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/

 

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

‘Targeted Individuals’ Activist Getting Stonewalled In Seeking Anti-‘Organized Torture’ Legislation

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Tomo Shibata, who has asked 9 California legislators to introduce a bill that specifically criminalizes 'Organized Covert Torture,' has uncovered evidence of undue influence from the perpetrators over the legislative process.

  • Reflect On:

    How can those of us within the awakening community take the efforts of Dr. Shibata and use them to help us all better understand the truth about 'Organized Covert Torture' in a way that we are empowered to put an end to it?

In a previous article, “New California Bill Proposal Aims To Protect ‘Targeted Individuals’,” I described how Dr. Tomo Shibata proposed a bill to members of the California legislature entitled ‘The Organized Torture Act,’ which seeks to criminalize many of the types of attacks that are clandestinely made on targeted individuals.

Now, it appears that Dr. Shibata is getting stonewalled by the California lawmakers she has approached to introduce the bill. And it is Dr. Shibata’s belief that the very forces she is fighting against, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors in coordination with local law-enforcement officials, are influential in dissuading these politicians from introducing the bill.

What Is ‘Organized Covert Torture’?

This article by Ramola D explains the genesis of Dr. Shibata’s bill proposal and helps us better understand the attacks that ‘targeted individuals’ are facing:

This proposal was made, Dr. Shibata states, on the basis of complaints to human rights groups from high numbers of residents across California from various cities including San Diego, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palo Alto, and others, of “organized covert torture” whereby, in lieu of outright abduction, victims are kept under constant control of the covert torture organizations by organized stalking, sustained surreptitious monitoring, cyberstalking, and stealth physical assault and battery with radiation weaponry such as microwave/radar surveillance weapons. Different sources offer varying estimates, running into hundreds of thousands, of the numbers of organized covert torture victims often labeled “Targeted Individuals” within the USA and around the world.

It may be hard for some to believe that this phenomenon is real, let alone affecting hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of individuals on the planet. But that is why this is such a diabolical process. It is designed to appear to outsiders as though it is not happening at all, while some of the tactics are not fully hidden from the victims themselves, when the desire is to inflict a sense of helplessness and paranoia upon the victim.

What is beyond doubt, for those who have researched into this matter, is that technology does indeed exist to remotely target individual people with invisible weapons that cause physical pain as well as debilitating mental and auditory stimulation (source).

advertisement - learn more

This form of torture and human experimentation has the most power when the general public does not believe in its existence. This is why the awakening community must stand behind victims and give their stories credence, as I outlined in a previous article ‘Targeted Individuals Need The Awakening Community To Believe Their Stories.’ And this may be one reason why Dr. Shibata is working tirelessly to get this bill proposal introduced in the California legislature, since just the introduction of the bill (let alone the passing of it into law) will bring it into the public domain and give this issue the legitimacy it desperately needs.

The Culprits

However, ‘legitimacy’ is the last thing that the perpetrators of organized covert torture want. This is why Dr. Shibata believes that these perpetrators are playing a direct role in overtly and covertly discouraging California State legislators from introducing ‘The Organized Torture Act.’

In Dr. Shibata’s email to me (which is the source of all the quotes from her in this article), she specifically points to local law enforcement in concert with Fusion Centers as the most visible culprits of ‘Organized Covert Torture’:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Fusion Center intelligence contractors “empower frontline law enforcement…to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better protect their communities.” (source)—the Fusion Center’s rationale for the organized surveillance and covert torture operations of those who are wrongfully named as criminals and/or terrorists without any due process, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s testimony.

Dr. Shibata believes that these intelligence contractors could “empower” police groups as a front organization to mind-control the California legislature:

The police have very strong lobbying groups at the California state legislature. The Fusion Center intelligence contractors could help police lobbying groups in becoming so “strong” in influencing the California legislature, by deploying the following technique: covertly manipulate those who exert the most influence on the target-legislators, who might introduce the bill to prohibit organized covert torture, in order to safeguard the excessive privileges of the police/intelligence contractors to torture targeted individuals.

And indeed, her experience dealing with legislators bears this out.

