Connect with us

Alternative News

Is Pope Francis The World’s Most Powerful Advocate For Environmental Stability?

Published

on

Maybe not now. But that’s what he could well become. Francis’ Encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home” recognizes the incredible damage being done to the climate and biodiversity. Few realize how strong his beliefs are and the unused power of persuasion he possesses. Here are 10 ways that power could be used.

advertisement - learn more

1. Francis could call for a renewed emphasis on abstaining from red meat on Fridays.

Francis unequivocally recognizes the need for environmental stability: “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. . . . A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” [23]

He gives no quarter to climate change deniers, writing, “Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.” [14]

Missing from Francis’ Encyclical is the massive scientific evidence that meat is probably the single most important contributor to greenhouse gases (GHGs). Meat production (beef, chicken, pork) produces more GHGs that either the transportation sector or all industrial processes.

Some believe that meat production could account for much more than the 18-20% of GHGs if other factors were taken into account, such as livestock respiration, medical care of livestock, full loss of land used for meat production, and packaging, refrigerating, cooking, and disposing of meat.

advertisement - learn more

Francis affirms the “urgent need to develop policies” to address climate change [26]. There is probably no better way to develop a policy to reduce GHGs than resurrecting the emphasis on meatless Fridays.

2. Francis could ask religious leaders throughout the world to consider a day without red meat.

This raises two big questions: Would a pope try to influence non-Catholics? and, Would non-Catholics pay attention to a Catholic tradition? Francis clearly understands that the extent of environmental crises goes beyond his own church when he says “I wish to address every person living on this planet” regarding “our common home.” [3]

In wondering about the potential response from non-Catholics, I recall going to elementary school in Houston during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. It was not a particularly tolerant time or place. The proportion of Catholics at my school was tiny – not more than 3-4%. When I asked my teacher why we had fish cakes every Friday, she said, “It’s because the Catholic kids aren’t supposed to eat meat on Fridays.” That seemed reasonable. And it was okay with everyone else. Not one kid ever challenged a school that was over 90% non-Catholic adjusting its meals to accommodate a meatless Friday.

Might non-Catholics of today move from a passive acceptance of meatless Fridays to actively participate in a joint effort to halt environmental devastation? Francis is hopeful when he says, “Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.” [7]

Millions of people are searching for ways to have a meaningful effect on the climate. Most individual behaviours either have little impact on the big picture or are out of the reach of many people. For example, individuals who live 20 miles from work cannot really choose to ride a bike or take mass transit that does not exist.

Choice of food is different — it is something that most people can do by themselves. New eating habits, adopted by enough people, might dramatically influence the world’s climate.

3. Francis could ask governments to ensure that those who receive their livelihood from the livestock sector are protected from harm by decreased consumption of meat.

Over 1.3 billion people depend on livestock for income. This could make for a very long unemployment line and a lot of hostility toward vegetarianism. In addition to those who raise livestock, livelihoods that derive from it include manufacturing ranch equipment and supplies, growing animal feed, transportation, and sales of animal products such as leather.

Workers in all these industries are highly sensitive to the economics of livestock reduction. They must be a core part of planning for economic transition. A transformation would need to include projects that demonstrate how changing from a cattle ranch into growing crops (or other economic activity) can successfully occur. This would also include educational programs on how to make such changes, as well as proposals for new jobs for those currently working in livestock-dependent industries.

The U.S. is a rich country that can afford to be a model for the rest of the world. We could guarantee an income equal to what families relying on animals currently make if they agree to transition to plant-based agriculture for human food.

4. Francis could recommend that Catholics not eat any meat (including fowl and fish) on Mondays.

This would be a bold step, going beyond reemphasizing what is already Catholic doctrine. Yet, it would be consistent with Francis’ belief that the world has a “sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.” [2]

Overproduction of meat has horrible effects beyond climate change. The livestock sector accounts for over a third of global land area, which makes it a major contributor to deforestation, habitat destruction, and species extinction. According to the Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, livestock production is responsible for 55% of erosion, 37% of pesticide usage, and 50% of antibiotic usage.

There is already an embryo of the needed change in the “Meatless Monday” movement. A serious effort toward stewardship of the Earth requires a halt in the expansion of land which is used for livestock and then a progressive increase in acres of land returned to wild Nature.

5. Francis could ask religious leaders to consider a day without any meat (including fowl and fish).

Papal Encyclicals are recommendations — they are not commandments. Thus, an Encyclical by Francis recommending meatless Mondays would mean that Catholics would need to decide to what extent they should follow it.

