Connect with us

Alternative News

Refusal to Vaccinate Child Gets Mom Jail Time: A Deeper Analysis

Published

on

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfoLLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.  It was written by Jeffery Jackson, a researcher, independent investigative journalist, writer and voice for health freedom on the front lines of society’s shift towards higher consciousness.  Visit his website here to learn more.

advertisement - learn more

“I want to make it perfectly clear. We’re leaving here today. Dad’s picking the child up and he’s going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn’t do.” 

These were the words of Oakland County judge Karen McDonald during the open minutes of the recent court room proceedings that continue to grab international headlines. Metro Detroit’s Rebecca Bredow, the Mom, now sits in an Oakland Country jail with a criminal record forever attached to her name. Her 9-year-old son is now in temporary custody of his father who is ordered by the court to bring the child up to date on the boy’s vaccination status, which will be up to eight vaccines “…as rapidly as medically necessary.”

Unfortunately in America, the end result of cases like Bredow’s are becoming more and more common.  

Some are saying Bredow refused to vaccinate her child and is getting what she deserved but is it really that simple? The mainstream, corporate media narrative is attempting to paint a picture that Bredow’s case is an uncommon, one-and-done occurrence. The narrative is also suggesting that the family court process, when vaccination status is concerned, is a stone solid justice machine based on ‘settled vaccine science.’ The reality is that the judge and the court are taking a known and dangerous medical risk with another person’s child that they have no right to take. Do courts have the right to order an unavoidably unsafe medical intervention like vaccination in custody cases?

advertisement - learn more

At minute 3:30 Judge McDonald makes clear her forced vaccination agenda.

Joel Dorfman of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, a group that advocates for parents’ rights to refuse vaccines told the Detroit Free Press, “If this child is injured as a result of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child? The judge?”

According to Judge McDonald, Bredow’s case is about her refusal to follow court orders she previously agreed to. McDonald ruled Bredow was in criminal contempt for not following a 2016 agreement to vaccinate her child. However Bredow says that her attorney at the time signed the order and advised her not to worry since she had filed state waivers and vaccine exemptions each year in Michigan for her child. In Michigan, parents or guardians of children enrolled in public and private schools are required to attend an educational session before they are granted waivers.

Lecturing from the bench, Judge McDonald told Bredow “I understand you love your children. But what I don’t think you understand is that your son has two parents, and dad gets a say,” Her statement seems reasonable yet it is important to note that Bredow has primary caregiver status. Digging deeper into the information of the case, Judge McDonald’s recent ruling gives physical custody of the child to the ex-husband James Horne. In the past, Child Protective Services did an investigation on Horne and the case was confirmed as a Category 3 revealing a preponderance of evidence against him which the court knew about.

What about medical expert testimony? Although Bredow’s case didn’t involve the testimony of an expert witness or medical professional, this tactic is often a nonstarter in US courts. The courts don’t decide and rule on the science, their job is to weigh the evidence. For each doctor or expert witness brave enough to go on record against the safety of vaccines in a given case, there are many more doctors who are will testify for them. In addition, all US health agencies and organizations still toe the line for the false ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative and refuse to factor in any new or highly relevant information that says otherwise.

During the recent ruling, Judge McDonald appeared to be reading from a prewritten statement when handing down her decision suggesting that she did not factor in the day’s testimony and dialogue. If that is the case, perhaps McDonald’s prewritten decision was in response to the attention Bredow drew to the case by going to the media. Section 600.1715 of Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act of 1961 states:

“If the contempt consists of the omission to perform some act or duty that is still within the power of the person to perform, the imprisonment shall be terminated when the person performs the act or duty or no longer has the power to perform the act or duty…”

The “act or duty” to vaccinate Bredow’s 9-year-old child was ordered by the court to be done by the ex-husband. In addition, Bredow no longer had the power to perform the act or duty in question. It seems that, given the language of the act, Bredow’s jail time was handed down as a warning and a lesson rather than a necessary legal measure.

Call To Action: Please Sign the Petition

To: Judge Karen McDonald and Governor Rick Snyder
Re: Court Ordered arrest and imprisonment of Rebecca Bredow
Date: October 9, 2017
All around the US, parents are witness to an epidemic of vaccine injury, as evidenced by the fact that The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) has paid out over $3.7 billion in damages to families with vaccine injured members.
There are some relevant facts of which should be made aware:
1 vaccine is given on a single day (Miller, 2016):

“Abstract
Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death.”

