvesting. 

Bone marrow’s high white blood cell count also encourages inflammation, making it counter-productive for patients already suffering from chronic inflammation or autoimmune disorders. 

Most importantly, adipose (fat) tissue yields up to 500 times more mesenchymal stem cells than bone marrow sources, according to Dr. Comella. These are potent stem cells that can differentiate into a wide variety of other cell types. Furthermore, the adipose white blood cell count is lower than bone marrow matter. 

Overactive, confused immune responses attack organs continually and create chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases. The lower white blood cell count automatically lowers the risk of further inflammation among patients already suffering from chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases.  

The outpatient treatment involves creating a very small and shallow incision that won’t require stitches on an area of skin covering adipose tissue (fat). From there, liposuction can withdraw a portion of the fat. This part of the procedure requires only a local anesthetic.

Then what is extracted is spun at high speed in a special centrifuge to isolate the stem cells which are then purified for IV drip delivery or injection into the same patient from whom it was extracted. Total costs range from five to ten thousand dollars or more in some cases.

Dr. Comella and her colleagues’ mission is to get adult stem cell therapy available for everyone. Private and government health insurance providers cover medical treatments that are much more expensive. 

Why not cover one that would save money with its lower expense and fewer side effects?

Over the years, there have been nearly 12,000 adult stem cell therapies performed in the United States with an over 90 percent success healing rate for mostly joint and spinal conditions as well as heart and lung issues.

But the three known adverse side effect cases continually get all the media attention.

The Panama College of Cell Science, which helped launch Kristin Comella’s research and development, had this to say about her:

Perhaps the most influential clinician on the subject of adult stem cell therapy, Dr. Comella has been able to quietly develop patient treatment protocols and treat patients via collaborating physicians and health care providers using legal patient-specific FDA guidelines, including studies permitted by Institutional Review Boards, patient-specific stem cell clinical trials, and direct treatments using the patients own stem cells that are harvested and re-injected for therapeutic purposes.

Through Dr. Comella’s leadership, she and her team have trained and certifiedmore than 700 physicians worldwide in adult stem cell therapy.(Source)

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The interview below allows the energetic Dr. Kristin Comella to give a thorough and upbeat description of adult stem cell therapy. 

Big Pharma Is Using the FDA to Eliminate “Unregulated” Adult Stem Cell Competition 

Since the late 1990s, adult stem cells used therapeutically were not under the control of the FDA and the adult stem cell movement took off.

There were complaints from some MDs that the adult stem cell practice should be regulated by the FDA. The Panama College of Cell Science responded to those outcries with this statement:

The motive in opposing adult stem cell therapy is money. The big institutions want to keep federal funding of embryonic stem cell research at a high level with the promise that cures are “just around the corner” despite the fact that embryonic stem cells will never be useful in any way for patient treatment because they immediately cause tumors when transplanted. (Source)

Adult stem cell therapy is an autologous treatment method. The stem cells are not lab-created. They are only isolated and purified after extracting them from the patient being treated. Injecting them back into that patient powers up the body’s own healing mechanism to overcome chronic ailments. 

The FDA didn’t and shouldn’t have anything to do with regulating stem cells from one’s own body. That situation has recently been arbitrarily and suddenly changed.    

Around 2014, the FDA started tweaking their guidance rules for stem cell therapy with the purpose of getting new rules made into laws through Congress that could be interpreted according to FDA whims and enforced arbitrarily. Their agenda is to consider adult stem cells as FDA-regulated drugs.

During our phone conversation, Dr. Comella explained how the FDA ignored testimonies from adult stem cell practitioners during their 2015 public hearings regarding new guideline proposals. Then they arranged to create new rules behind closed door meetings that included pharmaceutical industry allies and insiders.  

The result was that by 2017, the FDA’s hands-off policy with adult stem cell therapy came to a sudden halt after years of highly successful stem cell practice. 

By 2018, the FDA got nastier with the “the most influential clinician on the subject of adult stem cell therapy” as its target. The FDA started doing inspections of Dr. Comella’s South Florida clinic that are designed for labs that manufacture drugs. 

The standards for hospitals and clinics are not as strict as drug manufacturers. Those inspections were inappropriate for a clinic. But those inspections made it easier to create damaging reports.

When the inspectors came by, they demanded to go into rooms while treatments were taking place with semi-nude or nude patients, which Dr. Comella prohibited. The inspectors also demanded to view patient medical records. She allowed that after redacting their names on the copies she gave them. 

For her actions to protect patients’ privacy, inspectors allegedly cited Dr. Comella for resisting and obstructing FDA inspections. 

Soon after the inspections, the FDA served Dr. Comella with a lawsuit for practicing medicine with unapproved drugs. The “drugs” were only those stem cell solutions drawn from patients to be used on them.

The FDA has allegedly offered to drop the lawsuit if Dr. Comella signed an agreement to stop doing adult stem cell therapy and no longer promote it.

She refused. She said she has witnessed people leave their wheelchairs for good from this therapy. The trial is set for a Federal Court hearing beginning June 2019, in Miami, Florida.

If Dr. Comella loses this court case, adult stem cell therapy in the USA may be forced out of the country and only be available to those who can afford medical tourism.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.
Caitlin Johnstone, Contributor
Waking Times

Three people are currently in custody in New Zealand for terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch. As of this writing, 49 people are dead and 48 people are being treated for gunshot wounds. Explosives were found in two vehicles but none were detonated. It was the worst attack of its kind in New Zealand’s history.

One of the three individuals, a 28 year-old Australian man, live-streamed himself shooting mosque attendees and published a white nationalist manifesto explaining his motives. I don’t feel like linking to either of these things, the former because sharing it would be gross and the latter because the manifesto contains calls for further acts of terrorism and suggestions as to how they might be carried out, as well as instructions on how best to circulate white nationalist propaganda. It’s currently unclear to what extent the other two individuals were involved.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I’m not used to these things happening in my neck of the woods and I’m still a bit frazzled about it, but I’ve got a few thoughts on the matter that I may as well spit out even if they’re sloppy. Here they are in no particular order:

1 – The most common point of discussion I’m seeing online about all this is the designation of the “terrorist” label. Whenever an attack like this is perpetrated by a Muslim I see right wingers screaming at every media outlet that doesn’t label them a terrorist, and whenever a white person does it I see those on the left screaming at every media outlet that doesn’t label them a terrorist. And I totally get it; it’s unfair to see white people labeled “gunman” and “shooter” when a Muslim would not receive the same treatment from certain outlets.

But it is also important to remember that the threat of domestic terrorism is used by the empire to justify taking away civil rights on the pretense of protecting the citizenry. Demanding the expanded use of that term is ultimately demanding more surveillance, torture, arbitrary detention, and the erosion of legal and constitutional protections for everyone. It’s important to be aware of the potential propagandistic leverage in the language and causes we advocate.

2 – There is definitely a correlation between war propaganda and mass murder. I can’t cite any studies for that claim because nobody’s doing them, but there is no way that being told mass murder is acceptable day in and day out by highly adept manipulators doesn’t make a civilian more prone to committing acts of mass murder. Australians always get sucked into the western empire’s wars, and thus receive the same kinds of war propaganda through our mass media. There’s only so far you can twist a mind into accepting the unacceptable before it breaks.

3 – Relatedly, Islamophobia has been exponentially inflamed by the mass media since 9/11 to justify the empire’s need to keep slaughtering human beings who happen to be walking around on top of oil and geostrategic locations. In his manifesto the attacker explicitly stated that he chose Muslims as the group of immigrants to target with his racist vendetta because “They are the most despised group of invaders in the West, attacking them receives the greatest level of support.” The reason Muslims are so despised is because the flames of Islamophobia have been fanned by propagandists who need us not to care about the cold-blooded murder of a million Iraqis.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

4 – The Christchurch attack was evil and horrific. And, also, it was no more evil or horrific than the violence routinely inflicted upon Muslims in the Middle East by the US war machine.

5 – The manifesto was really dumb, with the final three-quarters containing nothing but sermonizing on the need to start killing brown-skinned people to ignite a western racial and ideological war which will balkanize into separate ethnostates. The guy babbled on and on about the need to protect “European” nations (which for him included majority-white nations like Australia and the USA) and “European” heritage, without ever touching on the fact that Europeans were all constantly killing each other until a few decades ago. They all hated each other, and in many cases still do, because nothing unites them besides the relative absence of melanin on their skin. They’re a bunch of completely different nations with completely different cultures.

6 – The following three beliefs about “white culture” are stupid: (1) that it exists, (2) that it is under attack, and (3) that it is worth saving. There is no such thing as “white culture”; the absence of melanin is not a culture. There is Irish culture, Italian culture, Spanish culture, German culture, but there is no “white culture”. I feel no special kinship with anyone who shares my skin pigmentation in the way that two Black Americans or Aboriginal tribesmen might, and neither does any other white person who hasn’t gone out of their way to make a moronic, artificial construct out of “white identity”. Two ancestors of American slaves have a shared collective history and experience unifying them, two Australian Aboriginals have tribal culture and tradition, but two white people have nothing beyond “Yeah we both need to put on sun screen at the beach or we’ll get cancer.”

White culture isn’t a thing, and if it was it wouldn’t be anywhere remotely close to being under attack, and even if it were it wouldn’t be worth saving anyway. White people have succeeded in murdering, raping, pillaging and bulldozing their way across the planet, and now our entire species sits on the brink of extinction thanks to the “advancements” of white society. We’ve got nothing to be proud of and it would be fine if we faded softly into obscurity.

