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
‘Targeted Individuals’ Activist Getting Stonewalled In Seeking Anti-‘Organized Torture’ Legislation
- The Facts:
Dr. Tomo Shibata, who has asked 9 California legislators to introduce a bill that specifically criminalizes 'Organized Covert Torture,' has uncovered evidence of undue influence from the perpetrators over the legislative process.
- Reflect On:
How can those of us within the awakening community take the efforts of Dr. Shibata and use them to help us all better understand the truth about 'Organized Covert Torture' in a way that we are empowered to put an end to it?
In a previous article, “New California Bill Proposal Aims To Protect ‘Targeted Individuals’,” I described how Dr. Tomo Shibata proposed a bill to members of the California legislature entitled ‘The Organized Torture Act,’ which seeks to criminalize many of the types of attacks that are clandestinely made on targeted individuals.
Now, it appears that Dr. Shibata is getting stonewalled by the California lawmakers she has approached to introduce the bill. And it is Dr. Shibata’s belief that the very forces she is fighting against, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors in coordination with local law-enforcement officials, are influential in dissuading these politicians from introducing the bill.
What Is ‘Organized Covert Torture’?
This article by Ramola D explains the genesis of Dr. Shibata’s bill proposal and helps us better understand the attacks that ‘targeted individuals’ are facing:
This proposal was made, Dr. Shibata states, on the basis of complaints to human rights groups from high numbers of residents across California from various cities including San Diego, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, and others, of “organized covert torture” whereby, in lieu of outright abduction, victims are kept under constant control of the covert torture organizations by organized stalking, sustained surreptitious monitoring, cyberstalking, and stealth physical assault and battery with radiation weaponry such as microwave/radar surveillance weapons. Different sources offer varying estimates, running into hundreds of thousands, of the numbers of organized covert torture victims often labeled “Targeted Individuals” within the USA and around the world.
It may be hard for some to believe that this phenomenon is real, let alone affecting hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of individuals on the planet. But that is why this is such a diabolical process. It is designed to appear to outsiders as though it is not happening at all, while some of the tactics are not fully hidden from the victims themselves, when the desire is to inflict a sense of helplessness and paranoia upon the victim.
What is beyond doubt, for those who have researched into this matter, is that technology does indeed exist to remotely target individual people with invisible weapons that cause physical pain as well as debilitating mental and auditory stimulation (source).
This form of torture and human experimentation has the most power when the general public does not believe in its existence. This is why the awakening community must stand behind victims and give their stories credence, as I outlined in a previous article ‘Targeted Individuals Need The Awakening Community To Believe Their Stories.’ And this may be one reason why Dr. Shibata is working tirelessly to get this bill proposal introduced in the California legislature, since just the introduction of the bill (let alone the passing of it into law) will bring it into the public domain and give this issue the legitimacy it desperately needs.
However, ‘legitimacy’ is the last thing that the perpetrators of organized covert torture want. This is why Dr. Shibata believes that these perpetrators are playing a direct role in overtly and covertly discouraging California State legislators from introducing ‘The Organized Torture Act.’
In Dr. Shibata’s email to me (which is the source of all the quotes from her in this article), she specifically points to local law enforcement in concert with Fusion Centers as the most visible culprits of ‘Organized Covert Torture’:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors “empower frontline law enforcement…to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better protect their communities.” (source)—the Fusion Center’s rationale for the organized surveillance and covert torture operations of those who are wrongfully named as criminals and/or terrorists without any due process, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s testimony.
Dr. Shibata believes that these intelligence contractors could “empower” police groups as a front organization to mind-control the California legislature:
The police have very strong lobbying groups at the California state legislature. The Fusion Center intelligence contractors could help police lobbying groups in becoming so “strong” in influencing the California legislature, by deploying the following technique: covertly manipulate those who exert the most influence on the target-legislators, who might introduce the bill to prohibit organized covert torture, in order to safeguard the excessive privileges of the police/intelligence contractors to torture targeted individuals.
And indeed, her experience dealing with legislators bears this out.
