Connect with us

Alternative News

The Reality of Vaccine Injury: A Much Needed Lesson for Carly Weeks

Published

on

In November, 1985, MPP for Rainy River, Jack Pierce stood in the Ontario legislature before second reading of a bill he had introduced. His words are recorded in the Hansard (the official report of proceedings of Parliament):

advertisement - learn more

My bill deals with the occurrences and documentation of severe side-effects which can result from the vaccination of infants and children. Some members may not be aware that the routine vaccination called DPT, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, given to almost every one of our children, can lead to convulsions, brain damage and even death.

Today, if an MPP dared to shine light on vaccine injury, he would be eviscerated by the media. Today, anyone who broaches the issue of vaccine safety has to contend with the likes of Carly Weeks. In her Feb. 2019 attack on the Total Health Show, Ms. Weeks singled out “anti-vaccine activists” who by telling others about vaccination risks spread “false information.” In her to-the-point article, she implies that only medical professionals are qualified to speak about vaccination. In other words: you will be vaccinated and have no right to voice an opinion about it.

If injured families had not spoken up in the 1980s, we would not have Pierce’s bill that became the Health Protection and Promotion Act (1990). This law requires vaccinators to inform vaccine recipients of possible adverse outcomes and of the obligation to report these events.

Pierce explained why he brought the bill:

As a member of the riding in which eight children are thought to have sufferedpermanent mental retardation and physical handicap as a result of this inoculation, Ifeel compelled to see that something is done about this nightmare.

advertisement - learn more

I spoke with Jack Pierce, now in his 80s. He still lives in his old riding.  As an MPP in 1983, Pierce met with every member of parliament, one by one. He shared with each the need for a mandatory reporting of adverse reactions “so we can develop a complete and accurate picture of the benefits and risks of DPT.”

In 1985, MPPs could speak about vaccine injury without fear of reprisal from the media. Pierce continued:

While the diphtheria and tetanus components are mandatory and nonproblematic, the pertussis component, better known as whooping cough vaccine, has been responsible for severe reactions, including high fever, seizures, inflammation of the brain, permanent brain damage and sometimes death. Immunization against whooping cough is not mandatory. Parents have the right to refuse shots, and many are exercising this right.

… no one ever told him of the possibility of an adverse reaction to DPT

Pierce described the “heartbreaking stories of children who, despite the fact that they showed obvious adverse reactions to the pertussis vaccine, were given subsequent DPT shots.”

Patrick Rothwell of Burlington, Ontario, is six years old, blind, mentally retarded and speechless. His father said that no one ever told him of the possibility of an adverse reaction to DPT.

The Rothwell case is the lesson we failed to learn in Ontario.

In 1979, Patrick Rothwell received three doses of the whole cell DPT vaccine that caused him to regress. Patrick’s parents sued two doctors, the vaccine maker Connaught and the Crown alleging they had not been warned that the pertussis vaccine can cause brain damage.

Although 50 witnesses testified over 74 days at the 1988 trial their defeat was inevitable. The plaintiffs would never have been able to meet the burden of proof.

The presiding judge stated:

. . . the normal process of litigation is an utterly inappropriate procedure for dealing with claims of this nature. [Rothwell v. Raes (Ont. H.C.J.), 1988 CanLII 4636 (ON SC)]

In a review of the Rothwell case, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission agreed with the judge:

In practical terms, the tort process holds out very little promise for an efficient and fair remedy for those children who suffer vaccine-related injury and illness.

Pierce seemed to know that government needed to step in:

No one questions the need of a vaccine like DPT, but given the risks of paralysis, brain damage and death, the questions that might be addressed concern the levels of effort to find a safer drug and to make parents and doctors aware of the dangers and side-effects directly attributable to the vaccine. Where have the efforts been to make mandatory the reporting of adverse side-effects to the local medical officer of health?

Indeed.

At this point, after a trial and parliamentary debate with the passage of a law in 1990 to help reduce vaccine injuries, what interests kept the whole cell pertussis DPT vaccine in the schedule? Why were there still no warnings to parents of the risks?

… resulted in over 11,000 AEFI reports that described adverse reactions that included inconsolable screaming, head banging, seizures, anaphylaxis, paralysis and death. There was no follow-up on these children to determine long term injuries.

A familiar story.