Miller, NZ. 2016. Combining childhood vaccines at one visit is not safe. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 21:47-49. http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf

(2) Vaccine safety science in the US, including studies conducted or funded by CDC and vaccine manufacturers, is scandal-ridden. See Chatom Primary Care v. Merck (Case number 2:12-cv-03555), for example, in which two former Merck employees have alleged that they were told to falsify the efficacy data for Merck’s Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. They allege that antibodies against the mumps virus from rabbits were added to human serum samples to increase the apparent effectiveness of the MMR vaccine; those data were in fact submitted to the FDA, Merck received continuation of their contract, edging out competition.

(3) CDC Scientist William Thompson has alleged that his supervisors removed results showing a positive association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism in two clinical groups. Thompson’s statements will be mailed to you under separate cover.

(4) All vaccines are watched for safety issues in post-market surveillance studies. When these studies find no safety issue, the resulting clinical studies are hailed by vaccine proponents as “science”. When the studies find issues, they are rejected and downplayed as mere “correlation studies”. Nevertheless, they are studies. Retrospective studies are used based on vaccine injury reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, all individuals who choose to vaccinate are human subjects in a massive clinical study.
Under US Federal Regulations, all individuals in clinical studies are entitled to informed consent. The FDA states, “Post-marketing surveillance is a necessary component of vaccine safety monitoring” and because vaccine pre-clinical trials are relatively small and controlled, “previously unstudied components of a patient’s social or medical history may be risk factors which could impact the outcome of vaccination and contribute to the development of adverse events” (Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak “association studies” with data from passively collected data sources (such as VAERS). Patients are not informed that they, or their children are, in fact, participating in a large, shoddily-run, non-randomized retrospective clinical trial. This practice is widespread, and violates provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745].

Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Yet the rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated (FDA: Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy).
Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”)

[10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:

§46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.
“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”

Here we provide the relevant text of the Nuremberg Code which offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent, and stresses the rights of patients to refuse:

“Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”

Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical Procedures
Under US Law, all individuals, and legal wards (custodians) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures. The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment. To exercise this right, the patient is entitled to information of a sufficient nature to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. Because patients are entitled to this information, physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment. The duty to obtain a patient’s consent for treatment rests on the patient’s treating physician. Hospitals, nurses, surgical assistants, and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients. The treating physician’s duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent cannot be delegated. The duty is not eliminated, lessened, or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient’s consent prior to the procedure.

Here we provide to you the rules governing informed consent for medical procedures in the State of Michigan (R 330.7003):
R 330.7003 Informed consent.

“Rule 7003. (1) All of the following are elements of informed consent:
(a) Legal competency. An individual shall be presumed to be legally
competent. This presumption may be rebutted only by a court appointment of a guardian or exercise by a court of guardianship powers and only to the extent of the scope and duration of the guardianship. An individual shall be presumed legally competent
regarding matters that are not within the scope and authority of the guardianship.

(b) Knowledge. To consent, a recipient or legal representative must have basic information about the procedure, risks, other related consequences, and other relevant information. The standard governing required disclosure by a doctor is what a reasonable patient needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Other relevant information includes all of the following:

(i) The purpose of the procedures.
(ii) A description of the attendant discomforts, risks, and benefits that can reasonably be expected.
(iii) A disclosure of appropriate alternatives advantageous to the recipient.
(iv) An offer to answer further inquiries.
(c) Comprehension. An individual must be able to understand what the personal implications of providing consent will be based upon the information provided under subdivision (b) of this subrule.
(d) Voluntariness. There shall be free power of choice without the intervention of an element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, including promises or assurances of privileges or freedom. There shall be an instruction that an individual is free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation or activity at any time without prejudice to the recipient.
(2) A provider shall establish written policies that include procedures for evaluating comprehension and for assuring disclosure of relevant information and measures to ensure voluntariness before obtaining consent. The policies and procedures shall specify for specific circumstances the types of information that shall be disclosed and steps that may be taken to protect voluntariness. The procedures shall include a mechanism for determining whether guardianship proceedings should be considered.
(3) Informed consent shall be reobtained if changes in circumstances
substantially change the risks, other consequences, or benefits that were previously expected.
(4) A written agreement documenting an informed consent shall not include any exculpatory language through which the recipient, or a person consenting on the recipient’s behalf, waives or appears to waive, a legal right, including a release of a provider or its agents from liability for negligence. The agreement shall embody the basic elements of informed consent in the particular context. The individual, guardian, or parent consenting shall be given adequate opportunity to read the document before signing it. The requirement of a written consent shall not eliminate, where essential to the individual’s understanding or
otherwise deemed advisable, a reading of the document to the individual or an oral explanation in a language the individual understands. A note of the explanation and by whom made shall be placed in the record along with the written consent.
(5) A consent is executed when it is signed by the appropriate individual.
History: 1979 AC; 1998 AACS.”