Stonewalled By Legislators

In total, Dr. Shibata has asked 9 California legislators to review the bill proposal and introduce it to the legislature. Any bill that amends the Penal Code is required to go through an ‘analysis’ by the Public Safety Committee Counsel. This analysis, according to Dr. Shibata, ‘exerts considerable influence on the voting outcome of the members of the committee.’ The committee majority approval is needed first before the bill is introduced to all members of the legislature for voting. So, although the proposed bill has not yet been introduced, the legislative director of Assembly Member Shirley Weber went ahead and asked the Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel to issue a provisional analysis of the proposed bill, in order for Dr. Weber to find out the prospects for the proposed bill in the legislature. Dr. Shibata believes that the opinions of this counsel have resulted from the undue influence of police lobby groups that front the intelligence operations behind covert organized torture.

In communication with Dr. Weber’s legislative director, Dr. Shibata was made aware that Weber’s office received the following advice from Assembly Public Safety Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Sandy Uribe:

1. The acts of organized covert torture and organized stalking, which the proposed bill prohibits, are already proscribed by the current Penal Code. There is no need for an addition law.

2. The incident, where a civilian complained about his inner ears injured by the police’s ongoing act of using an ultrasonic weapon at him, shot and killed a rookie female police officer in Davis, CA (20-minute driving distance from Sacramento) on January 10, 2019, would discourage the legislature from voting favorably on the proposed bill. The location of the incident is so close to the California capitol that this incident would considerably influence the voting results of the proposed bill.

Dr. Weber decided not to introduce the proposed bill upon receiving this advice. Yet, Dr. Shibata finds the advice highly questionable, and refuted it as follows:

Assembly Public Safety Committee Counsel Deputy Chief Uribe’s above advice prejudicially interprets the proposed bill text and the recent police officer’s murder incident in the light that is most protective of the excessive privileges of the police to torture targeted individuals. Please note that the police abuse discretion vested in them and elect not to enforce the existing laws against organized covert torture and organized stalking. The socio-legal context of the proposed legislation parallels that of the anti-domestic violence legislation, because the police abused their discretion vested in them and did not enforce the pre-existing law against battery in domestic relations, prior to the anti-domestic violence legislation. Just as many police officers themselves committed domestic violence at home back then, many police officers commit organized covert torture themselves today, along with the Fusion Center contractors and under the supervision of the FBI, as per Former FBI Special Agent Geral Sosbee’s aforementioned testimony.

The anti-domestic violence legislation established the rule of law in domestic relations and drastically reduced the killings of husbands by the battered wives at home. The proposed bill will establish the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture and thus will substantially prevent the killings of the police officers by the civilian victims of organized cover torture by the police, as exemplified by the aforementioned Davis police shooter, who had a violent criminal record. Indeed, L.A. law enforcement officers fire electronic weapons remotely at prison inmates, which the ACLU describes as “tantamount to torture,” according to CBS News. Therefore, the recent Davis police officer’s lethal shooting incident only casts light on the urgent need for the rule of law surrounding organized covert torture, instead of discouraging the legislature from voting against the proposed bill.

Another legislator Dr. Shibata asked to introduce the bill was Ed Chau, the chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, and a former judge and an engineer, who has successfully authored bills against the technological invasion of privacy and is already aware of one of the most sophisticated technologies used against targeted individuals, “synthetic telepathy,” which is known to have been researched by the University of California at Irvine and funded by the Army (source). The task of preparing an internal report to Chau on the proposed bill was delegated to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Consultant/Attorney Nichole Rapier Rocha. In a phone conversation with Rocha, Dr. Shibata found out that Rocha had received unsolicited advice from Sandy Uribe similar to the advice she gave Dr. Weber’s office, which led Dr. Shibata to ask the following question:

Why did super busy Sandy Uribe go out of her way to identify/trace which influential staffer at the legislature was still reviewing the bill proposal for potential recommendation and further to “warn” that influential staffer of the said “problems” of the bill proactively?

While Ed Chau has not yet decided whether to sponsor the bill, the following legislators have already declined: Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Senator Nancy Skinner, Senator Jim Beall, and Senator Chris Holden. Their refusal to take up the challenge, according to Dr. Shibata, is partly “due to their apathetic complicity in leaving thousands of victims, in California alone, continuously and indefinitely exposed to irreversibly maiming torture and slow-kill murder.” But she also has seen telling signs of infiltration within legislators’ committees and the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry in discouraging these legislators from introducing the bill.

