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.
“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?
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):
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.
(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.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Why I Haven’t Paid Much Attention To “Q Anon”
We are living in some very interesting times. Amidst all of the mass brainwashing we’ve received from establishment mouthpieces (mainstream media), the birth of alternative media brought to light information that simply wasn’t being presented by the mainstream media. Prior to the mass popularity that alternative media garnered, global media was completely owned by a handful of corporations. It still remains a vital tool for this small group of powerful people to completely control the perception of millions of people across the world.
The owners of these outlets did not like how their viewers were wandering off to alternative media, so they’ve used their power to create massive amounts of censorship, but the truth can’t really be stopped. This is why we’ve seen the persecution of Wikileaks, for example, and the demonization of alternative media outlets simply because their beliefs don’t fit the accepted framework of knowledge. Alternative media outlets have been demonetized and censored, and multiple award-winning mainstream media journalists have called out mainstream media and how these networks are slaves to their masters–their masters being big corporations, governments, and intelligence agencies.
Truth doesn’t come from mainstream media, so it’s no mystery why millions have flocked to other sources of information that provide evidence instead of a news anchor simply talking, since these networks do nothing but push propaganda and put out false information.
Our world is and has been experiencing a shift in consciousness for a very long time, and a big reason the global elite started to deem certain information and credible sources as ‘fake news’ and subject them to extreme amounts of censorship was simply due to the fact that this type of information is extremely threatening to several corporate, political and elitists agendas, so much so that freedom of information and speech continues to be censored.
In the midst of all this, along came “Q Anon.” For reasons I am completely unaware of, I never took an interest in Q Anon, and still haven’t. Perhaps it was the predictions being made that didn’t come to light, although many did, or perhaps it’s the fact that it could be anyone speaking. Nevertheless, I simply don’t know why I never took an interest.
The thought crossed my mind that collective consciousness has shifted so much, and so many people have awakened to so many different things, that the only way to capture and deceive this segment of people, who represent the majority in my opinion, would be to develop a character like Q. I don’t really believe this, it was just a thought that crossed my mind.
The thought also crossed my mind that Q could be legit, given the fact that they’ve put out information and predictions that have come to light. Q has a good track record for that and appears to be a team of people who are in or have access to the “inside.” In this sense, Q seems very legit at times.
Furthermore, Q could represent Donald Trump and another faction of the ‘Deep State.’ I believe there are governments within governments, and they are constantly fighting for power, but always remain at the top. This is evident by the fact that all presidents and politicians always followed the will of their masters, they’ve all had ties and close relationships with corporations and the elite and made policies that benefited certain corporate interests and elitist agendas.
What turns me away from Q is its religious-like following. What Q preaches is never questioned by them, and a lot of information and claims are put out there simply based on nothing. Q is not really needed, there are more than enough whistleblowers, documentation, etc. to really seek out the truth and present it in a credible way that will reach the masses.
That being said, Q has no doubt been an awakening trigger forcing and encouraging people to think for themselves, connect the dots, and do their own research.
Trump is also not questioned by many and is seen as a saviour in some cases. People are giving away their own critical thinking, they’re giving away their own brain to another entity without questioning it. Regardless of whether or not Q is legit, or represents another side of the ‘deep state’ or not, this is dangerous.
There have also been some shady claims, just as there have been some legit claims made by Q. One of them was when Q claimed the arrest of Julian Assange was to free him from his poor conditions, and that we should simply just “trust the plan.” This was far from the truth, and this is one of multiple examples that raised red flags about Q in my mind. At the same time, there are many things Q has put out that have been credible and that suggest Q is part of or has deep connections to the inside.
