Connect with us

Alternative News

The “Poison Papers”: New Documents Expose Monsanto, The EPA & More. We’ve Been Lied To

Published

on

The Environmental Protection Agency’s mission statement reads: “to protect human health and the environment.” Ironically, while the EPA has done some strong work in the past, the agency has also helped corporations destroy the environment and threaten human health through pesticide usage and adding neurotoxins to our drinking water. These are only two of many examples of the EPA doing an inadequate job of protecting human health and the environment.

advertisement - learn more

The EPA is known to hold strong ties to oil, gas, and chemical corporations, enforcing extremely lenient regulations that allow these companies to profit at the expense of our health and the environment. The Bioscience Resource Project and The Center for Media and Democracy recently teamed up to expose some of this corruption by publishing the Poison Papers, which contains thousands upon thousands of EPA, government, and chemical company documents.

What Are the Poison Papers?

Poison Papers is a project created by The Bioscience Resource Project and The Center for Media and Democracy in a joint effort to expose any corruption within the EPA or chemical companies that somehow evade or bend U.S. laws.

The organizations describe the project as follows:

The “Poison Papers” represent a vast trove of rediscovered chemical industry and regulatory agency documents and correspondence stretching back to the 1920sTaken as a whole, the papers show that both industry and regulators understood the extraordinary toxicity of many chemical products and worked together to conceal this information from the public and the press. 

Recommended Book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

advertisement - learn more

So, what did the Poison Papers reveal?

This document exposes countless health issues allegedly caused by certain pesticides, like Tordon and Roundup, including many cases of cancer following the use of Tordon, and even speculates that there was a huge cover-up regarding how many people had cancer as a result of chemical exposure. Despite the overwhelming number of health issues reported, the EPA released a statement explaining that there were no health concerns related to Tordon or its active ingredient, picloram.

Another document was a letter written by Dr. Jack Griffith, a former EPA scientist, discussing the dangers of 2,4,5-T and a controversial experiment in Oregon. After being sprayed widely in Oregon, there was an extreme increase in the number of involuntary abortions. Chemical giant Dow tried to argue this, and the EPA scientist stated that their comments were “totally inaccurate.”

Another document from 1985 referred to TCDD, an extremely toxic contaminant in 2,4,5-T. The document is a transcript detailing how Monsanto allegedly sold a chemical high in TCDD to Lysol, which they then used in their disinfectant spray for an astonishing 23 years, despite the severe toxicity.

A Canadian House of Commons document from Ross Harvey, MP, further discussed Monsanto’s sale of the chemical Santophen-I to Lysol and addressed the fact that Monsanto found evidence of the toxicity of it and then suppressed that information.

There were also multiple documents outlining the relationship the EPA had to the pulp and paper industry; for example, here’s a letter addressed to the EPA from the VP of the American Paper Institute. You’d think that the studies conducted to determine whether or not companies are endangering us and the environment as a result of their chemical usage would be completely independent from said companies in question, but sadly, they’re often not.

In fact, another document from Greenpeace addressed the potential collusion between the pulp and paper industry and the EPA, referring to a federal judge ruling on an agreement between the EPA and the paper industry to “suppress, modify, or delay” studies on dioxin in relation to paper products and production processes.

Another document addressed to the U.S. House of Representatives reads, “since 1979, the EPA has acted to suppress and delay the validity and test results of a major human health study” in regards to the toxicity of dioxin.

Another document included a testimony from Monsanto’s Chief Medical Officer George Roush, who admitted under oath that Monsanto omitted pertinent information regarding the health effects of dioxin. The study found that 27 exposed workers got cancer, but these results were not included in the study. Roush stated that Monsanto “didn’t report truthfully.”

Please keep in mind that these are only a small fraction from the Poison Papers, as there are thousands upon thousands of documents, which you can read through here.

Final Thoughts

Companies like Monsanto, which make vast sums of money off of these chemicals, have a strong incentive to ensure that people feel safe when using or consuming them. It’s important to remember this when looking at where your information is coming from or who funds these studies.

I would highly recommend reading through some of these documents, as the EPA’s connection to many industries that contribute to the destruction of the environment runs deep. It’s important to note that the Poison Papers weren’t the first publication to address EPA corruption and collusion, and unfortunately they likely won’t be the last!

