Connect with us

Alternative News

How Addicted Are We? Kicking The Smartphone Addiction

Published

on

I’ve had a love-hate relationship with my smartphone since 2010.

advertisement - learn more

When I first turned it on I sensed life was never going to be the same. The ease of writing text messages in a stream of conversation. So many old devices all wrapped up into one. Boundless internet connectivity. This thing was awesome… and I was suspicious.

The last six years, insofar as my smartphone is concerned, have gone like this: awe, suspicion, cautious adoption, addiction, suspicion, and rejection. This is the story of that journey, and life less connected.

Technological Abuse

Through the 2000s I dabbled in techno-pessimism. I was drawn to this idea that technology can provide us great gifts with the one hand, and stab us in the back with other. Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb then pleaded for it to never be used. Rachel Carson sounded the alarm on DDT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us to curtail the burning of fossil fuels or we’ll melt the polar ice caps.

When we make new things a part of our world, or our lives, we should be thoughtful about their potential to harm, destroy, or displace. Reckless adoption seems to consistently get us into trouble.

So, in this vein, I aimed to cautiously use my new smartphone to supplement, not substitute, real world engagement.

advertisement - learn more

Bowling Alone

Around this same time, I was studying the rise of the Religious Right in the US and the conditions that led to the born-again movement and its politicization. It turns out the phenomenon happened in lockstep with a few important social trends: lower community involvement, less time spent with friends and family, and declining social trust. As Harvard political scientist Dr. Robert Putnam argued, we had become less trusting and more isolated. And, as psychologists like Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers have pointed out, we don’t like feeling lonely. A sense of safety, belonging, and purpose are core human needs. The more we feel that void, the more we seek to fill it — or ignore it.

What caused this alienation?

Putnam looked at a host of factors starting in the 1950s through the 1990s, including: suburbanization, lower trust in government, economic forces, and spectator entertainment. His conclusion was that the most powerful cause was television or, more accurately, the time we spent watching television.

When I was a child my grandfather used to scold us, “turn off that idiot box and go play outside.” He was on to something.

Psychological Manipulation

Something else interesting happened in the 90s. Advertising companies began using language like, “supporter engagement” and building “brand communities.” Logos were big and ubiquitous but were not enough. Marketers realized they could engineer cult-like support by building trust, and loyalty, and — most importantly — becoming a platform for interpersonal relationships. Saturn Motors organized “Homecomings” for their vehicle owners. Lululemon Athletica hosted yoga sessions in their stores. The Running Room created local running clubs that started at their shops. Brands didn’t want to just tell us how great they were, they wanted to become an active part of our lives.

These were the pioneers for the social media age.

Today’s social web — and games — exploit many more psychological hooks. Likes, shares, followers, comments, messages all carry micro stimuli: a buzz, a flash, a notification, a reward. These stimuli are designed to fire a release of dopamine. Input becomes associated with gratification, which, if abused, can lead to obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Tech companies now openly discuss designing “compulsion loops” that result in obsessions with their applications. As Bill Davidow of the Atlantic put it, “Many Internet companies are learning what the tobacco industry has long known — addiction is good for business.”

One problem with addiction is that eventually you become numb. It takes more hits to solicit a response. Then you start to do it because that’s your new baseline. This can lead to many more mental health issues like detachment and depression.

The End Of Absence

By 2013 I was totally hooked.

I had worked for years in digital strategy and political campaigns. Staying on the cutting edge was my jam. And to be honest, I found the frontier fascinating. But it became totally unhealthy. I was checking work emails at dinner. Thumbing through my Instagram feed on the bus because I was bored, or anxious. I’d fall asleep reading a news article while my partner watched Netflix. We’d face away from each other, back-to-back. The phone had become an extension of reality. I had placed it between other people and myself. I used it to substitute real world face-time. At its worst, the over-connection created new anxieties, à la Portlandia’s technology-loop.