Inspiring controversy would actually be better than ordering people to eat less meat. Once folks argue and haggle, the issue sticks to their minds. Those who do something because of their own choice are much more committed once they have made a decision.

A debate between the world’s 1.2 million Catholics would not be ignored by other religions. In fact, it could be a powerful impetus for a Great Discussion regarding how people can effectively impact climate change.

If Francis were to take such an audacious stand within the Catholic Church, he would elevate his ability to ask other religious leaders to step outside of their roles established hundreds or thousands of years ago to similarly recognize the profound threat to Life on Earth. What could be more helpful than several billion people questioning how actions during the next few decades will affect the existence of generations to come?

6. Francis could precaution the world against using vegetarianism as a weapon of cultural domination.

Of particular concern are non-Brahmin Indians and American Cowboys. Most of the world’s 1.1 billion Hindus live in India, which is often assumed to be overwhelmingly vegetarian. In fact, over two-thirds of Indians eat meat.

While Hindus do not have a strict ban on eating meat, most avoid doing so because they wish to minimize harming other life forms. Indians who do eat meat eat far less than do Americans. They include young people exposed to Western lifestyles and religious minorities of Muslims and Christians. According to Priti Gulati Cox, they also include “Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and Adivasis (Indigenous communities),” who are victims of “Hindu-centric cultural imposition.”

In his article “Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus” Dalit Professor Kancha Ilaiah explains that eating meat has always been a part of Dalit food culture. Since water buffalo meat is cheap, it is their major source of protein. He sees the current attempt by Brahmins to impose a beef ban as “casteist and racist.” Non- Brahmin Indians particularly resent attempts to ban eating beef when India is a major exporter of water buffalo meat, which is not considered sacred by upper castes.

Glance a few thousand miles away to the U.S. Many people in western states are very hostile to having a lifestyle imposed upon them by what they perceive as urban elitism. Some do things that harm their own health and welfare to preserve their customs. (Witness 2016 Presidential voting patterns.) In this way, they are not so different from India’s Dalits and Adivasis who strongly resist having Brahmin vegetarianism imposed on them.

The issue is how to present a change away from overconsumption of meat without devaluing their culture or creating massive unemployment. There is no magic bullet. But the answer must include a dialogue and understanding that eating less meat at each meal has as much effect as having some meals without meat.

In fact, the small portion of meat eaten means that Indians already have much less environmental impact than do Americans. Instead of being grain-fed, cattle and water buffalo in India typically eat vegetation from land unsuitable for farming, further reducing their harmful effects.

Yet, we must keep our eye on the prize. Giving up smoking and having unprotected sex with multiple partners have both been sub-cultural values that came into conflict with objective facts. Campaigns became effective when former smokers spoke out and when gay men themselves advised new behaviours. Attempts to reduce meat consumption will be counter-effective unless they include those American Cowboys who already question the quantity of meat eaten.

7. Francis could recommend that Catholics eat no animal flesh or animal products (including eggs, milk, and cheese) on Wednesdays.

The tradition of not eating meat on Fridays comes with the idea of doing without something for Lent. Not eating red meat for three days a week, no meat of any kind for two days a week, and no animal products one day a week would transform the concept of “doing without” to mean “doing without to preserve our common home.”

This is the sort of sacrifice that Francis hints at when he says calls on humanity “to recognize the need for changes in lifestyle.” [23] He quotes approvingly of the leader of Eastern Orthodox Church stating that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin.” [8]

This reflects the belief in man’s stewardship over nature shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The responsibility to preserve Life in all forms is an impossibility if ranchland and farms for animal feed continue to expand their destruction of wildlife habitat throughout the world.

How can the desire to protect wild Nature best be expressed? Recognizing that food travels over 1,000 miles from “farm to plate” has led many to become “locavores” who seek to eat food grown close to where they live. However, research demonstrates that not eating red meat and dairy for less than one day per week “achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.”

8. Francis could suggest to those of other faiths that they join him in setting aside an additional day for eating no animal flesh or animal products.

Clearly, millions of Catholics combining a locavore diet with a meatless diet for multiple days per week would have a profound impact on GHG emissions. Imagine the effect if billions of people did so.

Participants would make two important discoveries. First, food can taste good if it does not include red meat, if it does not include any animal flesh, and even if it does not include any animal products. As this realization spreads, an increasing number of restaurants would offer non-animal dishes on a regular basis. There would be more cooks realizing that vegetarian food is not the same as the current diet without meat but represents a different approach to preparing food entirely. Many people would voluntarily change to eating less meat during each meal and eating more meals without meat.