For example, another court case addressed the EPA’s ties to Monsanto, which involved bending laws and lying about the environmental and health issues involved with the company’s products (GMOs, herbicide Round Up, etc.). You can read more about that here, but please note that this was not the first time the EPA was accused of aiding Monsanto.

The best way for you to change this reality is to educate yourself and be the change you wish to see in the world. Start researching so you can understand the scope of these issues and make more informed decisions as a consumer. If you don’t like the way we’re treating the environment, then don’t contribute to it. We vote with our dollars and our words. Support companies you believe have strong values and educate other people on what you learn.

Together, we can create positive change in this world through education and action!

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

NASA Happily Reports The Earth Is Greener, With More Trees Than 20 Years Ago Thanks To China & India

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Thanks to China and India, human-induced 'greening' has increased by 5% across the earth!

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we only getting the 'bad news' stories about the climate all the time? Is it politically convenient? Does it fit narratives? Is it always true? Are we only being told one side? Are we meant to remain in fear?

Amidst the climate alarmism that is sometimes misplaced, there are stories that paint a different picture.

Like the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%.

Or the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty. As one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

How about the findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed?

Or the fact that Polar Bear populations are increasing?

According to data collected by the federal government, polar bears along the entire west coast of Baffin Island are ‘stable.’ On the southeastern side of the island (around the Nunavut capital of Iqaluit) polar bears have even experienced a ‘likely increase.’ It’s only on the island’s northeastern corner — in a management area that meets Greenland — that polar bears are suspected to be in decline.”

advertisement - learn more

And here, the topic of this article, our world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago according to data from NASA satellites.  The cause of the greenery? Human-induced activity in China and India.

My point in all I wrote above is what we hear in the media is typically only one side of the picture, and it does not give us an accurate representation of what’s going on. For years now, we have been reporting on environmental issues from a grounded perspective here at CE. Looking at data, looking beyond the politics and simply at what’s happening. This approach shows you things are troubling in certain areas like pollution, air quality, EMF exposure and so forth, but the number one climate story we always hear about, C02 warming the atmosphere, simply does not hold water from the perspectives of many scientists and it hasn’t for the 10 years we have been reporting on it.

I recall a conversation I had with Gregg Braden where we were discussing research about the climate and what the data is TRULY showing. Amidst all the C02 alarmism I asked “Gregg… it appears to me that it’s more likely we’re headed into a global cooling period than a warming period.” He responded with “that’s precisely what the data shows, and it appears humanity is suffering from amnesia when it comes to the cycles of climate.”

The bottom line is, the majority don’t know the truth and the news is actually a lot better than what we’re being told. The challenge is, it’s more beneficial for power structures and business to keep us in fear.

Related CE Article: A “Little Ice Age” Is Where We Are Heading, According To Multiple Scientists

5 Facts About Climate Change Shared By An Actual Climate Scientist

Study – The Greening Is Human Induced

NASA’s study will come as a surprise to many as we have not been told a balanced perspective on what’s going on with our climate for some time. To reiterate, yes, there are challenges we need to address, mainly pollution of water, land, air and the issues of animal agriculture.

The countries with the world’s biggest populations, China and India, are leading the improvement of ‘greening’ Earth’s land. In 2017 alone, India broke its own world record for the most trees planted after volunteers gathered together to plant 66 million saplings in just 12 hours! This is how fast change can happen!

In the mid 1990s, satellite data began to paint a greener picture, leading to the question as to whether or not human activity was actually helping to green the planet.

After 20 years of data collection from a NASA instrument orbiting the Earth on two satellites called the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), we know that Earth’s green coverage has increased by 5% over the last two decades. This works out to an extra two million square miles.

“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9% of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation – a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation,” said Chi Chen of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University and lead author of the study.

MODIS has captured as many as four shots of every place on Earth, every day for the last 20 years.

“This long-term data lets us dig deeper,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center and a co-author of the new work. “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to more leaf growth in northern forests, for instance. Now, with the MODIS data that lets us understand the phenomenon at really small scales, we see that humans are also contributing.”

Although all of the planting in China and India does not entirely make up for the damage we’re seeing through the clear cutting in Brazil and Indonesia, a good message still emerges here. When we recognize there is an issue, we tend to do something about it.