7 – The manifesto gripes about miscegenation (interracial reproduction) and dwindling birth rates constantly, which shows you why white supremacists are also reliably awful misogynists. The reason birth rates are down in the west is because that’s what happens when you give women money, education and legal equality. When women get those things, we tend to take full ownership of our reproductive systems, and guess what? We don’t feel like having ten kids anymore. High birth rates are the result of desperate, powerless, under-educated women being forced to pound out children at a high rate by men who regard them as property in a hyperpatriarchal society that doesn’t care how draining having a lot of kids is for a mother, and that’s what white supremacists want to see western women reduced to. The fact that they also want to stop us from having sex with brown-skinned men is just another symptom of this slaveowner mentality.

8 – One of the things which gives me hope for humanity is how when horrible things happen, most of us rally around and start helping each other. There’ve been some really beautiful stories about what (white) passers-by did to help the shooting victims, and watching the outpouring of love for New Zealand and the Muslim community from all around the world has been making me cry all day. Humans are so fucking gorgeous. I really hope we stick around.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Caitlin Johnstone – Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerrilla poet. Utopia prepper.

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list for her website, which will get you an email notification for everything. Her articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook, following her antics on Twitter, checking out her podcast, throwing some money into her hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying her book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

**This article (Eight Thoughts On the Christchurch Attack) was originally featured at CaitlinJohnstone.com and is reposted here with permission. 

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

Sue Branford and Maurício Torres, Mongabay
Waking Times

  • New Minister of Mines and Energy Admiral Bento Albuquerque announced on 4 March that he plans to permit mining on indigenous lands in Brazil, including within the Amazon. He also said that he intends to allow mining right up to Brazil’s borders, abolishing the current ban along a 150-kilometer (93-mile)-wide swath at the frontier.
  • The Bolsonaro administration’s indigenous mining plan is in direct opposition to indigenous land rights as guaranteed under Brazil’s 1988 Constitution. The indigenous mining initiative will likely be implemented via a presidential decree, which will almost surely be reviewed, and possibly be rejected, by Brazil’s Supreme Court.
  • Mining companies stand ready to move into indigenous reserves, if the measure goes forward. Brazil’s mining ministry has received 4,073 requests from mining companies and individuals for mining-related activities on indigenous land. Indigenous groups are outraged and they plan to resist in the courts and by whatever means possible.
  • Brazil’s mining industry has a very poor safety and environmental record. As recently as January, Brazil mega-mining company Vale saw a tailings dam collapse at Brumadinho which killed 193 and left another 115 missing. Public outcry is strong against the industry currently, but how the public will respond to the indigenous mining plan isn’t yet known.

An industrial mining operation in Brazil. Note the forest at the edge of the open pit mine. Photo credit: Norsk Hydro ASA via VisualHunt.com / CC BY-NC-SA.

For many years, international and Brazilian mining companies have dreamed of getting access to the mineral wealth lying beneath indigenous lands. And finally, the government of Jair Bolsonaro seems determined to give them that opportunity. On 4 March, while Brazilians were distracted by Carnival celebrations, the new Minister of Mines and Energy Admiral Bento Albuquerque announced plans to permit mining on indigenous land.

Speaking at the annual convention of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), a major event in the mining world that attracts tens-of-thousands of attendees, the Minister said that Brazil’s indigenous people would be given a voice but not a veto in the matter. The opening of indigenous ancestral territories to mining, he predicted, would “bring benefits to these communities and to the country.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

He also said that he intends to allow mining right up to Brazil’s borders, abolishing the current 150-kilometer (93-mile) wide mining buffer zone at the frontier.

The minister said that current mining restrictions are outdated. The long-restricted indigenous and border areas “have become centers of conflict and illegal activities, that in no way contribute to sustainable development or to sovereignty and national security.” The administration will shortly be holding a nationwide consultation to discuss how the changes should be made, he concluded.

President Jair Bolsonaro (left) with new Minister of Mines and Energy Admiral Bento Albuquerque. Image found on Twitter.

Bolsonaro’s indigenous land development agenda

The minister’s announcement was not unexpected. President Jair Bolsonaro, an ex-army captain, has said that he admires the 1964-85 military dictatorship, and some are drawing parallels between Bolsonaro’s policies and theirs regarding indigenous and quilombola communities.

Bolsonaro recently wrote on Twitter: “Over 15 percent of national territory is demarcated as indigenous and quilombola land. Less than a million people live in these isolated areas, exploited and manipulated by NGOs. We are going to integrate these citizens.”

Back in 1976, Maurício Rangel Reis, Interior Minister in the military government of General Ernesto Geisel, expressed harsh views toward indigenous peoples: “We plan to reduce the number of Indians from 220,000 to 20,000 in ten years,” he declared. But the military didn’t achieve this goal. Far from being eliminated, Brazil’s indigenous numbers increased to their current 900,000 population.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Indigenous groups achieved real gains after the military government passed into history, and its dictatorial rule was supplanted by the progressive 1988 Brazilian constitution, which brought two important innovations. It abandoned the goal of assimilating indigenous people into the dominant culture (a goal Bolsonaro wants to reinstate), and it affirmed the concept of “original rights,” recognizing indigenous peoples as Brazil’s first inhabitants, with the right to remain on ancestral lands.

Article 231 of the Constitution states: “Indians have the right to the permanent occupation of their traditional land and to enjoy the exclusive use of the wealth in the soil, rivers and lakes.” Moreover, their land rights are “inalienable.” The Constitution allows for mining on indigenous land, but only after the Indians have been consulted and specific procedures for doing so, approved by them, have been ratified by Congress.

Mining industry and individual prospecting requests on indigenous land as filed with the federal government. Map by Mauricio Torres using data provided by the Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral.

Admiral Albuquerque’s recent announcement provided no clue as to how the Bolsonaro government could legally give indigenous groups a voice but no veto regarding use of their lands, while somehow staying within the letter of constitutional law.

The Ministry of Mines and Energy has, however, confirmed to Mongabay that it plans to authorize mining on indigenous areas. Though, as to the legal mechanisms for doing so, it would only say that “the specific regulatory model will be discussed with Congress and other involved parties.” Though its reports are unconfirmed, analysts suggest Bolsonaro will probably issue a presidential decree to allow mining, which is the approach he plans to use to permit agribusiness to lease land within indigenous reserves ­– a move that faces a similar constitutional roadblock.

If it goes forward with these presidential decrees, the administration will very likely face opposition from powerful figures in the judiciary, including the country’s top prosecutor. Speaking at a conference attended by representatives of some of Brazil’s 305 indigenous tribes, advocacy groups and a dozen European nations, Prosecutor General Raquel Dodge noted that indigenous land rights are guaranteed in Brazil’s Constitution and warned: “There can be no backsliding on public policies toward the indigenous people.”

The Amazonas branch of the Federal Public Ministry (MPF), an independent group of federal and state litigators, is so concerned at Bolsonaro’s mining plan that in February it went to court to ask the National Mining Agency (Agência Nacional de Mineração, ANM), the federal body that administers the mining sector, to turn down all requests by international and Brazilian mining companies to prospect or mine on indigenous land.

The mining industry has not only made prospecting requests (red) within indigenous reserves (yellow), but also on other conserved lands (green). Map by Mauricio Torres using data provided by the Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral.

According to the MPF, mining companies and individuals have altogether lodged 4,073 requests with the ANM for mining-related activities on indigenous land since 1969, seemingly in preparation for an eventual land rush. The companies say that they are only registering their interest, but MPF argues that, until the required constitutional amendments have been written and approved by Congress, such requests should not even be permitted.

Brazil’s indigenous peoples have clearly indicated that if the mining plan goes forward they will fight back. Most don’t want mining on their land. Munduruku female warrior Maria Leuza Munduruku told Mongabay: “We’ve had a lot of outsiders coming onto our land to mine. Many fish disappear and the ones that remain we can’t eat, as they’re dirty.”

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Joenia Wapichana, Brazil’s only indigenous female federal deputy, said that Indians don’t want the money mining might bring in: “For us indigenous people wealth is having health, land to live on without receiving threats, a stable climate, demarcated land, a preserved culture and respect for our community.” Brazil’s mining environmental and safety record is marred by frequent waterway contamination and land pollution, and includes two deadly tailings dam collapses in the past three years,

Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, one of Brazil’s best-known indigenous leaders, says that large-scale mining by big companies is particularly harmful: “This kind of mining requires roads to transport the mineral, large areas to store production, big dormitories where workers can sleep. It will transform our forest.” A 2017 study found that mining and its auxiliary activities caused 10 percent of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon between 2005 and 2015. How much Amazon deforestation might skyrocket if indigenous reserves are opened to mining now is anyone’s guess; indigenous groups are currently the Amazon’s best land stewards.

Federal Deputy Leonardo Quintao, a major backer of the mining industry. Image by Vinicius Loures / Agência Brasil.

Mining companies in the driver’s seat

After last year’s election, the pro-mining lobby in Congress, known by some as the “mud lobby,” is stronger than ever.

Their main spokesperson, federal deputy Leonardo Quintão, is a member of Bolsonaro’s Civil Office. He openly admits to receiving money from mining companies: “I am a parliamentarian legally financed by mining companies,” he says. Quintão was the first rapporteur for Brazil’s new Mining Code, presented to the National Congress in 2013, which mining companies helped him formulate. He is proud of his work: “Our Code is modern… outlawing all kind of speculation in the mining sector.”