In 1994, my son received three doses of the same Connaught DPT vaccine that Patrick Rothwell had received. Ours was mixed with two other vaccines. Use of this combination shot for 3 years resulted in over 11,000 AEFI reports that described adverse reactions that included inconsolable screaming, head banging, seizures, anaphylaxis, paralysis and death. There was no follow-up on these children to determine long term injuries.

Our story echoes those told by the Rainy River parents to Jack Pierce who then told the government. Like those parents, I had no real knowledge of vaccination when I took my son for his well baby visit and the nurse injected him. We were not warned of the documented risks before or after the procedure. Two laws intended to protect us were not observed: informed consent and Pierce’s health protection and promotion act.

An hour after vaccination, my two month old son began scream. He had never screamed before. I was terrified. And it continued for several hours. Through the night, I watched and listened. The next day, I called the GP who assured me that this was normal. I was persuaded by a medical professional to suppress my fears.

The second shot, two months later resulted in the same terrible reaction. And now, he had symptoms: rashes and he struggled to breathe through his nose.

His reaction to the third dose was violent.  He screamed and writhed in pain…

Nurses call this the neuro-scream, when the nervous system and brain are set on fire by the vaccine. And it changed him. The rhinitis and eczema that had developed I now know were red flags, precursors to life threatening allergies. He had his first anaphylactic reaction to peanut at 13 months. I have written extensively about the documented relationship between vaccination and allergy.

Meanwhile, the Ontario government continued to struggle with the issue of vaccine injury. In 1991, a bill was introduced by MPP Frankford, a physician, to compensate children and their families for vaccine-related injuries.

In the Hansard, MPP McLean agreed. The plan was “feasible” and “social conscience demands its enactment.”

The bill to compensate was quashed in 1991. Attempts to revive it have floundered in large measure on the altar of high cost. It is easier to download the costs to children and families. It is easier not to investigate, to deny injuries exist and ultimately block public access to AEFI reports if anyone tries to dig. (See note below.)

Fast forward to 2019.

The Canadian Medical Association has voted in favour of ending non-medical exemptions and making vaccination mandatory for Ontario children while at the same time voting against compensation for vaccine injuries.[9] As if on cue, the province amended its Immunization of School Pupils Act to withhold exemptions until a parent attends an education session designed to instill compliance. And anyone who tells parents of the documented risks, of the lack of consumer protections or speaks up on behalf of their own vaccine-injured children will be demonized as an “anti-vaxxer” who spreads “false information.”  In such a climate, it is not hyperbole to suggest that a law mandating the injection of children… will be followed by the same for adults.

And this dystopian reality — that Jack Pierce would have denounced — is something Ms. Weeks is paid to promote.

Note: We have an enormous deficit in information caused by a surveillance system that is passive, an under-reporting of adverse events and the fact that there is no follow-up on Adverse Events Following Immunization reports to determine long term injuries.  According to PHAC there were 115,837 AEFIs between 1987 and 2011 with 85% of them being children. If, as is generally recognized, this represents just 10% (some say it is 1%) of all adverse events, then we have upwards of one million events over 24 years about which we have no data.  In attempting to retrieve what information might be available to the public, I made an ATIP request in October 2016 for all AEFI reports (redacted) for the MMR II DIN#00466085 made by Merck Frosst Canada. This has still not been fulfilled. After lengthy email exchanges with various staffers at PHAC, I have had to conclude that either the records do not exist, they cannot access them or they are unwilling to send the redacted reports to me.

 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.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

The Cosmic Secret – A New Documentary That Will Make You Question Your History Books

Published

on

It’s no secret that the UFO and ET field is rife with controversy, people who don’t agree with one another, and people who are passionately trying to open people’s minds to possibility. Being part of and observing this field for the last decade has been an incredible glimpse into passion and curiosity, but also to the patterns that keep humanity divided. More and more research and information is coming forward – some of it verifiable, and some which are stories and accounts where people must decide for themselves which is true or not.

Stepping up to the plate to once again offer information and insight to humanity is a new film called The Cosmic Secret from best selling author and renowned researcher David Wilcock. As the film’s synopsis suggests, David sets out to brings together a vast and eclectic knowledge base to present an alternative human history like you have never seen before. Combined with researchers, scientists, archeologists and insiders, The Cosmic Secret will make you question every page in your history book and everything you thought you knew about reality.