In the spring of 2015 I woke up to feeling disconnected. Disconnected from people, but also moments. Less present, less aware. My short-term memory had become terrible. The transition from sleep and being awake became less clear. I’d go through the daily motions, ear buds in, spending the majority of the day looking at a screen. I even felt sluggish, as if my energy was being drained, which led to another crutch: coffee.

So I downloaded an app that tracks your daily smartphone usage called BreakFree. Given the nature of my work, and my symptoms, I assumed I was somewhere on the more extreme side of the spectrum. Turns out I’m only slightly above average.

According to a study by Locket the average user checks his or her phone 150 times per day. Another study estimated that the average 18-33 year-old spend five hours a day looking at a screen. Close to 55% of us sleep with our smartphones on our bedside table, 13% keep it on our bed, and 3% fall asleep with it in their hand. This may help explain why three quarters of women in committed relationships feel that smartphones are interfering with their love life. The mere presence of a phone on a table leads to more shallow conversation, lowering the amount of empathy exchanged.

How Addicted Are We?

In a 2015 Pew Research Centre study 24% of teens described going online “almost constantly.” Surveys in the United States and Europe from 2012 indicate Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) rates varying between 1.5% and 8.2%. Other reports place the rates between 6% and 18.5%. The Governments of China and South Korea have already declared IAD a significant public health threat. Usage is highest among Millenials, which means if we stay the course these trends will only worsen.

Artists, satirists, and public commentators are trying to point out the sickness and the absurdity.

Erik Pickersgill’s photo series Removed features people in normal social situations looking at their phones (the phones are edited out). In all the photos no one looks particularly entertained or happy. Award-winning Israeli filmmakers Shosh Shlam and Hilla Medalia followed young Chinese men as they spent three months at a military style anti-addiction rehab centre in their PBS documentary, Web Junkies. Louis C.K. eloquently pointed out cellphone use is now the number one cause of motor vehicle accidents in North America. My personal favourite is Darby Cisneros’ stinging critique of “Instragram Reality” via her now inactive Hipster Barbie account.

Even President Obama chimed in, “Put your phones down. I’m right here.”

Searching for guidance I mentioned my symptoms to a friend. She recommended I try meditating and mindfulness exercises. So I got an app for that. Another friend recommended I read Michael Harris’ The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost in a World of Constant Connection.

Harris’ thesis is that anyone born before the mid 1980s will be the last generation in human history to know the pre and post Internet era. “I fear we are the last of the daydreamers. I fear our children will lose lack, lose absence and never comprehend its quiet, immeasurable value.”

That was the tipping point. It was only after reading Harris’ book that I realized what I was missing was absence. And through absence I would find presence. My relationship with technology needed a serious course correction. It wasn’t enough to simply recognize the dependency; it was time to take control.

Brave New World 

I started by decoupling my work email from my phone. I sent an email to my Board and told them I was “trying something new” and would no longer respond to work emails outside work hours. That helped, but it only made a small dent in my pattern.

Then, through a stroke of good fortune, I lost my phone while on vacation. I was upset for a few hours then saw it as a blessing. Okay, that’s it. I’m out. I called my provider and asked them to switch me to the most basic plan: Text and Calling only. Then I found a $15 ol’ school Nokia phone on Craigslist. Apparently it’s a growing global market, and not just for drug dealers. All the key functions are there: calling, texting, alarm clock, calendar. Apps are gone, as is Internet connection. So is the capacity to play music, take good pictures, and do group messaging.

For most functions lost there are workarounds. At the airport I print out my boarding pass. Before I go somewhere new I print a map, or write down the directions. If I want to hail a cab, I call the company. If I need to check my bank account balance, I do that before leaving home. You learn to chill out a bit and appreciate that not everything will always be at your fingertips. You also re-learn how to pre-plan better. If someone really needs to get in touch, they can call you.