Stonewalled By Legislators
In total, Dr. Shibata has asked 9 California legislators to review the bill proposal and introduce it to the legislature. Any bill that amends the Penal Code is required to go through an ‘analysis’ by the Public Safety Committee Counsel. This analysis, according to Dr. Shibata, ‘exerts considerable influence on the voting outcome of the members of the committee.’ The committee majority approval is needed first before the bill is introduced to all members of the legislature for voting. So, although the proposed bill has not yet been introduced, the legislative director of Assembly Member Shirley Weber went ahead and asked the Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel to issue a provisional analysis of the proposed bill, in order for Dr. Weber to find out the prospects for the proposed bill in the legislature. Dr. Shibata believes that the opinions of this counsel have resulted from the undue influence of police lobby groups that front the intelligence operations behind covert organized torture.
In communication with Dr. Weber’s legislative director, Dr. Shibata was made aware that Weber’s office received the following advice from Assembly Public Safety Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Sandy Uribe:
1. The acts of organized covert torture and organized stalking, which the proposed bill prohibits, are already proscribed by the current Penal Code. There is no need for an addition law.
2. The incident, where a civilian complained about his inner ears injured by the police’s ongoing act of using an ultrasonic weapon at him, shot and killed a rookie female police officer in Davis, CA (20-minute driving distance from Sacramento) on January 10, 2019, would discourage the legislature from voting favorably on the proposed bill. The location of the incident is so close to the California capitol that this incident would considerably influence the voting results of the proposed bill.
Dr. Weber decided not to introduce the proposed bill upon receiving this advice. Yet, Dr. Shibata finds the advice highly questionable, and refuted it as follows:
Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel Deputy Chief Uribe’s above advice prejudicially interprets the proposed bill text and the recent police officer’s murder incident in the light that is most protective of the excessive privileges of the police to torture targeted individuals. Please note that the police abuse discretion vested in them and elect not to enforce the existing laws against organized covert torture and organized stalking. The socio-legal context of the proposed legislation parallels that of the anti-domestic violence legislation, because the police abused their discretion vested in them and did not enforce the pre-existing law against battery in domestic relations, prior to the anti-domestic violence legislation. Just as many police officers themselves committed domestic violence at home back then, many police officers commit organized covert torture themselves today, along with the Fusion Center contractors and under the supervision of the FBI, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s aforementioned testimony.
The anti-domestic violence legislation established the rule of law in domestic relations and drastically reduced the killings of husbands by the battered wives at home. The proposed bill will establish the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture and thus will substantially prevent the killings of the police officers by the civilian victims of organized cover torture by the police, as exemplified by the aforementioned Davis police shooter, who had a violent criminal record. Indeed, L.A. law enforcement officers fire electronic weapons remotely at prison inmates, which the ACLU describes as “tantamount to torture,” according to CBS News. Therefore, the recent Davis police officer’s lethal shooting incident only casts light on the urgent need for the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture, instead of discouraging the legislature from voting against the proposed bill.
Another legislator Dr. Shibata asked to introduce the bill was Ed Chau, the chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, and a former judge and an engineer, who has successfully authored bills against the technological invasion of privacy and is already aware of one of the most sophisticated technologies used against targeted individuals, “synthetic telepathy,” which is known to have been researched by the University of California at Irvine and funded by the Army (source). The task of preparing an internal report to Chau on the proposed bill was delegated to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Consultant/Attorney Nichole Rapier Rocha. In a phone conversation with Rocha, Dr. Shibata found out that Rocha had received unsolicited advice from Sandy Uribe similar to the advice she gave Dr. Weber’s office, which led Dr. Shibata to ask the following question:
Why did super busy Sandy Uribe go out of her way to identify/trace which influential staffer at the legislature was still reviewing the bill proposal for potential recommendation and further to “warn” that influential staffer of the said “problems” of the bill proactively?
While Ed Chau has not yet decided whether to sponsor the bill, the following legislators have already declined: Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Senator Nancy Skinner, Senator Jim Beall, and Senator Chris Holden. Their refusal to take up the challenge, according to Dr. Shibata, is partly “due to their apathetic complicity in leaving thousands of victims, in California alone, continuously and indefinitely exposed to irreversibly maiming torture and slow-kill murder.” But she also has seen telling signs of infiltration within legislators’ committees and the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry in discouraging these legislators from introducing the bill.
