Ætherna

Bulletin Board

BookRetreats
Home >> News

News

Phillip Schneider, Staff Writer
Waking Times

“Two children have dropped dead in Simcoe County Schools since Wi-Fi was installed…” ~Rodney Palmer

Wireless technology is largely seen as benevolent and kind. Any danger to our health is typically passed off to the next generation to figure out, regardless of the consequences that have happened already. This story has played out many times in the past, whether it be DDT, cigarettes, or leaded paint. However, as Wifi proliferates throughout our schools with potential dangers for our children’s health, some are courageous enough to fight back against this under-studied science.

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

Rodney Palmer, an award-winning Canadian journalist and Communications Advisor at the Safe School Comittee, has been speaking out about the dangers of Wifi in public schools since at least 2010.  In a presentation to the Royal Society of Canada, he spoke about a wifi disaster at a public elementary school that injured dozens of students. The story is quite remarkable.

“When the schools installed the wifi, we found out that at least four children had erratic tachycardia [fast or irregular heart rate] that confounded their doctors and they were wearing heart monitors to school. The older children…told us they had blackouts in certain areas of the school.” – Rodney Palmer

Do children have a particularly low resistance to wireless radiation? According to Rodney Palmer, many school-aged children report a negative reaction from exposure to Wifi since its introduction to public schools. These children cite headaches, irregular heart rate, and blackouts as potential reactions to the technology.

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

“Anyone could make the argument that you could safely spray any amount of pesticide on any person for any amount of time, although that once thought to be okay, and that’s the current government thinking with microwave radiation.” – Rodney Palmer

If you’re an adult and you want to have Wifi in your house, you can make the decision about whether you want to use a technology that may harm your health; that’s part of what it means to be free. However, the story starts to change when we talk about children.

Most parents would do anything that they can to keep their children safe, and if getting rid of Wifi at home does the job then so be it. But when children are in places where they are forced by the government to spend most of their childhood, it’s no longer up to the parents to aid their child’s health. It’s up to a bureaucracy which likely doesn’t have the same agenda as the parent. In one school’s case, they told the parents that there was no other option.

“The Simcoe County District Schools Board said no. They said the children must be exposed to Wifi at school. Even the children who were sick and presented to the school board themselves were told no, you may not plug your computer into the wall. You must sit all day in a sea of microwave radiation.”

Because of safety code 6 in Ontario, the school board does not have to acknowledge a parent’s complaint about this issue because the code considers the radiation to be completely safe. However, appropriate long-term testing has not been done to determine whether some children are affected negatively by wireless radiation.

(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");

“So, we were right! Our kids were sick at school and nowhere else. There was no mold problem, no recent renovation, chemical building materials. Only a newly installed massive WIFI system. They measured and found that radiation created by the WIFI exceeded Safety Code 6 thermal threshold by 34%. And that explained how my son came home from school with hot ears every day. He was being cooked by microwaves.

 

School WIFI operates at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as a microwave oven.

 

So, did they shut it down?

 

Evacuate the school?

 

Did they alert the teachers? Parents? Students?

 

No!” [Source]

No, the Simcoe County District School Board kept it quiet. They told no one. They downplayed the results as insignificant and failed to tell the parent who were BEGGING for answers.

Unfortunately, in many western countries, children are given few options as to where their education may take place. In the UK, laws have been introduced forcing parents to pay fines of up to £120 because of their child’s tardiness to school. This type of law appears to be popping up around the world, where parents are granted littler control over the life and health of their child.

As several children have had unexplained health issues in suspicious connection with Wifi radiation, the question should not be whether we can prove for a fact that Wifi caused the incidents, but whether we should be forcing a potential danger on the world’s children just because we can’t prove for a fact that it was not.

“The ‘weight of evidence’ model is weighted in favor of science payed for by the wireless industry. As you all know, science can be manipulated, but cardiac arrest can’t.” – Rodney Palmer

Read more articles from Phillip Schneider.

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

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student and a staff writer for Waking Times.

This article (Award Winning Journalist Exposes Wifi Disaster in Canadian Public School that Injured Dozens of Children) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

John P. Thomas, Health Impact News
Waking Times

Public attention about 5G has been focused on the plans of telecom companies to install millions of small cell towers on electric utility poles, on public buildings and schools, on bus stop shelters, in public parks, and anywhere they want in national parks and on federally owned land.

In local urban communities there would be a cell tower approximately every 500 feet along every street.

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

As bad as these small cell towers might seem from the standpoint of constant exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation in close proximity to the source, perhaps an even more alarming prospect will be the beaming of millimeter length microwaves at the earth from thousands of new communication satellites.

The FCC gave approval to SpaceX on March 29, 2018, to launch 4,425 satellites into low orbit around the Earth. [1]

The total number of satellites that is expected to be put into low and high orbit by several companies will be 20,000 satellites. [1]

5G will use Phased Array Antennas to shoot Beams of Radiation at Cell Phones

These satellites will use the same type of phased array antennas as will be used by the ground-based 5G systems.

This means that they will send tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth and each device will send a beam of radiation back to the satellite. [2]

Previous generations of RF cellular communication used large antennas to send a blanket of radiation in all directions. The lower frequencies they used and the broad distribution of microwaves limited the numbers of cellular devices that could connect through an individual tall tower.

The much shorter length microwaves used for 5G will make it possible to use small phased array antennas to send and receive signals. 

Phased array antennas consist of clusters of hundreds of tiny antennas that work together to shoot a ray of energy at a target just like a bullet. A cluster of these tiny antennas can be arranged in a 4 inch by 4 inch matrix.

The rays of microwaves they produce will be strong enough to pass through walls and human bodies. If they were not strong enough to do this, then everyone with a 5G smartphone would have to stand outside when using the devices. [2]

Each 5G product will also have multiple phased array antennas which will be used to create a powerful beam of radiation back to the 5G devices mounted on electrical utility poles or toward a specific satellite in space.

These beams of radiation will also need to be strong enough to pass through walls and human flesh such as a hand or head to reach the intended destination. [2]

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

This means that if you are in a crowded location, such as an airport or on a train, there will be hundreds if not thousands of invisible beams of radiation flying through the environment at the speed of light.

As people move in that environment, their bodies will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones. [2] 

5G Phones will be much more Powerful than Previous Phones

The effective radiated power of the 5G phased array antennas in phones will be 10 times more powerful than 4G phones.

No one will be free from exposure.

In addition, 5G beams of microwave radiation will be received and transmitted from new computer equipment, household appliances, and automobiles.

Stationary equipment such as Wi-Fi hubs in homes and offices will be permitted to use microwave beams that are 15 times stronger (300 watts) than the signals from 5G phones or 150 times stronger than 4G phones. [2] 

Why is 5G so Much More Dangerous than Previous Microwave Communication Systems? 

Arthur Firstenberg, author, researcher, and advocate for limiting RF exposure from the environment, explains the analysis of 5G radiation that was published in Microwave News in 2002. He stated:

When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow.

But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body [5G], something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body.

 

These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors.

 

They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough.

5G will probably satisfy both requirements. This means that the reassurance we are being given—that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body—is not true. [2]

5G Satellites Will Fill the Skies

These are the companies with the biggest plans to deploy satellites:

  • SpaceX: 12,000 satellites
  • OneWeb: 4,560 satellites 
  • Boeing: 2,956 satellites
  • Spire Global: 972 satellites

Arthur Firstenberg describes the plans of corporations who want to use 5G technology. He states: 

Honeywell has already signed a memorandum of understanding to become OneWeb’s first large customer—it plans to provide high-speed Wi-Fi on business, commercial, and military aircraft throughout the world.

SpaceX would like to provide the equivalent of 5G to every person on the planet. [3]

(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");

Ground-based 5G Implementation

Ground-based 5G systems are already being implemented in dozens of major cities right now. Plans are being approved by hundreds of other cities, which will allow implementation in 2019 and beyond.

As I explained in my previous articles, cities do not have the right to “say no” to 5G. FCC regulations prevent cities from objecting on the basis of health concerns – they only can speak to issues of esthetics and the practical matter of the placement of equipment.

They are required to “say yes,” and they better do it quickly, or telecom companies will threaten them with legal action for obstructing their plans.

Satellite Based 5G Implementation

The first two 5G test satellites were launched by SpaceX in February of 2018. Hundreds of other satellites are expected to be launched in 2019. The full set of 20,000 satellites could be put in orbit during the next two years.

To put this into perspective, as of September 2017 there were 1,738 operating satellites into orbit around the Earth. This means the number of satellites will be 11 times greater than the current number. [4]

Environmental Catastrophe from Rockets used to Launch Satellites

Rocket fuel is very destructive to the Earth’s ozone layer which protects us from the harsh effects of radiation from the sun. In 2017, there were 90 rocket launch attempts worldwide. [5]

The rockets that use solid fuel produce massive ozone depletion. While rockets using liquid kerosene as fuel destroy less ozone, they release massive amounts of black carbon soot into the air, especially at high altitudes. 