Some functions are just lost. When away from my laptop I can’t participate in group chats, like WhatsApp. I can’t take good pictures or post to Instagram. If we had Uber here in Vancouver, I don’t think I’d be able to use it. If a question comes up that I can’t answer and I’m itching to solve, I write it down and come back to it later. I can’t play music and I’m resisting getting an MP3 player. Sound, apparently, is a huge part of feeling connected to space. For most of these lost abilities I say good riddance; others can be annoying but you learn to make do. The upshot is worth it.

First, I feel liberated. Liberated from the constant urge to open my phone. Liberated from the rush of concern if I can’t find the device. Liberated from the thought, “Hey, I should take a picture of this!” I’ve relearned (and apparently rewired my brain) to just be present. On the bus I look around and think about the other people, or just let my mind wander. Walking home I pay more attention to all the little details, and make an effort to smile as people walk by — although, 30-40% of the time they’re on their phones. My awareness feels sharper and my energy feels stronger.

My mental capacity has noticeably increased. I think about my friends and family more. I feel more empathetic, and “in-tune.” Because I don’t use headphones in public I’ve found myself sparking up more conversations with strangers. For example, I’ve gone to the same gym for almost a year. I’ve had more conversations with people in the last two months than in the previous ten. Some of the artificial boundaries have dissolved.

I have moments where I get an “itch” to reach for my phone — usually in a moment of boredom — but those quickly subside. They have also become less frequent as time goes by. The biggest hurdle was making the switch; now I’m perfectly content and have neither desire nor any intention to go back.

Pro-Internet, Anti-Abuse

To this day I remain very pro-Internet. It’s one of the most empowering inventions in human history. Digital rights organizations like Electronic Frontiers Foundation and OpenMedia.ca are doing excellent and important work.

The question, really, is, are we in control of our digital lives? If we are dependent or addicted, have we come to terms with it? If yes, what are we doing about it?

Harris, who went on a one-month digital detox, put it this way:

This book is a meditation more than a prescription. There are no ten easy steps to living a healthy digital life; there is no totalizing theory, no maxim, with which we can armor ourselves. Nor is digital abstinence the answer, absolute refusal being just another kind of dependence after all. Easy fixes are for easy problems. And what do real problems, big problems, call for? Experimentation and play.

I’m optimistic that we will take a step back from this mass addiction because in many ways it is in our own self-interest. Presence and absence have intrinsic value. So do awareness, and daydreaming, and creativity. Human connection is beautiful. Time is precious.

Some with stronger self-control will be able to self-monitor. Some will use tools (i.e. BreakFree) and strategies (digital breaks). Some, like me, need to restructure our lives without a smartphone. Each of us who agree this is a problem, can be part of the solution by helping ourselves, and others.

As we barrel down the path toward nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology it feels all the more pressing to stop and reflect on our relationship with the virtual world, and its gatekeepers.

What kind of lives do we want to live? What kind of world do we want to create?

As Marshall McLuhan said, “There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.”

The choice is ours, but it’s going to take some effort.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Portland To Generate Electricity From Turbines Installed In City Water Pipes

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Portland will launch a program in March 2019 that will begin generating energy via turbines in city water pipes beneath the streets.

  • Reflect On:

    This is great, but is this truly all we are capable of? Do we not already know there are much better and more efficient technologies available? Are we ready to shift our consciousness out of our current world to pave way for new technologies?

Where there is a will there is a way. This particular story is cool to me as it was an idea that crossed my mind years ago and it’s incredible seeing it being brought into being. But that idea was from 8 years ago, since then I have come to realize how primitive these ideas truly are. But more on that discussion in a moment.

Portland will be generating some electricity via water running through their city water pipes. Think about it. All the water that runs through those pipes to do the already daily tasks of washing, showering, drinking, cleaning and growing will now help to also generate electricity.

After partnering with a company called Lucid Energy, the city will begin to generate clean electricity from the water flowing under its streets. Thus far, Portland has begun replacing a section of its existing water supply network with Lucid Energy’s specially designed pipes that contain four forty-two inch turbines.

