Photo Credit: HTSABO
Social scientists and data analysts: Why not just ask parents who don’t vaccinate what they believe? Or read the vaccine damage claims?
Would it make you feel safer to know that your government is monitoring social media for your views on vaccines? Studying us all like lab rats to isolate the anti-vaccine animals, to determine the nature of the beast, his habitat, his resources, his beliefs? That it is culling all this data to be used one day in large government programs to identify the perpetrators of unsafe opinion with ease and to silence them?
No? Well, it is underway.
A study published this month reveals that social scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health have monitored hundreds of thousands of personal tweets to document “trends of anti-vaccination beliefs” on Twitter and to “geolocate” the users of the social media platform and pigeonhole them in demographic categories.
They sifted through 549,972 tweets from January 2009 to August 2015 using Social Studio’s Radian6 application to identify 272,546 tweets that they classified as containing references to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and “anti-vaccination beliefs” within the same tweet.
“The volume of online anti-vaccine beliefs is alarming and may indicate shifts in public opinion, which can translate to lower vaccine coverage,” says the paper led by Theodore S. Tomeny, a psychologist at the University of Alabama.
Tomeny and the other researchers that included a professor of data analytics in mass communication from the University of Boulder-Colorado and someone at the Brave New World sounding Division for Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities calculated “tweet volume” at state level and used CensusReporter’s API and Google Maps Places to “geo-tag” people and then to determine demographic figures to describe them.
What they found is what everybody already knows: Anti-vaxxers have children, they tend to make a lot of money and they are smart. The tweets were concentrated in neighborhoods occupied by a high number of women who had a baby in the past 12 months, households with annual incomes of $200,000 or more and men between ages 40 to 44 with some college education.
They even race profiled anti-vaxxers. “Asian-only race variable was significantly associated with anti-vaccine tweet volume,” they reported.
Anti-vaccine autism tweets coincided with news reports on vaccines were higher than average in five states: California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania and spiked in August and September (just when school officials start harassing parents to comply with mandates).
The data analyst set up an interactive website to illustrate anti-vaccine tweets moving around a map of America like a map of election returns. http://chrisjvargo.com/animatedautism/
They call it “Social listening.” “Social listening allows for an examination of vaccination-related beliefs and can serve as an early indicator of shifts in public opinion,” the study says.
“Monitoring social media for anti-vaccine beliefs is beneficial for surveillance and intervention efforts to curtail anti-vaccine beliefs.”
So just what sort of “interventions” are they thinking of?
They say public health professionals should implement “real-time interventions” that, “aided by computer-assisted content analysis software and machine learning algorithms, are designed to instantly detect anti-vaccine tweets and reply with counter messages using the twitter handle (i.e., @username) and/or hashtag of the original tweet.”
They actually claim it’s worked before. Except the study they cite concludes that pro-vaccine public health messages based on actual information usually backfire and make people less likely to vaccinate. And using images of sick children tends to make people fear vaccines more than the diseases they are supposed to prevent.
Their surveillance could allow public health professionals to “target geographic areas where these beliefs are most prevalent” and to tailor their approach to demographics, the researchers said.
But don’t be fooled. These guys are not about winning people over with counter-tweets and they already know they lose in the information battle.
Their real idea is to jackboot people into compliance with views of “social desirability.” Uptake rates for the combined seven-vaccine series have fallen to 80% and below in the five states they cited (71.9% in New York, 72.8% in Pennsylvania, 75.0% in California, 78.5% in Massachusetts, and 80.6% in Connecticut). They don’t want the public to know that educated and wealthy mothers and fathers are vaccinating less and less. They want them to be forced to inject their children.
They note that the “ease of granting exemptions is also associated with a 5% annual increase in non-medical exemptions” and they suggest that ease of obtaining exemptions for vaccines should be “examined.” Code language for “enforced.”