“Once people realize there’s a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 70s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss wasn’t good; in the 90s, people realized it; and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”

 The Takeaway

Yes, we are still clear-cutting in ways we should be reflecting on, but this is happening due to a state of global consciousness that puts profits first. From this state of consciousness, we also give power to the government, put responsibility on others, blindly trust government and don’t see ourselves as part of a global community.

When the reference above points to ‘not being totally out of the weeds yet’ this is in reference to the belief that C02 is having a detrimental warming effect, which as we discussed, remains unfounded.

Remaining in a balanced heart centred state of being, we are better equipped to navigate information from a non-emotional state. When we get caught up in alarmism and panic, we tend not to see things clearly. The CE Protocol, that we have been sharing for a while now, was designed to help people not only navigate information but shift their perspective and consciousness such that we can change our world and take action from a NEW state of consciousness instead of the old.

We highly recommend checking it out here.

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

Doctor Explains How The HPV Vaccine Is Linked To A Rise In Cervical Cancer Rates

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cervical cancer rates in several countries have risen since the introduction of the HPV vaccine, and pap smear tests have dropped. When pap smear tests were routinely conducted, cancer rates remained low.

  • Reflect On:

    After reading the article, is it really worth it? It doesn't make much sense, so why is it so heavily marketed?

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This  Titanic demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.

The above quotation comes from the research of Dr. Nicole Delepine, a surgeon and Oncologist from France. It’s not really a surprise, as a fairly recent study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlined 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.

Apart from finding an increased rate in cervical cancer since the introduction of the HPV vaccine, she also discovered a “spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer. In all of the countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a ‘significant’ decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.”

A Pap smear, also called a Pap test, is a screening procedure for cervical cancer. It tests for the presence of precancerous or cancerous cells on the cervix.

advertisement - learn more

In less than 20 years, the percentage of incidences of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from 13.5 to 9.4 in Great Britain, 13.5 to 7 in Australia, 11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden, 15.1 to 11 in Norway,  10.7 to 6.67 in the USA, and 11 to 7.1 in France as a result of pap smear tests, we are seeing the opposite with the vaccine.  Out of all countries across the globe that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007. (1,2,3,4,5) 

A similar trend was reported by Sweden’s Center for Cervical Cancer prevention. In 2007, they reported that incidences of invasive cervical cancer are climbing in nearly all countries. Over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, for example, there was a steep 20 percent increase. (source)

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, thanks to a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, incidences of cervical cancer have increased steadily since vaccinations started, from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012, and 11.49 in 2015. (source)

This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled ( from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001) and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01) – Dr. Delepine

On April 30th of 2018, a study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics suggested that the HPV vaccine may actually be causing cervical cancer in some women rather than preventing it. According to the editors of the journal, “the issues raised by it [the study] are important and discussion on it is in the public interest.

That last point there is so important: “discussion on it is in the public interest.” Any type of discussion regarding heavily marketed medication is extremely important, and it’s highly concerning when there is a large attempt to ridicule or prevent such a discussion from taking place.

The study was retracted, but remains accessible on the journal’s site.

As editors, we are wary of the extreme ideological divide that views discussions on vaccines as either “pro” or “anti”. In low and middle-income countries like India, where early HPV infection and incidence of carcinoma cervix are relatively high, scientific discussion and resolution of issues concerning the HPV vaccine is critical, for women receiving it, and for policy making on its introduction in the universal immunisation programme. We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies. (source)

Gardasil’s prevention failure has essentially erased the perceived benefits of the Pap smear, which is accelerating the onset of cervical cancer, according to Delepine. She points out how, in all of the countries who have implemented large HPV vaccination programs, there’s been a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers within the most vaccinated populations.

Delepine uses some “official sources” to make her point more clear.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013). According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014) the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appears by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8 ,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard. (source)

She goes on to emphasize how non-vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with a Pap smear.

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly: less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

In 2016, national statistics from the UK showed a significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer.

Women aged between 20 and 25 years, vaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30,  (aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign)  have seen their cancer risk increase by 10. (source)

From their inception, the two HPV vaccines (Merck’s Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix) have been aggressively marketed, with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly through the use of inappropriate placebos. It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus’ fraudulent evidence. Recent letters published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) have brought forward some stark numbers that illustrate the vaccine’s appalling record: A seriously adverse event rate of 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated (14 per 10,000) that far exceeds the risk of dying from cervical cancer which is 0.23 per 10,000 (BMJ letter, May 2018).

