Celebrities tend to be very careful when it comes to voicing their opinion on controversial topics. And this caution is understandable — one wrong word to the wrong person can spell the end of a career, as can being labelled a quack for holding fringe beliefs.
Yet the simple fact of celebrity means that their words have the potential to be heard by the entire world, and this power can be used for good or for ill. They really do have the power to influence people’s thoughts, which is a frightening thought.
Most of the time, celebrities are paid to push ideologies and sell products; they paint a picture of how one should strive to be, look, and act, to make us feel as if we weren’t good enough just the way we are. All of this is meant to make us buy things, of course. That is what makes it so refreshing to see celebrities use their influence to raise awareness about important and even controversial topics.
Some of the latest examples include Roseanne Bar, Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Brand, Lady Gaga, and Jim Carey. In fact, it wasn’t long ago when Jim Carey slammed mandatory vaccinations for children enrolled in Californian public schools.
This time, it’s actor Robert De Niro who is taking a stand and lending his star power to an important issue, choosing to defend a film detailing the ‘other side’ of the vaccine debate.
A documentary which explores the possible harmful health outcomes of vaccines, titled Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, was set to premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival this April despite severe public backlash. De Niro has defended his decision to include the film with the following statement:
In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However, this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening Vaxxed. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue. (source)
Filmmaker Penny Lane, who made the documentary Nuts, about a snake oil salesman and medical fraud, had this to say to Rolling Stone Magazine:
While it is true that we documentary filmmakers constantly debate vexing questions about the perceived and real differences between our work and the work of traditional journalism, I assure you that we are not debating whether it is okay to knowingly spread dangerous lies.
Consider how many lies there are in the first 30 seconds of the Vaxxed trailer. Wakefield’s cinematic disregard of the truth means his film should not be called a documentary any more than Loose Change is.
In other words: issues around truth and ethics in documentary can get thorny. But this one is easy. This film is not some sort of disinterested investigation into the “vaccines cause autism” hoax; this film is directed by the person who perpetuated the hoax. (source)
The above statement (by Penny Lane) is, in my opinion, extremely misleading. This is not a hoax, and as Di Niro pointed out, there is plenty of evidence that should be sparking an open discussion about this issue. Many people who support vaccinations constantly point to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a doctor who was accused of medical fraud and falsifying information when he made the connection between vaccines and autism. What most fail to realize is that since this controversy, a huge number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals showing a potential link between vaccines and autism.
As of now, Vaxxed was scheduled to screen on April 24th at the film festival, but, it’s since been pulled. According to the Huffington Post, De Niro said:
After reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca film festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.
The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”
Mike Adams from Natural News obtained an interview with the producer of the film, Del Bigtree, who told them that (you can view the interview below):
To watch every major newspaper tell people not to see a movie, a movie they had never seen, is an unprecedented moment in this country. When has that ever happened?
Every major newspaper is saying don’t go see a movie they haven’t watched themselves. What’s next, are they going to tell us to start burning books in the streets? We’ve never seen anything like this.
This is supposed to be a country based on freedom of expression, and our entire media that [claims to] represent speech and expression, is telling everybody to shut down free speech. Journalism is officially DEAD in America.
We have a whistleblower at the CDC who is still sitting at the CDC, an awarded scientist, who is being protected by whistleblower status, and the media is saying we are making things up. They say they’ve debunked the whistleblower, but you can’t debunk someone who hasn’t had his day in court, just like you can’t review a movie you haven’t seen.
The CDC whistleblower he is referring to is Dr. William Thompson, there is more on him below under the “Scientific Fraud’ section. How can we call the complete ignorance and lack of interest to even investigate this topic, science?
Below is an interview with Del:
This is odd, given the fact that he supported the film in the first place, he is the co-founder of the film festival. Perhaps he was pressured to remove it? We don’t know.
Why It’s Obvious There Is Something To Talk About Here
There are a number of reasons why we should be supporting honest and open discussion about vaccinations. Below is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote that goes into more detail. It’s approximately a year old, and since then even more revelations have come out that could be added to it, but I think it’s enough to give you the gist as to why more and more people are starting to question vaccine safety,
At the end of the day, it’s really not about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination” and it’s not about pointing fingers or pitting one “against” the other. It’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.
And it’s not just parents; doctors have concerns too.
A new study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlines this point, stating in the introduction:
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014, Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”
As a result, the study outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes, or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”
The percentages differ because the study was broken down by vaccine and frequency of recommendation. You can refer to the study for more details.
The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”
Again, this isn’t a secret. Another study (out of many, cited in the French publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.” (source)
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article. This research is nowhere near emphasized to in the same way that pro-vaccine research is. Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and they should not be made to look like fools. On the other hand, parents who are choosing to vaccinate their children are also intelligent. Those who choose to vaccinate should not be made out to be the ones who have made the “right” decision when there is evidence on both sides of the coin that clearly shows parents who are not vaccinating their children could also be making the “right” decision.
I’d also like to state that there are multiple vaccines; some may be safe, some may not be. There are also criticisms of all the studies mentioned, as well as bias. That being said, all of the studies in this article, with the exception of one or two, have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. That should not take away from the important work of many independent scientists from all over the world.
This article will present a few of the many reasons why parents are choosing to not vaccine their children. I want to show that, despite the way they are portrayed in mainstream media, these parents aren’t crazy. They are intelligent, well-informed, and concerned for the welfare of their children.