As water flows through the pipes the turbines spin and provides power to attached generators. Those generators feed energy into the city’s existing electrical grid. The project is known as the “Conduit 3 Hydroelectric Project,” and is scheduled to be fully up and running in March of this year.

The promotional video describes the technology and innovative idea of harnessing power through city water pipes:

advertisement - learn more

Unlike wind and solar, this solution does not rely on the weather, making it a more stable and reliable solution for energy. How much can it output? The current project will be able to power 150 homes over the course of the year. Keep in mind this project is only being rolled out in a section of the city.

Some limitations exist as well. Turbines will only work in pipes where water flows downhill. This is so water does not have to be pumped, as the energy necessary to pump the water would negate the energy generated from the turbines. However there are pluses, the system also monitors the overall condition of a city’s water supply network as well as assess the drinking quality of the water flowing through it.

A look at how the pipes function.

Are We Still Limited In Our Thinking?

While this idea is great and a step in the right direction, some deeper thought helps us realize how our current systems and structures do not easily allow for all-out solutions to our challenges to be implemented as everything we create has to fit within the confines of industry, creating jobs and limiting disruption. This is the result of a system, that at its core, is built on debt based banking.

We must come to terms with the fact that we will not see the advent of any real and practical solutions until we let go of this system of commerce and develop a world that truly allows humanity to thrive, and for technologies to be made available without the fear of disruption. After all, are we truly limited to the primitive forms of exchange we see being used today? Or is that simply what we have been convinced of? These are important questions to ask as they are the physical basis of how we are struggling as a whole.

At CE, we have been researching, working with, funding, and following future technology for over 8 years that could revolutionize the way we provide energy to society.

Wind, solar and even this idea are primitive jokes compared to what I have witnessed in labs with my own eyes. Why do these technologies stay hidden? Simple, not only does our infrastructure hold this back but so does our state of consciousness.

We explore this in detail in our interview with the president of the New Energy Movement Susan Manewich:

You can watch our entire 3 part interview with Susan on CETV.

As discussed, what we see projected in our world is a result of our overall state of collective consciousness, and what we decide to create and hold onto via belief in our current state of collective consciousness. It’s all an outward reflection. This is made up of our individual beliefs and actions compounded into the collective.

In looking at collective consciousness further, the very fact that we believe various things are not possible, and based on the fact that we hold onto to a system that does not truly support us so tightly, helps to keep these technologies suppressed and our world in a state of struggle.

The video below discusses collective consciousness in detail and how it relates to this issue:

The Takeaway

We are seeing steps in the right direction if you want to call it that. But are we limited in solving our issues by playing in the very system of commerce we have before us? The system that enslaves humanity and limits us via debt based banking?

It is only when we begin to shift our consciousness enough to step out of the world that we are in today that we will see the rise of new technologies that can solve the challenges we face today. There is truly no shortage of advanced technologies that can revolutionize our world, we simply are limiting our reality based on the state of consciousness we operate from.

Are we ready to let go of the world we seem to be holding onto so deeply even though we don’t seem to be happy within it?

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

12 Reasons Why Even Low Levels of Glyphosate Are Unsafe

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Decades of research have shown how Glyphosate is toxic in any amount, both for human and and the environment. This is not debatable.

  • Reflect On:

    Glyphosate is illegal in several dozen countries around the world due to health and environmental concerns. How can this product be approved for use when it's abundantly clear it's extremely unsafe, just like DDT was?

By Zen Honeycutt, Founding Executive Director Mom’s Across AmericaChildren’s Heath Defense Coalition Partner

Proponents of GMOs and Glyphosate-based herbicides and staunch believers in the EPA have long argued that low levels of glyphosate exposure are safe for humans. Even our own EPA tells us that Americans can consume 17 times more glyphosate in our drinking water than European residents. The EWG asserts that 160 ppb of glyphosate found in breakfast cereal is safe for a child to consume due to their own safety assessments, and yet renowned scientists and health advocates have long stated that no level is safe.  Confusion amongst consumers and the media is rampant.

