- The Facts:
A Bill was proposed in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion. Subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia have some suggesting that this bill pushes infanticide.
- Reflect On:
Can we see how the abortion issue is so polarized these days that there is little room to have the kinds of discussions that bring us together on this matter and try to define who we want to be as a collective?
The proposal of a Bill in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion, and subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia, have set off a firestorm in public discourse, and understandably so.
However, rather than getting into the polarized ‘discussions’ that are taking place both in the political arena and between everyday citizens, let’s take a seat above the fray and try to see what’s going on here at a higher level.
--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.
If you consume information on this subject from mainstream media, what is inevitably highlighted are the most extreme conclusions coming from the two sides, where the battle of rhetoric between left and right seems to be what is considered newsworthy rather than the issue at hand.
And this is as it was meant to be. For there is an agenda behind how mainstream media reports on the news. As long as it keeps people in a polarized state it actually maintains the system in place and forces people to stay within the control matrix. Those who continue to rigidly identify as a Democrat or as a Republican, as Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, are leaving themselves open to being controlled. The mainstream narrative will continue to think for you, rather than create a space in which you can think for yourself, the latter being one of the main aims of conscious media.
The Facts About The Virginia Bill
Let’s begin with the facts about the Virginia Bill and see if we can navigate through what has happened with a greater degree of emotional neutrality and perspective.
Kathy Tran Introduces The Bill. Kathy Tran is a Democrat who was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017. She introduced HB 2491 earlier this year, which sought to change the number of physicians required for an abortion to be sanctioned as well as broaden the health circumstances under which an abortion would be allowed. As with many bills, this one was introduced with little fanfare and only really came to public attention in a committee hearing on Monday, where she was questioned about the bill by fellow delegate Todd Gilbert, a Republican.
The Committee Hearing. If you watch the video closely–and I believe it is certainly worthwhile to do so–you will see in Kathy Tran a person who is pushing for significant changes in abortion law, but seems neither well-informed about the bill itself nor a particularly passionate defender of it. Tran often evades questions or gives inappropriate answers, or simply doesn’t have an answer and defends her lack of knowledge by saying “I’m not a physician,” while she and her lawyer rue the fact that “expert witnesses” who are physicians were not present because they were “seeing patients.”
The most significant line of questioning can be illustrated in this exchange in which Gilbert is concerned specifically about the leeway being afforded to allowing abortions right up until birth based on a physician’s assessment of the risk to a woman’s mental health:
Gilbert: “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?”
Tran: “Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”
Gilbert: “Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.”
Tran: “My bill would allow that.”
It took a while for Gilbert to make clear to Tran that he was asking about mental health only, and got no answer from either Tran or her lawyer as to what kind of standards or examples of mental health risks would be considered legitimate. However, Tran finally did concede that the bill did not require the physician to have any ‘specialized training in mental health’ in order to certify a third-trimester abortion based on mental health risks.
Governor Northam’s Comments. The Governor of Virginia stepped in with some ill-advised comments during station WTOP’s Ask The Governor radio show two days later. Northam went strong on the stance that what a women does with her body should be her decision in consultations with her physician(s). But he did nothing to distinguish whether a baby that had actually been delivered was no longer a part of the mother’s body. Here are the comments that caused the greatest ruckus:
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Now, it must be said that when Northam talks about third-trimester abortions, he created the context that ‘it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.’ But still, he seems to be going beyond even what Tran was proposing, saying here that a baby that is delivered and is still alive may be subject to a decision between the doctor and the mother as to whether that baby should live or die. There is a bit of vagueness and contradiction in his thought process, so you can follow along in this short clip and judge what he really meant to say.
What Is Really Going On Here?
Does the evidence suggest that the Democratic party should be considered supporters of infanticide, which represents the killing of a child after that child had been delivered? Kathy Tran has since said that she ‘misspoke’ when she said that her bill would allow a woman’s request for an abortion while she was in labor to be executed. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Gov. Northam told Vox his comments were “absolutely not” a reference to infanticide, and that they “focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.”
But really, this has little to do with Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam. This has much more to do with the long-term social engineering plans of the powerful elite that are behind the Democratic party. While I believe there is some validity in a woman’s right to choose, there appears to be a darker overriding agenda to gradually desensitize human beings to the sanctity of life, which would then allow practices such as pedophilia, child blood sacrifice, and cannibalism to continue in the shadows with increasingly less resistance.