Make no mistake, these are the sort of people that are the reason that Michigan mother Rebecca Bredow is doing jail time right now for refusing to vaccinate her nine-year-old son. And you can bet while she is in there that her child will receive up to eight different injections to “catch him up” on the mandated vaccine schedule. Eight injections are child abuse itself, but the state overriding parental rights and medical freedom is becoming a norm that pro-vaxxers are accepting without thinking it will apply to them one day too. Perhaps when they go to renew their driver’s license they will need a Gardasil and a flu shot, or when they want to claim a government tax benefit, they will have to get a cancer vaccine or one to prevent opioid addiction, zika, ebola or whatever the pharmaceutical companies want to be mandated. They should hope they don’t have a reaction.
Prof. Tomeny and his colleagues could have saved taxpayers a bundle of money if they just asked anti-vaccination parents what they believe. If they want to understand anti-vaccine sentiment, they could watch the hundreds of Vaxxed interviews with grieving mothers. Or read the thousands of vaccine claims that the health departments keep adding to their ever-growing “Stuff To Pretend Doesn’t Exist” pile. Or just read the VAERS database of vaccine adverse reactions.
The fact is that public health officials and data analysts should already know what anti-vaccine parents know. Or they don’t want to know. The anti-vaccine “movement” is comprised mostly of parents who used to be pro-vaccine. They listened to inane public health marketing messages and they did what they were told. And then they saw their children get injured. They are the parents of children who are brain damaged. Their children have narcolepsy and Type 1 diabetes from flu vaccines. Their children have bowel syndromes and intussusception from rotavirus vaccine. They have skin rashes and hay fever and eczema and food allergies and all kinds of autoimmune diseases. And some have children who are deadfrom Sudden Infant Death after a pertussis shot or from a Gardasil vaccine.
All of these conditions are the result of damaged immune systems and they are soaring. Public health officials, pediatricians, and social scientists say they haven’t got a clue why. But the parents of damaged children know why and they cite endless sources of medical research to back up what they know about how toxic vaccine ingredients trigger autoimmunity, dangerous immune activation, and other damage. The only study to date that looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated children reveals alarmingly high odds risk ratios for chronic diseases such as autism and allergies among the vaccinated group.
Public health’s answer to this current level of chronic illness in children is to send in social scientists to “counter-tweet” real information with copy and paste pap from pharmaceutical companies. And to silence those who are trying to warn others. The problem is not going to go away, however. They may jail more parents but the Twitter storm is the least of their worries and it will just get louder as the numbers of vaccine hesitators and anti-vaccine resistors keeps growing with the numbers of vaccine-injuries. If public health had any concern for the health of these children, they would not be counting tweets.
Why Fantasy-Based Claims Always Crash & Burn: The Big Picture About UFOs & Extraterrestrials
- The Facts:
One of the world's leading researchers on the topic of UFOs shares why it's important to stick to evidence, as well as evidence that is credible when examining the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials.
- Reflect On:
It's OK to believe something, or have a specific viewpoint, but to share that viewpoint as truth when there is no evidence or corroborating information within this field is irresponsible. Has this field been infiltrated by misinformation campaigns?
There are many great quotes about UFOs and extraterrestrials. One of the most revealing quotes comes from the very first director of the CIA, Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, who informed people that although UFOs are very real and the Air Force is very concerned with them, there has been an “official campaign of secrecy and ridicule.” (source)
In my opinion, this campaign has permeated the field of UFO research to this day, and it thrives by disseminating information that can’t really be verified or corroborated in any way, and really does nothing but harm when it comes to the credibility and understanding of the topic. There are some ridiculous claims out there, including those made by “whistleblowers” who have no proof to verify who they claim to be.
Meanwhile, in regards to legitimate evidence and credibility, there is a plethora of information one can use in order to see that the topic of UFOs and the potential for extraterrestrial intelligence is a very real and serious issue.
“There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, by other civilizations. Who they are, where they are from, and what they want should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not be the subject of ‘rubishing’ by tabloid newspapers.” –Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee
Apart from statements given by hundreds of people with very credible and interesting backgrounds, we also have pictures, video footage, radar trackings, declassified documents, and much more in support of the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon. This type of evidence has existed for decades. For example, here’s a CIA document from decades ago that also cites another incident.