# 1 The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
The idea that vaccines are, in some way, linked at all to autism is most often greeted with a harsh reaction. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link. Truth is, there are plenty of studies to support this link, or at the very least the possibility of there being one. At the same time, there are plenty of studies that stress there is no link, and that vaccines are not in any way linked to autism. I am referring to peer reviewed publications all the way to important independent research that’s not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES ARE NOT LINKED TO AUTISM
Starting off with some of the most recent data available, a study published in the Journal Vaccine determined that:
- There was no relationship between vaccination and autism
- There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder)
- There was no relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism/ASD
- There was no relationship between autism/ASD and thimerosal
- There was no relationship between austism/ASD and mercury (Hg)
The study concluded that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. It was a meta-analysis done by researchers at the University of Sydney, in Australia. It examined ten studies involving more than one million children affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism. (1)
In March of 2013, the Journal of Paediatrics published a study titled “Increasing exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides (antigens) in Vaccines is Not Associated with Risk of Autism.” The study found that vaccines, during the first couple of years of life are not related to the risk of developing an ASD diagnosis. They analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO. (2)
Another study published in the Journal of Paediatrics titled “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association” concluded that, with the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via the DTP/DT vaccines causes any neurodevelopment disorders. (3)
A report published in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences emphasized how there is an “overwhelming” majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) and autism. It also determined that there was no convincing evidence that thimerosal has any role in autism.(4)
A study published straight from the CDC and National Immunization program determined that “the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccines do not cause autism or any type of autism spectrum disorder.” (5)
The list literally goes on and on here; study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim no link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
This is why many people reject the notion that vaccines could (in any way) be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually out of ignorance, and those guilty are parents, people like me and you. It’s our tendency to believe what we are told (usually through mass marketing ) without ever doing the research for ourselves which is the problem.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM
As I did in the previous section, I will try to start of with a couple of more recent studies. If vaccines aren’t linked to autism, then why are scientists/researchers emphasizing that they could be, and showing that there is a possible link? (Keep in mind the Bradford -Hill Criteria, which is explained in some of the studies.) These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people of the same qualifications and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Let’s take a look.
A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by scientists from the University of British Colombia, Louisiana, and MIT outlines how up until the 1820s, when the industrial extraction of AI made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more, aluminum was almost completely absent from the biosphere. The paper outlines how aluminum is harmful to the Central Nervous System (CNS), “acting in a number of deleterious ways and across multiple levels to induce biosemiotic entropy.” (6)
Biosemiotic entropy is basically the corruption of biological messages from genetics, epigenetics, proteins, cells, tissues, and organs. The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with diseases like autism spectrum disorder, and makes a strong argument that Aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines could be contributing to increased rates of autism spectrum disorders. (page 8).
One of the authors of this paper, Dr. Chris Shaw, a neurologist at the University of British Columbia, explains the danger of aluminum in vaccines. When aluminum comes from a vaccine, it stays in the body, and studies have shown that the adjuvants do not stay localized, but rather travel to the brain where they can be detected up to a year after the injection.
A study published in the journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 stated that:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. (7)
The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative diseases, one of them being autism.
Here is a statement I took from the paper; for the specific citations you can look at the actual paper:
The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively ).
The paper also points to the fact that brain inflammatory responses have long been recognized as a factor in the etiology of many neurodegenerative diseases like autism; it provides a host of citations for that as well.
They (Dr. Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic) also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. They offered the following observations:
We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety.” While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mcg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes, including those associated with autism. (8)
Shaw and Seneff also recently published a paper in the journal Immunome Research outlining a lot of evidence pointing to the dangers of aluminum in vaccines. (9)
A paper published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health titled “Thimerosal Exposure and the Role of Sulfation Chemistry and Thiol Availability in Autism” concluded:
With the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD in the US now exceeding 1 in 50 children and the rate of children with neurodevelopment/behavioural disorders in the US now exceeding 1 in 6 children, and the preceding evidence showing that there is vulnerability to ™ that would not be known without extensive testing, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that ™ should be removed from all vaccines. (10)
A paper published in the journal Entropy also identifies “several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.” (source)
A paper published in the Journal of Toxicology titled “B-Lymphocytes from a population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal” clearly demonstrates that certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like thimerosal. What does this mean? It means that people with a slight DNA difference are at risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases via vaccination. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination. (11)
A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress. (12) Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines, are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress, brain inflammation, and microgliosis have been heavily documented in association with toxic exposures, including various heavy metals. (14)
A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be the result of an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or “it could be the MMR vaccine.” (13)
A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology outlines the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders. It suggests that early mercury exposure could indeed increase the risk of autism. (14)
“To sum up, there has been a great deal of information from different studies that seems to indicate that repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, through thimerosal, dental amalgam, and fish consumption, and after birth, through thimerosal-containing vaccinations and pollution, in genetically susceptible individuals is one potential factor in autism.” (source)
A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines. The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women and the elderly, and to children in developing countries. (15)
“The assertion that vaccine-autism concerns rest merely on spurious claims made by uneducated parents is in stark contrast with a large body of scientific literature. As mentioned previously, extensive research data has underscored the tight connection between development of the immune system and that of the CNS, and thus the plausibility that disruption of critical events in immune development may play a role in neurobehavioral disorders including those of the autism spectrum. Indeed, early-life immune challenges in critical windows of developmental vulnerability have been shown to produce long-lasting, highly abnormal cognitive and behavioral responses, including increased fear and anxiety, impaired social interactions, deficits in object recognition memory and sensorimotor gating deficits. These symptoms are highly characteristic of autism. It is thus indeed naive to assume that a manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during sensitive periods of early development will not result in adverse neurological outcomes. Consistent with this, Shoenfeld and Cohen (world’s leading experts in autoimmune diseases) noted that, ‘‘vaccines have a predilection to affect the nervous system’’ [emphasis added]. Also, please refer to a number of publications we and others have authored on this subject (link between immune challenges and adverse neurological outcomes. For specific publications on the links between vaccinations and autism, refer to the following citations .” – Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. (source)
For more studies you can refer to these to start off your research.
Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2010) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A 73, 1665-77.
Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2008) Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years. Tox Env Chem. 90, 997-1008.
Ratajczak, H.V. (2011) Theoretical aspects of autism: causes–a review. J Immunotoxicol 8, 68-79.
The list literally goes on and on; study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
It is simply ridiculous for the “pro-vaccine” community to say there is absolutely no link and that vaccines could not be one out of several possible contributing causes to the development of autism.
Concluding Statement About The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals by experts at various institutions claiming no link. On the other hand, we have the same type of research, also in abundance, that claims there could be a link, and that it is probable – and through science they’ve shown how.
What are parents who do their research supposed to think when they come across this information? Why is the “pro-vac side” so adamant in saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies which show a potential link to autism – when there are many?
So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous.
#2 Scientific/Industry Fraud
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, they can instantly be deemed “conspiracy theorists” or greeted with some sort of rude response that makes them out to be “fools.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, and those types of responses often come from those who have failed to do any investigation for themselves.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
Here is why parents are actually pointing to scientific/industry fraud when it comes to making their decision, and to be honest, with this type of information out in the public domain, who can really blame them?
It’s hard to know where to start when there are so many examples:
In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)
Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, is also a medical investigator. A few years ago she uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and suggests that this practice continues to this day. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.”
“The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.” (16)
A congressional record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe that there is a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a congressional report and parents who choose not to ignore it should not be bashed by others, don’t you think? The report even shows information from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) that postulates the vaccine-autism connection. (17)
Insider “whistle-blowers” with verified credentials have also played a role with parents who are concerned about vaccinating their children. This type of thing has been going on for quite a while. Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr for example. He repeatedly stated that there is a “cover up” of data that clearly shows a definitive link between vaccines and autism. He also alluded to the fact that he has met with some of these people, that they know what they are doing, and that they are terrified of the public ever finding out. Think about that for a second; we have the former president’s nephew, who has been in elitist circles and obviously in and around people who’ve held powerful positions, making these comments. Of course these are concerning comments, and to not completely dismiss them as false isn’t a “bad” thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents was the fact that he, in June 2005, authored an article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. (18)(19) There are many speeches he made, and compelling statements that are available in the form of articles and YouTube videos if you are interested in seeing more.
Although a “whistle-blower” is not science, it does add to the science that is already there by giving it an “extra leg” so to speak. stuff like this seems to be cropping up every year giving parents more reasons not to vaccinate their children, just as it is cropping up every year giving parents more reasons to vaccinate their children.
We also have statements (hundreds) from scientists and doctors like this one (quote below) which also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Much of the published scientific studies that say there is no need to worry about vaccines, and that there is no autism link are actually sponsored by the vaccine manufactures themselves.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr. Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM (20)
A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) would be long time CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In fact, he has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly pointed out by the “pro-vaccine” movement. A couple of them are actually cited above that show there is no link between vaccines and autism. Just a few months ago this is what he had to say:
The CDC has put the research 10 years behind, because the CDC has not been transparent. We’ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Really what we need is for congress to come in and say, give us the data. (22)
He pointed to a specific study that he co-authored, a 2004 CDC study commonly cited and used by the scientific community, among others, that determined:
“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.” (21)
He also alluded to another study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded:
“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.” (23)
This is what he had to say about that study:
It’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper and uh, I went along with this, we didn’t report significant findings. I’m completely ashamed of what I did, I have great shame now that I was complicit and went along with this, I have been a part of the problem.”(22)
This story was becoming so big across alternative news networks, like CE, that mainstream media outlets like CNN picked up on it as quick as they could and tried to spin the story. At least they admitted that yes, Dr. Thompson did actually blow the whistle:
I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article,” Thompson said in a statement sent to CNN by his lawyer. “I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. (24)(25)
That being said, he also said this in an official statement from his lawyers on August 27th 2014:
I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits. (25)
This brings me to my next point. With regards to the data omitted above, Dr. Thompson made the call to scientist Dr. Brian Hooker (22)(24)(25), who published the real findings which found that there was a 340 percent increased chance of autism in African American boys receiving the MMR vaccine on time. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration and was retracted a couple of days later.(26) This is why I am linking it here and not with the studies above (first point).
That being said, Dr. Hooker has published a number of peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in reputable scientific journals. The journal Translational Neurodegeneration being one, where his study provided epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the risk of an ASD diagnosis. (27) Furthermore, an abstract obtained by Hooker shows “increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in the first month life.” (28)
Here is a video of a ‘pro-vaccine’ congressman telling us about this case.
Concluding Comments About Scientific/Industry Fraud
As you can see, parents who cite scientific/industry fraud as one of the reasons for not vaccinating their child do so because they have done the research. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, since it’s not readily available and certainly not offered in the mainstream. These are just a few of many examples, as I am trying to make this article as short as possible (not easy).
#3 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
During the mid-1970s, there was an increased focus on personal health and more people became concerned about vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been injured by vaccines, and the evidence presented in court was good enough to win.
As a result, this act was developed to protect any pharmaceutical company, doctor, or medical association from any “fault.” It’s not about pointing fingers; many people really do believe that every vaccine is fine to inject into somebody. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, they have to go through a long process where parents have to ask the government to admit that the vaccine was responsible for their child’s injury, and ask for compensation for the child’s care.
Pharmaceutical companies are exempt from participating in these proceedings, and tax payers are the ones who pay for all the vaccine related damages, of which there have been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail.