If the number of annual rocket launches increases by 10 or more times, which is likely under the plans these corporations have made, computer models suggest that the combination of ozone depletion and release of black soot could produce a 3 degree warming effect over the Antarctic and reduce the ozone in the world’s atmosphere by 4%. [3]

Even though it will be possible for a single rocket to put multiple satellites into orbit, we are still talking about a 10 or 20 fold increase in environmental damage over what is being produced today. [3]

The 5G satellites have a relatively short lifespan, perhaps only 5 years, which means there will be high numbers of rocket launches, not just in the next few years, but in every year for the foreseeable future. [3]

Mercury-based Rocket Fuel Could Spread Neurotoxins Over the Earth 

As bad as liquid and solid rocket fuels will be for the environment, Apollo Fusion is developing a mercury-based propulsion system for launching rockets.

These ion propulsion rocket engines use powerful magnets to push away small charged particles at high speeds, which generates thrust. NASA experimented with mercury ion propulsion in the 1960s, but abandoned the research.

Mercury is an extremely strong neurotoxin, which is harmful to all forms of life, especially humans.

The risks of an environmental catastrophe are monumental, because if there was a malfunction and one of these engines exploded, highly toxic mercury would be spread through the atmosphere and over the Earth. [6]

All the talk from telecom companies about 5G being a panacea for environmental protection and energy conservation is quite ridiculous when we think about the environmental damage that will be created by any of the rocket engines they choose to use for launching their satellites.  

Space Junk will Pollute the Earth

Each satellite will be the size of a small refrigerator and will weigh approximately 880 pounds. [4]

With a life expectancy of only 5-years [3], this means there will be a massive amount of space junk orbiting the Earth.

Eventually, all those satellites will fall down to Earth and will burn up as they enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

All the hazardous materials in the satellites will be released into the air and will float down to the ground as dust or in droplets of rain.

Telecom Companies are Creating a Worldwide Disaster in the Name of Technological Progress 

5G is promoted as being the next great wonder in the plan to advance technology to create smart cities where everything and everyone is instantly connected in real-time with no lags or lost signals.

Of course there will be a few costs. 

Everyone will be irradiated with millimeter-size, non-ionizing radiation 24 hours a day with completely unknown health effects.

Studies designed to investigate harm from 5G will be completed many years after the 5G systems on the ground and in space are fully implemented.

At that point it is very unlikely that telecom companies would dismantle their systems even if it is shown that their technology is causing cancer and other diseases. They would just deny the risks.

They will tell us that the science was settled decades ago. They will tell us that evidence linking 5G to cancer and other diseases is just a conspiracy theory that only a few crackpots believe.

Millions of people will suffer from radiation exposure with symptoms such as headaches, weakness, brain fog, impaired ability to learn and reason, chest pain, and numerous other symptoms that will baffle most conventional physicians.

There is Nowhere to Hide from 5G Radiation

Today, it is possible to live in a location that has reduced levels of microwave exposure. This is accomplished by choosing a living space that is far away from cell phone towers.

However, in the near future, it won’t matter where we live, because 5G will irradiate us wherever we happen to live or work.

Cities Can’t Say No to 5G Implementation

FCC regulations have been structured in such a way that local municipalities cannot stop telecom companies from installing 5G. They are specifically prohibited from trying to delay or stop 5G implementation on the basis of health concerns. Their only recourse is to try to make the ground-based 5G system somewhat more esthetically pleasant.

Based on what has been happening around the country, telecom companies are sweeping aside local resistance and gaining approval for their 5G systems in rapid succession.

Can 5G Implementation be Stopped?

As far as I can tell, at this point, the only way that 5G will be stopped will be by congressional action. If enough people raise a stink with their elected officials, then perhaps 5G could be put on hold while studies are done to examine the true health risks. 

Telecom investment in 5G has been massive. They are planning full implementation on the ground and in space in the next couple years. The time to object is now and not after hundreds of thousands of people become sick. [7]

If you would like to watch an in-depth presentation on the risks and hazards of 5G, then please view the following presentation.

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

Listen to Arthur Firstenberg discuss the history, science, and description of 5G, including 5G from satellites in space and its expected effects on all living things:

Cell Phone Task Force, Taos, New Mexico, August 2, 2018

You also may wish to review some of my previous articles about the risks of 5G and other forms of radio frequency exposure.

Public Waking up to Fact that 5G has not been Proven Safe for Human Health

5G Technology is Coming – Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Death

Cell Phone and Wi-Fi Exposure to the Eyes Causes Long-Term Damage

New 5G Cell Towers and Smart Meters to Increase Microwave Radiation – Invade Privacy

Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death

Will Driverless Cars Cause DNA Damage and Cancer?

How Big Technology Companies Control the Minds of the Masses through Smart Phone Addiction

About the Author

John P. Thomas is a health writer for Health Impact News. He holds a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Michigan, and a Master of Science in Public Health (M.S.P.H.) from the School of Public Health, Department of Health Administration, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

[1] “Planetary Emergency,” Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force.

[2] “5G – from Blankets to Bullets,” Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force.

[3] “WiFi in the Sky,” Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force.

[4] “5G from Space,” Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force.

[5] “2017 Space Launch Statistics,” – Spaceflight101.

[6] “Space Startup Apollo Fusion Wants To Use Mercury as a Fuel,” Avery Thompson, Popular Mechanics, 11/20/2018.

[7] Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Taos, New Mexico, 8/12/2018.

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

As many of us already know, given it has now garnered 9.4 million views on Youtube, former House of Cards star Kevin Spacey posted a cryptic video on Christmas Eve. The video was published immediately following the announcement that he will face a charge of felony sexual assault in Massachusetts on accusations that he groped a young man in 2016.

The allegations were first brought forward in November 2017, when former Boston TV anchor Heather Unruh told reporters that Spacey groped her teenage son in a crowded bar inside a Nantucket restaurant. Since the charge was announced, the 59-year-old Oscar-winning actor has argued that he should be excused from attending his Jan. 7 arraignment at the Nantucket District Court because his presence would “amplify the negative publicity already generated in connection with this case.” However, Judge Thomas Barrett denied Spacey’s request. For the record, Spacey has said he will plead not guilty to felony indecent assault and battery.

‘Let Me Be Frank’

Back to the video, titled ‘Let Me Be Frank,’ which is an ironic double-entendre between him offering to speak honestly (frankly) while in the character of Frank Underwood (his role as a ruthless and dishonest politician in House of Cards). And even a third meaning pops out from this title, where the plea to ‘Let me be Frank’ is a request to return to House of Cards as Frank Underwood, a role that was stripped away from him when the sexual assault allegations first surfaced.

With the multi-level meaning of this title as an indicator, I believe Kevin Spacey thought about and worked on the words and the delivery of this video for a very long time, carefully working a single narrative to move in and out of different levels, speaking to different audiences at different times, and sometimes several audiences at once. Rather than believing that there was one ultimate purpose for releasing this video, I sense that Spacey was dealing with a host of internal emotions and desires that he wanted to express, and felt the need to give birth to this idea that he may have become obsessed with.

As an actor, few would deny that Spacey was one of the best in Hollywood, and I believe he used those talents to create a mysterious narrative that would have a host of pundits weighing in with different theories. I am not saying this video is genius and will be studied by academia and media studies for years to come; however, I do think that it seems to be the result of a lot of thought and effort, and may even be clearly understood by his target audience. He probably had said the whole monologue hundreds of times over and over again before shooting it. There is a sense that he had a lot to say here. Whether or not it accomplished what he intended is a different matter, but I think it is worth a deeper investigation than what I’ve seen on social media and mainstream media. Let’s look at some of the different ‘takes’ people have had on it and see if the real ‘message’ can be found by analyzing them, regardless of your personal opinions of Kevin Spacey.

Take One: Comeback Attempt

This first take is what I would consider the most literal interpretation of the video, in which the very title ‘Let Me Be Frank’ may be a plea to his fans to do what they can to lobby Netflix for Spacey’s character on House of Cards, Frank Underwood, to literally come back from the dead. Indeed, the way the video starts, with Spacey facing directly into the camera, he seems to be talking to fans, much in the same way his character Frank Underwood sometimes talks directly to the audience:

I know what you want. Oh sure they may have tried to separate us but what we have is too strong – is too powerful. I mean after all we shared everything, you and I. I told you my deepest darkest secrets. I showed you exactly what people are capable of.

Here, Spacey discusses his role as Frank Underwood and elevates it to the level of an extremely important disclosure of the true means and motives of the elite, of the people who have power in the world. Of course, one could say that about the show House of Cards in general, as it does indeed reveal the shadowy forces behind politics. But acting as the main character, not only with his lofty acting skills but also his firsthand knowledge of this dark world (more on that later), Spacey may really believe that he was doing a great service to humanity, bringing occult knowledge out of the darkness and into the public domain.

Perhaps there is something in that, but he may have given himself over to self-aggrandizement. After all, he’s not the only one on this mission. This form of disclosure is now seeping out from all realms of human activity. His characterization of the desire on the part of fans to have him return to continue revealing the dark side is a bit over the top:

So we’re not done no matter what anyone says and besides, I know what you want. You want me back.

There may be some emotional entanglement between his character being killed off and his personal experience of being shunned by the allegations of sexual misconduct, to the extent that he questions the legitimacy of the death of Frank Underwood in the same vein as the legitimacy of the claims against him, so that the restoration of Frank Underwood somehow equates to the restoration of his innocence:

Anyway all this presumption made for such an unsatisfying ending, and to think, it could have been such a memorable send-off.