Aside from Assembly Member Ed Chau, those legislators who have yet to make a decision are Senator Steven Bradford and Senator Holly Mitchell. Whether or not the tremendous effort made by Dr. Tomo Shibata to get this bill introduced to the California legislature will come to fruition rests in their hands. Time is short, as the bill introduction deadline is February 22, 2019. If you would like to show your support for Dr. Shibata, please try to let your opinions be known to these three remaining California legislators or go to Dr. Shibata’s GoFundMe Page.
While her proposal to introduce legislation may not be accepted this time around, the time and effort that Dr. Shibata has put into this enterprise has still afforded us the opportunity to see a little more deeply into the mechanisms of control behind organized covert torture and the complicity between politics, law enforcement and intelligence that is needed to keep it in place. Her work is helping to bring the phenomena more into public awareness, and it is through growing awareness and our commitment to uncover the truth that we will one day end these kinds of operations.
YouTube Will Stop Recommending Videos Of 9/11 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ To Users
- The Facts:
YouTube has decided to change its algorithm for recommending videos by excluding certain videos such as those they feel 'make blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.'
- Reflect On:
Can we see through the deception and come to know the truth about mainstream media's efforts to promote a false narrative and create within us a disempowering perception about our world?
Heartwarming, isn’t it? Social media giants like YouTube are willing to sacrifice advertising profits in order to ensure that their cherished viewers are deterred from seeing content that YouTube deems dangerous and potentially damaging to their viewers’ mental and emotional health. They’re doing this even though these viewers have demonstrated that they want to see this content. It’s just like having a Big Brother around to help steer us onto the straight and narrow path, isn’t it?
Examples the social media giant cited include videos “promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
Now, we can talk about any of these examples cited above for wildly different reasons, but let’s stick with the 9/11 theme. While there is no denying that it was a ‘historic event,’ what is implied by this phrase is that 9/11 has an established, well-proven historical account based on the government’s explanation of what happened and supported by the ‘official’ report cobbled together by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For YouTube, this report is seen as the authoritative ‘last word’ on what happened in New York City on September 11th, 2001.
I could spend pages detailing how many 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ videos, like ones done by the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, are much more coherent, objective and evidence-based than the NIST report or mainstream media coverage on the subject. But no need, as this is fairly self-evident for anyone who has done a modicum of research into the subject.
What is important to note here is to read the phrase ‘making blatantly false claims’ as really meaning ‘making claims that deviate from the official, controlled mainstream narrative.’ In this regard, the takeover of social media companies by the global elite, as with the prior consolidation of traditional media companies, has been done mainly to try to continue to have a stronghold on how human beings interpret past events, in a way that advances their agenda.
Understanding ‘Recommended’ Videos
Now, to be specific, YouTube is not simply deleting videos they don’t want on their platform (well, they’ve done that too, but that’s another story). They are changing the process by which YouTube ‘recommends’ videos to users based on that viewer’s preferences.
‘Recommended’ videos are those videos that YouTube makes available to the viewer alongside whatever video they are watching, using artificial intelligence to come up with a selection most likely to tempt viewers to continue watching after they are done with the video they are engaged with.
Guillaume Chaslot, a former Google engineer that helped build the artificial intelligence (AI) used to curate recommended videos, said the goal of YouTube’s AI was to keep users on the site as long as possible in order to promote more advertisements. What’s the ‘problem’ with this, according to YouTube? This algorithm encouraged some people with a penchant for ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (to use the famed psy-op label coined by the CIA) to go down a dangerous rabbit hole of misinformation, delusion and potential violence.
Andrew Mendrala, supervising attorney of Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic warns that the previous YouTube algorithm is “an echo chamber. It’s a feedback loop. It creates an insular community that is continually fed misinformation that reinforces their prejudices.”
Chaslot agrees with this sentiment, saying that when a user was enticed by multiple conspiracy videos, the AI not only became biased by the content the hyper-engaged users were watching, it also kept track of the content that those users were engaging with in an attempt to reproduce that pattern with other users. In a thread of tweets he recently posted, Chaslot praised the change that actually prevents flagged videos from being included within the recommended selection. His comment about this change should give us pause:
“It’s only the beginning of a more humane technology. Technology that empowers all of us, instead of deceiving the most vulnerable.”