This is clearly another contributing factor as to why parents are not vaccinating their children. Many grey areas and shady practices are involved with the legal process when it comes to vaccine induced injury. The sheer number of children who have been injured by vaccines alone is another cause for concern, which brings me to my next point.
#4 The Ineffectiveness Of Some Vaccines And Vaccine Injury
Again, there are dozens upon dozens of vaccines that are out there, and while some might be completely safe, harmless, and necessary, some might not be.
If we take a look at Gardasil, for example:
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. A recent article in the Toronto Star recently brought this issue up as well; you can view that here.
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s very unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.
“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated.” – Dr Diane Harper (source)
If we are talking about recent research regarding the HPV vaccine, a new review was just published in the journal Autoimmunity Reviews titled, “On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune disease.”
The authors of this study came to the same conclusion as Dr. Harper. They concluded that:
“The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.” (If you are interested you can access the paper here)
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases which include: Multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, primary ovarian failure, and more. Gardasil has also been linked to a number of deaths.
You can access more information regarding that vaccine, and what I am referring to in a recent article I wrote:
Are you going to tell a parent who cites this information as part of the reason they choose not to get this vaccine that they don’t know what they are talking about?
If we look at another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, just to pick one, a report published in the British Medical Journal shows how “Marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions.” The paper outlines this theme throughout. It also outlines how recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, and that this occurred before the great expansion of mass vaccination campaigns at the start of the 21st century. (28)
Are vaccine manufactures marketing vaccines in a completely wrong way?
Another marketing strategy used to push the flu vaccine is the claim by vaccine manufactures that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The paper outlines how even the ideal influenza vaccine can only deal with a small part of the “flu” because most “flus” appear 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. All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.” (28)
A study published in the Journal of Paediatrics, found that 85 percent of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70 percent in those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood; a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16 percent of infants were reported to experience vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours of immunization. (29)
A great example is the fact that poorly tested vaccines have been administered to young children, which explains why there have been large numbers of major Adverse Reactions from seasonal influenza vaccines. As a result, they were suspended for use in children under five years of age in Australia. (30)
In a series of Rapid Responses addressing this issue, published in The British Medical Journal and titled “Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia-should we be surprised?” Collignon (Director of Infectious Diseases & Microbiology at Australian National University) concluded: “There is poor evidence on how well influenza vaccines prevent any influenza complications in children and other age groups. There is good evidence that influenza vaccines study reports cherry pick results and achieve spurious notoriety. Exposing human beings to uncertain effects is a risky business.” 
The list goes on and on and I could cite hundreds of studies both “for” and “against.”
Reports of things like children in Europe developing Narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine do not help either. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute significantly to the decisions parents are making.
# 5 Vaccine Ingredients
This topic was touched upon in the studies presented in the first point. There are numerous studies suggesting that current vaccine ingredients are not a cause for concern. At the same time, there are many that point out they should be a cause for concern.
Common vaccine ingredients include:
- Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
- Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
- Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
- Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
- Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
- Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria
With regards to aluminum, studies (6)(7)(8)(9) are a good place to start if you want to examine the dangers of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.
A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International found that:
The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. (30)
Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination. (31)
Again, significant association between exposure to thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children including autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, thinking abnormalities, and personality disorders has been reported in a number of studies. Many have been cited in this article. Here are a couple more:
Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2006) A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 27, 401-13. 
Young, H.A., Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2008) Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. J Neurol Sci 271, 110-8.
There is clearly enough information out there regarding the ingredients in vaccines, throughout this article, that makes a parent look pretty sane for choosing not to vaccinate their baby. At the same time there is a lot of medical research out there that shows the parents who choose to vaccinate their babies are pretty sane as well.(32)
No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) For Vaccine Ingredients, this is another very important point.
For example, aluminum has been added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and one disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?
So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.(source)
I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients…and testing specifically in animal models…Back then, the FDA states that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe, when I read this I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine. (source)
She also has documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. They show that health authorities and vaccine manufacturers made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.’ ” (source)
If we take a look at the FDA’s website/guidelines, it’s not like this is a secret. The statement above (from Lucija) comes from their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document, but more than 10 years later, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, not much has changed.
Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans. (source)
Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children. – Jose G. Dores, Professor at the University of Brasillia’s department of nutritional sciences. (source)
The use of this adjuvant has been connected to all kinds of diseases, from autism to brain disease to Alzheimer’s and much more.
Experimental research … clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic (source)
There are numerous studies which have examined aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time. (source)
If significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues that include bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. Aluminum is found in cigarettes, cosmetics, food, medicines (aspirin), and much much more. It’s in our environment, and we are surrounded by it. This is concerning, because aluminum was not really around until the industrial revolution. Today, it shows up in so many products. And we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic… and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.
We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions. – Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and Honorary Professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
Related CE Article:
# 6 Vaccine Safety Evidence Is Not Rock Solid. One Size Does Not Fit All.
Forcing a parent to vaccinate their child is not a sound scientific one. All drugs are associated with some risks and adverse reactions. The “greater good” argument is concerning because causes of permanent neurodevelopmental disabilities and even deaths following vaccination in children (with genetic and other susceptibilities) have been established (firmly) in scientific literature (7)(8).
One important point parents often point to is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. There are no studies that have been published in these peer reviewed medical journals examining the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. The lack of these controlled trials appears to be because vaccines have been assumed to be safe since their inception, which clearly contradicts a lot of scientific data.(32)
Even strong supporters of vaccinations within the scientific community have questioned the scientific legitimacy of “one size fits all” vaccination practices.