His Brother Weighs In

In an episode of Inside Edition on the very subject of ‘Let Me Be Frank’ (see video clip below), we see that this ‘comeback attempt’ is exactly the take of Spacey’s younger brother, Randy Fowler:

Fowler: The man has no shame. He’s begging for his job. This video was a rationalization to try and convince his fan base to convince Netflix to bring it back. He thinks that he’s gonna make a comeback.

Interviewer: You think he shouldn’t have done it.

Fowler: Of course he shouldn’t have done it, but it’s ‘Act 3’ of a desperate man. He got dethroned overnight, It’s over.

Kevin Spacey’s brother wrote a book in 2017 titled ‘A Moment In Time: Living In The Shadows,’ which details the sexual and physical abuse Randy endured from his father, whom Randy refers to as ‘The Creature,’ as well as his mother’s denial and indifference to his pain and her almost erotic favoritism toward Kevin. Going more deeply into this is not possible here, but it will serve us to know that Randy believes Kevin to be a man who has suppressed all emotions from their devastating childhood, and as a result of never coming to grips with his childhood, is probably capable of extreme brutality and sexual deviance like their father was. In the book,

Randy discusses in detail his practically non-existent relationship with his estranged younger brother, Kevin Spacey Fowler, whom Randy tried so hard to protect during their abusive childhoods. Randy asks the following questions: “Why is one brother brutally honest and the other dishonestly brutal? Why does one have character and the other plays characters? Why was one a plaything for their cruel, mentally ill, perverted pedophile father and the other embraced by a loving mother, who ignored Randy’s screams of pain and suffering?”

Take Two: A Denial Of Guilt To Victims

When we combine Randy’s testimony with the number of accusations of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse that have surfaced against Spacey over a number of years, as well as Spacey’s prominence in the industry, it’s presumable that Kevin Spacey has been deeply involved in Hollywood pedophilia for a number of years.

Is it possible that Spacey’s main aim for putting out the video was as a kind of offence against those that claim Spacey abused them, like the felony sexual assault charge in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the video in this Independent article? If so, that puts these words in a completely different context:

I know what you want. Oh sure they may have tried to separate us but what we have is too strong – is too powerful. I mean, after all, we shared everything, you and I. I told you my deepest darkest secrets.

And you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn’t. So we’re not done no matter what anyone says and besides, I know what you want. You want me back.

Oh well, of course they’re gonna say I’m being disrespectful not playing by the rules like I ever played by anyone’s rules before. I never did and you loved it.

The suggestion that, even in his own mind, Spacey believes that his victims were actually willing participants who made the choice to trust him and therefore have no right to accuse him of wrongdoing, is just too gruesome to even contemplate — especially since he is known to have been a guest on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island, as evidenced in the ‘Lolita Express’ flight log below and detailed in this Infowars article.

In truth, I do not think that the main purpose of this video is to speak to any of his past victims and try to justify his actions or absolve himself of what he did to those young boys. But it does seem like, in Spacey’s mind, there is a connection between his relationship with his audience, in which he deeply reveals/confesses his character’s desires and motives (and his own, in many ways), and his relationship with his victims, in which Spacey may imagine that he is making himself vulnerable to them and revealing his ‘deepest, darkest secrets.’

I have no idea what is going on in Spacey’s mind, but it is not inconceivable that, coming from the highly dysfunctional home life that he did, he might feel he is not to blame and in some twisted way is giving his victims something they wanted.

Take Three: A Warning To The Illuminati

For me, a more cogent reason for creating this video was to make a hidden threat to those above him in his elite ‘Illuminati’ pedophile circle who may have allowed allegations of sexual misconduct against him to be taken seriously by law enforcement and the mainstream media. The impression I hold from my research is that those who follow the rules and do what their higher-ups tell them to do are able to escape most or all crimes with impunity.

In a sense, Kevin Spacey may have done something to displease his masters to make them turn his world of high status, fame, wealth, and capacity into a world of being shunned, dismissed, hated, and even incarcerated. Spacey’s bitterness may very well be best explained by the engraving in the Royal Windsor cup he drinks from in the video, which reads ‘Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.’

My feeling is that Kevin Spacey enjoyed moving up the ranks of the Illuminati, and even surprised some of his higher-ups by his audacity and insubordination, perhaps to the extent that they were entertained and even enlightened by his participation in their activities. One of the ‘rules’ that must be followed by the Illuminati in accordance with their spiritual principles, as David Wilcock elaborates on in the video clip below, is that they must ‘make known’ all they do in the world in order to get humanity’s tacit ‘consent’ to their actions and their rule. But these public revealings are often cloaked in symbols, popular culture, comedy and drama, and other metaphorical forms.

Indeed, House of Cards could stand as one of the most prominent forms of revealing Illuminati means and tactics in the film industry, and perhaps the ‘game’ is to see how far they can go in revealing who they truly are and what they truly do without knocking down their ‘house of cards’ entirely. Perhaps Kevin Spacey liked to push the envelope in this regard.

Oh well of course they’re gonna say I’m being disrespectful not playing by the rules like I ever played by anyone’s rules before. I never did and you loved it.

Certainly this scene from the show, in which Frank Underwood is not only participating in a ceremony at Bohemian Grove but is also explaining what his purpose as a high-ranking American politician is for being there, pushes the envelope:

Perhaps Spacey was threatening to go even further, and was empowered by the fact that he was actually rewarded for his past insubordination. Perhaps there was a dispute about what season 6 would actually reveal. These are all suppositions, of course, but this message seems to fit best with some of the more powerful phrases from the video:

I mean, if you and I have learned nothing else these past years, it’s that in life and art nothing should be off the table. We weren’t afraid, not of what we said, not of what we did, and we’re still not afraid because I can promise you this. If I didn’t pay the price for the things we both know I did do, I’m certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn’t do.

If Kevin Spacey is guilty of unspeakable crimes, that would render the acts he is currently being accused of as ‘insignificant’ in the eyes of the Illuminati. The more serious acts were likely committed within the protected bowels of the Illuminati, and would not surface because they would implicate other members and may endanger the Illuminati itself. When they turn on one of their own, the tactic of the Illuminati tends to be to support accusations that are outside of ritualistic Illuminati practices. Hence, this is perhaps why Spacey acknowledges that he and other members don’t pay for the true crimes that are part of Illuminati ritual and that he’s ‘not gonna pay the price for things I didn’t do.’

But does Spacey’s threat that he’s ‘not gonna pay the price’ mean he’s threatening to tell all and bring down others if the higher-ups don’t use their power and influence to free him rather than convict him in court? Perhaps this line gives us the answer:

And my confidence grows each day that soon enough you will know the full truth.

The Takeaway

As interesting as it may be to speculate on what Kevin Spacey’s true intent was with this video, his actions were unjustifiable, and no video could argue against that. However, I believe this video also reflects the significant power the Illuminati holds. Gone are the days when the Illuminati ruled over a public that was oblivious to the fact that they were being subjected to a slow process of mind control and subjugation. Today, thanks to the Internet, camera phones, and growing public knowledge, the Illuminati is in a precarious position in which they’re no longer capable of completely controlling the narrative and are in danger of being brought out of the shadows. If disgruntled members like Kevin Spacey have their way, that may happen sooner rather than later.

Can thought, intention, and emotion influence the physical world? Many people believe that they can, but scientific models for testing and quantifying this idea often fall short. Classical physics has been very successful at understanding the physical nature of the universe, yet this world-view assumes that reality is limited to matter. This leaves classical physics ill-equipped to measure or quantify non-physical phenomena. This has led to a movement towards post-material science. If you experience intuition and other non-physical phenomena, you will be excited to learn that science is beginning to validate this realm. You will be inspired to explore the quantum ways that you are connected with the entire universe.

Spiritual practices like meditation, qigong, and yoga were considered forms of science long before Newton inspired classical physics. Quantum Physics flirts with realms of mystery that were traditionally reserved for mystics. There is no need to be on the sidelines as an observer because there are a few very interesting research projects happening in the interstices between science and spirituality which we will explore below. Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to participate in this historic process that integrates physics, consciousness, and group meditation.

Spiritual practices like meditation, qigong, and yoga were considered forms of science.

Why Post Material Science?

Classical Newtonian Physics is primarily focused on the material world, yet consciousness studies are one of the cutting edges of scientific research. This calls for a new paradigm that allows mind, consciousness, and non-material phenomena to be accepted into the equation of reality, while finding adequate means to study and quantify them. A leading group of well-respected scientists have come together and presented a Manifesto for Post-Materialistic Science as a solution to the limitations of classical physics. As with any new field of inquiry, it is not without controversy, and is upsetting to some members of the scientific status quo.

“Major advances in science — revolutions, even — follow the collapse of outworn paradigms, whose overthrow is forced by the accumulation of empirical evidence that violates the paradigm.”
Dave Pruett, Former NASA researcher; Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, James Madison University

How Science Arrived at the Doorstep of Spirituality

The first echoes of the need for a new paradigm that addresses the non-physical realty came from Einstein in the early 1930’s. In his research, he observed something so bizarre that he could barely believe what he was seeing. He called it “spooky action at a distance”, which later became two of the main concepts studied in the quantum information sciences, known as entanglement and non locality. Entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply linked (by a quantum field) that one particle can instantaneously (meaning faster than the speed of light!) influence the other even at great distances non-locally. This implies that the physical distance between the particles is irrelevant, thus a quantum leap in our idea of what is possible.

