Connect with us

Alternative News

The History Channel’s America’s War On Drugs: How Accurate Was This Docu-Series?

Published

on

For a long time, the truth about the war on drugs was only known by high-level politicians and “conspiracy theorists,” as many people couldn’t fathom the idea that the U.S. government, which claimed to be “against drugs,” was the very institution facilitating the drug trade. Nevertheless, over the years, more of the truth behind this propaganda campaign has come to light, allowing society to further understand the role the government plays in drug trafficking and how that relates to the prison system and other aspects of society.

advertisement - learn more

Now, America’s war on drugs is finally starting to be addressed in the mainstream. Last year, the Netflix documentary 13th was released, which discussed the link the war on drugs has to the prison system and the mass incarceration of black people (you can read about this here). Last week, the History Channel released a four-part docu-series titled America’s War on Drugs, highlighting some of the key elements of this propaganda campaign.

It’s truly inspiring to see mainstream media (MSM) finally address what was once considered a conspiracy theory. The term “conspiracy theory” was actually created by CIA “media assets,” as evidenced in the design laid out by “Document 1035-960: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,” a report issued in early 1967 to Agency bureaus all over the world. The government strategically introduced that term in order to cast doubt upon the public and influence the narrative.

So many people blatantly cast off different topics, deeming them “conspiracy theories” without ever actually looking into them. This is precisely why the CIA introduced this term in the first place, to encourage the public to cast doubt upon subjects that seemed too corrupt or disturbing to be true, favouring government programs like MK Ultra and propaganda campaigns like the war on terror and the war on drugs.

At this point, there are so many government documents, whistleblowers, and high-level politicians and government employees who have exposed the war on drugs that MSM can no longer deny it. The History Channel’s special about the war on drugs was surprisingly informative, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the topic, and ultimately seemed to be a step in the right direction toward increased transparency and disclosure. However, the docu-series (unsurprisingly) left some elements of the war on drugs out.

Background Information: What is the “War on Drugs”?

The war on drugs was a propaganda campaign that was created by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971. Disguised as a tactic to decrease drug usage across the nation, it was actually a strategy to incarcerate people by the masses, particularly black citizens. Even the elite were in on this plan, as some of the regulations that helped mass incarcerate people became known as the “Rockefeller drug laws.” Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S. prison population increased from around 300K to 500K.

advertisement - learn more

John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s former Domestic Policy Chief, explained:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

Ronald Reagan’s era was no different, as police continued to arrest people by the masses for minor crimes, and the U.S. prison population grew to 700K in 1985 and reached approximately 1.2 million by 1990. With the rise of the Clintons, the situation worsened significantly. Bill implemented the “three strikes” rule, whereby an individual, once convicted of three crimes, would go to jail for life. At around the same time, Hillary Clinton coined the term “super-predators,” a racially-coded word for black criminals.

By 2000, the U.S. prison population had almost doubled, skyrocketing to over 2 million. By the time Bill Clinton left the Oval Office in 2001, the U.S. had the highest incarceration rate in the world. Despite the fact that Bill has apologized for playing a substantial role in mass incarcerating Americans, he recently exposed his true colours by defending his and his wife’s actions. This was briefly addressed in the docu-series, mentioning the effect that the three-strike rule had on hippies and black people, but ultimately did not go deep enough into it to truly understand the gravity of the situation.

The irony of all of this is that the U.S. government and many corporations were benefiting heavily from the rise in drug usage in the U.S. because they were the very institutions perpetuating this system. The CIA was actually one of the most prominent drug traffickers/dealers in the world, and they were ultimately to blame for the rise in heroin, LSD/acid, and many other drugs.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was even created in part to increase drug trafficking. When the volume of trade increased, it got easier for cartels and the CIA to traffic drugs across the border because U.S. border control wasn’t able to perform searches as thoroughly as they could before. The History Channel actually did a wonderful job of explaining this and criminalizing the CIA, highlighting its role as one of the most powerful drug dealers in history.

The CIA is no stranger to money laundering, performing dangerous tests on unwilling patients, and even committing murder over drugs. Two of the drugs the CIA had focused on for decades were LSD, through a CIA-sanctioned program called MK Ultra, as well as heroin, which is created using opium. Though the History Channel did accurately portray parts of the CIA’s role in mass distributing both of these drugs, they left key elements of these programs out.

What Did the Docu-Series Leave Out Regarding LSD/MK Ultra?