Aside from Assembly Member Ed Chau, those legislators who have yet to make a decision are Senator Steven Bradford and Senator Holly Mitchell. Whether or not the tremendous effort made by Dr. Tomo Shibata to get this bill introduced to the California legislature will come to fruition rests in their hands. Time is short, as the bill introduction deadline is February 22, 2019. If you would like to show your support for Dr. Shibata, please try to let your opinions be known to these three remaining California legislators or go to Dr. Shibata’s GoFundMe Page.

The Takeaway

While her proposal to introduce legislation may not be accepted this time around, the time and effort that Dr. Shibata has put into this enterprise has still afforded us the opportunity to see a little more deeply into the mechanisms of control behind organized covert torture and the complicity between politics, law enforcement and intelligence that is needed to keep it in place. Her work is helping to bring the phenomena more into public awareness, and it is through growing awareness and our commitment to uncover the truth that we will one day end these kinds of operations.

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

YouTube Will Stop Recommending Videos Of 9/11 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ To Users

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    YouTube has decided to change its algorithm for recommending videos by excluding certain videos such as those they feel 'make blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.'

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see through the deception and come to know the truth about mainstream media's efforts to promote a false narrative and create within us a disempowering perception about our world?

Heartwarming, isn’t it? Social media giants like YouTube are willing to sacrifice advertising profits in order to ensure that their cherished viewers are deterred from seeing content that YouTube deems dangerous and potentially damaging to their viewers’ mental and emotional health. They’re doing this even though these viewers have demonstrated that they want to see this content. It’s just like having a Big Brother around to help steer us onto the straight and narrow path, isn’t it?

Examples the social media giant cited include videos “promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

Now, we can talk about any of these examples cited above for wildly different reasons, but let’s stick with the 9/11 theme. While there is no denying that it was a ‘historic event,’ what is implied by this phrase is that 9/11 has an established, well-proven historical account based on the government’s explanation of what happened and supported by the ‘official’ report cobbled together by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For YouTube, this report is seen as the authoritative ‘last word’ on what happened in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

I could spend pages detailing how many 9/11 ‘conspiracy’ videos, like ones done by the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, are much more coherent, objective and evidence-based than the NIST report or mainstream media coverage on the subject. But no need, as this is fairly self-evident for anyone who has done a modicum of research into the subject.

What is important to note here is to read the phrase ‘making blatantly false claims’ as really meaning ‘making claims that deviate from the official, controlled mainstream narrative.’ In this regard, the takeover of social media companies by the global elite, as with the prior consolidation of traditional media companies, has been done mainly to try to continue to have a stronghold on how human beings interpret past events, in a way that advances their agenda.

Understanding ‘Recommended’ Videos

Now, to be specific, YouTube is not simply deleting videos they don’t want on their platform (well, they’ve done that too, but that’s another story). They are changing the process by which YouTube ‘recommends’ videos to users based on that viewer’s preferences.

advertisement - learn more

‘Recommended’ videos are those videos that YouTube makes available to the viewer alongside whatever video they are watching, using artificial intelligence to come up with a selection most likely to tempt viewers to continue watching after they are done with the video they are engaged with.

Guillaume Chaslot, a former Google engineer that helped build the artificial intelligence (AI) used to curate recommended videos, said the goal of YouTube’s AI was to keep users on the site as long as possible in order to promote more advertisements. What’s the ‘problem’ with this, according to YouTube? This algorithm encouraged some people with a penchant for ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (to use the famed psy-op label coined by the CIA) to go down a dangerous rabbit hole of misinformation, delusion and potential violence.

Andrew Mendrala, supervising attorney of Georgetown Law’s Civil Rights Clinic warns that the previous YouTube algorithm is “an echo chamber. It’s a feedback loop. It creates an insular community that is continually fed misinformation that reinforces their prejudices.”

Chaslot agrees with this sentiment, saying that when a user was enticed by multiple conspiracy videos, the AI not only became biased by the content the hyper-engaged users were watching, it also kept track of the content that those users were engaging with in an attempt to reproduce that pattern with other users. In a thread of tweets he recently posted, Chaslot praised the change that actually prevents flagged videos from being included within the recommended selection. His comment about this change should give us pause:

“It’s only the beginning of a more humane technology. Technology that empowers all of us, instead of deceiving the most vulnerable.”