But others complain of Congress’s failure to talk to potentially impacted communities when planning the new code. According to anthropologist Maria Júlia Zanon, who coordinates the Movement for Popular Sovereignty in Mining (Movimento pela Soberania Popular na Mineração), “The companies’ economic interests, evident in the elections, help explain the lack of democracy in the [congressional approval] process.”

As of now, the new Mining Code has yet to be signed into law, and the horrific Vale mining disaster in Brumadinho this January, with 193 people dead and another 115 missing, might further delay approval. Andréa Zhouri, at the University of Minas Gerais, said the disaster stemmed from “politico-institutional failures,” particularly a lack in regular monitoring of hazardous mining operations. “The [value of] ore is above everything and everyone,” Zhouri said.

There has been little indication so far that the government intends to significantly toughen environmental controls in the new Code. Some fear that, once the Brumadinho hue and cry dies down, it will be business as usual and the Mining Code will be approved. Prosecutor Guilherme de Sá Meneghin, who led the investigation into the earlier Mariana mining disastersaid: “What we clearly see is that Brazil doesn’t learn the lessons of history.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Today, mining companies chomp at the bit, having registered many prospecting requests within indigenous reserves. Minister Albuquerque – an admiral with a long, illustrious military career, and known for getting what he wants – has signalled readiness to help those firms translate their plans into action. However, Brazil’s indigenous people, with a history of batting away threats, often against bad odds, are ready to fiercely resist. The lines are drawn for battle, likely in the courts, and potentially all across Brazil.

Banner image: Truck being loaded with bauxite ore at Brazil’s Norsk Hydro ASA Paragominas mine. Mining is conducted today on a vast scale, and is already resulting in major deforestation in the Amazon. Photo credit: Norsk Hydro ASA via Visual HuntCC BY-NC-SA.

Forest and topsoil must first be removed before ore can be accessed at Brazil’s Norsk Hydro ASA Paragominas open pit mine. Such industrial processes would be highly destructive of Brazil’s forests, indigenous reserves and cultures. Photo credit: Norsk Hydro ASA via VisualHunt / CC BY-NC-SA.

**This article was originally posted at Mongabay.com and is re-posted here with permission.**

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

John Vibes, TMU
Waking Times

Parents of students at a San Joaquin County elementary school in California are demanding that the district remove a cell phone tower that was installed on the property a few years ago, due to concerns that the tower is giving children cancer. Four students have been diagnosed with cancer since the towers were installed and parents are no longer convinced that this is a mere matter of coincidence.

Monica Ferrulli, the mother of one of the children diagnosed with cancer, says that her son’s doctors have indicated that this specific type of cancer is caused by something the patient was exposed to in their environment.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

“We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” Ferrulli told CBS Sacramento.

Joe Prime, another parent who now has a child battling cancer as well, says that the towers need to go before more people are exposed.

“It’s one of the hardest things that I’ve been through. It just seems like coincidence is no longer a reason for all this illness. Kids shouldn’t be guinea pigs, and we shouldn’t be taking chances with the children’s lives,” Prime said.

“It’s a real disappointment that it’s taking moms of sick children and dads of sick children to come out and say something needs to be done,” Prime added.

Parents want the tower removed, but the district refuses to acknowledge the situation, instead insisting that they have tested the area and everything meets federal regulations.

However, Sprint provides the school district with a kickback of $2,000 per month for the tower and some parents think that this is playing a role in the district’s decision to keep the tower.

Experts say that regardless of federal standards, it is dangerous to have young children by in such close proximity to these devices on such a regular basis.

Eric Windheim, an electromagnetic radiation specialist, says that these frequencies can have an effect on the cells of children because they are still growing and developing.

“I wouldn’t send my kids there at all, it absolutely is dangerous. Children are still developing, and their cells are still being divided. It’s the worst possible time in their life to be exposed. Instead of only going 300 yards like regular Wi-Fi, Y-Max can go 30 miles,” he said.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The school district recently sent a letter to parents saying that they have no plans of taking the cell towers down because the frequencies are below federal standards. The statement also noted that there is no way for them to get out of their contract with Sprint, and that the company would have to move the tower on its own.

“There’s a lot of kids that we love that still go to the school, so we are fighting for them,” Ferrulli said.

After increased public pressure, Sprint issued a statement saying that they will “work with the community to address their concerns.”

Sprint spokesperson Adrienne Norton told ModBee, “When it comes to the deployment of network infrastructure, we always strive to achieve a win/win process with local municipalities and residents. We have been working with the community in Ripon to address their concerns.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

**This article (Parents Blame Elementary School’s Cell Tower After Four Students Get Cancer) was originally featured at The Mind Unleashed and is re-posted here with permission.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.
Lately, I’ve been noticing a lot of people with a dry cough. Even with all the rain we’ve had this year, the weather is already turning dry once more. Not staying properly hydrated during this...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Those of us who are truth-seekers and investigators of information that is being hidden from us would probably like nothing better than to have all classified and secret information revealed at once. It is a source of anger and frustration that so much is hidden, and other people continue to hold power over when such information is disclosed. Even with the Assange Wikileaks dumps, the information is shared piecemeal, and certain subjects are still hidden from us.

But let’s think about it for a moment. If all the information were released all at once, how would we process it? For most of us, would it not simply become a stack of intimidating data that we wouldn’t have the time to get to and eventually ignore?

Instead of ruing this lack of control over the situation, we would do well to start noticing patterns in the way information is released to the public. It seems that when certain information is revealed is as important as what is revealed. This is not to say that these processes always have humanity’s best interests at heart, but the timing often seems to pertain to the public’s ability as a whole to take in new information and slowly shift their understanding and awareness of what is going on underneath the veneer of mainstream perception.

Lisa Page’s Testimony Revealed

Take the example of former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page’s closed-door testimony to Congress in July 2018, where she spoke of matters such as the FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton’s private server abuse. Transcripts representing 370 pages worth of testimony were finally released to the public on Tuesday by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA). This means members of Congress have known about this information for 8 months already, and have decided that now the public can know about it as well.

The biggest revelation that seems to be afforded by this release of information is that Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice actually ordered the FBI not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for storing classified information on an unsecured server. The conversation from the transcript between Page and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) is included in his tweet below:

Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information. pic.twitter.com/KPQKINBtrB

— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) March 13, 2019

In the transcript, Ratcliffe’s full sentence, interrupted by Page’s answer, was “You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to bring a case based on that.” All in all, this indicates that Loretta Lynch made the decision to tell the FBI not to bring an indictment against Hillary Clinton.

This Fox news article elaborates on the details of Loretta Lynch’s decision:

Page also testified that the DOJ and FBI had “multiple conversations … about charging gross negligence,” and the DOJ decided that the term was “constitutionally vague” and “had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago,” and so “they did not feel they could sustain a charge.”

A major consequence of this, presumably, was FBI Director James Comey’s famous about-face on the matter:

Originally Comey accused the former secretary of state of being “grossly negligent” in handling classified information in a draft dated May 2, 2016, but that was modified to claim that Clinton had merely been “extremely careless” in a draft dated June 10, 2016.

Comey also said that “although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

The Infamous Tarmac Meeting

In and of itself, this information might not have lead to anything more. However, when you compound it with the ‘infamous tarmac meeting’ in 2016 between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, a disturbing narrative begins to take shape. They have both maintained the meeting was unplanned, their planes just happened to end up next to one another on the tarmac, and they engaged in a short conversation that was lighthearted and personal. According to this Blaze article,

Both Clinton and Lynch denied discussing nefarious subjects, such as the DOJ’s Clinton investigation, known as “Midyear,” or any other matters involving the Clintons’ public life.

However, that same article refutes these claims. It cites DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation to prove that the meeting was intended and planned:

The OPA Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch. Although Lynch’s staff was supposed to receive notice of such requests, witnesses told us that they were not informed of the request from former President Clinton. (IG Report)

Additional information in the article also contradicts the notion that this meeting was not ‘lighthearted and personal’:

Finally, it was Lynch’s senior counselor who broke up the meeting when she realized it would become extremely problematic if the media learned Lynch had just met with the husband of a subject in a major investigation. The senior counselor said she could not recall what she heard when she entered the plane but said Lynch appeared “uncomfortable and wanted the meeting to be done.”

Q Weighs In

This Q Post (#2860) goes even further to suggest a commonly-held theory that Bill Clinton offered Loretta Lynch a seat on the Supreme Court if Lynch prevented an indictment against Hillary from happening, and notes how the investigation was dropped by James Comey soon after, all of which are also captured in the meme below.

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI22 Feb 2019 – 1:47:17 AM

IoS1RS6.png

The Deal of a Lifetime?
[Tarmac] meeting not planned according to [LL] & [BC]?
Security reports indicate USSS (sec detail [BC] & FBI (sec detail [LL]) planned for meeting?
SC/[LL] deal presented by BC?
What actions did [JC] take days after?
Less than a week after the tarmac meeting, [JC] announced that the FBI would not recommend an indictment against [HRC]?
Returning to the news?
Q  

The timing of the release of the Lisa Page testimony really starts to help us put the puzzle pieces together in terms of understanding how and why Hillary Clinton has still not been indicted for serious, documented crimes. It will be interesting to see when the next piece of the puzzle gets dropped into place.

The Takeaway

As truth-seekers in the Awakening Community, it is incumbent upon us not to be upset if we don’t think we are getting the truth quickly enough. Pinning our hopes for salvation too much on what is happening in the outside world can be as detrimental as not paying attention at all. When we do our inner work, we detach ourselves from the need to have things turn out a certain way, and it becomes easier to feel that the drama is unfolding perfectly, and the information is coming at us at a speed that is most beneficial to humanity as a whole and the process of our ‘Great Awakening.’