For example, Poland (Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33)) and fellow researchers ask whether “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider “how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that “one-size fits all” approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned.
This assumption is also as a result of vaccine trials commonly excluding vulnerable individuals who might be more susceptible to injury via vaccine. As a result, adverse reactions that occur as a result of vaccinations might be very underestimated.
I also wanted to point out that data also demonstrates that over-stimulating the host’s immune system by repeated immunization with immune antigens and/or adjuvants inevitably leads to autoimmunity even in genetically non-susceptible animals, which is important to consider. (34)(35)
Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.
Again, can you really blame parents with all of this information out there?
The “pro-vaccination” side seems to be all that is offered in the media, at the doctor’s office, in schools, and in most government-sponsored studies. The reason I wrote this article was to help shed light on why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. This side is so rarely discussed. There are so many documents and so much peer-reviewed scientific literature alluding to adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what we have been told, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.
Too many people are uninformed, and might make a comment such as “what about the polio vaccine” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know things like in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the US since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine.The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in the US today. I am not sourcing this little tidbit here to encourage others to go out and look for themselves. That is the whole point of this article.
After reading this, it’s hard to imagine how a parent could ever be made to look like a “fool” for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that goes into history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you. I hope I’ve inspired you to do some of your own.
Next time you come across a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate their baby, try not to judge; instead try to understand where they are coming from.
(32) Tomljenovic, L. and Shaw, C.A. (2011) One-size fits all? Vaccine. 2012; 30(12):2040.9
UFOs Spotted Off The Irish Coast By Airline Pilots – Here Are The Details
- The Facts:
Multiple pilots recently reported a fast travelling UFO that seemed to have taken corrective measured and made maneuvers at very high speeds.
- Reflect On:
There thousands of reports of radar trackings which exist, and multiple events that've occurred involving commercial pilots. What is going on in our skies?
A pilot flying from Montreal, Canada to Heathrow airport in the UK spotted “a very bright light” that had come up along the left side of their aircraft before it “rapidly veered to the north.” This is a common characteristic of UFOs that have been spotted by both airline and military pilots since the dawn of human aviation. The older our civilization gets, the more time we spend in the air and the higher we climb, the more reports of strange objects seem to arise.
She wondered what it could be, but said it did not seem to be heading for a collision. When I read this, I thought of Ex-Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer’s comments stating that these objects often performed evasive maneuvers when in the vicinity of our aircraft. Unfortunately, he stated that as the jets scrambled to look closer at the UFOs, they were ordered to “shoot first, and ask questions later.” Add that to Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s statement that, “yes, there has been crashed craft, and bodies recovered,” and we can deduce that the protocol, in the military at least, is to try and shoot these things down. That doesn’t seem like a very intelligent approach.
This topic goes far beyond witness testimony from some very credible people; there is electrooptical data and physical evidence that has been associated with this phenomenon as well. These objects are not only seen by pilots, they’re also tracked on radar.
Glowing Orbs Over Ireland
At least three pilots were involved in witnessing glowing orbs that were spotted near Shannon, Ireland at “astronomical” speeds, according to the Guardian:
Other aircraft flying in the area reported the same thing. A pilot, flying a Virgin Airlines plane from Orlando to Manchester described the sight as a “meteor or another object making some kind of re-entry,” adding it seemed to be “multiple objects following the same sort of trajectory – very bright from where we were.” Another pilot also weighed in, saying: “Glad I’m not the only one.” A spokesman for the Irish Aviation Authority told the Irish Times it was investigating the incident and would file a report. “This report will be investigated under the normal confidential occurrence investigation process.”
There were multiple objects reports here, and meteors do not veer off at astronomical speeds. The pilots reported seeing one object become multiple objects, which is common in UFO lore. I’ve been studying the subject for more than a decade, so it didn’t surprise me. Identifying this as a ‘meteor’ may comfort some people reading about this incident in the mainstream, because it fits within their current perception. But more and more people are having to face the fact that these incidents clearly do not fit within the mainstream paradigm of reality, and we really need to go through the discomfort of breaking this paradigm in our own minds if we hope to arrive at the truth of what is going on.
There are many corroborating incidents out there of even more ‘jaw-dropping’ proportions, from the perspective of the pilots involved. With regards to commercial aviation, perhaps the most well-documented incident is the one that took place at O’Hare international airport. It caused a shutdown of the entire airport, similar to an incident that took place in China a few years ago.
Here’s a quote from December 16th, 1978, issued by the Chilean Air Force with regards to a UFO encounter, similar to what the Pentagon released. Again, keep in mind, this is something that’s happened thousands of times over the past few decades, and perhaps thousands of times every single year:
“Two pilots on a training mission, each flying an F5 fighter aircraft, tracked the object on their airborne radar. It gave a return equal to ten or more aircraft carriers-except this object was in the air, not floating on the water. Each pilot assumed his radar equipment was faulty until he learned that the other pilot was also getting the same return. Not only this, but ground radar from a nearby airport also picked up the object and confirmed its huge size. The pilots also saw the object with their own eyes. One pilot later said that at a distance of twenty miles, it looked “like a plantain banana swathed in smoke.” The pilots were frightened, having no missiles or weapons. As they approached the massive object, which had been motionless all this while, it took off at an unimaginable speed. All at once, it vanished from the three radar screens.”(1)(2)
This document from the CIA, relays several pieces of information, with the part about these UFOs highlighted in brackets, which suggests special attention was being paid to it. It goes to show just how interested they were in it, and how important this topic is within the intelligence community:
“ANTARCTIC FLYING SAUCERS” – A group of red, green, and yellow flying saucers has been seen flying over Deception Island for two hours by Argentine, Chilean and British bases (military) in Antarctica. The flying saucers were also seen flying in formation over the South Orkney islands in quick circles.”