In consideration of these laws and Codes, we assert that:

(1) With the unlawful detention of Rebecca Bredow, and the decision to usurp her right to choose for her child “X”, the state has enjoined as actors in the violation of informed consent for medical research on the safety of vaccines, and further,

(2) The Court has, with events leading up to Judge McDonald’s order to detain and imprison Rebecca Bredow, engaged in activities that are designed to coerce Rebecca Bredow to make a decision against her better judgement;

(3) The State of Michigan has, by following the order of Judge McDonald to arrest and imprison Rebecca Bredow, prevented her from exercising her international, federal and state-afforded rights to decide whether her child, X, should receive any, some, or no vaccines, and unlawfully denied her certain freedoms to which she is entitled under the laws of the State of Michigan and the United States of America;

(4) The State of Michigan has, by allowing her ex-husband to participate in the act of vaccinating X, countermanded the custodial decision handed down to Rebecca, in which she was given the rights, duties and responsibilities of primary custodial parent.

We are deeply concerned about Rebecca Bredow’s, and all citizens’ freedom to work, live and act according to the liberties afforded to her by the US Constitution and its Amendments. We are gravely concerned over the actions of the State of Michigan resembling those of a Police State, with arbitrary actions and issuances from the Court which show contempt for the right of parents to make medical decisions for and on behalf of their children. We would like to register, with the Court and with the Governor’s Office, a message that the State of Michigan should stand down on the issue of state-forced vaccinations; that morally and legally the State of Michigan should defend, not impinge upon parent’s rights to choose medical procedures; that the State of Michigan will be morally and legally responsible for any injuries to any children that state-forced vaccinations incur upon the population, and the freedom-loving people everywhere are deeply concerned about how far the State of Michigan will eventually go in the matter of State-forced medical tyranny.

We ask:

(1) That from this day forward, in all cases of in which questions legal custody are being decided or contested, that the Court see the wisdom in deciding on the custody issues first, independent of the question of whether the child is to be vaccinated, and then allow the custodial parent to exercise their right to choose, or refuse, to vaccinate their child. This will secure and guarantee parents’ rights and set the correct precedent for jurisprudence on this matter. These rights are provided by the State of Michigan to all citizens, including those engaged in custodial disputes.

(2) That you immediately order the release of Rebecca Bredow and any and all other citizens who are currently imprisoned for willfully exercises their rights to choose or refuse medical procedures.

Sign the Petition Here: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/436/753/272/free-rebecca-bredow-end-her-unlawful-imprisonment-now/

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Canadian Prime Minister Says We Won’t Return To Normal “Until A Vaccine Is Developed”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Justin Trudeau expressed that things won't go back to 'normal' until a COVID-19 vaccine is developed."

  • Reflect On:

    Is a vaccine the only solution, or is something else going on here?

The push for a coronavirus vaccine continues strong, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, recently emphasized that point by saying Canadians will remain on ‘lockdown’ for potentially several months, and that what we here in Canada are experiencing “is the new normal, until a vaccine is developed.” (source) This sentiment recently shared by Trudeau echoes what Bill Gates recently stated in a Fox News interview, stating that we wont go back to “normal until” a vaccine has “gotten out to the entire world.” You can read more about that comment here, and watch him say it.

In that article, I wrote about vaccine hesitancy, how it’s grown and has gotten to the point where the World Health Organization has labelled it one of the biggest threats to public health. Whether or not that’s true, is up for you to decide. If vaccines were completely safe and effective for everybody, there wouldn’t be a growing number of physicians standing up for informed consent. Some high-profile speakers at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit also highlighted the fact that scientists and doctors are now skeptical about vaccines, yet despite this fact, anybody who shares any concerns about vaccines, or presents science showing that vaccines aren’t as safe as they’re marketed to be is instantly labelled as “anti-vaccine” by the mainstream media. Why are the many concerns that are being raised never addressed and rebutted, why are they simply ridiculed? And why is there a growing a mount of doctors and scientists who are questioning vaccine safety?