According to an analysis by the SUN DAY Campaign of data just released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), new solar and wind generating capacity has taken the lead over natural gas and all other energy sources for the first month of 2019.
According to an analysis by the SUN DAY Campaign of data just released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), new solar and wind generating capacity has taken the lead over natural gas and all other energy sources for the first month of 2019.

Facebook, which seems to have become a government-run agency claiming to help fight the war on ‘fake news,’ has pledged to delete and flag content that spreads misinformation. This is great, and should be done, but the only problem is that content around the internet is being taken down, flagged, and deemed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is well-supported, factual, and backed by peer-reviewed science.

I just wrote an article about the recent measles outbreak in Washington State for example, and how that state is pushing hard for all school-aged children to receive a mandatory MMR vaccination. These outbreaks are constantly being blamed on unvaccinated children, but the mainstream never points people towards the actual statistics showing that Washington State, like many other states, have not experienced a drop in MMR vaccination coverage. Instead, MMR vaccine coverage is very high.

Furthermore, they don’t mention that there’s been a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated and fully vaccinated populations (see article linked below for examples and sources), and they don’t mention the deaths, disabilities, and adverse reactions that’ve occurred as a result of the MMR vaccine either. Why don’t they mention that the death rate from measles in Washington State was just 1.4/10,000 (source in article below) before the introduction of the vaccine? You can read more about that and access multiple studies and testimonies on this subject in the article linked below:

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

Information and science are constantly emerging regarding vaccinations, but we never hear about any of it from mainstream media. I also recently published an article of Robert F. Kennedy explaining how big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest lobbyists, even more than big oil, and how they’ve completely compromised both the Democrats and the Republicans.

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 – Robert F. Kennedy

So, what’s some of the latest information regarding vaccine safety?

An article published in Nature, International Journal of Science titled “Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine-safety investigation” outlines how The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines.

The groups name is Corvelva, and they received the donation on the 26th of October of 2018. The group believes that the research it conducts is necessary because “previous studies it has funded, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicate that some vaccines contain impurities, or lack the active ingredients they claim to contain.”

Nature points out that “Some scientists in Italy are up in arms over a donation from the organization that oversees the nation’s professional biology qualification to  an advocacy group that opposes the country’s policy of mandatory childhood vaccination.”

This part is confusing: Why would any group or any scientist oppose more safety studies regarding vaccinations? Wouldn’t professionals on both sides of the coin be in support of as much vaccine safety testing as possible?

ONB president Vincenzo D’Anna told Nature in an e-mail interview that there is a need for truly independent vaccine research because, in his opinion, work conducted in public laboratories and at universities is usually influenced or funded by companies that produce vaccines.

“The goal is to contribute to complete the biological and chemical analyses on vaccines,” he said in the interview, part of which the ONB has published in its Bulletin.

Again, Nature points out that many scientists dismiss the need for more vaccine safety testing and that they are upset. That being said, it’s a comforting thought that ONB disagrees and that they are supporting this type of thing. Clearly, many professionals within that organization don’t believe that vaccines go through rigorous safety testing, as is claimed by many. Again, what harm could be done by further testing?

What Did They Find?

The first vaccine that was tested was the Infanrix Hexa vaccine. It’s a six-in-one vaccine that’s manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that’s supposed to contain the following antigens: tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis toxoids; inactivated poliomyelitis viral strains 1-2-3; and hepatitis B surface antigen.

Corvelva discovered that none of these antigens were actually in the vaccine, which means it had zero antibodies to the intended antigens to be created. This was a huge shock, and in addition to that they also found the following:

Traces of 65 chemical cross-contaminants from other manufacturing lines:

  • chemical toxins;
  • unrecognizable macromolecules;
  • various free bacterial peptides that are potential allergens and are capable of inducing autoimmune reactions.

According to Corvelva,

Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.

We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.

This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure.

Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses.

Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy. (source)

The fact that the vaccine antigens were not detected is seriously concerning, and so is the fact that, of the 65 signs of chemical contaminants, only 35% are known. This was only the first phase of this safety testing, as a second analytical study with standard controls will be released.

7 chemical toxins were also identified, and the group states that these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reactions with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine.

We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns.

From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.

Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can’t quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies – reason why it is designed for – and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns.

Infanrix Hexa hexavalent, as for the method we have commissioned, casts major doubts on both its effectiveness and on its safety…

One thing is for sure: we will not stop to proceed.

Download: CORVELVA-Study-on-the-chemical-composition-profile-of-Infanrix-Hexa.pdf

More Vaccine Controversy From Italy

In the 90s, Dr. Antonietta Gatti discovered the relationship between micro- and nano-particles as well as a great number of pathologies: cardiovascular diseases, many forms of cancer, multiple neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases. She’s taken part in many international research projects, including the pathologies induced by depleted uranium, waste incineration, food polluted with inorganic particles, and more.

Currently, she is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.

She is also a selected expert of the FAO/WHO for the safety in nanotechnological food, a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission, the author of the book “Nanopathology: the health impact of nanoparticles,” on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biomaterials Applications, and a Member of the CPCM of the Italian Ministry of Defense.

Furthermore, her and her husband Dr. Stefano Montanari founded a laboratory called Nano-diagnostics for the evaluation of the pathological tissues of patients. It’s presently at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Recently, the Italian police raided their home, and the police took all  digital assets that were owned by the the two nanopathologists including their laptops, computers, and flash-drives; basically years of work and research.

James Grundvig via the World Mercury Project describes what happened quite well:

“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles, from in-vivo (performed in a living organism) and in-vitro (performed in a test tube) to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”

The scientists published their work in January of 2017, titled, New QualityControl Investigations on Vaccines: Micro and Nanocontamination. If science wasn’t plagued by corruption, an investigation would have started, healthcare agencies would be involved, and vaccine safety policies would have come under intense scrutiny, but that never happened.

You can read more about this story and access an interview with the scientists here.

The Takeaway

There are numerous vaccine safety issues. The bioaccumulation of various vaccine ingredients, for example, are one. Ingredients like aluminum have been added to vaccines for more than 100 years under the assumption that they are safe. It’s only within the last couple years that scientists decided to look to see where these ingredients go after being injected. They found that aluminum, when injected, doesn’t exit the body, it actually travels to distant organs and the brain. You can access those studies and read more about that here. You can also watch a short video from Dr. Christopher Shaw from the University of British Colombia explaining the difference between injectable aluminum and the aluminum our body takes in from food. Here is another related study you can read that goes into further detail.

The main point I’m trying to make is that no parent should ever be made to feel guilty for not vaccinating their children. Vaccines are clearly not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and it’s important that we ask ourselves why this type of information goes virtually unacknowledged by the masses.

Since 1900, there’s been a 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today’s vitriolic debate about vaccines.

CHICAGO, Illinois —Since 1900, the mortality rate in America and other first-world countries has declined by roughly 74%, creating a dramatic improvement in quality of life and life expectancy for Americans.

The simple question: “How did this happen?”

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What’s crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they’ve been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

1970, Dr. Edward H. Kass

Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard’s Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today. At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today’s standards. Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass’ speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get  every vaccine. If you don’t vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don’t vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you’re an “anti-vaxxer” who should be shunned and dismissed!

But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?

In his famous speech, Dr. Kass took his infectious disease colleagues to task, warning them that drawing false conclusions about WHY mortality rates had declined so much could cause them to focus on the wrong things. As he explained:

“…we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past —tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc. —and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”

Dr. Kass then shared some eye-opening charts with his colleagues. I’m trying to imagine a President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America sharing one of these charts today at a meeting of public health officials. I picture someone turning the power off for the room where he’s presenting and then he gets tackled and carried off the stage…here’s the first example of a chart Dr. Kass shared in 1970:

But wait a minute, Dr. Kass’ chart doesn’t even include the measles vaccine…what gives? Well, in 1970, the measles vaccine was just beginning to be rolled out, and as you can clearly see, measles had long since experienced a dramatic decline in mortality. With Pertussis (Whooping Cough), he produced a similar chart:

In this case, you can actually see when the Pertussis vaccine was introduced. He also showed a chart for Scarlett Fever, which furthers the confusion about the role of vaccines, because there’s never been a Scarlett Fever vaccine, and yet the chart of a huge decline in mortality from Scarlett Fever looks very similar to measles and pertussis:

What’s the point?

Dr. Kass was trying to make a simple point to his colleagues, but one with profound implications for public health. His point was so important, I’m going to quote him in really big font to try and drive it home:

“This decline in rates of certain disorders, correlated roughly with socioeconomic circumstances, is merely the most important happening in the history of the health of man, yet we have only the vaguest and most general notions about how it happened and by what mechanisms socioeconomic improvement and decreased rates of certain diseases run in parallel.”

Dr. Kass pled with his colleagues to be open to understanding WHY infectious diseases had declined so dramatically in the U.S. (as well as other first world countries). Was it nutrition? Sanitary methods? A reduction in home crowding? (We’ve since learned the answer to all three questions is, “Yes.”) He encouraged his colleagues to be careful not to jump to conclusions prematurely and to maintain objectivity and “devote ourselves to new possibilities.”