Reports to the World Health Organization’s global adverse drug reactions database—conservatively estimated to represent 10% of actual reactions—show over 305,000 adverse reactions where the HPV vaccine “is believed to have been the cause,” including 445 deaths (23 of which were sudden) and over 1,000 cancerous tumors (including 168 cervical cancers), among other serious reactions (BMJ letter, December 2017).

“A healthy 16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”

Researchers at the Uppsala Monitoring Center in Sweden have described how easy it is for risks to “escape epidemiological detection.” The implications, according to this group, are that “case reports and case series can no longer be discarded simply as ‘anecdotes’ or ‘coincidence,’ and their contribution to the evidence base should not be ‘trumped’ by the findings of an epidemiological study.” The bottom line is that a corrupt vaccine approval process should not be allowed to sacrifice young women on the altar of industry profits.

How effective is the HPV vaccine? How necessary is it? These are important questions to ask, especially when they are marketed as ‘completely  safe’ and ‘necessary’ by big pharmaceutical companies. Why do we believe them? Why is it that one who questions the administration of any type of vaccine these days are instantaneously vilified and sometimes even shut down from having any type of real dialogue? Why are health professionals and university professors losing their jobs simply for questioning such medicines? Numerous publications emerge every year in reputable scientific/medical journals questioning the safety of vaccines, providing some very startling yet important information. Not only that, but scientists around the world are meeting every single year to discuss these concerns as well. For example, take aluminum, which is found inside of the Gardasil vaccine.

Prior to a few years ago, the bioaccumulation of aluminum, among several other vaccine ingredients, was completely unknown. Aluminum has been added into vaccines for more than one hundreds years and has simply been presumed to be safe without any safety testing actually being done. In fact, it was recently discovered that injected aluminum does not exit the body like the aluminum that’s found in our food. It’s carried by macrophages (white blood cells) and transported into our organs, eventually ending up in the brain, where it can be detected up to one year later. After these animal model studies were completed in 2017, scientists opened up the brains of multiple autistic people and found some of the highest brain aluminum content ever found in human brain tissue. You can access those studies and read more about them here.

Aluminum, just like several other vaccine ingredients (MSG, aborted human fetal cells, etc.) have been added into vaccines for more than 100 years, yet they’ve been presumed save. Only recently have scientists begun looking to see what actually happens to these ingredients when they are injected into the body.

When it comes to the HPV vaccine, is it really necessary? There is a very small percentage of women who will contract an HPV infection throughout their lifetime, and 95 percent of these women who do get an HPV infection will clear it by themselves within a couple of years, you don’t even have to detect it. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately half of those women will develop pre-cancerous lesions, which could then take decades to develop into cancerous lesions. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine only provides 5-10 years of immunity, and girls (and boys) are injected with it at approximately 12 years old. How likely is it that a child will develop an HPV infection between the ages of 12 and 17? To further my point, there are thousands of girls who have experienced severe adverse reactions and death as a result of the HPV vaccine. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) has paid approximately $4 billion to families with vaccine-injured children. These adverse reactions are the reason why the Japanese government suspended its recommendation and endorsement of the HPV vaccine. Keep in mind that these injuries only take into account 1 percent of vaccine-injured children as well, seeing as how 99 percent of them go completely unreported. (source)

However, things are changing, especially as more doctors choose to independently educate themselves. For example, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. Researchers used a national survey, asking approximately 600 doctors to outline their stance on the HPV vaccine. Conducted between October 2013 and January 2014, the study found that a large percentage of paediatricians and family doctors — nearly one third of those surveyed — are not strongly recommending the HPV vaccine to parents and preteens, which is why HPV vaccination rates continue to drop.

Not only do we have scientific studies and adverse reactions as justifiable reasons for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children with Gardasil, but we have scientific fraud as well.

Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made vaccines or toxic chemicals in our food or in our water know the power of these industries and how they’ve undermined every institution in our democracy that is supposed to protect little children from powerful, greedy corporations. Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The quote above comes from a video embedded in this article I published not long ago:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains How Big Pharma Completely Owns Congress

Back to the vaccine injuries. When it comes to the HPV vaccine, there are thousands of examples to choose from.