Who are we? Why are we here? What is our destiny? Questions that have been on the minds of humans for thousands of years, and yet still, complete and fulfilling answers have not been provided, leaving the itch millions have unscratched. Does our past involve extraterrestrials? Are we part of a greater community in our galaxy? Is there evidence of civilizations on our Moon, Mars and other planets? The Cosmic Secret does not disappoint in exploring these questions with intriguing evidence.

Further, the film focuses on a subject near and dear to our hearts here at Collective Evolution, and subject we made a film about back in 2012. I’m talking about the shift in consciousness that is taking place on this planet at this time.

Why is it that people are questioning things now in a way that is so deep and life altering? Why is the term ‘The Great Awakening’ used so often? What does it mean and what does it refer to? Why are so many people experiencing similar ‘awakenings’ that are leading them to re-think life’s deepest questions – including things like ET life and how we seem to be on the precipice of a change that could re-shape our entire reality.

Ask yourself, have you been rapidly learning things about our world that you did not know prior? Has the veil of secrecy been dropping for you? Have you been yearning for a deeper connection to self, others and the cosmos? If so, you’re not alone and this film is a companion for deeper exploration into these questions.

advertisement - learn more

In the 2nd and 3rd acts of The Cosmic Secret, this shift is explored as it relates to ancient prophecies and the beliefs and understandings of ancient cultures. The film speaks of a potential cosmic event, one that could do anything from cause extended darkness, a pole shift, or some sort of energetic change that shifts the way people think instantaneously.

I must admit, the idea of one single event occurring to create the change we all know is possible in our hearts has never resonated with me, and to be honest it still doesn’t, but The Cosmic Secret does address this to some extent. In the later parts of the film, an extremely necessary and important message for people to hear is laid out. You’ll learn what we can do to be part of this shift and how we can take action NOW to potentially avoid any need for a cataclysmic event to wake us up out of the collective sleep we are evidently in.

Regardless of the differences in opinion we may have in this field, the subject of the shift and how we can shift our consciousness is truly one that unites us all, as it leads to a better world regardless. For this reason alone, I feel this film has importance and feel it’s worth a watch for all those interested in learning more about their place in this journey.

You can check out a trailer for The Cosmic Secret below, and watch the film by following this link.

Note, CE does not align with everything said in this film, nor all people associated with the film. Regardless we feel the film’s content is valuable in shifting consciousness and it’s important to question all possibilities. We must not lose our curiosity because of our opinions.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Prince Andrew Talks About Jeffrey Epstein In A New Interview

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Prince Andrew's recent interview with the BBC was filled with hard to believe claims of innocence from the Prince.

  • Reflect On:

    Was this interview conducted in order to isolate Prince Andrew from the way the rest of the Royal Family is perceived?

Good lord. It felt like listening to a 5-year old boy denying that he had raided the candy jar, all while surreptitiously licking away the chocolate stains from around his mouth. The only difference is that, while the guilty child usually gives up quickly on his obvious ruse, Prince Andrew’s recent interview with the BBC lasted almost an hour, and he proclaimed his innocence right to the end.

I watched the whole thing, mainly because I was waiting for him to say a single credible thing that would give me the slightest reason to believe his outright claims that he knew nothing about Jeffrey Epstein’s penchant for young girls, and that he had nothing to do with Virginia Roberts Guiffre and in fact didn’t even know who she was.

Alas, I was not moved by a single word he said. I include the full interview below in case anyone wants to wade through it and fish out something credible to prove me wrong.

A New Era For Royalty

In a way, you can’t really blame Andrew for offering such unsubstantiated denials, which careened between flat statements that the events in question did not happen and rambling exhortations that he does not remember those same events. As a member of the Royal Family, he has never been forced to justify his actions his whole life (except perhaps in private to his mother the Queen). Out in public if he said something was so, then all those around him would take it to be gospel. And very much like official Royal Family proclamations, which effectively have been treated as the ‘last word’ on a given subject in society for centuries, he somehow still seems to feel that sense of entitlement, that if it comes out of his mouth then at least his loyalists will regard it as true.