The document states as follows:
“ANTARCTIC FLYING SAUCERS” – A group of red, green, and yellow flying saucers has been seen flying over Deception Island for two hours by Argentine, Chilean and British bases (military) in Antarctica. The flying saucers were also seen flying in formation over the South Orkney islands in quick circles.”
It’s one of thousands of examples. When it comes to military encounters with UFOs, a good example comes from Iran in 1976 (need correct year!). Two F-4 interceptor pilots reported seeing the object visually, and it was tracked on their airborne radar. Both planes experienced critical instrumentation and electronics went offline at a distance of twenty-five miles from the object. Here is an excerpt from the declassified report:
“As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nautical miles it lost all instrumentation and communications. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. Another brightly lighted object came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F4.” (source)
These are just a few examples showing us that something strange is going on. When it comes to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, it’s vital that we take information from only verified credible sources.
“It is my thesis that flying saucers are real and that they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” – Herman Oberth, one of the founding fathers of rocketry and aeronautics (source)
Take, for example, Dr. Norman Bergrun, a mechanical engineer who has worked for Ames Research Laboratory, NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (now known as Lockheed Martin). He then went on to found Bergrun Engineering and Research. When he talked about extraterrestrials, I listened. However, when someone with no proof of who they are makes claims that don’t corroborate with any other information, it’s very hard to listen and take them seriously. That’s not the case with Dr. Norman Bergrun.
Below is a video by Richard Dolan, an academic and scholar who happens to be one of the world’s leading researchers on the topic of UFOs. He has many great and informative videos on his youtube channel, which contain some very interesting discussions. One of his latest is titled “Why Fantasy-Based Claims Always Crash & Burn. The Big Picture.”
“The UFO subject is inherently difficult. Assessing the evidence is often a challenge, but one that is necessary. An all-too-common pitfall of the subject is its vulnerability to claims based on fantasy. We can do better. Claims like ascension, or of alleged secret space wars on Mars or time travel and the like, all of these claims without evidence eventually inevitably come crashing down. We watch them rise, we watch them fall. We see them enter our community like a virus, spreading a kind of mental sickness, but then eventually dying out. They have to, because without genuine evidence, any claim is eventually going to be discarded. How can it not be, but in the meantime they enter our lives, confuse our thought processes and cause disruption, they leave us worse off and not better off. And the reason for that is simple, lies and deceptions never make us better. They don’t make us better people, even if some believers in them are well meaning. They don’t make us better because they’re illusions. And also, to continually believe in things without asking for evidence ultimately weakens your mind. Engaging in that kind of mental process over and over corrodes your ability to understand and evaluate actual evidence. It corrodes your analytical and reasoning abilities, you simply give up control of your mind.” (Quote taken from video below)
I don’t want anybody to be insulted by what Dolan said. When it comes to this topic, it has huge implications and leaves no area of humanity untouched. It’s okay to entertain claims and dive deep into researching people who have claimed to have contact experiences, for example. Dolan does plenty of that in the multiple books he’s written on the topic. Exploration and examination are important, but it’s best to only claim something is a ‘fact’ if it can be verified using evidence, especially when exploring a topic as vast as this one.
When it comes to the implications of this topic, of course there are spiritual implications, technological implications, and broader implications that could change our collective perception of reality. When it comes to ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ of course there could be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ entities, but all we can do for now is explore the evidence. This is not to say that we can’t explore other topics and discuss certain theories and possibilities, but we must make it clear when we are doing so so that others know we are simply speculating. We must ultimately never spread speculation as truth or put a stamp on our claims saying that “this is correct.”
I do believe that all of the answers we seek lie within us, although that may be “spiritual mumbo jumbo” to some. The point is, I will never share my thoughts, feelings and intuitive beliefs as ‘facts’ about the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon, and if I do share my beliefs, I will always make it clear that I am sharing something I cannot provide evidence for. However, I don’t like to do that with regards to UFOs because I prefer to share factual, evidence-based information. I am on a mission to reach as many people on the planet as I can to let them know that this is something that demands our attention. The only way to do that is to provide evidence, and there is more than enough of that. I also believe very few people have access to the “answers within,” simply because we’ve never been taught how to listen to that voice and we are overloaded with sensory experiences from the day we are born. But that’s another topic!