Luckily for us, Dr. Kass’ speech that day has been saved for posterity, as it was printed in its entirety in a medical journal. In fact, it’s a journal that Dr. Kass himself founded, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and his speech is called, “Infectious Disease and Social Change.” There are a number of things about Dr. Kass’ speech that I found breathtaking, especially given that he was the President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Namely:

  1. He never referred to vaccines as “mankind’s greatest invention” or one of the other many hyperbolic ways vaccines are described all the time by vaccine promoters in the press today. Vaccines weren’t responsible for saving “millions of lives” in the United States, as Dr. Kass well knew.
  2. In fact, he never gave vaccines much credit AT ALL for the developed world’s dramatic mortality decline. Which makes sense, because none of the data he had would have supported that view. Which made me wonder, “has anyone tried to put the contribution of vaccines to the decline in human mortality in the 20th century in context?” Said differently, is there any data that measures exactly how much impact vaccines had in saving humanity? Yes, indeed there is. Read on.
1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of

t won’t be the world’s easiest read, but I hope you take the time to read every word. In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century, that 74% number I talked about in my opening paragraph. Not only that, but their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)

You can read the document pictured below below, HERE. 

…they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.

Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:

“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally not responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”

By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever. The McKinlay’s 23-page study really should be read cover to cover, but in a nutshell the McKinlay’s sought to analyze how much of an impact medical interventions (antibiotics, surgery, vaccines) had on this massive decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1970:

Here are some of the major points their paper made:

  • 92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
  • Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900–having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”

And, here’s the two doozies…

The paper makes two points that I really want to highlight, because they are so important. The first one concerns vaccines. They write:

“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here. Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”

In plain English: of the total decline in mortality since 1900, that 74% number I keep mentioning, vaccines (and other medical interventions like antibiotics) were responsible for somewhere between 1% and 3.5% of that decline. Said differently, at least 96.5% of the decline (and likely more than that since their numbers included ALL medical interventions, not ONLY vaccines) had nothing to do with vaccines.

You don’t get to say you saved humanity if, at most, you were responsible for 3.5% of the decline in mortality rates since 1900 (and probably closer to 1%).

And then the McKinlay’s wrote something that made me laugh out loud, because it’s the thing we are seeing every day in today’s vaccine-hyped world:

“It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.”

Sound familiar?

2000: the CDC puts the final nail in the coffin

In 1970, Dr. Kass raised the idea that public health officials need to be careful to not give the wrong things credit for the twentieth century’s massive mortality rate decline in the developed world. In 1977, Drs. McKinlay & McKinlay put data around Dr. Kass’ ideas, and showed that vaccines (and other medical interventions) were responsible for between 1-3.5% of the total decline in mortality since 1900. In 2000, CDC scientists reconfirmed all this data, but also provided more insight into the things that actually have led to declines in mortality.

Published in September 2000 in the journal Pediatrics and titled, “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century,” epidemiologists from both Johns Hopkins and the Centers for Disease Control reaffirmed what we had already learned from McKinlay and McKinlay:

“Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century…nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.”

The study went on to explain the things that actually were responsible for a massive decline in mortality:

“water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.” Also, “improvements in crowding in US cities” played a major role. Clean water. Safe food. Nutrition. Plumbing. Hygiene. These were the primary reasons mortality declined so precipitously. At least according to the data and published science.

Recent history

I get really strong reactions when I share this chart, compiled from CDC data:

This chart is compiled from this dataset provided by the CDC. You can see that nine vaccines we give children today didn’t even exist in the mid-1980s. Moreover, the vaccination rates for the three vaccines that did exist were hovering near 60% or less as late as the mid-1980s. Today, vaccination rates are all well north of 90% for American children. I think it’s fair to ask, “why so much panic”? If you think about this chart for long enough, it makes you realize how silly the oft-invoked notion of “herd immunity” really is, since we obviously couldn’t have been anywhere near vaccine-induced herd immunity in the mid-1980s. In fact, we’re really no closer today, because adult vaccination rates remain so low, and vaccines wane over time.

As McKinlay and McKinlay warned, if the wrong intervention (like vaccines) is singled out as the reason Americans and the rest of the first world experienced such a dramatic decrease in mortality in the 20th century, that misinformation can be abused to do things like:

  • Rapidly expanding the number of vaccines given to children
  • Browbeating parents who chose to follow a different vaccine schedule and making them feel guilty
  • Making vaccines mandatory
  • Speaking about vaccines in such reverential terms that even questioning them (like I’m doing in this article) is viewed as sacreligious and irresponsible.
  • And, denying that vaccines injuries happen at high rates, to keep the whole machine moving in the right direction. (By the way, the best guess of vaccine injury rate is about 2% of people who receive vaccines, according to this study commissioned and paid for by the CDC when they actually automated the tracking of vaccine injuries. The “one in a million” figure thrown around by vaccine promoters is simply an unsupportable lie.)
Africa, and other third world countries

Vaccine promoters will often quote statistics about present-day deaths from infectious diseases that sound deeply alarming. Using examples of a disease like measles, they might explain how many children still die from measles every year, and therefore its gravely important that EVERY American parent vaccinate their child for measles. Of course, what they don’t mention is that these infectious disease deaths are happening in places that still have quality of life conditions akin to American children of the early 1900s. Poor nutrition. No plumbing or refrigeration. Bad hygiene practices. Crowded living conditions. All the things that ACTUALLY impacted the mortality rate the most haven’t yet been addressed in certain parts of Africa and other third world countries, and JUST implementing vaccines won’t change the facts. This was Dr. Kass’ point in the first place: know what actually led to the mortality rate decline, and do more of that!

In fact, we now have some data that shows vaccinating children living in situations where they have poor nutrition and lack of sanitation can actually do more harm than good:

The “Aaby Study”

Published in the peer-reviewed journal EBioMedicine in 2017, the study is titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.” Researchers from the Research Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, Statens Serum Institut (Denmark), and Bandim Health Project looked closely at data from the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau. The scientists in this study closely explored the concept of NSEs, “nonspecific effects” of vaccines, which is a fancy way of saying vaccines may make a child more susceptible to other infections. They found that the data for African children who had been vaccinated with the DTP vaccine:

“was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. . . . DTP is the most widely used vaccine. . . . All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease, it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”

In lay terms, this means that giving an African child the DTP vaccine may make the child sick from other infections. It appears that in Africa, the living conditions are more important than the vaccine (as you would very much expect from Dr. Kass’ and the Drs. McKinlay’s work), and the DTP vaccine did indeed do more harm than good. (It’s worth noting that Dr. Aaby was a highly regarded vaccine researcher until he published this study in 2017. It’s my understanding that he has since lost his funding sources. Welcome to today’s world of vaccine “science.”)

Every Second Child

We have another real world example of this phenomenon from the late 1970s. Dr. Archie Kalokerinos made a simple discovery, as he explains:

At first it was just a simple clinical observation. I observed that many infants, after they received routine vaccines like tetanus, diphtheria, polio, whooping cough or whatever, became ill. Some became extremely ill, and in fact some died. It was an observation, It was not a theory. So my first reaction was to look at the reasons why this happened. Of course I found it was more likely to happen in infants who were ill at the time of receiving a vaccine, or infants who had been ill recently, or infants who were incubating an infection. Of course in the early stages of incubation there is no way whatsoever that anyone can detect the disease. They turn up later on. Furthermore, some of the reactions to the vaccines were not those that were listed in the standard literature.

They were very strange reactions indeed. A third observation was that with some of these reactions which normally resulted in death I found that I could reverse them by giving large amounts of vitamin C intramuscularly or intravenously. One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control, a very dramatic drop. But instead of taking an interest their reaction was one of extreme hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked into it the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instance of these diseases you will realise that this is not so.”

Dr Kalokerinos also said something in 1995 that it appears Dr. Aaby’s study was able to corroborate in 2017:

“And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there.”

We actually knew the truth in the early 1900s, even before the rapid decline in mortality Well ahead of his time, Englishman John Thomas Biggs was the sanitary engineer for his town of Leicester and had to actively respond to outbreaks of smallpox. He quickly learned that the public health outcomes from sanitation vastly outweighed the impact of vaccination (where he saw dramatic vaccine injury and ineffectiveness). He wrote a definitive work in 1912, Leicester: Sanitation versus Vaccination. More than one hundred years ago, Mr. Biggs discovered what the CDC reaffirmed in 2000: Nothing protects from infectious disease like proper sanitation. He explained:

“Leicester has furnished, both by precept and example, irrefutable proof of the capability and influence of Sanitation, not only in combating and controlling, but also in practically banishing infectious diseases from its midst. . . . A town newly planned on the most up-to-date principles of space and air, and adopting the “Leicester Method” of Sanitation, could bid defiance not to small-pox only, but to other infectious, if not to nearly all zymotic, diseases.”

Dr. Andrew Weil, the oft-quoted celebrity doctor, reenforces the point, explaining that “medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunizations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough, and the others were in decline before vaccines for them became available — the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.”

Finally

Vaccines didn’t save humanity. Their impact was somewhere between 1-3.5% of the total decline in mortality rates. Improvement in sanitation and standards of living really did (nutrition, living conditions, etc.). Did vaccines contribute to a small decrease of certain acute illnesses? Yes, but their relative benefit is often exaggerated to an extreme, and then used to browbeat, guilt, and scare parents.

So am I saying no one should vaccinate? No, I’m not. Vaccines provide temporary protection from certain acute illnesses. Some matter more than others. I personally think we give way too many vaccines, and I think the risk/benefit equation of each vaccine is often obscured. Worse, the lie that vaccines saved humanity in the twentieth century has turned many vaccine promoters into zealots, even though their narratives are simply not supported by the facts. But, by all means, get as many vaccines as you want, I respect your right to make your own medical care choices.