We are, however, in a new era. This signs are now obvious. And credit interviewer Emily Maitlis with bringing this point up near the end of the interview:

advertisement - learn more

EM: I know we have to bring this to a close because we’re running out of time. You’ve faced questions today on a very, very raw subject. There has never been an interview like this before, I wonder what that tells us about the way the Royal Family now confronts these difficult situations. Has there been a sea change?

PA: I think the problem that I’m… we face in the 21st Century is social media. There is a whole range of things that you face now that you didn’t face 25 years ago because it was just the print media.

I mean there are all sorts of things that are on the internet and out there in the public domain that we just sort of go, “Well, yeah,” but I’m afraid is… it just never happened.

There is probably something to what Prince Andrew is saying here. Social media and the internet in general, in which information such as the picture of him with his arm around Virginia Roberts’ waist with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background is able to widely proliferate, simply makes it more difficult for people who do bad things to hide the evidence and control the narrative than it was during earlier times with a complicit print-only media. When he says his problem is social media, he is implying it is easy for people to make stuff up. But what it really means is that he cannot as easily indulge in illegal and immoral activity in the era of social media.

But it isn’t just the internet. That picture and the knowledge of Prince Andrew’s chummy relationship with Jeff Epstein have been floating around the internet for over a decade. Suddenly, within the last year or two, we seem to have entered firmly into an era of accountability, in which the public has become more aware, conscious, and inquisitive about what is going on. Not the entire public, but a critical enough mass of people such that former ‘untouchables’ like Prince Andrew have to address rumors of wrongdoing that are no longer being swept away by the next news cycle. He almost admits as much himself when explaining his decision to speak out:

Choosing to, as it were, get out there and talk about these things, it’s almost… it’s almost a mental health issue to some extent for me in the sense that it’s been nagging at my mind for a great many years.

I could go on and poke holes in just about every response he gave to try to counter known facts, sworn affidavits and other witness testimony of where he was, when, and with who, but even mainstream media has gotten in on the incredulity of his argument, where he will often categorically say that he ‘was not there’ or ‘did not do that,’ but would not go so far as to say that the person who says he did is not telling the truth, like in this exchange:

EM: Another guest was John Brockman, the literary agent. Now, he described seeing you there getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman, did that happen?

PA: No.

EM: You’re absolutely sure or you can’t remember?

PA: Yeah, I’m absolutely sure.

EM: So John Brockman’s statement is false?

PA: I wouldn’t… I wouldn’t… I don’t know Mr Brockman so I don’t know what he’s talking about.

Cringe-Worthy Alibis

I have to put this last exchange up, simply because I found it so entertaining. In response to Virginia Roberts Guiffre’s vivid account of the evening of March 10th, 2001 which she said they spent together, Andrew spins a number of interesting reasons why her account just could not be so, including that he does not drink, that he suffered from a war injury that would have prevented him from sweating at that time, and that he specifically remembers taking his daughter Beatrice to a pizza party that day:

EM: Virginia Roberts has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001, she says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PA: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

EM: You don’t remember meeting her?

PA: No.

EM: She says she met you in 2001, she dined with you, she danced with you, you bought her drinks, you were in Tramp Nightclub in London and she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell.

PA: It didn’t happen.

EM: Do you remember her?

PA: No, I’ve no recollection of ever meeting her, I’m almost, in fact I’m convinced that I was never in Tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don’t know where the bar is in Tramps. I don’t drink, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there.

EM: Do you remember dancing at Tramp?

PA: No, that couldn’t have happened because the date that’s being suggested I was at home with the children.

EM: You know that you were at home with the children, was it a memorable night?

PA: On that particular day that we now understand is the date which is the 10th of March, I was at home, I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose sort of 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon. And then because the duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there. I was on terminal leave at the time from the Royal Navy so therefore I was at home.

EM: Why would you remember that so specifically? Why would you remember a Pizza Express birthday and being at home?

PA: Because going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do, a very unusual thing for me to do. I’ve never been… I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times and I remember it weirdly distinctly. As soon as somebody reminded me of it, I went, “Oh yes, I remember that.” But I have no recollection of ever meeting or being in the company or the presence.

EM: So you’re absolutely sure that you were at home on the 10th March?

PA: Yeah.

EM: She was very specific about that night, she described dancing with you.

PA: No.

EM: And you profusely sweating and that she went on to have a bath possibly.