Kathy Tran, by all appearances, is hardly part of this group, and in all likelihood unaware of their sinister agenda. The first-term representative, however, was likely chosen by the party brass to introduce this bill because of the optics, being not only a woman but a mother of 4 who breastfed her daughter on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates. Who better to introduce a sensitive piece of legislation that further tries to facilitate late-term abortions?
For his part, Governor Northram has been instructed to be a champion of women’s rights, often repeating the mantra that ‘men shouldn’t be deciding what women do with their bodies’ and that ‘we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions, we want these decisions to be made by the mothers and their [health] providers.’ With Tran’s bill attempting to reduce the number of physicians needed to consent to a late-term abortion down to 1, this would enable pro-abortion doctors to use their authority and knowledge to subtly steer women towards the decision to have an abortion.
Where Planned Parenthood Comes In
And this is where Planned Parenthood enters into the equation. This organization receives $500 million in funding from the government each year, and has disclosed that it contributed $30 million back to the Democratic Party (source), (with actual undisclosed contributions allegedly closer to $65 million (source, post 2674)).
This closed loop reveals one of the fulcrums of this abortion agenda fronted by the Democratic party. As I discussed in my article ‘Illuminati Pedophilia: Attempts To Normalize Sex Between Adults And Children (Part 2),’ there is fairly incontestable evidence that Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of human fetuses for tremendous profits.
Let’s look again at the main three aspects of HB2491:
1) Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital.
2) Eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion.
3) Eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.
All of these aspects point to facilitating abortions that could further erode a societal respect for human life. They make it easier for a single doctor who is aligned with the Planned Parenthood agenda to make a personal assessment without any psychiatric training about the risks of the delivery to the mother’s ‘mental health,’ thereby subtly influencing mothers to consent more to abortions, which then enriches the business end of the Planned Parenthood agenda.
Backlash Against Northam
While the global elite may hope to eventually achieve some conditional acceptance of infanticide, given that they have absolutely no regard for human life, their plan has always unfolded slowly and incrementally, done in the shadows as much as possible. They know full well that at this time they cannot just introduce legislation that would permit allowing a woman to ‘abort’ a baby after it had been delivered, because it would cause outrage and bring attention to their agenda. As it turns out, this is exactly what has happened.
In this regard, Governor Northam unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and now he is being demonized by the Democratic party with some racist scandal from a photo that appears on Northam’s medical school yearbook page which shows Northam dressed in blackface and another student in a KKK costume, obviously for some kind of costume party. On the basis of this one picture from 35 years ago conveniently surfacing, the Democratic party is trying to hide their own agenda by distancing themselves from Northam and having many party members now echoing the call for him to resign as governor. Too bad Northam couldn’t be as effective as Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who recently celebrated the passing of legislation in New York that loosens restrictions on abortions.
It’s Not Just About Democrats
While the abortion agenda has long been the domain of the Democratic party, it should be made clear here that the overall agenda of the global elite has always run through both parties to a large extent. The global elite will advance their agenda in ways that are always disguised to associate with each party’s particular policies. While the Democratic party is used to erode the sanctity of human life, the Republican party may be used more to ensure that a global corporatocracy is strengthened and any signs of sympathy towards socialist doctrines and a minimum standard of living for the poor are effectively quashed.
The fight that rages between Democrats and Republicans has long been to give the illusion of choice to the people, to make us feel that the power of our vote allows us to be masters of our own destiny. In reality, from our seat high above the fray, we see that this has been a false dichotomy which only serves to polarize us, and no matter which party is seen as ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ a particular battle, the outcome is designed to continue to advance the ultimate agenda of the global elite, which is world domination and the enslavement of humanity.
On most issues that are subjected to the violent political tug-of-war between the left and the right, the everyday person feels that they have to identify with one polarity or the other if they want to participate in the discussion. Back when I was younger, and the passing of Roe v. Wade was still in its infancy, the abortion debate was conducted with a bit more openness and curiosity into the nature of what it is to be human, and how we wanted to govern ourselves as a society.
I was always one who supported a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, and so in a sense I always supported a women’s right to an abortion to the extent that I believed what was being aborted was a part of her body and not a discrete living being. That does not mean I supported the performing of abortions as such; however, I did favor that those women who had good reasons to want or need to abort a fetus should be able to do it in a safe way rather than in an unsanctioned back-room clinic.