In late 2017, it was reported that Emory University scientists were developing a common cold vaccine. Professor Martin Moore bragged that his research “takes 50 strains of the common cold and puts it into one shot” and that the monkeys who served as test subjects “responded very well.” You should expect to see this vaccine at your pediatrician’s office in the next five years, which will likely be rolled out soon after the stories start to appear in the media about the common cold causing childhood deaths, and that millions of lives will be saved, much as vaccines saved the world in the twentieth century…parents beware, and do your own research!

Author’s note:

There are two excellent resources that I would recommend if you are interested in diving down the rabbit hole of the true history of infectious disease. The first is the amazing book, Dissolving Illusions, by Suzanne Humphries. The second is a comprehensive article by Roman Bystriany titled, Measles: The New Red Scare. (If you read it, you will be deeply disillusioned by the media hype—don’t say I didn’t warn you!)

Journalist Lawrence Solomon has also written two excellent articles about measles: 1) Lawrence Solomon: The untold story of measles, and 2) Lawrence Solomon: Vaccines can’t prevent measles outbreaks.

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.

Rosanne Lindsay, Contributor
Waking Times

In a previous blog, I asked, “what happened to informed-consent?”  Informed-consent is the cornerstone of Health Freedom, a form of art, really, since it can be crafted to suit the needs of the writer. Unfortunately, its original purpose has all but gone extinct, along with the dinosaur and dodo bird (Raphus cucullatus).

Informed Consent: permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Today, informed-consent has become implied consent, written for benefit those in a position of power.  The American Medical Association has its own specially-crafted definition. The truth is that those who own the narrative control the outcome. Owners determine the trends that create the laws because the system is rigged.

First, the owners write policy. Then they publish the polls and “trends in vaccine refusal” in their “Journal of Ethics.” They build a case that becomes the law where “permission granted” is implied. This strategy not only happens in the vaccine movement which seeks to end non-medical exemptions, but also in the natural health movement which seeks to eliminate full access to homeopathy as a healing modality.

Instead of playing victim to their narratives, why not refuse to sign their papers and reclaim the narrative?

To Sign or Not to Sign?

In a world where restrictions outweigh freedoms, and risks overtake benefits, where Medical Kidnap occurs daily in hospitals through Child Protective Services (CPS), you can choose not to sign any release forms. When you are asked to sign something for declining a treatment or a vaccine, just say NO, thank you.

Those who have the power will attempt to coerce you.  First parents who refuse to vaccinate will be required to watch an informational video (as in Oregon) and submit their certificate. Then, Home Schools will be visited by agents of Chid Protective Services (as in California).

You can refuse to be a part of a system that claims to own your body or the body of your children. You can seek care services outside the mainstream medical system with holistic health providers. When the public school system says you must be fully compliant with the CDC vaccine schedule, which continues to add new multivalent vaccines without adequate safety testing, and with associated sudden infant deaths, you can leave the school system altogether.

When you have attempted to find balance in the legal system, and it has failed you, there are plenty of alternative options when it comes to defending freedoms. You can choose to come together in a community to Home School children or grow your own herbal medicinals. When the government goes after Home Schooled children by putting them in the same category as Abused or Neglected, for “being a risk to the population at large,” you can choose to withdraw from the government system altogether; the subject of another blog.

Health Freedom means that in order to have health, you must have freedom, and in order to be free, you must keep your health. If you don’t defend your rights, expect to lose them. President Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, on January 26th 1900, wrote:

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Health freedom asks that you speak loudly, even if your voice shakes, and leave the big stick at home. If you carry the stick you will be arrested for “carry without a permit.” Violence begets violence and chaos ensues. You have your voice, that is your power. Use it to speak your definition of informed-consent.

During this time of censorship and transition to a fascist dictatorship, use your voice or lose your ability to speak. Speak loudly, with respect, and “inform” your legislators, that they are there as public servants, to serve you. If they ignore you, then you have a rogue government on your hands. In any bad relationship, for the sake of peace, there comes a need to separate. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopathic doctor and Tribal healer under the Turtle Island Provider Network. She is a writer, Earth keeper, Health Freedom advocate, co-founder of Wisconsin For Vaccine Choice, and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet.and Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally. Find her on Facebook at Rosanne Lindsay and Natureofhealing. Consult with her (Skype or Zoom consults available) at natureofhealing.org. Subscribe to her blog at http://www.natureofhealing.org/blog/.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times

First off, let me make it very clear that sunscreen is widely overused. There are some circumstances where it is wise and appropriate to use but those cases are few and far between. For the most part, you just need to avoid the sunscreen and rely on sensible sun exposure. Get out of the sun or wear clothing the moment your skin starts to turn light pink.

Having laid that foundation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently proposed new regulations1 to “make sure sunscreens are safe and effective.” If enacted, this could have a transformative effect on the sunscreen industry as a whole.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Importantly, as I’ve noted on a number of occasions, of all the active sunscreen ingredients used in products on the U.S. market, only two — non-nano-sized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide — have been deemed safe for human use by the FDA.

Yeah, I know what you’re likely thinking. You can trust the FDA about as far as you can throw them. It’s a captured agency and essentially controlled by the very industry it is seeking to regulate. However, there appear to be no vested interests here and I believe they got it right this time.

In its proposal, the FDA admits it does not have enough scientific data to draw any conclusions about the safety of 12 of the 16 active sunscreen ingredients on its list, and asks industry to help in providing more data to perform a “rigorous assessment” of all active ingredients on the market.

Two of the 16 ingredients, PABA and trolamine salicylate, have been deemed unsafe, or not generally recognized as safe (GRAS), and are not currently in use according to the FDA.

The proposal also includes broad updates to labeling requirements, as well as SPF-related changes. For the latter, FDA wants sunscreens with an SPF of 15 or higher to provide broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays, not just UVB as is currently the case. Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said:2

“It is important that, as this rulemaking effort moves forward and the FDA gathers additional scientific information, given the recognized public health benefits of sunscreen use, consumers continue to use sunscreen in conjunction with other sun-protection measures.

To help make sure this effort is successful, the FDA is looking to industry to gather the data needed to help ensure that products marketed to offer protection from the sun’s effects are safe and deliver on these promises.”

Evidence of Toxicity Exists For Several Sunscreen Ingredients

One of the 12 active sunscreen ingredients the FDA claims to be unsure about is oxybenzone, found in an estimated 70 percent of sunscreens. This, despite studies showing this chemical acts as an endocrine disruptor and has been linked to reduced sperm count3 in men and endometriosis4 in women.

Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows 96 percent of the U.S. population has oxybenzone in their bodies, which is a testament to just how much sunscreen people are using.

Indeed, daily use of sunscreen is one of the reasons cited by the FDA for the need to update safety regulations. People are using far more sunscreen these days, so exposure to potentially hazardous ingredients is of far greater concern than in decades past.

Oxybenzone is also lethal to certain sea creatures, including horseshoe crab eggs, and researchers warn the widespread use of oxybenzone-containing sunscreens pose a serious threat to coral reefs and sea life.5 This effect is what prompted Hawaiian lawmakers to ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, both of which have been linked to severe coral damage.6,7

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Many Sunscreen Ingredients Have Endocrine Disrupting Effects

Oxybenzone isn’t the only endocrine disruptor though. At least eight other active sunscreen ingredients are suspected of having endocrine disrupting effects.8,9

According to a recent Danish study,10 13 of 29 sunscreen chemicals (45 percent) allowed in the U.S. and/or European Union have the ability to reduce male fertility by affecting calcium signaling in sperm, in part by exerting a progesterone-like effect. Of those 13 chemicals, eight are approved for use in the U.S. These include:

Avobenzone Homosalate Meradimate Octisalate (also known as octyl salicylate) Octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate) Octocrylene Oxybenzone (also called benzophenone-3) Padimate O

These chemicals can also be found in makeup, moisturizers and lip balms with sunscreen protection. “These results are of concern and might explain in part why unexplained infertility is so prevalent,” senior investigator, Niels Skakkebaek, professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and a researcher at the Copenhagen University Hospital, said.11

Many sunscreens also contain vitamin A and/or its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate, which have been linked to an increased risk of skin cancer by increasing the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread.

Some Sunscreen Ingredients Are Also Neurotoxic

Researchers have also warned that some sunscreen ingredients are neurotoxic, posing a hazard to brain health. The authors of this study noted that since sunscreens need to be applied in significant amounts all over the body, calculations suggest the total amount of a given compound being absorbed from a single application could be as high as 200 milligrams.12

According to the above-referenced study, other studies also show these chemicals are found in blood, urine and breast milk following application, in some cases within as little as two hours. According to the authors:

“[W]hile sunscreens have been effective in protecting against a variety of UV-related pathologies … growing popularity and thus, possibility for exposure questions their safety in environment and human health …

The endocrine disruptive and developmental toxicity of many organic UV filters in experimental models is well established; these filters seem to be associated with altered estrogen, androgen and progesterone activity, reproductive and developmental toxicity and impaired functioning of the thyroid, liver or kidneys …

Since many of UV filters were shown to cross the blood-brain barrier, the risk for neurotoxicity also occurs … [S]ince it is known that other chemicals classified as endocrine disruptors can impair neuronal transmission, synaptic plasticity and produce neurotoxic effects, chemical filters might potentially produce similar effect.”