“The shift from materialistic science to post-materialistic science may be of vital importance to the evolution of human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.” – A Manifesto for Post-Materialistic Science

Though this phenomena is not fully understood, it is accepted in quantum mechanics. Maybe you have experienced a moment where you randomly thought of a loved one that you hadn’t thought about in a long time, then the phone rings and you pick it up to hear their voice? These sorts of “synchronicities” happen often for many people, yet may be hard to prove exactly why or how they happen. Quantum physics is at the very beginning of exploring this phenomena that is has usually been called coincidence…until now.

“Without the spiritual world the material world is a disheartening enigma.” – Joseph Joubert

Have you had a moment where you randomly thought of a loved one, then the phone rings?

Research Science Meets Meditation, Human Intention, and Consciousness

Bill Tiller, Fellow to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and Chairman Emeritus of Stanford University’s Department of Materials Science, spent 34 years in academia after 9 years as an advisory physicist with the Westinghouse Research Laboratories. He has published over 250 conventional scientific papers, 3 books and several patents. As a renowned scientist, he is also a strong advocate for meditation, non-physical science, and spirituality. He has coined the term Psychoenergetic Science to describe his work that combines consciousness and science.

“For the last four hundred years, an unstated assumption of science is that human intention cannot affect what we call ‘physical reality.’ Our experimental research of the past decade shows that, for today’s world and under the right conditions, this assumption is no longer correct. We humans are much more than we think we are and Psychoenergetic Science continues to expand the proof of it.” – Dr. Bill Tiller

Tiller is convinced that intention can influence physical substances and he has developed a crystalline-based silicon technology that can capture and store an intention directed by a group of meditators. This energetic intention resonates at a frequency that can be recorded or broadcast to achieve a designated effect in people. Early research with this technology in his lab at Stanford, as well as labs in London and Berlin, indicates the ability of directed human intention to increase or lower the pH of water by 1 point, the growing of larvae at a 30% increased rate, and the killing of bacteria at a 30% increased rate. This implies some sort of non-physical, non-local connection between intention and these physical substances.

Addressing Skepticism

As with any new field of study there will be successes and failures. Scientists are vulnerable to the weaknesses that we all experience. Denial of facts, confirmation bias, resistance to new ideas, etc. are issues that scientists from the old and the emerging paradigm will need to address. Vigorous research can be expensive and funding can be hard to find for theories that are unconventional. So yes, there will be skeptics and there will also be new discoveries that topple long-held beliefs about humans, the universe, and what is possible. Just as Einstein was baffled and skeptical of his own observations of entanglement, we are all liable to have our preconceived notions challenged and overturned by this emerging field of non-material science.

Can I get Involved?

Yes you can! The best thing about consciousness research on a global scale is that it requires participation from lots of people. Since we face unprecedented challenges with climate instability, wars, and economic disparity, there has never been a more potent time on the planet for humans to collectively access higher realms of potential. We are ready for a quantum shift and we really need one.

Globally Synchronized for a Quantum Leap

Currently, leading minds in science, spirituality, and technology are learning to collaborate in ways that are certain to make some waves. Unify organizes globally synchronized meditations through their online network of over one million fans, as well as a network of over 2,000 local organizers in countries around the world. Combined with United Nations Millennial Goals, like International Day of Peace during the September equinox, or World Water Day during the March equinox, the Unify Team is able to facilitate hundreds of thousands of meditators around the world to focus their intention on important global issues. These global meditations are free and open to anyone who wants to be involved, or organize their own local event. Learn more here.

The Merraki Institute has partnered with Bill Tiller and is conducting vigorous scientific research in another participatory global experiment. Merraki is a Greek word meaning, “Doing something with soul, creativity, or love” and it is refreshing to see this ethic being central to a scientific research project. If you are interested in participating with Tiller’s exciting new technology that uses crystalline-based silicon to store and emit an energy transmission of intention, you can learn more or get involved here.

What About Love?

We all exist within a larger field of energy, a quantum field. Perhaps love, intention, and emotion are entwined within this mysterious field? We have the ability to access various internal states of consciousness through meditation and mindfulness, we can alter our social relationships, and potentially we can shift things on a global scale. This process begins within, is deepened with personal practice, and is celebrated in the larger community that is engaging in these ancient practices.

We may finally start to see scientific validation for the unseen realms that many of us feel intuitively. Hopefully we will also begin to experience quantum shifts in the world around us as we deepen our understanding. We are not alone, and the boundaries where we begin or end as physical, emotional, and electrical beings is constantly being redefined by science. Unity consciousness may be a scientific law waiting to be discovered…

I am re-publishing this article I originally published on UpliftConnect

Standoffs over who pays what for infrastructure are kind of where America’s at right now. Besides the shutdown in D.C. over the southern border barrier, California is grappling with how to finance a somewhat more useful bit of equipment: its power grid.
Standoffs over who pays what for infrastructure are kind of where America’s at right now. Besides the shutdown in D.C. over the southern border barrier, California is grappling with how to finance a somewhat more useful bit of equipment: its power grid.
Standoffs over who pays what for infrastructure are kind of where America’s at right now. Besides the shutdown in D.C. over the southern border barrier, California is grappling with how to finance a somewhat more useful bit of equipment: its power grid.

French cable company Nexans has connected an 88 MW onshore windfarm to the grid in Scotland.

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

“I somehow managed to ignore the almost daily experience that GM potatoes were not as healthy as normal potatoes.” ~Caius Rommens, author of Pandora’s Potatoes: The Worst GMO’s

Activist and concerned citizens have for years been ringing the alarm bells over genetically modified (GM) foods taking over our food supply.

There are several critical concerns surrounding this issue. We do not yet know what the long-term health effects will be of mass consumption of GM products. We know that they have in some cases been linked to the development of cancer. Production of GM crops requires massive amounts of patented chemical fertilizers, herbicides and seed activators. GM crops contribute to monoculture. GM seeds are patented by seed companies and GM crops are known to migrate between fields, leaving non-GM farmers liable for patent infringements. GM crops represent the corporate takeover of the food supply and will make the entire world dependent on for-profit for survival.

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

In short, GM crops are an exceptionally bad idea, and now even the main scientist who has developed all GM potatoes is speaking out publicly on the hidden dangers of this new frankenfood.

Having spent 26 years as a genetic engineer in the agricultural industry, he Ex-Director of J.R. Simplot and team leader at Monsanto, Caius Rommens, recently expressed his concerns over GM potatoes in an interview with Sustainable Pulse. He’s developed over 150,000 varieties of GM potatoes, under budgets exceeding $50 million, and can be considered the world’s foremost expert on GM potatoes.

In the interview, Rommens notes that a big factor in his shortsightedness regarding the dangers of GM potatoes is the fact that as a scientist he never left the laboratory in order to really observe how his creations performed in a real agricultural environment. This is a common form of myopia associated with modern science.

Regarding GM potatoes, Rommens expressed his concern over how these products were reviewed and approved by the USDA and the FDA.

“It is amazing that the USDA and FDA approved the GM potatoes by only evaluating our own data. How can the regulatory agencies assume there is no bias? When I was at J.R. Simplot, I truly believed that my GM potatoes were perfect, just like a parent believes his or her children are perfect. I was biased and all genetic engineers are biased. It is not just an emotional bias. We need the GM crops to be approved. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to succeed, to justify our existence by developing modifications that create hundreds of millions of dollars in value. We test our GM crops to confirm their safety, not to question their safety.

 

The regulatory petitions for deregulation are full with meaningless data but hardly include any attempts to reveal the unintended effects. For instance, the petitions describe the insertion site of the transgene, but they don’t mention the numerous random mutations that occurred during the tissue culture manipulations. And the petitions provide data on compounds that are safe and don’t matter, such as the regular amino acids and sugars, but hardly give any measurements on the levels of potential toxins or allergens.”

The crux of his concern is that because these products are being developed for profit, and at great expense to corporate developers such as Monsanto, any science or even opinions that run counter to the effort to bring these products to market as quickly as possible is ignored, dismissed, or even covered up.

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

He also comments on the fundamental flaw with this type of science, which is the strictly scientific materialistic viewpoint that life itself can be extracted and separated into individual parts, ignoring the interconnectedness of all things. Essentially, this is the arrogance of modern science.

“I dedicated many years of my life to the creation of GMO potatoes, and I initially believed that my potatoes were perfect but then I began to doubt. It again took me many years to take a step back from my work, reconsider it, and discover the mistakes. Looking back at myself and my colleagues, I believe now that we were all brainwashed; that we all brainwashed ourselves. We believed that the essence of life was a dead molecule, DNA, and that we could improve life by changing this molecule in the lab. We also assumed that theoretical knowledge was all we needed to succeed, and that a single genetic change would always have one intentional effect only.

 

We were supposed to understand DNA and to make valuable modifications, but the fact of the matter was that we knew as little about DNA as the average American knows about the Sanskrit version of the Bhagavad Gita. We just knew enough to be dangerous, especially when combined with our bias and narrowmindedness. We focused on short-term benefits (in the laboratory) without considering the long-term deficits (in the field). It was the same kind of thinking that produced DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, recombinant bovine growth hormone, and so on. I believe that it is important for people to understand how little genetic engineers know, how biased they are, and how wrong they can be. My story is just an example.”