Humane? Censorship and controlling information have been couched in many terms recently, but to call this change ‘humane’ feels like the height of hypocrisy. It truly strains credulity to imagine that a corporation like YouTube actually cares about the ‘most vulnerable’ people in society.
Let’s call this most recent change in policy by a social media giant what it is: a small step in a subtle, ongoing effort to control the minds of people and reinforce mainstream perceptions rather than letting people sift through a variety of opinions and think for themselves.
There is little the public can do about the policy change itself because YouTube is a private company with legal rights to decide what is broadcast on their platform. But it is the rationalization that we hear in the mainstream for justifying this change that is hard to endure. YouTube claims that the change “strikes a balance between maintaining a platform for free speech and living up to our responsibility to users.” Here’s how a Guardian article frames the mainstream narrative on this particular subject:
YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms have faced growing scrutiny in recent years for their role in hosting and amplifying political propaganda and abusive content that spark real-world consequences and can lead to violence.
In 2016, the conspiracy theory that became known as “Pizzagate” – a popular rightwing fake news story alleging that the Comet Ping Pong restaurant was linked to a child sex ring involving the Hillary Clinton campaign – motivated a gunman to fire a weapon inside the restaurant.
It’s amazing how often this one stooge firing a weapon inside Comet Ping Pong–quite possibly a staged event–is pulled out in mainstream media to try to discredit any investigations into Pizzagate. This technique is used often to bring fear and ridicule upon people following alternative narratives in an attempt to sway the public back to the mainstream perception.
Then the mainstream parades out people like Mendrala, who will make claims that providing viewers more of what they are interested in creates an ‘echo chamber’ and a ‘feedback loop.’ In reality, these comments are pure projection, as this is what mainstream media has been and is desperately trying to continue to be: an untouchable, self-perpetuating Ministry of Truth. As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984:
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Accordingly, we see how the mainstream media has been working in alliance with the social media giants to ‘control the present’ by incrementally removing certain content from view as we move forward, a slow and patient high-tech form of ‘book burning.’ In controlling the present, they then control the past–i.e. they get to say what events in the past mean, creating a controlled interpretation of the past that then informs us about who we are and what life is about. This then allows them to control the future, which enables the gradual acceleration of the program to enslave humanity.
Our ability to see through the mainstream deception is going to be our greatest asset in averting the agenda of global elite enslavement. While they do have the power and the wealth, we have the numbers, and we have the truth on our side. If together we truly aspire to awaken to know the truth, it will set us free.
The Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health
Mobile and wireless technologies are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. Most U.S. adults own smartphones, a growing proportion are “smartphone-only” Internet users and over a fourth report being online “almost constantly.” As for children, a 2014 survey of high-income nations reported that almost seven in ten children used a mobile phone, and two-thirds of those had a smartphone, usually by age 10. As described by Nielsen, it is now as common to see “a kid with a smartphone in their hand” as it was to see “a kid playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age.”
The enthusiasm with which the public has embraced each new mobile and wireless technology—most of which have never undergone any appropriate safety testing or standards development—suggests that consumers rarely stop to consider the health implications of the infrastructure shoring up their ability to browse, stream and download anytime and “on the go.” Consumers are not entirely to blame for their lack of awareness—it is not easy to disentangle the technologies’ health risks in the face of the telecommunications industry’s steady and calculated disinformation efforts and a captured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “follows the script of fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.”
…powerful 5g (fifth generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of mandatory irradiation – without prior study of the potential health impact or any assurance of safety
Now, however, a global 5G “frenzy” is upon us and is coming into full force. The rollout of “blazing fast” 5G technology will “dramatically increase the number of transmitters sending signals to cellphones and a host of new Internet-enabled devices.” The time is ripe for greater grassroots awareness of the undisclosed tradeoffs between convenience and 5G’s potentially catastrophic health effects. Far from a simple “next-gen” upgrade, powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of what retired U.S. government physicist Dr. Ronald Powell calls “mandatory irradiation”—without “prior study of the potential health impact” or any assurance of safety. Considering that young people (with their smaller body mass and developing brains) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, the Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.
In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment. In 2018, telecom carriers in the U.S. and Europe began rolling out 5G technology in dozens of cities. Focusing (for now) on “dense urban and high-traffic areas” in the U.S., AT&T began positioning its 5G infrastructure in major cities in eight states, and Verizon started offering 5G home broadband service in “select neighborhoods” in a handful of cities.