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Projec emphasized at the WHO conference this point:

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen–and we’re constantly looking at any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

The vaccine discussion is a big one, with a lot of information so I’m not going to go into it entirely here as I’ve already done so with many of my articles.

Why are media outlets like Collective Evolution being censored, demonetized, silenced and having our social media platform distribution cut dramatically for simply sharing information? Why are awareness articles that are properly sourced and present the opinions and studies of various scientists and doctors flagged as “false news?”

advertisement - learn more

We are actually worried that our Facebook page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list

When it comes to such events, the national security state always seems to become even more heightened, and it seems that our basic human rights are constantly stripped from us. We saw it with the war on terror, and experts in the field like William Binney,  a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA) and one of the highest placed intelligence officials to ever blow the whistle on NSA surveillance programs, for example. He is one of many who have expressed that surveillance was not conducted with the intention of protecting humanity, it’s simply for total population control. This conclusion is not just the opinion of experts like him, but it’s one that many like me have come to after diving into false flag terrorism for years.

I personally believe we are seeing the same thing with regards to this coronavirus pandemic. It will be used politically to take more measures that serve the national security state by stripping us away of more rights and freedoms, under the guise of good will, kind of like what is happening now. Furthermore, the corporations that exercise complete control over the governments will take advantage, pushing hard that the only solution is a vaccine. And that’s what we’re seeing now.

One of the latest experts to share an opinion that counters what we’re seeing within the ‘mainstream’ comes from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history. He called these measures “draconian.” But there are many in the field who have expressed the same thing.  Bhakdi created a Youtube channel on March 18th, and has since posted four videos that have received more than one million views, total, in a very short span of time.

I wanted to keep this article short. If you wanted to get up to date with our perspective regarding the new coronavirus, we’ve covered it from multiple angles and you can refer to the articles posted below if you’re interested in going more in-depth.

CE Articles That Go More In Depth Regarding The Coronavirus

Bill Gates: We Won’t Go Back To “Normal Until” A Vaccine Has “Gotten Out To The Entire World

US Coronavirus Model Drops Predicted Deaths Down To Approximately 60,000 People

Coronavirus Deaths May Be Miscalculated

Donald Trump Says The Coronavirus Was “Artificially Induced”

Conscious Truth Behind Coronavirus Lockdown

Confirmed: High-Dose Vitamin C Has Successfully Treated 50 Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients

Renowned Microbiology Specialist On Why He Believes Coronavirus Measures Are “Draconian” (Video)

Updates On The New Coronavirus Vaccine – Are You Going To Take It? Will It Be Mandatory?

Multiple Stanford Medical Professors Question If COVID-19 Is Really “As Deadly As They Say”

Renowned German Pulmonologist Questions Coronavirus Measures & If They’re Necessary (Video)

Spring Has Sprung In Sweden With No Coronavirus Quarantine Or Police Enforced Lockdown

LA Doctor: COVID-19 Patients Go From ‘Very Ill’ To ‘Symptom-Free’ In 8 To 12 Hours With Hydroxychloroquine & Zinc

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

US Coronavirus Model Drops Predicted Deaths Down To Approximately 60,000 People

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, a research organization at the University of Washington, have revised their prediction based on updated data to approximately 60,000 deaths in the United States as a result of the new coronavirus.

  • Reflect On:

    Were the measures that governments took necessary? Should they have the ability and power to take away our rights and freedoms, and in some cases, our ability to go outside?

Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list

You can also join our Telegram account here as we move away from Facebook. 

According the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were approximately 45 million cases of the flu in the United States during the 2017-2018 influenza season, which resulted in nearly one million flu-associated hospitalizations and an estimated total of 61,000 deaths associated with the flu. It begs the question, did this overwhelm our hospitals that year? When it comes to the new coronavirus, the White House recently expressed that the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a research organization at the University of Washington, have revised their prediction based on updated data to approximately 60,000 deaths in the United States as a result of the new corona virus, out of 327,000,000 Americans.

Keep in mind, this is not a comparison to the flu, at all, this is simply a prediction of numbers. If  the coronavirus ends up killing just as many people as the flu in the United States, that still doesn’t mean it’s the same.