PA: There’s a slight problem with the sweating because I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time and that was… was it… yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falkland’s War when I was shot at and I simply… it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I am starting to be able to do that again. So I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says that I didn’t do it so therefore…

EM: Is it possible that you met Virginia Roberts, dined with her, danced with her in Tramp, had sex with her on another date?

PA: No.

EM: Do you remember meeting her at all?

PA: No.

EM: Do you know you didn’t meet her or do you just not remember meeting her?

PA: No, I have… I don’t know if I’ve met her but no, I have no recollection of meeting her.

EM: Because she was very specific, she described the dance that you had together in Tramp. She described meeting you, she was a 17-year-old girl meeting a senior member of the Royal Family.

PA: It never happened.

It’s just amazing that he claims to remember vivid details about his ‘exculpatory evidence’ of driving his daughter to a pizza party on a particular date, but claims not to remember a woman he was in a picture with and says he had sex with her on several occasions. One is left to ask why Prince Andrew would go ahead and attend this interview, given how lame and unsubstantial he must have known his denials would be.

The Real Purpose Of The Interview

There is only one reasonable explanation for Prince Andrew conducting the interview in the way that he did: he was ordered to do it by his mother Queen Elizabeth. As damaging as Prince Andrew’s behavior has been in terms of being an embarrassing rogue within the Royal Family, it has the potential to be far more damaging. There could be a fear that growing numbers of people will put the pieces together and conclude that the entire Royal Family, and by extension Royal Families and Nobility all around the world, have long been involved not only in the things that Prince Andrew appears to have been involved in. Worse, people might begin to give more credence to testimony that Royalty have long been involved not only in human trafficking and the rape of underaged girls, but also Satanic Ritual Abuses such as pedophilia, torture, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.

If you go through the interview, you will notice one thing that Andrew is careful to do is to deflect any sense of responsibility or blame away from the Royal Family, or any advisors, and puts the ‘blame’ squarely on himself–though his self-blame is limited to his 2010 visit to Epstein, during which he spent a number of days at the mansion of the known sex offender. He tried his best to frame that visit as an in-person break-up of the friendship that he alone decided to do, noting that it would have been ‘chicken’ of him to end the friendship over the phone.

EM: Who advised you then that it was a good idea to go and break up the friendship? Did that come from the palace, was Her Majesty, the Queen involved?

PA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that came from… so there were a number of people who… so some people from my staff, some people from friends and family I was talking to and I took the decision that it was I had to show leadership and I had to go and see him and I had to tell him, “That’s it.”

And he was clear to distinguish his own personal family’s struggles with this issue from the Royal Family’s:

EM: Has the episode been damaging to the Royal Family, to Her Majesty the Queen?

PA: I don’t believe it’s been damaging to the Queen at all.

It’s subtle, but the overall impact of the interview is that Prince Andrew appears as some kind of lying buffoon who is not willing to admit any of his embarrassing indiscretions. The Royal Family, on the other hand, while allegedly being supportive for the prince as a person, are preemptively seen in the guise of righteous, disapproving parents if any of these activities turn out to be true as the majority of the public suspect. The perception of the Royal Family as an institution that embodies proper moral conduct, then, is far more important here than public impressions of one wayward prince.

The Takeaway

One of the prime strategies of all large power factions that operate in the world is to ‘prune’ the branches that reveal the inherent immorality of the whole so that the tree is preserved and not tainted by the sagging branch. Prince Andrew is the latest powerful scapegoat to be thrust out into the spotlight, and it appears to be a sign that we are getting ever closer to unveiling the heart of the beast itself, which would constitute a major step in our liberation.

Related CE Article: Jeffrey Epstein’s Case Raises Questions About Royal Family Pedophilia & Elite Ritualistic Abuse of Children

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Will Ferrell Breeds & Traffics Child Clowns In Disturbing “Comedy” Skit

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    An old comedy skit featuring Will Ferrell breeding and trafficking child clowns seems disturbing in light of the dark secrets behind what really goes on in Hollywood when it comes to child trafficking and ritualistic child abuse.

  • Reflect On:

    With the revelations of Jeffrey Epstein, and many others, are people aware that what is going on goes beyond the already horrific problem of child trafficking and pedophilia?