…health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations
For the most part, health concerns have ranked as a tiny footnote in the midst of the massive hoopla about 5G’s speed and capacity, although trade magazines admit that there may be “some objections” to 5G due to “concerns over potential health risks.” In both Europe and the U.S., however, individuals living and working in proximity to newly installed 5G towers and antennas are telling a different story. Many have immediately started experiencing health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.
In response to complaints from fire fighters subjected to 5G antennas, the International Association of Fire Fighters has gone on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”
A United Nations whistleblower recently drew attention to 5G’s dramatic impact on health in a widely circulated series of comments about 5G’s “seemingly overnight” rollout in Vienna, Austria. Describing 5G as a “silent war,” she commented:
“…Children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies. Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs.”
Above and below
One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”
…Even in the home environment, 5G technology (will) blast through walls and cribs, making a mockery of the notion that ‘your home is your castle in which you are supposed to be safe
Organizations concerned about the health hazards of wireless radiation note that “Right now, you don’t have to live next to a cell tower….but once they have these [5G] cell antennas everywhere, you won’t be able to [move away].” Unfortunately, the “nowhere to hide” aspects of 5G are even more serious, because ground-based 5G systems will be supplemented by satellite-based systems. In March, 2018, the FCC approved the initial launch of over 4,400 low-Earth-orbit 5G communication satellites, to be followed by thousands more over the next two years—with the eventual result being 11 times more satellites orbiting the Earth than currently. The satellites will send “tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth,” while each device then sends “a beam of radiation back to the satellite.”
In practical terms, this means that in crowded locations such as airports, individuals’ bodies “will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones.” But even in the home environment, “5G technology [will] blast through walls and cribs,” making a mockery of “the notion that ‘your home is your castle’ in which you are supposed to be safe.”
More than skin-deep
Scientists, doctors and experts from around the world have issued repeated warnings about 5G’s risks, drawing on published research on MMWs as well as thousands of studies showing the harms caused by other mobile and wireless technologies.
In this context, industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world. The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.” Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”
Moratorium urgently needed
When the FCC endorsed the transition to 5G in 2016, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) vowed “to allow new [5G] technologies and innovations to evolve and flourish without needlessly prescriptive regulations.” Thus, even though 5G represented a radical shift in technology, the FCC proposed no further safety studies, instead continuing to rely on its “outdated, excessively permissive, and thus widely criticized, radiation-exposure guidelines that…are based primarily on a 30-year-old analysis…many years before the emergence of most of the digital wireless technology in use today.” A recent government study by the National Toxicology Program—which determined that cell phone radiation causes cancer—deemed the three-decade-old guidelines “unprotective.”
…children who began using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 had more than a fourfold increased brain tumour risk.
5G poses risks to all life on the planet—people, animals, insects and plants. However, it is clear that fetuses and children are among the most vulnerable members of the human population. Even prior to 5G, Swedish researchers concluded that “children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies” and reported that children who began using “either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20” had more than a fourfold increased brain tumor risk. Describing brain cancer as “the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg,’” the researchers also observed that “no other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade.”
The UN whistleblower states, “People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action.” Some of the actions that people have taken include signing the International Appeal; learning about the multiple reasons to be concerned about 5G radiation and telling others; talking to legislators about why rushing legislation that streamlines the deployment of 5G small cells is a bad idea (and also raising the awareness of legislators and state utility commissions about the risks of smart meters); and changing their relationship to their devices, including using wired rather than wireless Internet connections (or turning off WiFi routers at night) and adopting other simple steps.
5G promises to create an even “denser soup of electrosmog,” with incalculable health effects. In fact, any sane person who examines the evidence must concur with the authors and over 40,000 signatories of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, who agree that the rush to blanket the planet with 5G “constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet
Recently, an 82-year-old woman who suffered from dementia, who couldn’t recognize her own son has miraculously got her memory back...
New Study Reveals Many Cancer Patients Are Killed By Chemotherapy & Not The Cancer
Up until recently, chemotherapy and radiation have been the only two approved treatment methods for treating cancer by mainstream medicine,...