Rommens even spoke briefly about the potential effects that GM crops like potatoes can have on pollinator insects, like bees which are in serious decline worldwide.

“The problem with certain insects, including bees, is that they cannot degrade the small double-stranded RNAs that cause gene silencing. These double-stranded RNAs were intended to silence several potato genes in tubers, but they are likely to be expressed in pollen as well. So, when the pollen is consumed by bees, the double stranded RNAs in this pollen may silence bee genes that share inadvertent homology.”

Final Thoughts

It’s interesting to see a revolt of this nature, where a leading figure in the development of technology steps back and realizes his errors and chooses to inform the public. Rommens has recently penned a book about his experiences entitled Pandora’s Potatoes: The Worst GMO’s.

Read the full transcript of the interview, here.

Read more articles by Alex Pietrowski

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

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (The Creator of GM Potatoes Comes Clean about the Hidden Dangers of this New Frankenfoodoriginally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

A new review published online in the journal Addiction has compiled the best, most up-to-date source of information on alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use and the burden of death and disease. It shows that in 2015 alcohol and tobacco use between them cost the human population more than a quarter of a billion disability-adjusted life years.

The World Health Organization has released many reports in the past fingering alcohol and tobacco as two of the biggest causes of illness and death worldwide — including the developing world.

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

Because alcohol is legal and often consumed in social settings, alcohol addiction is complicated. But as an addictive agent, it’s remarkably simple — and effective. Alcohol’s withdrawal syndrome is so severe that it can cause death, and its effects on the brain’s reward system cause well-documented and intense craving in heavy drinkers.

Hundreds of millions of people indulge in one of the most dangerous drugs which is sold right over the counter. When it comes to harm done to other people and the users themselves, not heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana or even tobacco come close to the health and safety hazards caused by alcohol.

Regardless of the mechanism, 17.9 million Americans (7% of the US population) were classified as being addicted to or abusing alcohol in 2010. It acts as a relaxant, causing the user to feel more comfortable in an environment and leading to increased sociability. However, in larger doses alcohol begins to have serious detrimental effects on a person’s health. Addiction to alcohol, as well as being expensive, can lead to serious liver problems, diabetes, cancer and heart problems. Short term effects of alcohol include dehydration, alcohol poisoning and intoxication.

Alcohol, regardless of its type (i.e. beer, wine, liquor, etc) is a ‘class A1 carcinogen‘, which are confirmed human carcinogens. Alcohol consumption has been causally related with breast cancer for some time. Increasing evidence indicates a stronger association with neoplasms, though the risk is elevated for other types of breast cancers too. Regardless of how much alcohol is consumed, it will always be a class A1 carcinogen. That doesn’t mean you will get cancer from drinking a beer or a glass wine, but the classification for the substance is clear.

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

The exact biological reasons for why alcohol causes cancer remain unclear. One theory is that alcohol can damage DNA, causing harmful mutations. In fact, alcohol is the deadliest drug on an individual level, at least when it comes to the likelihood of a person dying due to consuming a lethal dose.

Binge alcohol consumption during the more vulnerable periods of our lives is clearly able to interfere with critical neural processes and produce significant long-term negative consequences and disease that plants such as cannabis can actually protect us from.

The largest health burden from substance use was attributable to tobacco smoking and the smallest was attributable to illicit drugs. Global estimates suggest that nearly one in seven adults (15.2%) smoke tobacco and one in five adults report at least one occasion of heavy alcohol use in the past month.

Though nicotine doesn’t cause the rush of heroin or crack, it’s biologically similar in a crucial way: it mimics a common neurotransmitter–so well that scientists named one of the acetylcholine receptors after it.

Nicotine is considered one of the most addictive drugs of all time. Although studies vary, it is generally believed that well over 30% of those individuals who use nicotine for a period of time become addicted. That is a high number considering the availability of the product, the manner in which it is marketed towards young people, and the deadly consequences of a lifetime of use. Smoking regularly reduces the number and sensitivity of these “nicotinic” receptors, and requires that the user keep ingesting nicotine just to maintain normal brain function. There are a shocking 50,000,000 nicotine addicts in the US, and one in every five deaths nationwide are the result of smoking.

Compared with the rest of the world, Central, Eastern, and Western Europe recorded consistently higher alcohol consumption per capita (11.61, 11.98 and 11.09 litres, respectively) and a higher percentage of heavy consumption amongst drinkers (50.5%, 48.2%, and 40.2%, respectively). The same European regions also recorded the highest prevalence of tobacco smoking (Eastern Europe 24.2%, Central Europe 23.7%, and Western Europe 20.9%).

In contrast, use of illicit drugs was far less common. Fewer than one in twenty people were estimated to use cannabis in the past year, and much lower estimates were observed for amphetamines, opioids and cocaine. Hotspots included the US, Canada, and Australasia. The US and Canada had one of the highest rates of cannabis, opioid, and cocaine dependence (748.7 [694.8, 812.3], 650.0 [574.5, 727.3], and 301.2 [269.3, 333.7] per 100,000 people, respectively). Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) had the highest prevalence of amphetamine dependence (491.5 per 100,000 people [441.4, 545.5]), as well as high rates of cannabis, opioid and cocaine use dependence (693.7 [648.1, 744.4], 509.9 [453.7, 577.8], and 160.5 [136.4, 187.1] per 100,000 people, respectively).

Some countries and regions (e.g., Africa, Caribbean and Latin America, Asia regions) have little or no data on substance use and associated health burden. These are typically low or middle income countries that frequently have punitive drug policies, and may experience serious political and social unrest. These countries need enhanced monitoring because they are at risk of rapid escalation in substance use and related health burden.

The report, ‘Global Statistics on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Illicit Drug Use: 2017 Status Report’, uses data mainly obtained from the World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The authors note that there are important limitations to the data, especially for illicit drugs, but believe that putting all this information in one place will make it easier for governments and international agencies to develop policies to combat substance use.

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

About the Author

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

**This article (Study: The Most Harmful Addictive Drugs Worldwide are Alcohol and Tobacco) was originally featured at Prevent Disease.**

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

This article was written by Dr. Kelly Brogan, posted here with permission.

Millions believe depression is caused by ‘serotonin deficiency,’ but where is the science in support of this theory?

“Depression is a serious medical condition that may be due to a chemical imbalance, and Zoloft works to correct this imbalance.”

Herein lies the serotonin myth.

As one of only two countries in the world that permits direct to consumer advertising, you have undoubtedly been subjected to promotion of the “cause of depression.” A cause that is not your fault, but rather; a matter of too few little bubbles passing between the hubs in your brain! Don’t add that to your list of worries, though, because there is a convenient solution awaiting you at your doctor’s office…

What if I told you that, in 6 decades of research, the serotonin (or norepinephrine, or dopamine) theory of depression and anxiety has not achieved scientific credibility?

You’d want some supporting arguments for this shocking claim.

So, here you go:

The Science of Psychiatry is Myth

Rather than some embarrassingly reductionist, one-deficiency-one-illness-one-pill model of mental illness, contemporary exploration of human behavior has demonstrated that we may know less than we ever thought we did.  And that what we do know about root causes of mental illness seems to have more to do with the concept of evolutionary mismatch than with genes and chemical deficiencies.

In fact, a meta-analysis of over 14,000 patients and Dr. Insel, head of the NIMH, had this to say:

“Despite high expectations, neither genomics nor imaging has yet impacted the diagnosis or treatment of the 45 million Americans with serious or moderate mental illness each year.”

To understand what imbalance is, we must know what balance looks like, and neuroscience, to date, has not characterized the optimal brain state, nor how to even assess for it.

A New England Journal of Medicine review on Major Depression, stated:

” … numerous studies of norepinephrine and serotonin metabolites in plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid as well as postmortem studies of the brains of patients with depression, have yet to identify the purported deficiency reliably.”

The data has poked holes in the theory and even the field of psychiatry itself is putting down its sword. One of my favorite essays by Lacasse and Leo has compiled sentiments from influential thinkers in the field – mind you, these are conventional clinicians and researchers in mainstream practice – who have broken rank, casting doubt on the entirety of what psychiatry has to offer around antidepressants:

Humble Origins of a Powerful Meme

In the 1950s, reserpine, initially introduced to the US market as an anti-seizure medication, was noted to deplete brain serotonin stores in subjects, with resultant lethargy and sedation. These observations colluded with the clinical note that an anti-tuberculosis medication, iproniazid, invoked mood changes after five months of treatment in 70% of a 17 patient cohort. Finally, Dr. Joseph Schildkraut threw fairy dust on these mumbles and grumbles in 1965 with his hypothetical manifesto entitled “The Catecholamine Hypothesis of Affective Disorders” stating:

“At best, drug-induced affective disturbances can only be considered models of the natural disorders, while it remains to be demonstrated that the behavioral changes produced by these drugs have any relation to naturally occurring biochemical abnormalities which might be associated with the illness.”

Contextualized by the ripeness of a field struggling to establish biomedical legitimacy (beyond the therapeutic lobotomy!), psychiatry was ready for a rebranding, and the pharmaceutical industry was all too happy to partner in the effort.