Sunscreen ingredients found to have neurotoxic effects in this study included:

Octyl methoxycinnamate — Found to decrease motor activity in female rats and alter the release of a number of different neurotransmitters Benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) — Decreases cell viability of neurons, and upregulates estrogenic-related genes in male animals Benzophenone-4 4-methylbenzylidene camphor — Decreased cell viability and impaired neuronal development in lab animals 3-benzylidene camphor Octocrylene — Impaired expression of genes related to brain development and brain metabolism

The authors also stress that simultaneous application of insect repellents such as DEET enhances the penetration of the compounds, thereby multiplying their potential toxicity.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Avoid Sunscreens With Nanoparticles

Most nanoscale particles (microscopic particles measuring less than 100 nanometers)13 found in American sunscreens are either titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.14 While these two are the only ingredients known to be safe, this safety does not extend to nano-sized versions.

We have used both of these safe ingredients in our Sunscreen SPF 50 for nearly 10 years. This is likely why our sunscreen was rated No. 1 two years ago by the Environmental Working Group.

Animal research has shown that inhaled nanoparticles can reach all areas of your respiratory tract and, since your lungs have difficulty clearing small particles, they may be allowed to pass into your bloodstream. Other studies have proven some nanoparticles are even able to cross your blood-brain barrier.

If allowed to enter your lungs or penetrate your skin, nanoparticles therefore have the potential to cause widespread damage to your cells and organs, immune system, nervous system, heart and brain.15,16 FDA has previously expressed concern that inhaling these products may be risky, especially to children, and in 2014, Consumer Reports advised parents to avoid spray-on sunscreens until the FDA had finished reviewing the sunscreens.17

Some scientists postulate that the toxic effects of nanoparticles relate to their size being in the range of a virus, which may trigger your body’s immune response.18 The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified titanium dioxide as a “possible carcinogen” when inhaled in high doses.19

Inhaling higher amounts of zinc oxide can lead to “metal fume fever,”20 characterized by chest pain, cough, dyspnea, reduced lung volumes, nausea, chills, malaise and leukocytosis. One 2012 study21found zinc oxide nanoparticles to be cytotoxic. They elevated zinc levels causing mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis (cell death).

Similarly, an Indian study concluded that zinc oxide nanoparticles cause toxicity in human lung cells possibly through “stress-induced apoptosis.”22 Human studies are sorely lacking as to the health effects of inhaling of zinc oxide particles, especially at lower levels, such as from brief exposure to sunscreen spray.

However, using these spray-on products are clearly an unnecessary risk since safer options are readily available. Your safest bet is to use topical zinc oxide or titanium dioxide that does not contain nanosized particles.

Reduce Your Risk of Sunburn With ‘Internal Sunscreens’

While sun avoidance recommendations make it sound as though all sun exposure is dangerous, the primary risk factor of skin cancer is sunburn, which is an inflammatory process that damages your skin. Sensible sun exposure is actually a crucially important component of good health, as your body produces vitamin D in response to UVB light striking your skin.

It’s important therefore to maintain a balance — you want to expose large portions of skin (without sunscreen on) to sunlight on a regular basis (ideally daily), yet be very careful to avoid getting burned.

Aside from covering up before you get burned, you can reduce your risk of sunburn by eating plenty of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, and/or taking an astaxanthin supplement. The latter has been shown to work as an effective internal sunscreen, protecting your skin from UV radiation damage.

In addition to copious testimonials and anecdotal evidence, scientific studies have substantiated these skin protective effects.23 In one study, subjects who took 4 milligrams of astaxanthin per day for two weeks showed a significant increase in the amount of time necessary for UV radiation to redden their skin. Animal studies lend further evidence to astaxanthin’s effects as an internal sunscreen:

  • In one study, mice were fed various combinations of astaxanthin, beta-carotene and retinol for four months. Astaxanthin was substantially effective in preventing photoaging of the skin after UV radiation, as measured by markers for skin damage24
  • A rat study found astaxanthin was found to be 100 times stronger than beta-carotene and 1,000 times stronger than lutein in preventing UVA light-induced oxidative stress25
  • The Journal of Dermatological Science published a study in 2002 finding astaxanthin is able to protect against alterations in human DNA induced by UVA light exposure26
How to Choose a Safer Sunscreen

With all the sunscreens on the market, how do you identify a safe one? The key to remember is that there really are only two known safe sunscreen ingredients — zinc oxide and titanium dioxide27 — and they must not be nano-sized.

Your safest choice is a lotion or cream with zinc oxide, as it is stable in sunlight and provides the best protection from UVA rays.28 Your next best option is titanium dioxide. Just make sure the product does not contain nano sized particles and protects against both UVA and UVB rays.

Keep in mind that SPF protects only from UVB rays (although if the FDA’s proposed rules are implemented, any SPF at or above 15 must protect against both UVA and UVB), which are the rays within the ultraviolet spectrum that allow your skin to produce vitamin D.

The most dangerous rays, in terms of causing skin damage and cancer, are the UVA rays. Avoid sunscreens with an SPF above 50. While not intrinsically harmful, the higher SPF tends to provide a false sense of security, encouraging you to stay in the sun longer than you should.

Moreover, higher SPF typically does not provide much greater protection. In fact, research suggests people using high-SPF sunscreens get the same or similar exposure to UV rays as those using lower-SPF products. What’s more, a recent analysis29 by Consumer Reports found many sunscreens are far less effective than claimed on the label; 24 of the 73 products evaluated offered less than half of the protection promised by their stated SPF.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

Derrick Broze, TMU
Waking Times

On March 6, the Danville Town Council voted four to one to block a permit for an upcoming small cell wireless installation by Verizon. During the meeting, Danville Mayor Robert Storer stated that the vote was an effort to stand up to the federal government and telecommunications companies, like Verizon.

The Danville Town Council’s decision to deny the land use-permit for the small cell opens the town to possible lawsuits from Verizon.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

“We’ve made a lot of difficult decisions over the years, and this one is right up there in my top three. But that is exactly why somebody elects us to do the right things,” Mayor Robert Storer said during the council meeting. “We’ve lost local control and this says: ‘You know what? We are sick of this and we’re not going to just sit here and be bulled over.’ We say no; we play our cards out. We’ve been in lawsuits before.”

The installation of small cell sites is taking place around the nation as the U.S. government and telecommunications companies roll out 5th Generation—or 5G—cellular technology. The new technology is expected to herald the beginning of Smart Cities, where driverless cars, pollution sensors, cell phones, traffic lights, and thousands of other devices interact in what is known as “The Internet of Things”. However, there have been a number of health and privacy concerns raised by opponents of the rapidly advancing 5G technology expansion.

The controversial vote came after the Town Council had been inundated with complaints and concerns from Danville residents who worry the new small cell site and other 5G related infrastructure could have negative health effects. The installation of small cells and other 5G infrastructure is opposed by Danville Citizens for Responsible Growth (DCRG), a local group who has been putting pressure on the Town Council since at least October 2018.

That month the Danville Planning Commission approved a land-use permit for the small cell site owned by Verizon. On November 2, DCRG filed an appeal challenging the approval. The group has been battling Danville officials since and was successful in convincing most of the council to vote against the permit. However, despite many of Danville’s residents expressing concerns regarding health, the council voted against the permit because the chosen location was intrusive.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Danville SanRamon reports:

“The Danville The decision to deny the permit was based on the council majority claiming that the proposed location was not the least intrusive site possible, that better alternative locations may exist and that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated the proposed facility would meet federal radio frequency standards — all of which went against the recommendation of town staff.”

In fact, Danville city attorney Robert Ewing noted that the Federal Communication Commission heavily regulates the installation of wireless cell sites and in the process limits local government’s ability to enact their own regulations.

While potential health concerns are a huge concern, if that was the basis on which you were making a decision I would be fairly confident to tell you that you would lose, because that’s about as clear as the law can get,” Ewing said at the meeting. “As much as I understand the concern folks have over safety, what I can tell you is that if you make a finding based on potential health impacts of RF, then I will tell you that my opinion is you would lose.”

According to the FCC’s regulations, local governing bodies are not allowed to even consider health risks when making their decisions. This is because the federal law known as the Wireless Communications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from considering perceived health effects when taking an action on a proposed facility. Instead, cities and towns can only regulate cell sites based on the aesthetics and placement of the devices. This problem was only made worse in September 2018, when the FCC passed a new rule which put the federal government in complete control of the 5G rollout.

This is why Danville Mayor Storer talks about losing local control. The federal government and their partners in Big Wireless have usurped local control of our communities. Danville Councilwoman Renee Morgan advised the people of Danville not to stop their efforts to expose this loss of power.

“What we need to do to make sure that we gain that local control. You cannot walk out of here and say we won by having this cell site moved somewhere else. The point is to go out there and talk to your state legislators, and make sure that they understand that we as the town of Danville, deserve to tell people where we want to put these things — not have them dictate it to us.”

Despite the difficulties in organizing to raise awareness about 5G, there are recent examples of resistance at the federal level. In early February, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on the future of 5G wireless technology and its impact on the American people and economy. At the hearing, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) raised concerns with the lack of scientific research and data on the technology’s potential health risks.

On January 24, Frank Pallone, Chairman of the U.S. House Commerce Committee, accused the FCC of collusion with Big Wireless on the massive 5G rollout. Pallone sent a letter to the FCC asking for copies of communications between the FCC and the corporations involved in the current roll out of 5th Generation (5G) cellular technology. Pallone’s letter seems to indicate that the Commerce Committee had spoken with a whistleblower.