Thanks for reading.
US Hits Julian Assange With 17 More Charges Under Espionage Act
- The Facts:
The US Department of Justice just announced 17 more charges against Julian Assange for publishing leaks exposing government wrongdoing.
- Reflect On:
Should we be punishing journalists who help the world see who is running the countries they live in? Should we be seeing the amount of censorship we are seeing today?
Julian Assange was hit with another 17 criminal charges under the espionage act today as a federal grand jury in Virginia returned a brand new indictment that adds 17 more charges to the original charge Assange was handed in March 2018. These are in connection with the alleged leaks publicly released in conspiracy with Chelsea Manning.
These new charges could land him in prison for the 170 years, all for doing what many are arguing are responsible and important acts of journalism. Need I remind that WikiLeaks has never had to make a retraction on their journalistic work.
The new charges against Assange include allegations that he published what John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, describes a “narrow subset” of documents that identified the names of individuals who were working with the US government, including sources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course, Assange’s arrest has been controversial since it happened. Garnering opinions from many directions including that he is a hero and that he is a villain that must be prosecuted for revealing government secrets. Demers responded to supporters of Assange who feel the WikiLeaks founder was being targeted for work as a journalist. Demers stated this information put the sources at risk, and that no “responsible” journalist would publish it.
“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist,” John Demers
The US Department of Justice has just announced SEVENTEEN more charges against Julian Assange for publishing the most substantial piece of journalism in my lifetime.
— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) May 23, 2019
Assange is currently still serving a 50-week sentence in London after a judge found that he has violated his bail conditions.
This story is breaking and will be updated as we learn more.
In the meantime, for those still thinking ‘this is all part of the Q plan,’ check out a bit of a discussion on that below. I did a segment on The Collective Evolution Show on CETV. You can become a member of CETV and support Collective Evolution here.
New York Times Denies Health Consequences of 5G & Then Blames Russia
- The Facts:
A number of scientists, doctors and published peer reviewed research have clearly shown the health effects of EMF radiation. So why is it being ridicule by the mainstream? Why does it continued to go ignored?
- Reflect On:
How are these technologies able to be approved without any safety . testing, what's going on here?
Is this another story that will be heavily censored, and possibly even branded as fake news? It’s not unlikely, and it’s quite reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” Today, the thought police are the global elite, who are using social media platforms like Facebook to censor information, no matter how well presented, sourced and truthful the information is. This is because information, in several different areas, is threatening multiple corporate, political and elitist interests.
So, who are these fact checkers? Well, NewsGuard is one of them, which is funded by Clinton donors as well as big pharma and the Council on Foreign Relations. These organizations are also heavily tied to mainstream media outlets like The New York Times. Mainstream media outlets are owned by a small group of powerful people. These groups also have very close ties to multiple corporations and intelligence agencies like the CIA. Although these days it doesn’t seem very hard to recognize this, mainstream media is still used to sway the minds of the masses on certain topics by ridiculing them and failing to address and counter the points made by others. The latest example of this is with regards to 5G.
The 5G wireless technology rollout has been happening for a long time. We’ve seen a lot of marketing and information detailing how this type of technology will make our lives better and speed up the process of anything wireless. President Donald Trump recently described the 5G rollout as a “race” that “America must win.” The Canadian Prime Minister has also been quite outspoken about 5G, but has completely ignored anything regarding the health consequences, like most politicians have done so far.
A recent article in The New York Times, a major mouthpiece for the establishment, is a fiction piece on the topic of 5G masquerading as news. The piece was written by William Broad titled, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.” The paper claims that the health risks associated with 5G technology are a crazy “conspiracy theory” without even acknowledging all of the concerns being brought up by hundreds of scientists and doctors, not to mention all the peer-reviewed research and the considerable number of papers that have been published on the subject over the years. If 5G technology is so safe, why don’t we simply put it through appropriate safety testing to ease everyone’s minds? The answer is simple: It’s an obvious threat to human health, and if the corporations who control this technology, which unfortunately seem to control our government health regulatory agencies, actually did put it through transparent safety testing, there is no way these technologies would be allowed to come out. It’s truly a crime against humanity.