Glyphosate is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro, which are both manufactured by Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Agent Orange and DDT. There are 750 brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.Glyphosate based herbicides are the most widely used in the world and residues of glyphosate have been found in tap water, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested.

The detection of glyphosate in these foods has set off alarms of concern in households and food manufacturers’ offices around the world. Lawsuits have sprung up against companies that make food products that claim to be “100% Natural” and yet contain glyphosate residues. These lawsuits have been successful. Debates, using the argument that “the dose makes the poison,” have been pushed by media. Speculation is that these media outlets are funded by advertisers that make or sell these chemicals or have sister companies that do, and threatening their profits would be unwise for all involved – except the consumers.

It is time to set the record straight

Here are 12 reasons why there is no safe level of glyphosate herbicide residue in our food or beverages.

  1. Babies, toddlers, and young children have kidneys and livers which are underdeveloped and do not have the ability to detox toxins the way adults doTheir bodies are less capable of eliminating toxins and therefore are particularly susceptible. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that children, especially, should avoid pesticides because, “prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.”
  2. Glyphosate does not wash, dry or cook off, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in the bone marrow, tendons and muscle tissue. Bioaccumulation of low levels over time will result in levels which we cannot predict or determine; therefore there is no scientific basis to state that the low levels are not dangerous, as they can accumulate to high levels in an unforeseeable amount of time.
  3. “There is no current reliable way to determine the incidence of pesticide exposure and illness in US children.” -AAP  Children are exposed through food, air, contact with grass and pets. How much they are being exposed to daily from all these possibilities is simply not something that we have been able to determine. Therefore no one is capable of assessing what levels are safe from any one modality of exposure because an additional low level from other modalities could add up to a high level of exposure.
    1. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides have been proven to cause non-alcoholic liver disease in a long term animal study by Michael Antoniou, Giles Eric Seralini et al.  The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
    2. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate have been shown to be  endocrine and hormone disrupting.Changes to hormones can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune disease, cancer, mental and chronic illness.
    3. The  EPA Allowable Daily Intake Levels (ADIs) of glyphosate exposure were set for a 175-pound man, not a pregnant mother, infant, or child.
    4. Glyphosate alone has been shown to be chronically toxic causing organ and cell damage. Glyphosate herbicides final formulations, have been shown to be acutely toxic, causing immediate damage at low levels.
    5. The detection of glyphosate at low levels could mean the presence of the other toxic ingredients in glyphosate herbicides on our food. Until studies are done, one must practice the Precautionary Principle. The label on glyphosate herbicides does not specify the pesticide class or “other”/“inert” ingredients that may have significant acute toxicity and can account for up to 54% of the product.
    6. Regarding the label and low-level exposure: “Chronic toxicity information is not included, and labels are predominantly available in English. There is significant use of illegal pesticides(especially in immigrant communities), off-label use, and overuse, underscoring the importance of education, monitoring, and enforcement.” – AAP. Exposure to low levels of glyphosate herbicides can occur through pregnant wives or children hugging the father who is a pesticide applicator.  The chronic health impacts such as rashes which can, years later, result in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are often ignored, especially by low income or non-English speaking users dependent on their pesticide application occupation for survival.
    7. The EPA has admitted to not having any long-term animal studies with blood analysis on the final formulation of any glyphosate herbicides.  The EPA cannot state that the final formulation is safe.
    8. For approval of pesticides and herbicides, the EPA only requires safety studies, by the manufacturer who benefits from the sales, on the one declared active chemical ingredient—in this case glyphosate. Glyphosate is never used alone.
    9. The main manufacturer, Monsanto, has been found to be guilty on all counts by a San Francisco Supreme Court Jury in the Johnson v Monsanto. This includes guilty of “malice and oppression” which means that the company executives knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

    Clearly, it is time for food and beverage manufacturers to have a zero tolerance for glyphosate residue levels and for the US EPA and regulatory agencies everywhere to stop ignoring the science and to revoke the license of glyphosate immediately.