Of course, the risk inherent in “working backwards” in this way (noting effects and presuming mechanisms) is that we tell ourselves that we have learned something about the body, when in fact, all we have learned is that patented synthesized chemicals have effects on our behavior. This is referred to as the drug-based model by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff. In this model, we acknowledge that antidepressants have effects, but that these effects in no way are curative or reparative.

The most applicable analogy is that of the woman with social phobia who finds that drinking two cocktails eases her symptoms. One could imagine how, in a 6 week randomized trial, this “treatment” could be found efficacious and recommended for daily use and even prevention of symptoms. How her withdrawal symptoms after 10 years of daily compliance could lead those around her to believe that she “needed” the alcohol to correct an imbalance. This analogy is all too close to the truth.

Running With Broken Legs

Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Carlat has said:

“And where there is a scientific vacuum, drug companies are happy to insert a marketing message and call it science. As a result, psychiatry has become a proving ground for outrageous manipulations of science in the service of profit.”

So, what happens when we let drug companies tell doctors what science is? We have an industry and a profession working together to maintain a house of cards theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

We have a global situation in which increases in prescribing are resulting in increases in severity of illness (including numbers and length of episodes) relative to those who have never been treated with medication.

To truly appreciate the breadth of evidence that states antidepressants are ineffective and unsafe, we have to get behind the walls that the pharmaceutical companies erect. We have to unearth unpublished data, data that they were hoping to keep in the dusty catacombs.

A now famous 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Turner et al sought to expose the extent of this data manipulation. They demonstrated that, from 1987 to 2004, 12 antidepressants were approved based on 74 studies. Thirty-eight were positive, and 37 of these were published.  Thirty-six were negative (showing no benefit), and 3 of these were published as such while 11 were published with a positive spin(always read the data not the author’s conclusion!), and 22 were unpublished.

In 1998 tour de force, Dr. Irving Kirsch, an expert on the placebo effect, published a metaanalysis of 3,000 patients who were treated with antidepressants, psychotherapy, placebo, or no treatment and found that only 27% of the therapeutic response was attributable to the drug’s action.

This was followed up by a 2008 review, which invoked the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to unpublished studies, finding that, when these were included, antidepressants outperformed placebo in only 20 of 46 trials (less than half!), and that the overall difference between drugs and placebos was 1.7 points on the 52 point Hamilton Scale.  This small increment is clinically insignificant, and likely accounted for by medication side effects strategically employed (sedation or activation).

When active placebos were used, the Cochrane database found that differences between drugs and placebos disappeared, given credence to the assertion that inert placebos inflate perceived drug effects.

The finding of tremendous placebo effect in the treatment groups was also echoed in two different meta-analyses by Khan et al who found a 10% difference between placebo and antidepressant efficacy, and comparable suicide rates. The most recent trial examining the role of “expectancy” or belief in antidepressant effect, found that patients lost their perceived benefit if they believed that they might be getting a sugar pill even if they were continued on their formerly effective treatment dose of Prozac.

The largest, non-industry funded study, costing the public $35 million dollars, followed 4000 patients treated with Celexa (not blinded, so they knew what they were getting), and found that half of them improved at 8 weeks. Those that didn’t were switched to Wellbutrin, Effexor, or Zoloft OR “augmented” with Buspar or Wellbutrin.

Guess what? It didn’t matter what was done, because they remitted at the same unimpressive rate of 18-30% regardless with only 3% of patients in remission at 12 months.

How could it be that medications like Wellbutrin, which purportedly primarily disrupt dopamine signaling, and medications like Stablon which theoretically enhances the reuptake of serotonin, both work to resolve this underlying imbalance? Why would thyroid, benzodiazepines, beta blockers, and opiates also “work”? And what does depression have in common with panic disorder, phobias, OCD, eating disorders, and social anxiety that all of these diagnoses would warrant the same exact chemical fix?

Alternative options

As a holistic clinician, one of my bigger pet peeves is the use of amino acids and other nutraceuticals with  “serotonin-boosting” claims. These integrative practitioners have taken a page from the allopathic playbook and are seeking to copy-cat what they perceive antidepressants to be doing.

The foundational “data” for the modern serotonin theory of mood utilizes tryptophan depletion methods which involve feeding volunteers amino acid mixtures without tryptophan and are rife with complicated interpretations.

Simply put, there has never been a study that demonstrates that this intervention causes mood changes in any patients who have not been treated with antidepressants.

In an important paper entitled Mechanism of acute tryptophan depletion: Is it only serotonin?, van Donkelaar et al caution clinicians and researchers about the interpretation of tryptophan research. They clarify that there are many potential effects of this methodology, stating:

“In general, several findings support the fact that depression may not be caused solely by an abnormality of 5-HT function, but more likely by a dysfunction of other systems or brain regions modulated by 5-HT or interacting with its dietary precursor. Similarly, the ATD method does not seem to challenge the 5-HT system per se, but rather triggers 5HT-mediated adverse events.”

So if we cannot confirm the role of serotonin in mood and we have good reason to believe that antidepressant effect is largely based on belief, then why are we trying to “boost serotonin”?

Causing imbalances

All you have to do is spend a few minutes on http://survivingantidepressants.org/or http://beyondmeds.com/ to appreciate that we have created a monster. Millions of men, women, and children the world over are suffering, without clinical guidance (because this is NOT a part of medical training) to discontinue psychiatric meds. I have been humbled, as a clinician who seeks to help these patients, by what these medications are capable of. Psychotropic withdrawal can make alcohol and heroin detox look like a breeze.

An important analysis by the former director of the NIMH makes claims that antidepressants “create perturbations in neurotransmitter functions” causing the body to compensate through a series of adaptations which occur after “chronic administration” leading to brains that function, after a few weeks, in a way that is “qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the normal state.”

Changes in beta-adrenergic receptor density, serotonin autoreceptor sensitivity, and serotonin turnover all struggle to compensate for the assault of the medication.

Andrews, et al., calls this “oppositional tolerance,” and demonstrate through a careful meta-analysis of 46 studies demonstrating that patient’s risk of relapse is directly proportionate to how “perturbing” the medication is, and is always higher than placebo (44.6% vs 24.7%). They challenge the notion that findings of decreased relapse on continued medication represent anything other than drug-induced response to discontinuation of a substance to which the body has developed tolerance. They go a step further to add:

“For instance, in naturalistic studies, unmedicated patients have much shorter episodes, and better long-term prospects, than medicated patients. Several of these studies have found that the average duration of an untreated episode of major depression is 12–13 weeks.”

Harvard researchers also concluded that at least fifty percent of drug-withdrawn patients relapsed within 14 months. In fact:

“Long-term antidepressant use may be depressogenic . . . it is possible that antidepressant agents modify the hardwiring of neuronal synapses (which) not only render antidepressants ineffective but also induce a resident, refractory depressive state.”

So, when your doctor says, “You see, look how sick you are, you shouldn’t have stopped that medication,” you should know that the data suggests that your symptoms are withdrawal, not relapse.

Longitudinal studies demonstrate poor functional outcomes for those treated with 60% of patients still meeting diagnostic criteria at one year (despite transient improvement within the first 3 months). When baseline severity is controlled for, two prospective studies support a worse outcome in those prescribed medication:

One in which the never-medicated group experienced a 62% improvement by six months, whereas the drug-treated patients experienced only a 33% reduction in symptoms, and another WHO study of depressed patients in 15 cities which found that, at the end of one year, those who weren’t exposed to psychotropic medications enjoyed much better “general health”; that their depressive symptoms were much milder”; and that they were less likely to still be “mentally ill.” 

I’m not done yet. In a retrospective 10-year study in the Netherlands, 76% of those with unmedicated depression recovered without relapse relative to 50% of those treated.

Unlike the mess of contradictory studies around short-term effects, there are no comparable studies that show a better outcome in those prescribed antidepressants long term.

First Do No Harm

So, we have a half-baked theory in a vacuum of science that that pharmaceutical industry raced to fill. We have the illusion of short-term efficacy and assumptions about long-term safety. But are these medications actually killing people?

The answer is yes.

Unequivocally, antidepressants cause suicidal and homicidal behavior. The Russian Roulette of patients vulnerable to these “side effects” is only beginning to be elucidated and may have something to do with genetic variants around metabolism of these chemicals.  Dr. David Healy has worked tirelessly to expose the data that implicates antidepressants in suicidality and violence, maintaining a database for reporting, writing, and lecturing about cases of medication-induced death that could make your soul wince.

What about our most vulnerable?

I have countless patients in my practice who report new onset of suicidal ideation within weeks of starting an antidepressant. In a population where there are only 2 randomized trials, I have grave concerns about postpartum women who are treated with antidepressants before more benign and effective interventions such as dietary modification and thyroid treatment. Hold your heart as you read through these reportsof women who took their own and their childrens’ lives while treated with medications.

Then there is the use of these medications in children as young as 2 years old. How did we ever get the idea that this was a safe and effective treatment for this demographic? Look no further than data like Study 329, which cost Glaxo Smith Klein 3 billion dollars for their efforts to promote antidepressants to children. These efforts required ghost-written and manipulated data that suppressed a signal of suicidality, falsely represented Paxil as outperforming placebo, and contributes to an irrepressible mountain of harmdone to our children by the field of psychiatry.