We’ve written a number of articles about numerous UFO sightings. The point is, it’s happening, but for decades we’ve been brushing a lot of these sightings off as natural phenomena, if we even hear about them. There are millions of pages of documents and thousands of examples like the ones above. They’ve been studying it for years under the guise of “national security,” a term now used to classify everything, but more and more we are learning that this is done to protect the interests of the global elite as well as allow them to basically do whatever they please, with justification.
The “Anchorage” Incident is a well known UFO event involving a veteran Japanese airline pilot who saw three UFOs following his 747 aircraft carrier for over 400 miles. One of the objects was much larger than the 747, while the other two were smaller. The crewmen of JAL Flight 1628 reported seeing flashing lights trailing their jet to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA officials confirmed the conclusions drawn from the controller who handled Flight 1628 on his radar. His conclusion was that the aircraft were unidentified. Air Force officials at the Alaska Air Command also said their radar picked up something near the JAL plane. The United States Air Force scrambled a jet to get a closer look at the object. This incident occurred in 1986.
Below is an interview with retired FA Senior Division Chief, John Callahan. Check out his testimony below given to Dr. Steven Greer. He was directly involved with this incident, it is amazing to hear his story and the events that transpired because of it.
The disclosure of the existence of UFOs has been confirmed around the world by multiple nations. Secrecy dominates our world, and important information about the nature of our reality is being kept from us. Not only that, but our own money is being taken from us to finance this continued secrecy. I recently wrote an article about a Michigan State University economist who headed up a group that found trillions of unaccounted-for dollars missing from housing & D.O.D. that were funnelled into black budget projects. You can read that here.
The implications of these revelations are huge and would result in huge changes in all areas of humanity. But one reason why secrecy has been so rampant is that powerful controlling forces don’t want us to look closer and think critically about the nature of our reality, and about who we really are. The extraterrestrial hypothesis provides a valid explanation for some of the questions we are now asking, and it’s getting more difficult to ignore the evidence for intelligent visitation like we used to. The sooner we are able to handle and process the evidence coming before us and its implications, the sooner we will live from a deeper understanding of ourselves and the nature of our universe.
Sources not linked within the article:
(1) Huneeus, J, Antonio, “A Chilean Overview,” MUFON UFO Journal, 6/86; Huneeus, J. Antonio, “A Historical Survey of UFO Cases in Chilie,” MUFON 1987 International Symposium Proceedings (MUFON, 1987.)
(2) Department of Defense JCS Message Center, Subject: B6/BAF Has a Close Encounter of the First Kind. Date: 20 May 86. Subject: Numerous Unidentified Objects Were Cited in the Skies over Brazil. But BAF Fighters Were Unable to Intercept Them. Berliner, Don, The UFO Briefing Document, p. 121-127. Huneeus, J. Antonio, “UFO Alert in Brazil,” MUFON UFO Journal, 11/86. Andrus, Walt, “UFOs Over Brazil,” MUFON UFO Journal, 9/86. Smith, Dr Willy, “The Brazillian Incident,” International UFO Reporter, 7-8/86. Smith, Dr. Willy, “More on Brazilian OVNIs,” MUFON UFO Journal, 9/86.
Serious Errors Found In Widely Cited Global Warming Study
- The Facts:
A study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed, has turned out to be false.
- Reflect On:
Many scientists within the field have been quite outspoken about the politicization of climate science, and how it's a serious problem. We see it in all fields, like the medical field, for example. Ridicule has been used to suppress discussion.
There is a troubling trend among internet readers, and that’s the fact that billions of people area reading titles of an article and having a bad reaction before reading the actual article and examining the sources. The bad reaction usually comes when evidence is presented which strongly goes against the widely accepted belief held by the majority of people. This type of evidence is often ridiculed by the mainstream media, which is why the majority of people believe what they do in the first place.
We have been subjected to massive amounts of ‘mind-persuasion’ on various topics. Today, when evidence goes against the grain, especially when it threatens many political and financial interests, false evidence is manufactured in order to counter the actual evidence. This has happened in all areas that touch humanity. I refer to it as the politicization of science, in this case, climate science. We’ve seen this everywhere, especially with medical science.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. . . . Science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet (source)
Now, just to be clear, this article is NOT debating climate change. Drastic and unexpected climate change and natural disasters are rampant right now on our planet, for multiple reasons. It’s clearly a problem that needs to be fixed and could have been fixed/mitigated decades ago, yet we still seem stuck. Revolutionary technologies have been in existence for a long time, from solar, to wind, to vortex-induced vibrations and over-unity energy technology. Many of them have been subjected to patent suppression and secrecy, for “natural security” purposes. Meanwhile, it’s this national security apparatus that have created a breakaway civilization, one that’s become highly technologically advanced. They use these technologies, not for the benefit of humanity, but it seems more so, for their own purposes and the enslavement of humanity.
All that being said, climate change is, in my opinion, the result of multiple factors that go beyond human beings. These include natural cycles Earth has gone through before in it’s past, the activity of our sun, etc…
Again, I am not denying climate change, I am not even denying anthropomorphic climate change. I’m simply pointing towards the politicization of science. Something fishy is happening.
In fact, approximately more than thirty thousand scientists have all signed a petition regarding the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, is the real scientific consensus. There is no real source for the “97” percent of scientists agreeing, that’s false information.
Princeton scientist Laure Resplandy (pictured above) and researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography recently published a study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The reported was beamed out by multiple establishment mouthpieces, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.
Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher. The post appeared on the website of Judith A. Curry, an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has been one of the many outspoken scientists in the field the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.