    advertisement - learn more

    Moms Across America is a 501c3 non profit organization whose motto is “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”

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.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Anderson Cooper Caught Spreading Fake Information & Lying About Vaccines Live On CNN

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A clip of Anderson Cooper making very weak arguments in support of Mercury inside of vaccines. Each point he makes is not really correct and can be countered with actual science, which is outlined within the article. Mercury is clearly a big concern.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there no studies demonstrating that mercury is safe to inject into a child? Why has it simply been presumed safe? Why are there well over 100 studies showing that it's not safe to inject? What is going on here?

Most people probably aren’t surprised at the title of this headline. It’s become commonplace to hear about problems with pharmaceutical products, but when it comes to vaccines, many people are still unaware of the potential side effects. Much of the concern around vaccines has to do with the ingredients, many of which have been added to vaccines for multiple decades without any safety testing and have simply been presumed safe. This is easy for big pharma to do, given that they are often exempt from any responsibility or being held liable for someone who has a bad reaction to their product. They are protected, which allows them to be careless with their product.

This is why when I came across a clip of Anderson Cooper on CNN spreading false information, I thought it would be great to illustrate how false news, an anchor speaking about a topic without providing any sources, can easily be believed by the masses and taken as fact. The person he is interviewing is not really equipped to respond or reply appropriately.

Sure, it’s from 2015, but it’s still very relevant today.

It’s strange how anybody even has mainstream media ‘on’ these days. Relying on your T.V. for information is ironically why so many people become misinformed, as it’s best to do your own independent research. Given the amount of traffic alternative media sites have received over the past ten years, it’s quite clear that people are looking for other sources of information. Many eyes have veered away from mainstream media and into alternative media outlets, which shows we’ve come a long way.

If you want to look for alternative media and other sources of information,  it’s unfortunately becoming more and more difficult. The corporate/financial elite recognized the rise in alternative news, and as a result they’ve put in place a ‘ministry of truth’ (Orwell, 1984) to determine what information is fake and what information is real.  For example, News browser extension NewsGuard promises to help readers pick out fake news, and it’s funded and run by individuals tied to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Atlantic Council and other prominent elite groups. You can read more about that in detail here.

This is terrible. People should be allowed to decide for themselves what is real and what is not, and they should be allowed to examine the sources used and utilize their own brains.

advertisement - learn more

It seems that these people, whoever they are, want to do our thinking for us.

William Arkin, a well-known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, has gone public outing NBC/MSNBC as government run agencies. You can read more about that hereHere you can access declassified documents and read more about mainstream media’s connection to intelligence agencies and how they influence mainstream media and even academia. Here are 50 facts about the CIA and mainstream media, and here is a clip of an award winning mainstream media journalist telling us the same thing.

As James F. Tracy, a former professor of communications at Florida Atlantic University, emphasizes:

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

When it comes to Anderson Cooper, some have speculated he is working directly for US intelligence agencies. Even if a mainstream anchor is unaware of this, and is employed by the network, they are ‘loosely’ employed by intelligence agencies, outlined by the documents/articles linked above. It’s easy to see why many would think this of Anderson Cooper, especially since he was an  intern at the CIA while completing his undergrad at Yale University. Furthermore, his uncle, William Henry Vanderbilt III, was an Executive Officer of the Special Operations Branch of the OSS under the spy organization’s founder, William “Wild Bill” Donovan.  He also reached the rank of captain in the navy during WW2. (Source)

All of the information above is important to consider when you’re examining mainstream media. It makes it more understandable why they lie so much, and why they are fighting hard to shut down the voices of any opposition.

You can watch the full clip below.

A proper response to Anderson’s comments

Can you tell me the name of any of these scientists who claim this because they go against, what, every study? I mean the CDC says this, Institutes of Health, all these studies say you’re just wrong.