The following video skit, produced by none other than Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim featuring Will Ferrell, is vulgar, confusing, and disturbing. At least this is how I felt seeing it. The skit aired on national television and made me wonder if this is a blatant in-your-face confirmation of the dark secrets behind what really goes on in Hollywood when it comes to child trafficking and ritualistic child abuse.

One note before we go on, I will lay out what happens in this video, provide some odd examples of what to look for, and then end off with an important note on child trafficking and abuse from someone who has been an abused child within these circles. Her healing story is incredible.

We of course don’t know for sure how connected Will Ferrell himself is to child trafficking organizations, but whether he is or not, he still actively participated in this skit. One might wonder how someone who is a father himself could be able to participate in such a video, especially given he likely has knowledge of how extreme Hollywood pedophilia and child abuse is.

Following ideas brought forth by many about why videos like this are made public, researchers have alleged that secret societies follow sets of rules. Part of the reason why a video like this would be made public is to gain consent from the population for this type of stuff to happen and continue. But you can decide for yourself by watching the video below.

Please be advised, the following video is may be disturbing to you.

advertisement - learn more

You may wonder how is this type of thing even allowed to happen? How is it on YouTube yet Collective Evolution’s content on questioning vaccines gets banned? One might think there would be some sort of community standards on YouTube that may ban such things. It appears this hasn’t happened as this video is all over YouTube, with millions of views. Does what they want to be seen always get seen?

To me, the following video is a prime example of hiding in plain sight. Child trafficking, child abuse and pedophilia are so blatant and obvious to see, yet they remain industry secrets and almost completely fly under the radar. It is happening on a massive scale across our entire globe, but most would rather turn a blind eye than to accept and admit that this is even occurring.

Take for example the following from The Vigilant Citizen. Look at the images and the key takeaways below.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)

Ferrell beats the crying clowns with a hammer while the other ones are trapped in cages. So funny.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)At one point, Ferrell holds an actual crying baby and says: “I made him, he’s fresh! I might have to bury him in the back if he keeps acting like this.” Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)

Later, we see an actual child inside a cage.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)Another actual child eats trash that was thrown on the floor.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)Another kid struggles as he is forced to perform.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)Then there’s a funny joke about keeping them sleep-deprived by blowing a horn at them.

Will Ferrell's Comedy Skit About Child Trafficking is Disgusting (video)Then there’s a funnier “joke” about how this guy “touched a clown”.

The Vigilant Citizen goes on to say that the only people that will find child abuse funny are those who are abusing children. So, one might wonder, who was this video actually made for and why?

An Open Secret

Perhaps few and far between, there are people who are trying to raise awareness about child abuse. An Open Secret is an American documentary film directed by Amy J. Berg exposing child sexual abuse in the film industry in California. The film features interviews with victims who were targeted when they were young boys as well as industry figures, the predators themselves, and journalists.

Child actor Corey Feldman is also actively working to expose Hollywood’s deep, dark secrets. We have shared some of his story before.

Currently, Feldman is working on his own documentary feature titled, Truth: The Rape Of Two Coreys, which is about the two industry men who allegedly molested him at the age of 14 and the A-listers and others who allegedly raped or molested his best friend. “We’ve got about seven [people] who were told firsthand that this person raped Corey,” Feldman says, “and they’re all being interviewed.”

Our Interview With A Survivor of Child Sex Trafficking – She Goes In-Depth

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

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

She is one of many victims of elite-level trafficking.

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

Final Thoughts

For some, it may be easier to dismiss this information as a mere conspiracy that has no validity. It can be easier to turn a blind eye than to actually accept that these super unfortunate events are taking place right under our noses. Sometimes people will view this as ‘negative’ and thus push it aside, ultimately allowing it to continue by not wanting to come to terms with it and come together to do something about it.

Cognitive dissonance can also be a factor in these situations, but once you begin looking into this, it becomes very easy to see. As Jordan Maxwell (considered to be the world’s foremost authority on ancient religions and modern conspiracies) says, “The more you know, the more you see.” If we aren’t going to speak up for these unfortunate events taking place in our world, who will?

Many of us are aware of the #MeToo movement, but maybe it’s time to start a #KidsToo movement as well?

Be sure to watch our 4 part interview series with Anneke Lucas to learn how one can heal from these experiences and what we can take away from this as people.

Much Love

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

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

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!