RIP Monoamine Theory

As Moncrieff and Cohen so succinctly state:

“Our analysis indicates that there are no specific antidepressant drugs, that most of the short-term effects of antidepressants are shared by many other drugs, and that long-term drug treatment with antidepressants or any other drugs has not been shown to lead to long-term elevation of mood. We suggest that the term “antidepressant” should be abandoned.”

So, where do we turn?

The field of psychoneuroimmunology dominates the research as an iconic example of how medicine must surpass its own simplistic boundaries if we are going to begin to chip away at the some 50% of Americans who will struggle with mood symptoms, 11% of whom will be medicated for it.

There are times in our evolution as a cultural species when we need to unlearn what we think we know. We have to move out of the comfort of certainty and into the freeing light of uncertainty. It is from this space of acknowledged unknowing that we can truly grow. From my vantage point, this growth will encompass a sense of wonder – both a curiosity about what symptoms of mental illness may be telling us about our physiology and spirit, as well as a sense of humbled awe at all that we do not yet have the tools to appreciate. For this reason, honoring our co-evolution with the natural world, and sending the body a signal of safety through movement, diet, meditation, and environmental detoxification represents our most primal and most powerful tool for healing.

Learn more by taking Dr. Kelly Brogan’s E-Course Vital Mind Reset.

GreenMedInfo LLC. . This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.  Where it first originally appeared. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

Dr. Brogan is boarded in Psychiatry/Psychosomatic Medicine/Reproductive Psychiatry and Integrative Holistic Medicine, and practices Functional Medicine, a root-cause approach to illness as a manifestation of multiple-interrelated systems. After studying Cognitive Neuroscience at M.I.T., and receiving her M.D. from Cornell University, she completed her residency and fellowship at Bellevue/NYU. She is one of the nation’s only physicians with perinatal psychiatric training who takes a holistic evidence-based approach in the care of patients with a focus on environmental medicine and nutrition. She is also a mom of two, and an active supporter of women’s birth experience. She is the Medical Director for Fearless Parent, and an advisory board member for GreenMedInfo.comVisit her website.

The Influence
Waking Times

One in 12 U.S. doctors accepted payments from opioid manufacturers from 2013 to 2015, a team of researchers has found, in a study reported in the September issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

More than 68,000 physicians received more then $46 million between 2013 and 2015 in non-research payments from drug companies that manufacture pain-killing opioids or medication-assisted opioid treatments like buprenorphine, according to the study.

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

The average payment received by doctors was relatively small, $15. However, the top 1 percent of physicians received 82 percent of all opioid drugmaker payments, or $38 million at an average of $2,600 per top physician.

Dr. Scott E Hadland, of Boston University School of Medicine, (Boston University) and Maxwell S. Krieger, and Brandon D. L. Marshall, both of Brown University School of Public Health, used the Open Payments program database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

They identified payments involving an opioid to physicians between August, 2013 and December, 2015.
During the study period, 375, 266 non-research, opioid-related payments were made to 68,177 physicians, totaling $46,158 388. The top 1 percent of physicians received 82.5 percent of total payments in dollars.

Abuse-deterrent formulations accounted for 20.3 percent of total payments, and buprenorphine marketed for addiction treatment made up 9.9 percent. Most payments were for speaking fees or honoraria (63.2 percent of all dollars); food and beverage payments were the most frequent (93.9 percent of all payments). Physicians specializing in anesthesiology received the most in total annual payments.

In their report, the researchers said their findings “should prompt an examination of industry influences on opioid prescribing.”

Most of the payment funds, 63 percent, covered speaking fees while the most frequent payments went toward covering the cost of meals, which accounted for 93 percent. While most physicians didn’t receive much from opioid drugmakers, even those small payments or industry-sponsored meals can influence prescribing habits, previous studies have indicated.

“Physicians may not feel as though they are being influenced when a drug company provides them a meal or offers them an educational talk, but the data suggest that physicians who are exposed to this sort of marketing are more likely to prescribe these medications,” Hadland said.

Opioid prescriptions fell by 18 percent between 2010 and 2015, yet the 2015 number is still three times higher than the number of prescriptions written in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hadland and his fellow researchers found the amount of total payments increased by 11 percent between 2014 and 2015, from $18 million to $20 million. Also, the number of payments made to physicians rose by 26 percent during that period, from more than 145,000 to more than 184,000.

Payments involving abuse-deterrent formulations of prescription opioid pain relievers made up only 20 percent of the funds that went to physicians, which researchers suggested may mean that such medications may not be as heavily marketed to doctors as other opioids.

Companies that make buprenorphine were involved in one-tenth of all payments made to physicians, some of which may have gone toward educating doctors about addiction treatment, the researchers 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");

Physicians received $21 million in payments related to fentanyl, according to the study.

Among medical specialties, anesthesiologists received the most annually at more than $11 million during the study period, followed by physical medicine and rehabilitation, and pain specialists. Payments to family medicine physicians accounted for about 7 percent of the total amount paid to doctors, but they received the largest total number of payments at more than 20,000.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) issued a statement praising the disclosures that enable researchers to track opioid manufacturer payments to physicians. “Payments don’t mean doctors are doing something wrong. Disclosure allows for the analysis of trends, like the fact that opioid makers were reaching a lot of doctors as the opioid crisis was getting worse. This is information the public should know.”

“In the broader setting of a public health emergency, I think we have to ask ourselves the question, is it appropriate for tens of millions of dollars to be transferred to physicians for medications whose prescribing we’re trying to reduce,” Dr. Hadland told Modern Health Care.

Hadland is an adolescent addiction medicine specialist at Boston Medical Center’s Grayken Center for Addiction Medicine.

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

**This article () was originally featured at The Influence and is re-posted here with permission.**

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

“As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals, and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe.”

The quote above comes from Dr. Jane Goodall, which can be found in this book written by Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He had initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods showing how the agency manipulated data, covered up known hazards of genetically engineered foods, and how the FDA had several flaws in their process of approval.  The book garnered some very impressive reviews. David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”

Monstanto’s Roundup

As we all know, GMOs go hand in hand with pesticides that are sprayed on these foods, and despite multiple countries around the world making these products illegal due to health and environmental concerns, they are still used in large amounts here in North America. The same goes for Monsanto’s herbicides.

A substance that’s received the most publicity as of late is glyphosate, an active ingredient within Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate is the new DDT. DDT was a similar sprayed chemical used as an agricultural and household pesticide. Decades later it’s been banned. Despite the fact that it was used for years, it had tremendous environmental and health consequences. The sad thing is that the manufacturers of these products are well aware of it, and through their control over government policy, these products are approved and only banned after many years of litigation, red-tape, and a forced increase in the collective awareness of what’s actually going on.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691

Dewayne Johnson

This is why it was big news when school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won the very first lawsuit ever alleging that glyphosate caused his cancer. In fact, it was the very first cancer/glyphosate case to actually go to trial despite the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of current pending lawsuits against Monsanto.

To be honest, Any jury on the planet would probably come to the same conclusion. It’s nearly impossible not to after going through all of the corporate corruption, scientific fraud and plain old good science that clearly shows glyphosate is wreaking havoc on human health, as well as being a strong carcinogen.

We are constantly donating our money to cancer charities without ever addressing the several clear causes of cancer that are now present in our everyday environment, like pesticides and herbicides for example. Just imagine how many industries would go out of business if it was officially determined that these products do cause cancer, and are a major contributing factor as to why cancer rates continue to rise.

Big Business

The sad truth is, cancer is big business, there are people who make billions of dollars off of it. And they have no vested interest in finding a cure, because a cure would mean dwindling clients and reduced profits. This is one of the reasons why western medicine will never cure cancer.

Decades of research has clearly shown multiple causes for concern when it comes to glyphosate. A study published in the journal Biomedical Research International, for example, shows that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. You can access that study and read more about it here.

How is it possible that such products get approved, and how is it possible that we as a society actively use them and allow them? It’s because we’ve trusted and given our will and consciousness over to those who have no concern for people and the planet.

However, things are changing, and Dewayne Johnson’s case is a big step in the right direction.

This verdict proves that when ordinary citizens, in this case a jury of 12, hear the facts about Monsanto’s products, and the lengths to which this company has gone to buy off scientists, deceive the public and influence government regulatory agencies, there is no confusion.” – Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the organic consumers association

Awareness on this topic is growing and that’s in large part due to people like Rachel Parent,  founder of Kids Right To Know. Below, she interviews Johnson himself. It’s nice to finally hear directly from him as most of the information about him comes in the form of news and media coverage.

Related CE Articles on the Subject You May Be Interested In:

Ex-Monsanto Team Leader Blows The Whistle On What GMOs Do To Human Health

Hundreds of Scientists Tell The World That The GMO & Cancer Link Is Real

How Monsanto Genetically Modifies Our Food Compared To What Happens Naturally In Nature

Federal Lawsuit Forces US Government To Share Disturbing Facts On Genetically Engineered Foods

Here’s Why More Than 35 Countries Have Banned Genetically Modified Crops From Their Country

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, it’s us who support and use these products. How many times have you purchased a bottle of roundup herbicide to spray on your weeds? How often do you hire a lawn care company to come treat your lawn with these chemicals? We have to vote with our dollar here, and at the same time, create awareness on how corrupt our federal regulatory agencies are.

Ask yourself: what kind of human being would even be involved in the process of approving these products? Either they’ve been brainwashed to actually believe they are completely harmless, and completely effective, or they simply have no regard for human life, the environment and our planet.