This was Anderson’s response to the comment by former U.S. Congressman Dan Burton regarding mercury in vaccines.

What Anderson says is a complete lie, as his claim that mercury in vaccines is dangerous does not go against “every study.”

In fact, his logic is completely backwards, because there is actually not one study showing that it’s safe to inject mercury into people, let alone little infants whose organs haven’t fully developed yet.  Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, it shouldn’t be a debate, yet it’s presented as one on mainstream media. As a result of this kind of presentation, it becomes a debatable topic within the mainstream, inside of homes, etc. This is pure brainwashing that’s occurring by utilizing false statements that everybody seems to take at face value.

Modern-day scientists have been amassing evidence of mercury’s toxicity for decades, with a growing focus in recent years on the metal’s association with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A new review in the multidisciplinary journal Environmental Research pulls together a wide body of literature with the aim of summing up current research and emerging trends in mercury toxicology. Geir Bjørklund, the study’s lead author, is the founder of Norway’s non-profit Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and has published prolifically on topics related to heavy metals, autoimmune disorders and ASD. – Robert F Kennedy Jr.

A couple of years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Junior and Robert DiNero actually offered a $100,000 reward for any scientist, journalist or doctor who could present one paper or proof that mercury is safe to inject into children. At that conference, they brought more than 100 peer-reviewed studies showing how it isn’t.

A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International points out what all of these other studies did as well:

 “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.” (source)

Anderson then comments:

Well, are you against breast-feeding?  But you are aware that Methylmercury is actually in breast milk that’s given to children. If a child is only breastfed, they get more methylmercury then they would have ever gotten in any of the vaccines.

Just because there are other sources of mercury due to environmental pollution, like breastmilk, does not justify having mercury inside of vaccines. Mercury exposure comes from multiple areas, not just vaccines, because it’s presence in our environment is abundant as a result of multiple industries, not jut pharmaceutical. Mercury and heavy metal contamination are huge problems that cause a variety of diseases, but if mercury was banned from our environment, a lot of big industries would lose billions of dollars. I believe that the same powers behind our medications are the same ones spraying our food and using other methods to keep us sick to drive their profits up.

Furthermore, injecting heavy metals is far different than taking them in via other sources, like our food for example. This has been shown by numerous studies regarding aluminum, which is also present in multiple vaccines. Scientists discovered using animal models that injected aluminum does not come into the same method of excretion as the aluminum we take into our bodies via food or deodorant. Injected aluminum is picked up by macrophages (white blood cells) and transported to distant organs and the brain, where it can still be detected years after injection.

You can access those studies regarding injectable aluminum in the article linked below:

Brain Imaging Shows Autistic Brains Contain High Amounts of Aluminum

The truth is that there hasn’t been an appropriate study that actually looks at the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients and where they go in our body, including mercury.

This interview was a joke, and it unfortunately featured two people who were both ill-equipped to discuss the topic of vaccines. There are thousands of scientists and publications they could have used or cited, yet all we get is a massive ridicule campaign combined with the heavy marketing of vaccines instead.

Anderson also mentions organizations like the CDC and FDA, or regulatory agencies that approve our medications. These are very corrupt organizations, with dozens of examples showing their ties to big pharma.

The idea that vaccines aren’t entirely safe gained a lot of attention when one of the lead authors of a 2004 study came forward. His name is Dr. William Thompson, a senior researcher at the CDC who co-authored one of the most widely cited studies to debunk any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study allegedly found:

“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”(source)

10 years later, he countered the original study, arguing:

“The [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.” (source)

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize how mainstream media can easily influence us and perpetuate a completely false idea with absolutely no evidence to back it up. As a result, “monkey see monkey do” happens, as the rhetoric is then repeated and believed by those who watch it and it becomes the dominating opinion. This type of ‘fake news’ is also pushed hard by pharmaceutical companies, as they’ve completely taken over medical education. This is why you see so many doctors lacking knowledge in areas you’d assume they’d be experts in.

Think for yourselves.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.