I don’t think that this is a larper… This is way beyond, this is someone who is, I don’t think it’s possible to say the things that Q has been saying without being a true insider. So it’s someone that is real, it’s someone that truly believes that Trump is working against the deep state for the good of the American people, that’s their perspective. The real question is how accurate are they, and I don’t really have an answer to that. – Richard Dolan (source)
When it comes to Trump, it’s quite clear and easy to see, in my opinion, that he represented a disturbance to some very powerful elite that use people like Hillary Clinton to represent them. Trump represented, and still does in many ways, an ‘outsider.’ Looking at politics with no opinion or bias and without a “republican” or “democrat” point of view, it’s easy to see how, during Trump’s campaign, the powerful elite did everything possible to ensure a victory for Clinton. This included not only swaying the Democratic party (which previously played dirty pool against Bernie Sanders), but the entire mainstream media machine, the financial community, the EU, and even the Republican party itself.
Since Trump’s campaign, we have been told that Trump is a racist, sexist, xenophobe, liar, cheat, and narcissist. It’s reminiscent of the concerted media attack against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, which culminated earlier in 2016 in her impeachment and removal from power. It’s important to understand why Trump is demonized, and that’s because he is a disruptor, and his disruption falls squarely against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
During Trump’s campaign, he was quite vocal about pharmaceutical corruption, the US government funding terrorist organizations, vaccine safety, and he even called out Bill Clinton and his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, in some instances, he seems to have changed his views on a few matters, which goes to show that he could have been compromised by the deep state, or the other side of the deep state, if you will.
“So a person is elected, he comes with his ideas. Then people with briefcases come to visit him, well dressed, in dark suits, kind of like mine. Except instead of a red tie it’s black or navy. And then they explain what to do, and the whole rhetoric changes, you see? This happens from one administration to the next.” – Vladimir Putin, providing one of many examples of politicians around the world and within the US speaking up about this hidden power that controls the presidency. (source)
I’d like to leave you with this thought-provoking quote from Catherine Austin Fitts, former Commissioner of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, who recently said:
“In the Red Button Problem, everybody wants their check and they want to pretend that they are good. So it’s very important that politicians come up with this story of ‘good’. The story of ‘I’m good,’ doesn’t have to make sense, but it has to be good enough so that I can just take my check and feel good and not have to do anything. It’s a way of being free to stay on my couch and do the things that I love instead of being bothered with the responsibility of being a citizen.”
So Q is the new story of, ‘I am good,’ because, ‘I can just trust the plan, and these covert operators are going to get their thing done.’ So I’ve been nice because I know some very intelligent, capable people who buy this whole thing hook, line, and sinker. It has been really frustrating for you and me. I took FASAB 56 to these Q believers, and they said, ‘You need to trust the plan.'”
It appears that people are becoming too engaged with the Q narrative that it is blinding them from the truth of what Q is actually representing. Instead of viewing Q as right or wrong, what steps does it represent in our awakening process? Is the narrative truly creating a world where humanity thrives? Or is it perhaps only taking us a step forward, if at all?
We can’t let Q do all thinking, we must continue to do what got is here in the first place, that’s think for ourselves. It’s ok to peak and take a look at Q, but to hang on to and live and die by everything Q says, and to constantly push the idea that whatever Q says is correct is a little troublesome to me.
Related CE Article: Is The Q Narrative Providing False Hope? Catherine Austin Fitts Weights In
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Couple Builds A Stunning Tiny Home & Escapes City Life (Video)
- The Facts:
One of the recent episodes on "Living Big In A Tiny House" featured a former full time writer here at Collective Evolution, Jeff Roberts, and his partner Derek. What they've built is amazing and will no doubt inspire many to do the same.
- Reflect On:
The tiny home trend has and is increasing in popularity, why do you think people are finding that it increases their quality of life?
Tiny Homes have been a growing trend for a number of years for multiple reasons. It’s definitely more affordable to buy or to build a tiny home compared to living in a modern day home. It’s also much more environmentally friendly, and perhaps the best part is that it’s mobile. It must really make those who live in one realize that a full sized home and all of the troubles that can come with it are unnecessary, and that living in a tiny home doesn’t decrease the enjoyment of your home and instead, probably increases it. Perhaps the best part about living in a tiny home is that they are mobile, you are not ‘stuck’ in one spot and can relocate with low cost and ease when ever you choose to do so compared to a regular home and going through the process of finding a new one.