Second, reduction in eating meat would have profound health effects. High meat consumption is associated heart disease, obesity, and colorectal cancer. Health improvement would occur not only in Western countries, but also China, where meat consumption has zoomed upwards. Combined discoveries of taste and health could well reinforce each other as people realized that they would not be giving up good food to have a better quality of life.

9. Francis could urge the world to recognize the need for humane treatment as well as humane killing of animals.

Both Muslims and Jews are prohibited from eating meat from animals killed in a cruel way. Jews include humane killing as part of kosher meat and, for Muslims, it is halal meat. At the time those rules were written, there was no such thing as factory farms (Confined Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs).

A twenty-first century extension of ancient laws would recognize that CAFOs practice a merciless process of killing by slow torture. Confinement of animals in tiny cages is so unhealthy that CAFOs routinely pump antibiotics into them so they will live long enough to be slaughtered.

Treating (and killing) animals in a humane fashion is close to a universally accepted value. CAFO owners are so worried that people would be horrified if they saw how they operate that they go to great lengths lobbying for laws that criminalize filming how animals are treated.

It is highly unlikely that the meat industry can continue to grow without an expansion of CAFOs. National laws and international treaties banning CAFOs should parallel an increase in plant-based diets. A call by Francis for humane treatment of animals, with a specific request that CAFOs be banned, would be an enormous contribution to reducing animal cruelty, meat consumption, and GHGs.

10. Francis could request a global inquiry into the need to begin shorter work weeks in a world which consumes less meat.

Since producing 1 pound of beef protein requires 10 pounds of vegetable protein, obtaining sufficient protein from vegetables will require vastly less cultivation. Just as fair trade means less trade, a world which relies on less meat will be one which needs less labour.

The livestock industry is merely one piece of an economy that must be massively reduced for human survival. Vegetarian agriculture is a bit analogous to a peace economy. Vegetarian production requires different use of land, but more importantly, use of less land. Peace economics emphasizes having fewer weapons to kill people rather than killing people with different weapons.

It is not possible to have less meat, less war, fewer toxic chemicals, less extractions of fossil fuels, fewer products (including homes) designed to fall apart, and more wild Nature in an economy that is growing exponentially. More astute than many progressives, Francis recognizes the dangers of unlimited economic expansion when he nods approval to “correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.” [5]

We need a smaller economy which focuses on providing basic needs for every person on the planet. This means a shorter — a much shorter — work week.

Producing less is only the first step in solving or reducing environmental problems. Of course, changes in production will be very different in various industries; so, environmentally sound economics requires considerable planning, education, adjustment, and readjustment.

This train of thought runs counter to capitalism, whose First Commandment is growth.

Francis has not been particularly receptive to capitalists, along with their politicians. They are left out of the equation when he calls for heeding “the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups.” [7] He warns that “Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms.” [26]

Neither is Francis receptive to “Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.” [20] He spells out concerns with the latest step in capital accumulation: “Even as the quality of available water is constantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market. Yet access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right.” [30]

Bringing It Home

We can’t explore every religion; but, now that we’ve looked at Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam, let’s consider my religion of devout atheism. Devout atheism is quite different from dogmatic atheism, whose dedication to putting down religion has much in common with narrow-minded adherents within the religions it belittles.

Devout atheism feels a connection with the natural world that would be quite receptive to an encyclical from Francis that specified actions to protect Earth. Dogmatic atheists would, of course, reject anything from a Pope because they often worship money and power as do their dogmatic counterparts in the powerful religions.

The division of world is not between Catholic vs. Protestant, Muslim vs. Jew, Hindu vs. Adivasi, or pious vs. atheist. Rather, the great division is those of every belief who exalt the preservation of Nature vs. those who fantasize that happiness flows from possession of an ever greater quantity of objects.

Attaining a 100% vegan world overnight is not going to happen. Instead, we should work toward a huge reduction in meat production by (a) encouraging heavy meat eaters to decrease their portions, (b) encouraging moderate meat eaters to increase their vegetarian days, and (c) expanding the number of vegetarians and vegans, while (d) avoiding domination of meat-eating cultures, and (e) preparing for the economic disruptions which will inevitably accompany changes of the magnitude that must happen. Securing alliances and modifying approaches are possible without compromising the goal of vastly reducing the amount of meat produced.

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the section of “On Care for Our Common Home” from which the quotation is take.