It’s not just glyphosate, it’s virtually all products manufactured by these biotech giants, who actually control the federal agencies who are supposed to oversee them.

The best way you can combat this problem is to stop using these products, and talk about them whenever the chance arises. Ripple effects create big change, and topics as such are one part in a giant ripple effect that’s sweeping across the planet right now. We are waking up, we are finally paying attention and were are beginning to see what’s really been going on here. It’s time for a change!

Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times

There are many propaganda operations surrounding the flu. Here I just want to boil down a few boggling facts.

Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals one monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

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

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Actually, most flu cases are “bacteria cases,” “fungal cases,” or “pollution cases,” or “tainted food” cases, or “eating GMO cases,” or “weak immune system” cases, or something else. But they aren’t the flu.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published another shocking Peter Doshi report, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

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

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

In 2009, Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

The CDC had stopped counting, because their tests on diagnosed flu patients showed so many who didn’t have the flu virus, who didn’t have the flu at all.

Atkisson’s reporting was explosive. It was threatening to expose the whole flu psyop. What would happen if it became common knowledge that most people diagnosed with the flu don’t have the flu? What would happened to the campaigns to get people to take flu vaccines?

What would happen if it became common knowledge that absurdly few people die from the flu?

Attkisson was muzzled. And the CDC doubled down and suddenly claimed there were undoubtedly TENS OF MILLIONS cases of Swine Flu in the US. This, after only several thousand cases had been reported.

This is on the order of saying a a dry creek-bed in the woods is actually the Mississippi River.

There’s much, much more to say about the flu. But this gives you a few basics that underlie the false reality painted for the public.

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

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrixclick here.)

This article (Welcome to the Medical Matrix – the Flu isn’t the Flu) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

An article on the popular website IFL Science reads, “These are the first images ever taken from the far side of the Moon.” The topic has to do with China’s space program, as they’ve landed the Change’e-4 probe in the Von Karman Crater in the Southern Hemisphere on the far side of the moon, the side that’s never visible from Earth.

There is one mistake that this media outlet and multiple other mainstream media outlets are making: These aren’t the first pictures of the dark side of the moon, it’s simply the first time we’ve ever landed on the dark side of the moon. However, even that may be questionable, given that there is a ‘secret space program‘ in existence. This became even more evident when $21 trillion dollars went missing from the Department of Defence. Investigations uncovered that these funds may be going towards black budget programs that “the commander in chief know nothing about.” (Paul Hellyer, Ex-Canadian Defence Minister)

After the landing, the Chinese probe sent back images from the dark side of the moon.  It’s no doubt a major milestone for space exploration. The probe will also spend the coming months using its instruments to analyze the untouched surface, potentially helping scientists learn more about the structure and geology of the Moon, which is an area that scientists know little about.

I recently wrote an article emphasizing this, illustrating how many reputable scientists have published papers and believe that the moon may actually be artificially made, suggesting that some sort of intelligence was behind its creation, and that it may be hollow. You can read that here.

Now, I’d like to discuss why these aren’t the first images ever taken of the dark side of the moon. Members of the Society For Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) recently published a paper in the Journal of Space Exploration about certain features on the far side of the moon that appear in the crater Paracelsus C. The study argues that these features may be artificial in origin, meaning that perhaps another intelligent life form built them and put them there.

One of the lead authors of that paper is the legendary Mark J. Carlotto. Carlotto is an aerospace engineer with over thirty years of experience in satellite imaging, remote sensing, signal and image processing, pattern recognition, and app development. He received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1981 and has published over one hundred technical articles and seven books.

In the paper, the authors use an analysis of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images that were taken from Apollo 15,

At first glance these structures appear to be walls or towers on the lunar surface. By combining multiple images, we show the larger feature, oriented in a northeast/southwest direction, is not simply a wall but two walls on either side of a narrow valley or “passageway”. Using single image shape from shading and 3D terrain visualization we show in a computer-generated perspective view looking northeast that the southwest end appears to be the entrance to the passageway. A reverse angle view looking southwest shows the passageway ending at a rise of terrain at the other end, possibly leading underground. The terrain surrounding the two structures is not flat but appears “excavated” by some unknown mechanism, natural or artificial.

That right there proves that these are not the first ever images taken of the back side of the moon; however, this is the first time we’ve landed a probe on the back side of the moon.

The Clementine Mission

Let’s not forget the 1994 Clementine Mission to the moon. This was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and NASA. They made some fascinating discoveries, as the mission is known for discovering water at the moon’s poles. The Deputy Manager for that mission, Dr. John Brandenburg, the inventor of the MET (Microwave Electro-Thermal) plasma thruster using water propellant for space propulsion, said that this mission was actually a photo reconnaissance mission to check out artificial structures that the government allegedly knew about on the back side of the moon. He made these statements in the documentary Aliens on the Moon. He also made some interesting statements in this lecture.

He has many publications in various journals, and is clearly brilliant, but is made to look like a ‘fringe’ scientist or a complete quack. There are now hundreds of people with similar backgrounds blowing the whistle on what’s really happening on the moon, which is why these recent pictures from China are concerning. China has released hundreds of images.

At least the Guardian got it right. Martin Wiser, a scientist at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics and principal investigator on one of the instruments onboard the Chang’e, said: “We know the far side from orbital images and satellites, but we don’t know it from the surface. It’s unchartered territory and that makes it very exciting.”

Debunking Strange Occurrences On The Dark Side of The Moon

$21 trillion dollars were reported missing from the Pentagon. Michigan State professor and Economist, Mark Skidmore, and former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitts, found that this money was going towards black budget programs. Fitts has been quite outspoken about a secret space program, and so have hundreds of others like the former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, stating that there are trillions of dollars going into these black budget programs.

When it comes to the moon, there is so much misinformation. You can learn more below:

Multiple Scientists Publish Papers Suggesting The Moon Is Hollow & Artificially Made

Dr. Steven Greer: “We Did Go To The Moon, But The Footage Was Fake.”

Another Interesting Leak: A Second NASA Scientist Tells Us That ‘Somebody Else’ Is On The Moon

A Wel Known CIA Pilot Claims That The Moon Has 250 Million Citizens

Did Neil Armstrong & His Crew Encounter Extraterrestrials On The Moon 

For a long time, there has been misinformation and ridicule associated with UFO & Extraterrestrial phenomena, which in some cases may be separate issues.  This was well illustrated by the very first Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, who was quoted by the New York Times in 1960 stating that, “behind the scenes, high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs, but through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

Roscoe is one of hundreds of former high-ranking government employees to blow the whistle on what’s really going on.

Below is another great testimony, which was from Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

We have indeed been contacted – perhaps even visited – by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public. (Second Look, Volume 1, No 7, Washington, DC , May, 1979)

Furthermore, there are many credible sources that have alluded to the fact that NASA commonly airbrushes photos. Norman Bergrun is a great example of that, and he is only one of multiple sources.

The fact of the matter is that something is clearly going on, and for decades it’s quite clear that there is a group of powerful people who do not want this information to be disclosed.  Below is a picture that represents what I’m talking about, a photo we’ve never seen that comes from Bergrun. According to Bergrun, the pictures NASA got back from voyager in 1980 from Saturn were so mind-altering that they locked them up. This is a picture of a luminous source that seems to be intelligently controlled based on its movements. Here, it’s photographed hovering just outside of Saturn’s outer ring. You can fit multiple Earth’s inside the rings, so this craft seems to be about the size of our planet. Bergrun was a scientist and engineer and part of NASA’s voyager program. He worked at NASA for decades (at Ames Research Centre), and also worked at Lockheed Martin where he managed the Polaris missile tests. Norman got frustrated later in life that the decision was made not to tell the public what they photographed. He gave an illuminating interview in 2010 on this subject, and has travelled all the way to Scotland to get his book “The Ringmakers of Saturn” published. You can read more about that story here.

Let this be an example of how we are only shown what they want us to see.

There is still a lot of misinformation spread about UFO and Extraterrestrial phenomena, particularly within the mainstream media. You can check out the article below that goes into what’s going on right now with mainstream UFO disclosure:

The US Government Just Admitted To Recovering Materials From UFOs – Here Are The Latest Updates

The Takeaway

It’s important to recognize how easy it is for the elite and space agencies to control and alter the narrative. They choose what to disclose, and how to disclose it through mainstream media. The recent lunar probe landing by China on the far side of the moon is a perfect example of that, as it could be used to debunk possible artificially made structures on the far side of the moon.

What this means is that we have to do our own research and stay away from conventional sources that most of us use to find information. If we really want to know about something, and even offer an opinion about something, it’s best to look into it ourselves and utilize our critical thinking skills.

China approved its first large battery storage pilot project as it seeks to maximize clean energy output and improve grid stability.
China approved its first large battery storage pilot project as it seeks to maximize clean energy output and improve grid stability.
Renewable energy muscled out coal to become Germany’s biggest source of electricity for the first time last year, helped by a surge in solar panel installations and coal-plant closures.
Renewable energy muscled out coal to become Germany’s biggest source of electricity for the first time last year, helped by a surge in solar panel installations and coal-plant closures.
Renewable energy muscled out coal to become Germany’s biggest source of electricity for the first time last year, helped by a surge in solar panel installations and coal-plant closures.

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