“When one looks at the independent literature, so studies that are not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers, so with relation to Gardasil there have been several reports documenting multiple sclerosis and encephalitis, which is brain inflammation, in girls who have received their Gardasil vaccine, so, just because a study sponsored by the manufacturers does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean the vaccine is safe. In fact if one looks at the manufacturer studies, they’re often not designed to detect serious adverse events. There was a study done by a group of researchers sponsored by Glaxo Smith and Kline and they were looking at Cervarix, which is another HPV vaccine, and the authors acknowledged that none of the studies that they evaluated have been designed to detect autoimmune diseases. So obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for. And in spite of these obvious flaws, they concluded that there is no evidence that Cervarix is associated with increased risk for autoimmune diseases, and this is absurd because you haven’t looked for it, the study has not been designed to detect autoimmune diseases.” – Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in Neurosciences and the Department of Medicine (source)

Above is a great point. “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” (PMID: 28188123) This is quite the statement, and it highlights something many people don’t consider very often about vaccines. All vaccines are approved using science from their manufacturers. They only look to see how effective it is for the target disease, and nothing else. If they did look for other things, there would be no chance that they could sell them, market them, and make the amount of money they do on these products. These big pharma companies also own our federal regulatory agencies. Put two and two together and things become quite clear.

The latest example to make noise regarding HPV vaccine injury is Jennifer Robi, a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation.

Jennifer’s attorney, Sol Ajalat, initially brought her case in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and then, following a judgment in the program, elected to proceed in civil court. Since VICA (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act) forbids recoveries for product defect or negligence, Ajalat brought Jennifer’s civil case under the theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and inflated the benefits of the vaccine.

You can read more about that story here.

Another example I’ve written of in the past is of a boy named Colton.  Below is a clip from the recently released film, Vaxxed, of Colton and his mother Kathleen who share his story of vaccine injury following the Gardasil vaccine with the Vaxxed team in Oren. Another story that will hopefully spark more questions and dialogue within the mainstream medical community. Unfortunately, Colton was unable to cope with his injuries and recently took his own life.

The Takeaway

Vaccines used to be touted as God’s gift to humanity, being marketed as completely safe and as life savers for everybody. They’re still marketed that way, but vaccination rates are dropping as more and more parents are becoming aware of the research that doesn’t really get any public attention. And yes, it’s ‘peer reviewed’ published research by hundreds of scientists all over the world, and the hits just keep on coming. This narrative, although labelled as ‘anti-vax,’ is simply due to the fact that vaccines are not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and we still have a long ways to go when the mainstream makes it seem criminal when you simply ask questions. Many people still react with anger and emotion, and are still unwilling to examine or even look at the evidence.  That being said, people are actually doing their own research and thinking for themselves. It’s become very difficult to rely on health professionals given the fact that they rely largely on pharmaceutical companies’ research. Doctors actually don’t know much about vaccines, let alone what’s in them, and they seem to only know how they work. This is very concerning. The interest and concern over vaccinations is evident to us here at CE, and our vaccine articles alone have amassed well over one hundred million views.

Sources Used:

[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <Http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in

England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018 .

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous , for girls and boys.

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

Congress Told Publicly They Don’t Have Security Clearance To See Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It has been acknowledged in public hearings that there is a secret power that acts as a shadow government within the intelligence community that is able to withhold classified information from Congress in blatant defiance of the Constitution.

  • Reflect On:

    Is the dam about to burst on the shadow government in America? Is it the work of truth-seekers in the awakening community that is really pushing this out into the open?

If there are readers out there who have any remaining doubts about whether there is a shadow government in the United States that has long usurped and exercised power not authorized by the Constitution, this article will hopefully put those doubts to rest. Furthermore, while this shadow government has arranged for itself the highest levels of self-protection and secrecy possible, the truth of its existence and motives has trickled out slowly over the past couple decades. In recent times, a huge increase in the number and volume of leaks suggests that the dam may be ready to burst.

Given the fact that the ‘Hillary Clinton email scandal’ has not gone away and it appears that investigations into it will resume, a look at how prior investigations into the scandal were obfuscated will provide us with a window into the mechanism by which this shadow government operates. Prior to the 2016 election, it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had used a private, non-secured server to store emails that contained sensitive, classified information. By July 2016, at a Public Hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the matter (video below), it had already been determined that Hillary Clinton had ‘allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see’ the emails.