The CIA designed LSD with a Swiss manufacturer as part of the MK Ultra program in hopes that they could force people to take it and convince them to do unspeakable acts, all of which they’d forget the following morning, once the drugs wore off. Testing started with unwilling participants being lured into a hotel room by prostitutes, who would then slip the drugs into their drinks. A CIA agent would then watch the test subjects as they tripped out behind a wall of the hotel room.

The particular project within MK Ultra that the prostitutes were involved with was called Midnight Climax. This eventually turned into full-blown brothels in the U.S. run by the CIA, whereby the women working there would lure men into them, but instead of receiving sexual favours, were unknowingly drugged and then observed by CIA agents.

The CIA then started to test willing patients in lab settings, observing their reactions to LSD and asking them questions. To their disappointment, instead of helping them control their patients’ minds, LSD actually freed their minds. Despite the propaganda campaign on the war on drugs, whereby the government was telling people they were against all drug use, it was the government who brought LSD over and put it in the hands of the public. This was actually very well documented by the History Channel, which is remarkable given that MK Ultra was one of, if not the, most corrupt program in the history of the U.S. government.

However, the History Channel left out a lot regarding MK Ultra and the role that drugs had on its participants. The History Channel made it seem like the test subjects were tripping out on LSD peacefully, as doctors observed them and asked them questions. In reality, “The drug program was part of a much larger CIA program to study possible means for controlling human behaviour. Other studies explored the effects of radiation, electric-shock, psychology, psychiatry, sociology and harassment substances,” as a 1975 document addressed to the President stated.

Many of the participants were unwilling adults and children, subjected to different methods of sexual abuse and physical abuse including intense electroshock therapy and sensory deprivation. What these victims were forced to endure was cruel and inhumane, and many of the participants didn’t just walk away unaffected like the History Channel made it seem. Many victims are still under mind control today or are still suffering the effects from the experiments, and some people were severely injured or died. You can read more about what the History Channel failed to disclose regarding this subject in a CE article I wrote here.

What Did the Docu-Series Leave Out Regarding Opium & 9/11?

The CIA actually owned and operated a covert drug smuggling airline, referred to as Air Americawhich was used to transport numerous goods, including heroin. In Southeast Asia (SEA), during the Vietnam War, the CIA worked alongside Laotian general Vang Pao in an effort to help make Laos the world’s largest exporter of heroin. The CIA then flew drugs all over SEA, allowing the Golden Triangle (parts of Burma, Thailand, and Laos) to become the world hub for heroin.

Agents from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs managed to seize an Air America aircraft that contained large amounts of heroin, but the CIA ordered the agents to release the plane and halt any further investigations.

The CIA wasn’t just involved with the transportation of the drugs, however. The heroin was refined in a laboratory built at the CIA headquarters in Northern Laos. After about a decade of U.S. military intervention, SEA represented 70% of the world’s opium supplier. Unfortunately, many of the operatives became addicted to the heroin themselves. At the same time, SEA also became the main supplier of raw materials for the U.S. heroin industry. Though Air America apparently stopped operations in 1976, the CIA’s involvement in the opium and heroin industries continued in other parts of the world.

This is where the History Channel’s explanation of the CIA’s role in the heroin industry got a little blurry. Thus far, the series had been fairly transparent in its explanation of Air America and the CIA’s operations in Laos, but when it came to the next world leader of heroin, Afghanistan, the series sort of fell short. Yes, it did address the war on terror and how the opium trade only increased since the U.S. government invaded Afghanistan, but it didn’t discuss the why.

This is where the opium trade involves false-flag terrorism, specifically 9/11, so it’s no surprise that the History Channel didn’t discuss the truth behind 9/11 and how that related to the war on drugs. It’s interesting because it did discuss the war on terror and how it intertwined with the war on drugs, almost encouraging viewers to look deeper into the motives that the U.S. government had for 9/11.

Let’s start with a brief history of the opium production and trade in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, CIA-supported Moujahedeen rebels were heavily involved in drug trafficking heroin. The CIA supplied trucks and mules, which were used to transport opium. In addition, many of the individuals trafficking the drugs in Afghanistan were actually trained, armed, and funded by the CIA at the time.