Lewis corrected the math area, and found that the paper’s rate of ocean warming “is about average compared with other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993-2016.” Roger Pike Jr., a Professor at the University of Colorado, tweet his work and replicated the data. Key phrase: “It’s a big error at the core of the paper’s findings.”
It seems that the majority of climate scientists all support this type of fraudulent data, and the problem of political interests taking over what the science is actually saying.
Lewis found the study’s authors, led by Princeton University scientist Laure Resplandy, erred in calculating the linear trend of estimated ocean warming between 1991 and 2016. Lewis has also criticized climate model predictions, which generally over-predict warming. Resplandy and her colleagues estimated ocean heat by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. The results: the oceans took up 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study only sent alarm bells ringing, especially in the wake of the United Nations’ latest climate
Laure Resplandy, the author of the widely distributed and cited study, has recently replied, acknowledging the error. Although the reply comes from an establishment mouthpiece, one that ridicules any questioning of anthropomorphic climate change via carbon output.
Below is a brief interview with Curry.
The Politicization Of Climate Science
Again, we need to be looking at deforestation, the lack of disclosure of new energy technologies, and the lack of implementation of new ones. We need to be looking at the destruction of our Earth and the poisoning of our water and soil, more so than we do our carbon output. But carbon is very heavily focused on.
The politicization of climate science is something that’s vouched for by the majority of actual climate scientists.
It’s hard to talk about because I am a proponent of clean energy technologies, and they are a must. Our industries and our usage of pollution services, like the automobile industry, is a toxic and environmental health hazard. But the global elite are very smart, they are using climate change, and global warming, to basically cause climate hysteria for political and financial gains.
The “97 percent” tagline is often used to demonize those who question anthropogenic induced climate change, and the mainstream media will do their best to make those who question it, no matter their background, credentials, or credibility, look foolish.
Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, compares current climate science to pseudoscience.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, among many others, refers to this type of narrative as hysteria and argues that climate scientists raising this issue have been demonized. He’s one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A slide from one of his lectures below states:
Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public. The misuse of language extends to the misuse of models. For advocated of policies allegedly addressing global warming, the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. As they understand, proving something to be impossible is itself almost impossible.
I am using him as one of many examples. pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications. He is one of many to do so. Here’s a video in which he did try to bring awareness to what climate scientists REALLY believe. It’s quite contrary to the climate hysteria we see that’s constantly beamed. Right now it’s happening with forests fires, which have been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
Why No Mention of Climate Engineering?
What about climate engineering? Geoengineering is the manipulation of the atmosphere through artificial means.
The US Air Force has the capability to manipulate climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts, and earthquakes.
Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ . Emphasis added)
We’ve covered this topic in depth in multiple articles, and right now, geoengineering is being proposed as a solution to climate change, or what scientists above mentioned as ‘climate hysteria.’ The weather today is largely manufactured and owned, it’s changed and manipulated for various reasons. It’s hard to tell what’s actually going on. Here’s a clip of Ex-Cia director voicing his support for geoengineering…
Climate hysteria can be created, as much as terrorism can in order to create the war on terrorism…
You could literally write a book on how the majority of reputable scientists within the field of Climate Science, and the ones actually involved with the IPCC, are all concerned about these things. As many of these scientists have pointed out, at a certain point, the final drafts and publications are taken over and written by politicians and policymakers.
There is a big problem here, and the elite who seem to be behind this type of thing, have been using their tools for years (mass media, education, etc..) to drill this idea in the people’s heads. Climate initiatives are being supported like war was with mass propaganda, our hearts and care for Mother Earth are being taken advantage of and capitalized on. Those who question the official narrative of global climate change are often the ones who care about Earth the most. This is one of the reasons it is so important for the awakening community to strive for the truth, and then to bring out that truth widely. The future of our planet hangs in the balance.
CNN Takes Trump To Court: Is He Winning The War Against Fake News?
- The Facts:
A heated exchange between Donald Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta at a White House Press Briefing has led to Acosta losing his press pass, accusations of video doctoring, and a lawsuit claiming White House violations of the 1st and 5th amendments.
- Reflect On:
Does this battle represent a flashpoint in the larger battle between the Alliance and the Deep State? If so, what is our role in this?
Once a model of journalistic integrity and governmental decorum, the White House press conference seems to have devolved into a verbal street brawl of mutual disrespect between President Donald Trump and Mainstream Media. But at a deeper level, it has become Ground Zero for the battle for our collective perception of reality.
The notion that Mainstream Media is in the business of ‘framing’ a perception of events to suit a particular agenda is something that the public is beginning to awaken to in larger numbers. Now this is not to say that the President does not frame a perception of events as well. We have long known that all politicians do this. The difference is that President Trump does it to look good, be popular, and ultimately to be able to do what he believes are positive things for American citizens. The agenda behind the Mainstream Media is the destruction of American sovereignty and the implementation of a global power structure of enslavement. If we look at the ‘Acosta Incident’ through this lens, then an understanding of exactly why this is happening at this time comes into focus.
The Acosta Incident
The ‘Acosta Incident’ essentially involves CNN Journalist Jim Acosta asking questions to President Trump, being told by the President that he is done with Acosta and is moving on to the next reporter, and Acosta resisting attempts on the part of a young White House intern to take the microphone from him, actually using his arm to physically impede her arm from reaching over to take the microphone. Here is a full video of the incident:
As we can see in the video, the journalists (not only Acosta but the subsequent one) are spending most of their airtime building a narrative, finishing their statements with a slanted yes/no question which they already know the answer to. They try to characterize a given situation (i.e. Acosta saying that the ‘caravan’ is not an ‘invasion’) and basically trying to refute the President’s characterization. There is no real attempt here to inquire, to get new information, to listen to what the President has to say. And of course the President also replies with his own narrative-building.