This is encouraging, given that just last week, the White House was suggesting that up to 200,000 American citizens will die from the new coronavirus. The briefing included projections between 100,000 and 200,000 as a possible best-case scenario but obviously, this isn’t the case anymore. It’s also a dramatic drop from predictions that were ranging in the millions when the virus first started to make its way around the globe, causing fear, panic and hysteria, something many people are still experiencing today as a result of, I would say, media.

Another common theme that’s floating around right now is when people can take antibody tests, for those who desire to do so, because as you probably already know, the new coronavirus can still be present in someone who is asymptomatic. This has many experts suggesting that the total infection rate in the United States and globally is most probably significantly higher than what the numbers are showing. This means that the final death rate will most likely be much lower than what is and will be reported.

advertisement - learn more

Experts in the field have suggested that an accurate death rate will most likely match that of the common seasonal flu.  As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Three medical professors from Stanford University were among the first to do so. According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield,  the case fatality rate may be less than one percent, and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza. You can read more about that and access that specific article, here.

Not only has the infection rate come under scrutiny, but so has the death rate. There is ample evidence suggesting that the number of deaths attributed to the new coronavirus have not actually come as a direct result of the coronavirus, that coronavirus deaths may actually be miscalculated.  I recently published an article about going into the evidence and providing more detail on that, you can read it here if interested.

So, at the end of the day, we may be looking at a higher infection rate, and a lower death rate than what the numbers show. This begs the question, are the actions multiple governments have taken at all justified?  Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history recently shared his thoughts on the measures that are being taken to combat the new coronavirus. He called them “draconian” and unnecessary, and explained why, to him, they don’t make any sense at all. You can read more about that and watch his video here.

It does make you think, doesn’t it? It’s even more of a head scratcher when people are being censored and deemed as ‘false news’ for simply sharing their opinion, like Dr. Ron Paul, who recently stated,

People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.

That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back. (source)

One more thing that I must mention is with regards to the treatment. Events like the coronavirus are a great way to see what governments really care about. This was even more evident not only by the information above, but by the fact that successful treatments were not, and are not receiving much attention from the mainstream media. We have written about that in depth as well, you can see a few examples here, as well as here if you desire more information about that and what specific treatments we are talking about.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates can come on television and state that things won’t go back to normal until a vaccine has reached the entire world. But is this even true?

It begs the question, do our authorities and health care system/pharmaceutical companies actually prioritize our health? Or are they simply in it to turn a profit, among other things? Are our systems that surround us actually designed with the intention to protect us, and treat us? Or is something else going on here?

Are events like these simply used, created, heightened and capitalized on to usher in ‘bigger brother?’ A heightened national security state, one where our rights and freedoms are continually stripped from us, while many agree with the justification to do so as a result of massive propaganda? Similar to what we’ve seen with “the war on terror?”

These are just questions, and as time continues to pass they become more and more relevant, which is why asking these questions has now come under intense scrutiny.

The Bigger Picture

I believe events like this coronavirus pandemic, and others like 9/11 for example, are part of humanities natural evolution. I believe they are happening more frequently now in order to ‘wake up’ even more people, because that’s just what they do. At the end of the day, this pandemic will serve humanity more so than it hurts it, because when it comes down to it, the number of deaths and infections as a result of the new coronavirus won’t be to different from all of the other coronaviruses in circulation, which in itself will make people question just what has happened here. Scientists were able to see it early on, and there will be more publications like the paper recently published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data which stated  “that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated.” (source) The next question is, was the problem being over-estimated purposefully so a powerful group of people could propose the solution? This kind of thinking is far from a conspiracy theory.

At the end of the day, events like this make us question whether this is really the type of human experience we want to participate in? Why do we continue electing people? Why do we believe that powerful corporations will take care of our health? Why do we believe that one person or group of people can change the world? Why do we keep putting our power in the hands of the few and expecting them to make some sort of significant change on the planet? Why do we believe that electing a certain president will ever solve the real problems humanity faces today? Why are we all still participating and agreeing? Why do we constantly look to our governments for answers and solutions? Why do we continue to believe them? And why are we so easily manipulated and controlled to the point where mainstream media can control our thoughts, perception and emotions about certain events over, and over and over? Is it getting to a point where it’s a “do what we say” or else, type of existence, under the guise that those instructions are necessary for the greater good?

Manipulation and deception can only continue as long as we allow it, and the manipulation and deception we’ve faced with regards to this ‘pandemic’ again, will only serve and help more people question our current paradigm.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Vatican’s Cardinal George Pell Is Freed From Jail & His Child Sex Abuse Convictions Are Overturned

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cardinal George Pell, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse has been set free, and all charges have been dropped.