Obviously, there are many examples of tiny homes floating around out there, but the story about the one below is special because one of the gentleman you see in the video below, Jeff Roberts, is a former full time writer here at Collective Evolution and a friend, he still contributes every now and then with regards to providing us with content.
If you’re interested, you can read his articles here.
For Jeff and his partner Derek, the tiny house build started out as a fun design project with the idea of parking the house in the driveway of their Victoria, BC home and renting it out as an Air BnB. Eventually, they fell in love with it and decided to move in and rent out their larger home instead. The feature was done by “Living Big In A Tiny House.” You can access their Youtube channel here to see some more examples of people living in tiny homes
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Everything You Need To Know About 5G & The Solutions To Stop It – Free Summit
- The Facts:
The 5G Crisis: Awareness & Accountability Summit kicks off soon and will bring together the top experts in the space who can help make sense of the 5G issue and bring together solutions to stop it.
- Reflect On:
Should we really be unveiling a technology that is not safety tested? Should we listen to the thousands of scientists showing concern? Sign up to this summit so you don't miss the latest in what's unfolding with 5G.
We get more emails and questions from people seeking information and solutions to 5G than we do anything else, and it totally makes sense because this is a global health crisis that truly affects us all.
Coming up soon is the 5G Crisis: Awareness & Accountability Summit. It’s an online summit with a ton of incredible speakers that will inform you on the latest information regarding 5G, what’s going on and the solutions that are coming to the table.
I did an interview for this summit and it gave me an opportunity to talk about what I feel is going on with 5G and the consciousness implications of it…
I also talked about:
- Analysis of Trump, Q Anon, and other “narrative” storylines in pushing 5G
- How to bring people closer together
- Empowering the conscious meta-shift that’s underway
As always, the approach I took to my interview was exploring the world events taking place and understanding the metaphysics of it as it’s within the metaphysics that we understand how to create the change and not move forward in fear.
If you’re not all that aware of why people are concerned about 5G it boils down to a few key facts. The telecom industry HAS NOT shown 5G to be safe for your health or privacy — yet THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed, independent studies show otherwise — and they’re building it anyway.
Hundreds of scientists from 40 different countries have reached out to the United Nations and the FCC, asking them to consider health risks and environmental issues before rapidly deploying 5G — because these researchers have studies that show adverse biological and health effects from EMF sources.
5G uses a higher frequency in its transmission and therefore travels shorter distances than our current wireless signals, this means the frequency has to be A LOT more powerful than what we are used to.
To make up for the short distance travel capability, millions more signal transmitters need to be installed around cities and neighbourhoods to get coverage. Each tower will emit radiation at levels known to cause cancer, sterility, DNA damage and other harm… especially to our children, who are most at risk.
It may be concerning, and that’s because it is a really bad idea… but we can stop it…
Join us at the 5G Crisis summit to discover:
● My awesome interview! 😉
● 5G defined: research, facts and awareness
● Science about the dangers of 5G and EMF radiation
● Sources of wireless radiation and “dirty electricity” in your home
● Link between 5G, Al and global surveillance
● How groups and individuals are successfully opposing 5G
● Simple, empowering actions you can take, here and now
● Individual solutions and safer, revolutionary technologies
● And more!
My two good friends, whom I’ve been speaking with about 5G for months now, Josh del Sol and Sayer Ji are the hosts for this event.
If you’re hungry for cutting-edge information with life-saving consequences, and want to be part of a movement dedicated to empowering ourselves and humanity, join us for this event!
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Whether You Know It Or Not, You’re Being Prepared For Contact With Extraterrestrials
UFOs became mainstream in 2019, the next question is who’s manning them? The mainstream media, and the agencies that direct...
Another Teen Dies After HPV Vaccine – The Science Speaks For Itself
19-year-old Jasmin Soriat just died in her sleep after getting the HPV vaccine, and she's only one of thousands of...