Furthermore, it’s quite comical how the essay blames Russia. Too long has Russia been used as a tool to simply cast blame on, the latest example would be hacking the 2016 US presidential election. There was no evidence for that, and it seems to be a narrative that was made up out of thin air by the elite, using mainstream media as their tool.
“As a patriotic loyalist of Russo-paranoia, Broad has dreamed up a hallucination that Russia is preparing to outpace the US’s strategy to dominate the global “internet of everything” in the race to launch 5G technology globally. Aside from Broad’s otherwise corporate friendly stances supporting hydrofracking, genetically modified foods, and the myth that vaccines do not contribute to neurological disorders, he has produced some excellent work about Yoga culture and North Korea. Yet these are hardly topics that would enable a person to speak intelligently about electromagnetic frequency’s (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms.” – Richard Gate, Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries, & Dr. Gary Null, the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception (source)
The statement was made by Céline Fremault, the Minister of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, responsible for Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy. From an interview last Friday, with L’Echo:
“I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt.”
– Céline Fremault, Minister of the Government (Brussels-Captial Region)
There are more than 10,000 peer-reviewed studies that confirm 5G’s measurable adverse effects on human biology. Again, the Times completely ignored this and simply implied that these health concerns are a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, as far back as 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This was based on research showing a direct correlation between glioma tumors — a malignant brain cancer — and wireless mobile phone use. The Agency falls under the umbrella of the WHO, a cesspool compromised of corporate conflicts of interests and biased influence. It’s important to mention that the former chair of the IARC group, Anders Ahlbom, who’s also the co-founder of Gunnar Ahlbom AB, a Belgian lobbying firm providing public relations services to the telecom industry, was responsible for evaluating the epidemiology and carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation. The IARC is completely biased, yet it still admits that 5G is “possibly” carcinogenic, even though the science shows that it clearly is carcinogenic.
Between August 2016 and September 2018, over 400 new studies on electromagnetic radiation risks were compiled by public health professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley. These studies cover earlier generation technologies, whereas 5G will be everywhere and far less safe. Compared to 4G technology, which is commonly used today, every 5G base station will contain hundreds of thousands of antennas, each aiming lasers like microwave beams to all devices. In an urban area, base stations could be installed as little as 100 meters (328 feet) apart.
Those studies show a myriad of risks, including damage to DNA, damage to sperm, neuropsychiatric damage, and much more. For example, a study titled “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression” published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy outlines this quite clearly, and it’s only one of thousands of peer-reviewed studies raising multiple concerns in regards to this type of technology.
Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, is another academic who has gathered a number of studies and compiled them together. Taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” he states that:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
According to Dr. Marin Blank from Columbia University’s Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, with regards to wireless radiation in general:
“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.”
If you want to dive deeper into the science of this stuff and see just how obvious it is, you can find a lot of research that’s been published over the years linked at the Environmental Health Trust. It’s a great resource.
Furthermore, we’ve covered this topic in depth, and you can read some of our other related articles if you’re interested. They’re listed below:
Do we really need to use these technologies? Why do politicians and mainstream media continue to talk about 5G without ever addressing the health concerns, and why do mainstream media outlets simply ridicule all of the health concerns that are being brought up by the public? What is going on here? Can mainstream media really convince people that 5G technology is completely safe, and that those who claim it’s not have no idea what they are talking about?
At the end of the day, all we can do is lower our exposure to EMF radiation. We can choose a faster wired connection. There are products available on the market, like paint for your home as well as clothing, that can block this radiation. Most importantly, you can utilize a healthy lifestyle as well as the mind-body connection to mitigate the effects. Awareness without fear/worry is our best tool, but at the end of the day we must continue to raise our voice in an age of massive censorship.
These Plants Are Oxygen Bombs & They Clean The Air In Your Home
Everyone would love to have a fresh, clean living space to come home to each day, and while part of...
US Government Accidentally Releases Electromagnetic Mind Control Documents In FOIA Request
When researcher Curtis Waltman of the website Muckrock received files resulting from his Freedom of Information Act request on Antifa and...