  • Reflect On:

    How many people in powerful places are involved in such activity?

Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list

You can also join our Telegram account here as we move away from Facebook. 

Cardinal George Pell, who  a couple of years ago became  the highest ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse, has now been freed from jail after Australia’s highest court overturned his conviction. The 78 year old senior Catholic figure was facing a six-year jail sentence after a jury found he was guilty of sexually abusing two boys in Melbourne in the 1990s.  Seven judges ruled unanimously in Pell’s favour, stating that the jury who found him guilty had “not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial.” Throughout the entire time, Pell maintained his innocence from the moment he was charged in June of 2017, and despite what’s happened since, regardless of whether he’s actually innocent or not, his case has brought even more attention to the on-going problem of pedophilia and sexual abuse in high level places, like the Vatican.

Although the conviction against Pell has been dropped, people will forever ponder if this man is actually guilty of what he was accused of, and perhaps much more. Unfortunately, sexual abuse within the Vatican, and other places of power has been an issue for quite some time. It begs the question, how is this type of activity able to persist and sustain itself? The answer may be simple, it could be that those involved are simply some of the most powerful people in the world. A retired police detective of 25 years, John Wedger, spent a lot of his time investigating child abuse and how it operates continually without being taken down. People are threatened, and in some cases those whom one goes to in order to solve the problem, a ‘higher up,’ is actually involved in it, and the investigation gets shut down You can watch the full testimony of Wedger, here.

It’s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, after all, he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996. If he is in fact guilty, this leads to the point above made by Wedger, that the people responsible for tackling this issue are actually involved and part of the problem. That being said, Pell is innocent under the law.

It’s no secret that sexual abuse scandals have plagued the Catholic Church for decades, and it seems almost every single year. For example, prior to the accusations against Pell, in 2015 a lawyer by the name of Ulrich Weber uncovered that for the the thirty year reign of boys choir run by Benedicts XVI’s elder brother, approximately 600 boys with a “high degree of plausibility” were victims of sexual and physical abuse, or both. The report identified 500 cases of physical abuse, and 67 cases of sexual abused committed by a total of 49 people in a position of power within the church. (source)

advertisement - learn more

Furthermore, it was only a few months ago when Carlo Maria Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and Secretary-General of the Governor of Vatican City, implicated multiple church officials, including Pope Francis, in sexual abuse. You can read more about that here.

With everything that’s emerged with regards to Jeffrey Epstein and child sex trafficking over the past couple of years alone, it really makes one wonder, Especially the fact that it seems Epstein was involved in a blackmail operation and working for some powerful people.

A couple of years ago, Pope Francis compared child abuse within the Catholic Church to a “satanic mass.”

The Reverend Gabriele Amorth is another example, he was an Italian Roman Catholic Priest, and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome, which is an administrative branch of the Catholic Church of Rome. He claimed to have performed tens of thousands of exorcisms over his half a dozen plus decades as a Catholic Priest, and has mentioned a number of times how Satanism is practiced within the Vatican.  He has also claimed that girls are commonly kidnapped by a gang of Vatican police and foreign diplomats. He claimed that these girls are recruited for Vatican parties, and crimes with a sexual motive.

Malachi Martin, an Irish Catholic priest and writer on the Catholic Church who published many books exposing the Vatican was  originally ordained as a Jesuit priest, he eventually became Professor of Palaeography at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute and was one of many who exposed the practice of Satanism within the Vatican.

These are just a few examples of why so many people believe something fishy is going on, regardless of whether or not Pell is innocent or guilty. Is something beyond the abuse of children happening here? Some sort of ‘ritual’ abuse? How has this been ongoing for so long? How are these people and places still able to operate with such power? It seems that they are quite untouchable.

If you’re curious and want to go a little deeper into this kind of thing, beyond the Vatican and into high ranking politicians, possible Royal Family pedophilia and more, you can refer to this article as it goes into much more detail and provides more information.

Our Interview With A Survivor of Elite Level Child Sex Trafficking

Anneke Lucas is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model.

Her work is based off her 30-year journey to restore her mental and physical wellbeing after surviving some of the worst atrocities known to humankind before the age of 12. Sold as a young child into a murderous pedophile network by her family, she was rescued after nearly six years of abuse and torture.

We recently conducted an interview with her. Below is a clip from the four part series, as it was a very long and detailed interview. You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!