That said, two questions remained difficult to answer. The first was, what reasons (aside from the birthing process threatening the life of the mother) could be accepted as justifying getting an abortion? The second was, at what point does the fetus stop being a part of the mother’s anatomy and start being a discrete being on its own? On one extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being from the moment of conception; on the other extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being only after the umbilical cord has been cut. Generally speaking, the debate occurred in between these two extremes, and can only be resolved by reasonable people in an open discussion of the rights and essence of both a mother and a fetus, as well as the essence of who we are as a society. There was a sense of curiosity, and some humility in terms of nobody really knowing the definitive answers to these questions, but being willing to put thoughts and feelings forth in order to arrive at some consensus in terms of legislation on this matter.
Today, the matter is dominated by extremists, and that fits in with the globalist agenda. It is important that those of us who are awakening to the big picture disengage from the polarized discussion, and realize that such discussions about the nature of who we are and who we want to be as people and as a society have to take place in that seat high above the fray of polarity, and in recognition of how this and many other important issues have been co-opted by powerful forces.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Noam Chomsky Explains How Immoral & Unethical Extraditing Julian Assange Would Be
- The Facts:
Noam Chomsky explains that Julian Assange is locked up for spreading truth, and exposing information that the general public has the right to know.
- Reflect On:
Why do people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden face such a harsh backlash from Governments? If governments and elite corporations aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide? Why are the censoring so much information?
What Happened: Popular activist and academic Noam Chomsky recently sat down with RT for an interview regarding the attempted extradition of Julian Assange to the United States. He (Assange) is facing multiple life sentences for leaking classified information, but the reality is, as hundreds of academics, legal professionals, and what seems to be a staggering majority all over the world, feel what is happening to Julian Assange is a result of simply sharing information that that exposes immoral and unethical actions by various governments and big corporations. In fact, more than 150 politicians, lawyers, and legal academics, including 13 former presidents recently called on the UK to free Assange. You can access that letter here. For this, not only has he been imprisoned, but tortured as well. Chomsky mentions this as well.
Of course, the opposition would argue that the information Assange shared threatened “national security” but in my opinion, national security has simply become an umbrella term to cover up these immoral actions by governments and corporations.
According to Chomsky, ‘Julian Assange committed the crime of letting the general population know things that they have a right to know and that powerful states don’t want them to know.’ You can watch the interview clip here.
Why This Is Important: I’ve written about Assange quite a bit, and a quite I like to use often comes from – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.
Related CE Articles:
The Takeaway: In my opinion, politics has become a cesspool of corruption, and it’s now corporations and big banks that seem to dictate political policy. What we are presented with on our TV when it comes to geopolitical issues and war is far different from what’s happening in reality, and this is what Julian Assange made evident. Whether it’s the funding, arming and creation of terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda by our governments, creating problems so they can propose the solutions, or documents showing the influence Big Pharma has on global health policy, obtaining this information and using it to inform the public is not a “threat” to the people, it’s a threat to to the people in power. These people in power are using “national “security as they always due to justify the locking Assange up for the rest of his life.
Do we really live on a planet right now where those who expose truth, expose corporate corruption, and those who want what’s best for the world and want to change the world, are locked away, murdered, silenced, censored, and thrown in jail? Furthermore, what time of ‘machine’ is required to justify his jailing in the minds of the masses? What kind of propaganda tools are used and how powerful are they if they have the ability to completely control human consciousness and perception in a way that best fits their interests?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains
- The Facts:
A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has not been dowloaded more than 1 million times.
- Reflect On:
Why are federal health regulatory agencies ignoring the emerging science showing concerns with regards to injected aluminum? Why don't they address the concerns and conduct safety studies?
What Happened: In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. The photo below was posted recently via his Instagram account.
Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:
-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)
-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.
-Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.
-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).
-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).
-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)
-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.
Following up this paper, Exely recently published recently published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”
In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.
Why This Is Important: There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it doesn’t exit the body but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food or whatever however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.
When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr Christopher Shaw, University of British Columbia. (source)
Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.
It’s also important to note that A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.
If you want to access the science and studies about injected aluminum not exiting the body, and more information about aluminum in vaccines in general, you can refer to THIS article, and THIS article I recently published on the subject that goes into more detail and provides more sources, science and exampels.
The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
A Complete List of Alternatives To The Google Search Engine
We are living in a very interesting time, one in where we have a ‘ministry of truth’ that is quite...
Media Dead Silent As Award-Winning Journalist Crumbles The Myths Surrounding Julian Assange
Mark Davis, a well-known award-winning Australian investigative journalist, best known for his work on Dateline, has said that it’s the journalists...