Humane? Censorship and controlling information have been couched in many terms recently, but to call this change ‘humane’ feels like the height of hypocrisy. It truly strains credulity to imagine that a corporation like YouTube actually cares about the ‘most vulnerable’ people in society.

Mainstream Rationalization

Let’s call this most recent change in policy by a social media giant what it is: a small step in a subtle, ongoing effort to control the minds of people and reinforce mainstream perceptions rather than letting people sift through a variety of opinions and think for themselves.

There is little the public can do about the policy change itself because YouTube is a private company with legal rights to decide what is broadcast on their platform. But it is the rationalization that we hear in the mainstream for justifying this change that is hard to endure. YouTube claims that the change “strikes a balance between maintaining a platform for free speech and living up to our responsibility to users.” Here’s how a Guardian article frames the mainstream narrative on this particular subject:

YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms have faced growing scrutiny in recent years for their role in hosting and amplifying political propaganda and abusive content that spark real-world consequences and can lead to violence.

In 2016, the conspiracy theory that became known as “Pizzagate” – a popular rightwing fake news story alleging that the Comet Ping Pong restaurant was linked to a child sex ring involving the Hillary Clinton campaign – motivated a gunman to fire a weapon inside the restaurant.

It’s amazing how often this one stooge firing a weapon inside Comet Ping Pong–quite possibly a staged event–is pulled out in mainstream media to try to discredit any investigations into Pizzagate. This technique is used often to bring fear and ridicule upon people following alternative narratives in an attempt to sway the public back to the mainstream perception.

Mainstream Projection

Then the mainstream parades out people like Mendrala, who will make claims that providing viewers more of what they are interested in creates an ‘echo chamber’ and a ‘feedback loop.’ In reality, these comments are pure projection, as this is what mainstream media has been and is desperately trying to continue to be: an untouchable, self-perpetuating Ministry of Truth. As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Accordingly, we see how the mainstream media has been working in alliance with the social media giants to ‘control the present’ by incrementally removing certain content from view as we move forward, a slow and patient high-tech form of ‘book burning.’ In controlling the present, they then control the past–i.e. they get to say what events in the past mean, creating a controlled interpretation of the past that then informs us about who we are and what life is about. This then allows them to control the future, which enables the gradual acceleration of the program to enslave humanity.

The Takeaway

Our ability to see through the mainstream deception is going to be our greatest asset in averting the agenda of global elite enslavement. While they do have the power and the wealth, we have the numbers, and we have the truth on our side. If together we truly aspire to awaken to know the truth, it will set us free.

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

The Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health

Published

on

Mobile and wireless technologies are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. Most U.S. adults own smartphones, a growing proportion are “smartphone-only” Internet users and over a fourth report being online “almost constantly.” As for children, a 2014 survey of high-income nations reported that almost seven in ten children used a mobile phone, and two-thirds of those had a smartphone, usually by age 10. As described by Nielsen, it is now as common to see “a kid with a smartphone in their hand” as it was to see “a kid playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age.”

The enthusiasm with which the public has embraced each new mobile and wireless technology—most of which have never undergone any appropriate safety testing or standards development—suggests that consumers rarely stop to consider the health implications of the infrastructure shoring up their ability to browse, stream and download anytime and “on the go.” Consumers are not entirely to blame for their lack of awareness—it is not easy to disentangle the technologies’ health risks in the face of the telecommunications industry’s steady and calculated disinformation efforts and a captured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “follows the script of fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.”

…powerful 5g (fifth generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of mandatory irradiation – without prior study of the potential health impact or any assurance of safety

Now, however, a global 5G “frenzy” is upon us and is coming into full force. The rollout of “blazing fast” 5G technology will “dramatically increase the number of transmitters sending signals to cellphones and a host of new Internet-enabled devices.” The time is ripe for greater grassroots awareness of the undisclosed tradeoffs between convenience and 5G’s potentially catastrophic health effects. Far from a simple “next-gen” upgrade, powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of what retired U.S. government physicist Dr. Ronald Powell calls “mandatory irradiation”—without “prior study of the potential health impact” or any assurance of safety. Considering that young people (with their smaller body mass and developing brains) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, the Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.