In a way, this has long been the dynamic in White House press conferences, but never in history have journalists tried to single-mindedly frame a narrative in such a combative way. No doubt one could look at Donald Trump’s direct assault on Mainstream news as ‘Fake News,’ it has added much fuel to the fire. Objectively speaking, though, it would be hard to argue that Jim Acosta has not crossed a line of propriety in physically restraining a young woman from taking the microphone from him at the President’s request.
Sarah Sanders’ Tweet
It cannot come as a shock to the objective observer that the White House believes it had grounds to revoke Jim Acosta’s press pass. In this CNN article, which denies any wrongdoing on the part of CNN or any apology for Jim Acosta, we see the narrative-building verbiage in full regalia:
CNN said in a statement that Acosta has the network’s full support. The revocation of his pass “was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference,” the statement said. “In an explanation, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders lied. She provided fraudulent accusations and cited an incident that never happened. This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better.”
I’m sorry–is there anybody reading this article that is buying the claim that the revocation of his pass “was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference.”? Wow, not even a MENTION of Acosta’s physical contact with the intern. A tweet by White House Press Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, without audio, makes graphically clear what the White House, and, it must be said, any objective observer, would highlight as the reason his pass was revoked:
We stand by our decision to revoke this individual’s hard pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video. pic.twitter.com/T8X1Ng912y
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) November 8, 2018
Now as we will see, the ‘source’ of her video, which shows 4 consecutive close-ups to drive the point home, is notable. According to this Wired article,
The video posted by Sanders appears identical to a video shared two hours earlier by Paul Joseph Watson, an editor-at-large at the right-wing media site InfoWars. Both videos were edited in the same way and had no sound. While the White House hasn’t responded to inquiries about the source of the video posted by Sanders, it seems reasonable to say that the chance the two videos were created independently is extraordinarily low.
Claims The Video Was ‘Doctored’
Not long after the tweet, claims that the White House was using a ‘doctored’ video, or that they had ‘doctored’ it themselves, began to pop up widely across Mainstream Media. Video experts were being called on to explain a frame-dropping or frame-pausing technique that was said to have made Acosta’s wrist restraining the intern’s arm look more like a ‘karate chop.’ Here is one of many videos up now explaining this:
And here is Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson’s reaction to the claims that he doctored the video:
Even as a video editor myself, I don’t know whether this video was doctored or not. Either one of the arguments above seem to have some logic, and it would take me a lot more time and effort to get to the bottom of it, time and effort I certainly don’t want to spend. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter.
While it would be possible that Watson would go through the trouble of doctoring a video to have a slight, barely perceptible effect of seeming more aggressive, the fact of the matter is, as Watson points out in his video,
‘The media invented a giant conspiracy theory to distract from a real controversy…Sarah Sanders was right. Jim Acosta put his hands on a woman. He used his strength to overpower her, and that’s clearly seen in the video. Does that mean he assaulted her? No. It doesn’t. But he clearly used his hand, his wrist, and his arm to push her away…don’t take my word for it, go and watch the footage yourself and come to your own conclusions.’
CNN continues to reference Sanders’ tweet as ‘a distorted video clip of the press conference that didn’t show the complete back-and-forth. The same video had been posted by an InfoWars personality two hours earlier.’ To persuade those people who don’t investigate all the facts and rely on the validity of the narrative, these kinds of phrases and talking points are essential.
CNN Sues The White House
Now, it looks like the battle of narratives is headed for court. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the President and top aides for banning Acosta, believing his 1st and 5th amendment rights are being violated.
In an interview on Tuesday morning, [attorney Ted] Boutrous said CNN tried to resolve the matter privately, but the White House was not responsive so “we really had no choice but to sue.” “We didn’t want to have to go to court. We wanted to just report the news,” he said. “Mr. Acosta wants to report the news. CNN wants to report the news.”
If the full clip of Jim Acosta’s tactics and line of questioning are those of a journalist who ‘just wants to report the news,’ I must be missing something. Of course it should come as no surprise that CNN is using all of its rhetorical devices to characterize itself as the victim here. But more and more, those speaking on behalf of the Alliance are also firing up their rhetoric to continue to pound away at the ‘fake news’ characterization of mainstream media, trying to reveal to the public the hidden agenda behind machinations like those of Acosta. Here is the response of Sarah Sanders and the White House to the lawsuit:
“We have been advised that CNN has filed a complaint challenging the suspension of Jim Acosta’s hard pass. This is just more grandstanding from CNN, and we will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment. After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions—each of which the President answered—he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern, so that other reporters might ask their questions. This was not the first time this reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters.
The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional. The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor. If there is no check on this type of behavior it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.”
This is an interesting fight in that it seems like a flash point whose outcome might indicate the relative strength of the two heavyweights, the Alliance fronted by Donald Trump, and the Deep State as mouthpieced by Mainstream Media. It’s hard to know who is more up for this battle, to be honest. It will be interesting to see how this particular battle plays out.
As usual, our discernment is required for sifting through these battles of conflicting narratives. The more we are able to find where the truth lies, and the more people that gain this power of discernment, the less we will have to live through the drama that is playing out in front of us. Living our lives in truth is our ultimate destination.
Your Vagina Is More Beautiful Than You Think
It was 11 years ago and I was in a big documentary phase. I had watched hundreds of documentaries in...
Researcher Jailed After Uncovering Deadly Virus Delivered Through Human Vaccines
If you have been following stories in recent years of scientists and researchers who make discoveries that are threatening to...