In early December 2018, Senator Richard Blumenthal and California Representative Anna Eshoo held a press conference asking the FCC to provide evidence that 5G technology is safe. “To ensure we communicate accurate information to our constituents we respectfully request you provide to our offices the 5G safety determination from FCC and relevant health agencies that you referred to during the field hearing,” Blumenthal wrote.

It’s clear there are many questions about 5G which are going unanswered. Help us get to the bottom of this important story by sharing this article. 

To learn more about this topic see the following interviews: 

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Derrick Broze talks with Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust (EHT), about the health concerns around cell phones, wireless devices, and 5G.

Derrick Broze talks with Matt Cagle, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, regarding the privacy concerns surrounding the roll out of 5G technology and the so-called Internet of Things.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2 and Manifesto of the Free HumansDerrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article (California Mayor Admits Local Government Has “Lost Control” of 5G Rollout) was originally featured at The Mind Unleashed and is reposted here with permission. 

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

A recent study revealed that in the United States, the average smartphone user receives 45.9 push notifications per day, and many of us exceed that number. From Facebook to Instagram to Twitter to WhatsApp to Gmail, everything is constantly vying for our attention.

As a result of this overload, we’re experiencing a collective inability to focus at our highest potential and a reality where the majority of us are consistently fighting off some sort of urge to do something else.

(Fun Fact: Even as I’ve just started to write this article I’ve already seen my phone light up twice with notifications. I’ve now followed my own rules and have turned it over to lock in on the task at hand–more on this later.)

Even if you are part of the dying breed of individuals who have sworn off social media, although you finding and reading this article suggests otherwise, we all seem to be having an incredibly difficult time staying focused.

And with every useless scroll through our Instagram news feed and with every endless YouTube video rabbit hole we fall into, we only further shrink our attention span and strengthen the programming that convinces us that this is normal behaviour.

Assuming that part of why you clicked on this article is because you do have something that you ideally would like to focus on and ultimately accomplish, I’d like to share with you the best tactic I’ve personally found (and some bonus ones) to “lock in.” Believe it or not, this tactic is not a specific exercise, but is instead designed for you to realize that you still have an incredible ability to focus within you. It hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s just been misguided.

In fact, it’s likely getting more use than you could ever imagine.

The best way to explain this further is by using an example. Think of the last time you either: A) lost your phone, or B) forgot to bring a charger and realized that your phone was about to die.

The moment that either of those realities kick in for most of us, we immediately enter a state where nothing else matters. In scenario A, we search everywhere possible, call it from any other device we can get our hands on, and seek out the assistance of everyone available. In scenario B, despite being an introvert on the daily, we suddenly find ourselves engaging in conversation with everyone by asking for a charger, and if one can’t be found we start planning our exit no matter how much fun we’re having pre-low battery.

We’ve all experienced and have seen this before. When assessed like this, it likely sounds like a form of insanity–and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is–but from a completely different perspective, it’s actually fully “locked in” determination.

You see, we all have the capacity to focus on one particular thing and give all of ourselves to it, it’s just that our auto-pilot has become the opposite because of the sheer number of distractions we are exposed to and have become addicted to.

So rather than looking outside of yourself for some practice or technique that’s going to help you focus and finish writing that book, completing the homework, or finally send out those wedding thank you cards, look within and realize that you are still a determination powerhouse just waiting to be re-guided.

Bonus Tips: 1) When working on something important, put your phone on silent and either put it in another room or face down on your desk. 2) Consider turning off notifications and instead just check certain apps at particular points in the day. I’ve personally turned off all notifications from Facebook, Instagram and all audible email pushes.

For more brutally honest personal development content designed for those who actually want to change be sure to subscribe to my YouTube Channel and to follow me on Instagram. And to receive my free eBook on 5 Simple Daily Hacks For A Genuinely Happier Life click HERE.

For the third year in a row, the U.S. solar industry installed double-digit gigawatts (GW) of solar PV capacity, with 10.6 GW coming online in 2018, according to the latest statistics from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

It’s a good time for us to take a step back and try to examine what exactly is going on in our society today with regards to gender identity, especially in the way we are dealing with children too young to be able to make any informed choices. It’s a tricky subject, to be sure, but as with many other issues, the devil is in the polarities.

We come from a past in which only heterosexual men and women were considered to be of value to a society, while any deviations from this norm were muted and hidden, shed off as outcasts and relegated to the dark shadows of social standing. Any sign of deviation from the gender stereotypes of assertive, action-oriented men and submissive, child-rearing women was a black mark not only on an individual but on the individual’s family as well. As a consequence, children were not only encouraged, but compelled, sometimes under the threat of disownment or even death, to fit themselves into the established norms.

Pendulum Swing

We can certainly be proud that, as a society, we have moved away from this extremity. We have generally developed a much higher level of acceptance, certainly in the Western world, for many sexual and gender preferences that differ from the norm. But are we actually pushing it too far now, and waging an all-out attack on an old extremity while promoting a new one?

In this Vanity Fair article, we are told that ‘Meghan plans to pursue an empowering, modern parenting style,’ based on the following information from a source:

“Meghan has been talking to some of her friends about the birth and how she and Harry plan to raise their baby. Her exact word was ‘fluid’. She said they plan to raise their child with a fluid approach to gender and they won’t be imposing any stereotypes.”

This means, among other things, that the nursery might not be filled with toy trains and cars, even if rumors that a boy is coming are true. The Sussexes have already planned a gender-neutral nursery and opted for whites and grays over conventional blue and pink colors. While these particular choices don’t seem extreme, their relationship to other promotions going on, such as Celine Dion’s creepy launch of gender-neutral clothing, should give us reason to pause.

Tremendous Influence

We need to notice that there is a kind of forced righteousness in the discussion of a ‘fluid approach to gender’ and the denigration of ‘gender stereotypes’. I personally believe the remnants of gender stereotyping in the West are no longer at a level where we need celebrities making right by their children by declaring they will be raised as ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘gender fluid’. In raising my own five year old, I never gave a thought to ‘gender stereotypes’ simply because it wasn’t important to me whether or not my son acted in ways that conformed to a certain stereotype. I am simply ready to accept my son as he is in all regards and encourage him to have the experiences he wants. But at the same time I’m not going to run out and buy a dress every time I buy him a shirt and pants and continually ask him what he wants to wear.

A Royal couple making a simple declaration to take ‘a fluid approach to gender’ can plant a subtle seed in the minds of millions of people. The words of celebrities can have a similar effect. The same article talks about Kate Hudson wanting to raise her daughter ‘genderless’ and Angelina Jolie aspiring to raise her children without stereotyped ideas about gender. While any particular comment from one person can be taken at face value, the confluence of opinions that are knocking traditional gender identification cannot be ignored. It seems like subtle suggestions are being put out to millions of parents to encourage and highlight their children’s ambivalent feelings around gender while avoiding the reinforcement of identification with traditional gender norms.

Here’s the problem with that. Children need positive reinforcement about their identity and sense of self. They cannot be expected to make all the choices themselves about who they are, as though they were the adult in the room aware of what it takes to build self-esteem and confidence. However, the soldiers of this ’empowering, modern parenting style’ march on.

A Bigger Agenda

I have written in the past about how gender confusion is being manifested in our society as part of a much bigger agenda. In my article ‘Illuminati Pedophilia: Attempts To Normalize Sex Between Adults And Children (Part 1),’ the discussion centers around how ambivalent feelings around gender within children are being heightened and exploited through a sinister campaign that involves not only the Royals (Bloodline Families) but the government and Education ministry. Here’s how Joachim Hagopian, who worked with abused children as a licensed mental health therapist before becoming an alternative media journalist, puts it:

Former President Obama and his minions pushed Common Core and his LGBT agenda down our throats through his federalized public education system, willfully harming our children right out of the kindergarten gate with developmentally inappropriate, sexually explicit dogma that’s been damaging, overloading and confusing recent generations of young Americans toward gender identity issues that commonly manifest as confused gender roles, sexual acting out and interpersonal relationship barriers that reflect a normalized cultural and sexual pathology and dysfunction. Obama’s statist attack on both family and parental rights along with religion is but part of the elite’s massive mind control operation to further its sinister agenda. (source)

It should not come as a surprise that the latest en-vogue Royal couple to get pregnant should take center stage in soft-pedalling child-raising strategies that can lead to dysfunction, and not only because of the tremendous influence that their opinions on child-raising have in the public domain. As detailed by a former Illuminati bloodline family member in ‘Svali Speaks’, child abuse is in-bred in Illuminati bloodline ‘Royal’ families, an essential part of their Satanic programming that they believe has helped them retain power in the world over countless generations. And these are the very people behind an enslavement agenda that is advanced by an increase in gender confusion in our society.

The Takeaway

At the highest levels, I believe we are all souls that are not tied to a particular gender. That being said, in healthy, vibrant civilizations, the Divine Masculine And Divine Feminine are seen as the source of life. These are great energies that are to be aspired to, not denigrated and emasculated. Thus, while we can fully agree that there is no point forcing people into stereotypical ‘roles’ that don’t suit them, and that every single individual in society has equal value, that does not mean we should suddenly discourage men from being masculine and women from being feminine. Any efforts to do so are likely grounded in an agenda to destabilize a society for the purposes of controlling it.

It is important that we consider that this new vogue trend to raise children as ‘gender fluid’ may simply be one branch of ‘the elite’s massive mind control operation’, one that has already led to an increase in gender confusion and emotional distress among our children. Using our own instincts and discernment about what is best for our own child’s health and well-being, rather than paying attention to new and dangerous parenting catch-phrases promoted by public figures, many of whom are a part of an enslavement agenda, is the best way forward.

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