Opium production came to a gradual halt thanks to Taliban rule. By 2000, the Taliban had completely banned opium production, practically eradicating 90% of the world’s heroin. The following UN diagram outlines the history of opium production in Afghanistan:

After 9/11 occurred and the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, opium production suddenly skyrocketed. There have been tons of photos of U.S. soldiers guarding the opium fields, yet today, more than a decade later, they still have not destroyed them (view some of the photos here). The CIA is no stranger to drug trafficking, so it’s possible they saw this as an opportunity to commit a false flag terrorist attack (9/11) in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan so they could take over the opium drug trade. The motive would make sense, as the American war on drugs was still raging in 2001.

To read more about the 9/11 link to the opium trade and the CIA’s involvement in the heroin industry, read this CE article I wrote here.

What Was Left Out Regarding Corporate Involvement?

By the fourth and final episode of the docu-series, the show discussed Big Pharma’s involvement with fuelling the war on drugs. It was actually refreshing to see the History Channel paint a picture of Big Pharma in a more accurate light than what we often see on American television. The series referred to pharmaceutical drugs as the “elephant in the room” that’s “silently killing” thousands of Americans.

In case you didn’t know, prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death in America, as stated by Harvard University. Many Americans are completely unaware that new prescription drugs have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious reactions, even after being approved by the FDA. Approximately 1.9 million people are hospitalized annually due to properly prescribed medication (not including any overdoses, self-prescriptions, or mis-prescribing) and 128,000 people die every year in the U.S. from drugs prescribed to them.

Doctors are paid by Big Pharma to prescribe drugs (and you can actually see how much your personal doctor makes here), Big Pharma heavily lobbies the government, and the U.S. is one of the only countries that’s allowed to advertise for pharmaceutical drugs. Countless issues surrounding misinformation and propaganda through these advertisements have arisen, yet the U.S. government allows this to occur and rarely steps in. All of these actions taken by Big Pharma are motivated by profit and have directly contributed to the war on drugs, as these companies secretly drug more and more Americans.

The docu-series expressed many of these issues in the documentary, but didn’t necessarily highlight the true gravity of the situation as they mostly focused on the overly prescribed oxycodone/opium epidemic. Big Pharma is not looking to heal you, but rather profit off you. It makes sense that these drugs have adverse side effects, because they benefit from your illnesses. It’s not just opiates, it’s practically all drugs, even those that are prescribed to children (read more about that here).

However, Big Pharma isn’t the only industry that profited off the war on drugs. Many corporations reap the benefits from the privatization of prisons, particularly thanks to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), a private special interests group of politicians and corporations. ALEC often plays a significant role in influencing, and in some cases even writing, laws.

Some of the legislation ALEC helped develop supports harsher and longer prison sentences as well as the privatization of prisons. It’s important to note that one of the organizations that funds ALEC is Corrections Corporations of America (CCA), which means that the more bodies that are in prisons, the more CCA profits, and thus the more money ALEC gets.

The American Bail Coalition (ABC), an organization that profits from the privatization of bail, also holds close ties to ALEC. ABC was one of the few corporations that actually stayed with ALEC after their involvement in creating the Stand Your Ground law in Florida came to the spotlight. This law was particularly controversial because it essentially allowed George Zimmerman to get away with stalking and murdering a black teenager, Trayvon Martin.

The entire U.S. prison industrial complex is a money-making machine, producing a grand total of $80 billion per year. Many corporations also profit from prison labour, which could reasonably be considered slave labour in North America, as some prisoners are paid as little as 12 cents an hour for their services. Examples of corporations that “employ” prisoners and pay them practically nothing include Victoria’s Secret and Walmart.

ALEC and the corporations that profit off the prison system were never mentioned in the History Channel’s docu-series, despite being directly correlated to the war on drugs. You can read more about ALEC here.

Final Thoughts

All in all, the History Channel’s America’s War on Drugs is a great place to start in your research of this propaganda campaign. They actually covered a lot of grounds for only a four-part series, and much of the content was probably honest enough to upset the powers that be.

However, it’s interesting to note that the History Channel is owned by A&E, which is in turn owned by Disney. Disney is one of the six corporations that control over 90% of the media, and so the motive behind this type of transparency is questionable. This could be the government and the elite’s way of informing the public of their past wrongdoings, maybe things just got so bad that they could no longer hide it from the public, or perhaps they’re just giving viewers a drip of information in order to keep the truth at bay.

Either way, this is a step in the right direction and hopefully this docu-series and this article inspire people to look further into this subject!

 

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.