Early warnings

In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment. In 2018, telecom carriers in the U.S. and Europe began rolling out 5G technology in dozens of cities. Focusing (for now) on “dense urban and high-traffic areas” in the U.S., AT&T began positioning its 5G infrastructure in major cities in eight states, and Verizon started offering 5G home broadband service in “select neighborhoods” in a handful of cities.

…health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations

advertisement - learn more

For the most part, health concerns have ranked as a tiny footnote in the midst of the massive hoopla about 5G’s speed and capacity, although trade magazines admit that there may be “some objections” to 5G due to “concerns over potential health risks.” In both Europe and the U.S., however, individuals living and working in proximity to newly installed 5G towers and antennas are telling a different story. Many have immediately started experiencing health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.

In response to complaints from fire fighters subjected to 5G antennas, the International Association of Fire Fighters has gone on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

United Nations whistleblower recently drew attention to 5G’s dramatic impact on health in a widely circulated series of comments about 5G’s “seemingly overnight” rollout in Vienna, Austria. Describing 5G as a “silent war,” she commented:

“…Children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies. Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs.”

Above and below

One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”

…Even in the home environment, 5G technology (will) blast through walls and cribs, making a mockery of the notion that ‘your home is your castle in which you are supposed to be safe

Organizations concerned about the health hazards of wireless radiation note that “Right now, you don’t have to live next to a cell tower….but once they have these [5G] cell antennas everywhere, you won’t be able to [move away].” Unfortunately, the “nowhere to hide” aspects of 5G are even more serious, because ground-based 5G systems will be supplemented by satellite-based systems. In March, 2018, the FCC approved the initial launch of over 4,400 low-Earth-orbit 5G communication satellites, to be followed by thousands more over the next two years—with the eventual result being 11 times more satellites orbiting the Earth than currently. The satellites will send “tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth,” while each device then sends “a beam of radiation back to the satellite.”

In practical terms, this means that in crowded locations such as airports, individuals’ bodies “will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones.” But even in the home environment, “5G technology [will] blast through walls and cribs,” making a mockery of “the notion that ‘your home is your castle’ in which you are supposed to be safe.”

More than skin-deep

Scientists, doctors and experts from around the world have issued repeated warnings about 5G’s risks, drawing on published research on MMWs as well as thousands of studies showing the harms caused by other mobile and wireless technologies.

In this context, industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world. The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.” Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”

Moratorium urgently needed

When the FCC endorsed the transition to 5G in 2016, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) vowed “to allow new [5G] technologies and innovations to evolve and flourish without needlessly prescriptive regulations.” Thus, even though 5G represented a radical shift in technology, the FCC proposed no further safety studies, instead continuing to rely on its “outdated, excessively permissive, and thus widely criticized, radiation-exposure guidelines that…are based primarily on a 30-year-old analysis…many years before the emergence of most of the digital wireless technology in use today.” A recent government study by the National Toxicology Program—which determined that cell phone radiation causes cancer—deemed the three-decade-old guidelines “unprotective.”

…children who began using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 had more than a fourfold increased brain tumour risk.

5G poses risks to all life on the planet—people, animals, insects and plants. However, it is clear that fetuses and children are among the most vulnerable members of the human population. Even prior to 5G, Swedish researchers concluded that “children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies” and reported that children who began using “either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20” had more than a fourfold increased brain tumor risk. Describing brain cancer as “the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg,’” the researchers also observed that “no other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade.”

The UN whistleblower states, “People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action.” Some of the actions that people have taken include signing the International Appeal; learning about the multiple reasons to be concerned about 5G radiation and telling others; talking to legislators about why rushing legislation that streamlines the deployment of 5G small cells is a bad idea (and also raising the awareness of legislators and state utility commissions about the risks of smart meters); and changing their relationship to their devices, including using wired rather than wireless Internet connections (or turning off WiFi routers at night) and adopting other simple steps.

5G promises to create an even “denser soup of electrosmog,” with incalculable health effects. In fact, any sane person who examines the evidence must concur with the authors and over 40,000 signatories of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, who agree that the rush to blanket the planet with 5G “constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”

Republishing Guidelines

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
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

 

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

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.