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

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

Alternative News

‘Russia Collusion’: The Only Real ‘Colluders’ Have Been Proven To Be The Accusers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    As more evidence comes out, it is looking like the only ones 'colluding' in the 'Russian Collusion' affair are those U. S. government officials who have been trying to make the case against Donald Trump.

  • Reflect On:

    Is there anyone out there that still believes claims that Donald Trump somehow 'colluded' with Russia, given that no evidence to that effect has come out after all this time?

What do John Brennan (ex-CIA), James Clapper (ex-DNI), James Comey (ex-FBI), Andrew McCabe (ex-FBI), Peter Strzok (ex-FBI), Lisa Page (ex-FBI), Rod Rosenstein (DOJ), Bruce Ohr (ex-DOJ), Hillary Clinton (ex-DOS) and a whole host of lesser-known players have in common? They’ve all been revealed as co-conspirators (“colluders”) in an attempt first to prevent and then to terminate the Trump presidency by whatever means possible.

Their strategy was to accuse the Trump campaign of “collusion” with Russia, not based on any credible evidence, but on the basis of the idea that this would be the easiest and most powerful story to fabricate. Most powerful because Russia remains the most feared enemy and biggest threat to U. S. sovereignty in mainstream perception, and easiest because these accusations are actually a projection of their own activities, including Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One dealings with Russian entities.

FISA Warrant ‘DECLAS’

At this point, anyone who still believes that there is any possibility that Donald Trump somehow “colluded” with Russia, which isn’t even illegal, has simply fallen victim to mainstream propaganda. If you take a look at any of the actual evidence, it seems like this was all a ‘witch hunt,’ as Trump would say.

We are still awaiting the ‘DECLAS,’ Q-Anon’s catchword referring to the declassification of various documents and texts including the full and unredacted FISA Warrant used against Trump Administration official Carter Page. This particular FISA Warrant is what allowed the colluders to first spy on the Trump campaign prior to the election. While this warrant was technically already released in July 2018, it was highly redacted. The unredacted version, which Donald Trump threatened to release in late September, was set to lay bare many of the conspirators’ means and motives behind this charade and prove that Robert Mueller’s special council was knowingly built upon pure fabrication.

However, Donald Trump pulled back his push for declassification, and he explained this decision on Twitter:

It’s unclear as to why he didn’t go ahead with the DECLAS in September. However, between the documents, emails and text messages that have already been made public as well as the testimonies of some of these co-conspirators, it’s not difficult to piece together what’s really going on here.

A Simple Breakdown

This Epoch Times article, which provides a comprehensive infographic and a detailed analysis of all the players involved in what they call ‘Spygate,’ is a great place to start for those of you who want to dig deeper. The following is a direct quote from the article, providing a simple breakdown of what happened:

1. CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.

2. The FBI became the handler of Brennan’s intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.

3. The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of nondisclosure.

4. The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.

5. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.

6. Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.

7. The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.

The first point is worth examining further, and everything else cascades down from there. It seems as though Deep State operatives Brennan and Clapper got together to find ways to prevent Trump from becoming President, since Hillary Clinton was the Deep State’s preferred choice and Brennan and Clapper would fare very well under her presidency. They decided, in concert with other conspirators, to use their favorite boogeyman Russia, and felt that if they could find enough information to make a little smoke, they would be able to cry ‘Fire!’ and everyone would stop, drop and roll on their command.

But times are changing, and schemes like this are not as effective for the Deep State as they used to be, especially since Donald Trump took office and is now being supported by an alliance that is against the Deep State. This matter has been under investigation, and in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Brennan admitted that his ‘intelligence findings’ were the main basis for the FBI investigation:

“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”

It is public record that the dossier that forms the bulk of Brennan’s ‘intelligence’ was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, that this fact was not disclosed when the FISA Warrant was applied for, and that James Comey ultimately conceded that the information in this dossier was ‘salacious and unverified.’ The fact that no official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation is quite unusual–stunning, in fact–and gives way to the idea that the FBI investigation was nothing more than part of the conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump from taking office.

The Takeaway

Unlike in the past, when matters of corruption, conspiracy, and even treason at high levels seemed to end with a single individual taking the blame and higher powers getting off scot-free, it looks like the truth on this matter may actually be revealed to the public and the elite may be held accountable. It is our own interest in and awareness of these matters that help push them further toward full disclosure. The fact that detailed, public information clearly identifies a conspiracy of many of the highest-ranking people from top government agencies suggests that it’s only a matter of time before the DECLAS is dropped. Perhaps this will be the act that finally brings the existence and activities of the Deep State into mainstream consciousness.

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.