The Exposure Of Unconstitutional Authority

The Constitution of the United States of America grants the highest powers in the nation to the President and to Congress, as the elected representatives of the people. There are checks and balances in place to make sure that power is not being abused, one of which was brought forth in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, which established the ‘Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’:

In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community. The ICIG does so with integrity, professionalism, and independence. We conduct our mission free of external influence and provide objective assessments, findings, and conclusions, regardless of political or personal consequence.

In the discussion below, House Representative Jason Chaffetz asks Charles McCullough, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, to provide his committee with Hillary Clinton’s classified emails in order for this committee of Congress, the highest authority in the nation, to properly do their job of oversight.

Chaffetz: “Can you provided this committee, in a secure format, the classified emails?”

advertisement - learn more

McCullough: “I can to a certain extent. I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency… uhhh… that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those, so… They’re uh… characterizing them as ORCON.”

Chaffetz: “Explain what ORCON is.”

McCullough: “Originator Control.” “…uh, so I can’t… I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them…”

Chaffetz: “Which agency?”

McCullough: “I can’t say that here in an open hearing, sir.”

Chaffetz: “So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us as members of Congress to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see, that’s correct?”

Originator Control?

In this exchange, it is made clear by McCullough that Congress does not have authority over a certain government intelligence agency that the Inspector General dares not even name. This government agency claims ‘ownership’ of this classified information based on the concept of ‘Originator Control,’ which basically means that the agency has the power to limit and prevent  such information to be seen by the very bodies–the Inspector General and Congress–that are supposedly empowered to provide oversight of all their activities.

Please note that this is not a matter of ‘National Security,’ as it is a simple enough matter to make members of Congress aware of the need to keep information secret and have them ‘read in’ as it were. This was actually done with members of the ICIG staff, just so they could see the portion of those emails that the unnamed intelligence agency was actually willing to release.

However, the ‘elephant in the room’ at the hearing, made obvious by Rep. Jaffetz’ reaction to the answers he was hearing, is that this intelligence agency and the broader conspiracy of powers behind it have usurped Constitutional authority from Congress and have established the power to conceal information of their choosing from any oversight. In this particular case, it should be obvious that the only reason that this information is not being released to Congress is to protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution, since she is a well-entrenched member of this power and was set to do their bidding had she been elected President.

Clinton Allies Threaten The Inspector General

In the video below taken over a year later, we see what happens to someone like McCullough, who was simply trying to do his job of alerting Congress to the danger and violations involved in Hillary Clinton putting classified information on an unsecured server. Due to his resistance to the rhetoric of the Obama government, who tried to minimize the danger posed by Clinton’s actions, he was marginalized and even threatened:

Voiceover: As Election Day approached, McCullough says the threats went further, singling him out and another senior government email investigator.

Interviewer: You were given a warning?

McCullough: I was told that we would be the first two to be fired, with her administration, that that was definitely going to happen.

Interviewer: Is that how it’s supposed to be?

McCullough: No, I was in this context a whistleblower, I was explaining to Congress, I was doing exactly what they had expected me to do, and all of a sudden I was the enemy.

Voiceover: More than 2100 classified emails passed through Clinton’s personal server, and to this day, no one is accountable.

Interviewer: If you had done this, what would have happened to you?

McCullough: I’d be sitting in Leavenworth right now.

The second half of the video below has Tucker Carlson talking with former Clinton Campaign Advisor Richard Goodstein about the matter, and I believe it is illustrative of the type of public relations tactics that have been used by the Clinton campaign as an attempt to avert criminal charges: minimize claims, challenge even the most basic and obvious truths, flat out avoid answering questions, and change the subject to demonize Donald Trump.

The Takeaway

The layers of secret power within the shadow government, as McCullough suggests, have so far been able to prevent the prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her associates for this patently obvious criminal behavior. In fact, government committees who have the legal authority to investigate the matter appear to have neither the real power nor the ‘clearance’ to see the evidence they need to do their jobs.

The good news is, the veils of darkness and secrecy this shadow government has long been hiding under are lifting, and the growing awareness within the awakening community about the existence and nature of this ‘dark’ power will eventually lead to our emancipation from it the more we take our power away from it.

You can check out our CE protocol to dive into why understanding a bigger picture perspective of current events is key to changing our world.

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

 

The all-new CETV brings together the leading voices in the truth and consciousness realm to a single platform for the first time ever. 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.