- The Facts:
Yet another independent media outlet is attacked for sharing content that questions vaccines. The means used to attack outlets like this are always unfounded in truth and emotionally driven.
- Reflect On:
Why is Greenmedinfo, and other media outlets being censored, demonetized, shut down and punished for sharing factual information? Why can't people decide what's real and what's not? Why do they have to let the government do it for them?
Because Politifact is in partnership with Facebook as a so-called “non-partisan,” 3rd party, fact-checker, they flagged our (Greenmedinfo) page as promoting “false news” and informed us, on April 22nd, that “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Since then, our page no longer comes up when you search for pages with the keyword “GreenMedInfo,” and we have noticed a steep decline in our reach which on an average week would exceed 1 million.
Due to our long held commitment to publishing truthful, evidence-based information on the underreported, unintended adverse effects of conventional medical interventions like vaccination, we have been subject to a wide range of attempts to discredit, defame, and censor us, over the years. For instance, all the way back in 2013, UNICEF published a report titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,” where GreenMedInfo.com, along with other prominent natural health websites, was cited as spreading vaccine “misinformation,” despite the fact that we simply aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine.
Lately, the censorship has been scaling up to disturbing levels. In December of last year, Pinterest deleted our account for posting information questioning vaccine safety and promoting research on evidence-based natural medicine. Ironically, they claimed we were endangering the health of their users by posting alternative information, even though Pinterest regularly allows minors to access pornographic and violent content, both of which have well-established significant deleterious psycho-emotional and physical effects in adults, much less children.
So, how does Facebook determine who is of suitable integrity and impartiality to become a 3rd party fact-checker?
They use certification provided by the “non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false news.” Guess who created the organization that calls itself the International Fact-Checking Network? Poynter. Check it out yourself here: https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/
Yes, you read that correctly. Poynter, the owner of Politifact — the presumably impartial brand and judge of what is “false” or “true” news — certified itself as trustworthy and impartial.
It does not reflect well on Facebook that it allowed Poynter to certify itself as worthy to police the world’s news feeds in order to mete out algorithmic punishment to those whose views it does not agree with. Thanks to a Veritas exposé, we know how Facebook’s censorship strategy of”boiling works behind the scenes:
How this machiavellian scheme has gone virtually unnoticed until now is hard to understand. But we hope that our example will help others understand the shadowy agendas at play between Poynter, Politifact, Facebook, and which are hidden in broad daylight for everyone to see.
But the red flags, and organizations involved, don’t stop there. Poytner’s fact-checking operation was funded by a $380,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — an organization notoriously dismissive of the downside of mass vaccination programs, which includes injuries and deaths the government has paid over $4 billion dollars in compensation towards through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund inaugurated by an act of Congress in 1986.
But are they correct about the meme we posted? Is it really “fake news”?
And does a mere posting of a meme, whose authorship is unknown but certainly was not produced by GreenMedInfo or its contributors, justify reducing the reach of our entire page, which over 525,000 people around the world have voluntarily and organically opted into receiving information from over the past decade?
Embarrassing as it is for the Politifact editorial team, whose entire premise is that they can be trusted to be fact-based, they didn’t report on our name correctly, calling us Greeninfo.com:
“Now, another anti-vaccine claim has surfaced on Facebook on a page called Greeninfo.com, which describes itself as an “alternative and holistic health service.”
They condemned the post as follows:
The post reads:
“Think combined doses of vaccines have been tested? They haven’t. Not once. EVER. Our children deserve better.”
The post, which provides no details or evidence, has been shared over 600 times since April 15 and was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
Let’s cut to the chase:
The claim is false – all vaccines are tested for years before and after being made available to the public, including “combined doses.”
How did they prove this statement?
They reached out to a single individual, Daniel Salmon, who is the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who presumably can verify by his word alone the veracity of the claim. He simply countered in email: “This is not a true statement,” and pointed to a December 2008 documentfrom the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document nowhere references the existence of a true placebo-controlled vaccine safety study, where saline instead of another adjuvanted vaccine was used; nor does the document discuss the fact that the present-day vaccination schedule involves giving dozens of vaccine antigens to children by age 6, where none of the vaccines have been studied together for safety; much less in juxtaposition to a control group who received a true placebo (saline).
This glaring problem is discussed among mainstream medical sites and authorities as well. For instance, MEDPAGE TODAY’s KevinMD.com has an article written by Chad Hayes, MD, titled “The vaccine study you’ll never see,” wherein he admits:
“No, we don’t have a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing our vaccine schedule to placebo.”
Wouldn’t MEDPAGE and KevinMD also be labeled as false news according to the standard applied to our page, for again, simply reposting a meme?
When it comes to the CDC, presumably a trustworthy source because it is believed to be “evidence-based,” their page on Vaccine Safety Concerns for Multiple Vaccines provides little assurance because their statements have no scientific citations. This is a classical example of the CDC’s cult of authority, where they use “science by proclamation” or “eminence-based medicine” to promote their agenda, instead of referencing actual research like we do at GreenMedInfo.com:
“Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.
Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually. Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.
Disturbingly, the CDC acknowledges on the same page as the excerpt above:
“A child who receives all the recommended vaccines in the 2018 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2.”
This reminds us of the absurdly irresponsible statement of Dr. Paul Offit, who while admitting that vaccination is a violent act, considers it safe for an infant to receive 10,000 vaccines at once (revised from a previous statement where he said an infant could receive 100,000 vaccines at one time). Offit’s faith in the safety of vaccines represents a deep conflict of interest, considering he is the patent holder for a highly profitable rotavirus vaccine which has profound safety issues, in that it has potentially infected millions of children with serreptitious, disease-producing retroviruses.
The reality is that no study has ever been performed on the interaction and potential synergistic toxicity of the admnistration of 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2. This was conclusively affirmed by a presentation given by Del Bigtree, where at minute 58:40 he references a 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the safety of the entire immunization schedule, citing the following passage:
“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes … between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children … [Furthermore,] studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”
Many other key safety concerns with vaccines emerged from that report, with a series of them summarized by NVIC here:
- “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
- “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
- “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
- “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
- “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
- “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
- “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
- “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional 2 subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
- “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
- “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
- “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
- “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee.
- “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee; 3
- “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
- “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
- “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
- “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
- “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
- “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
- “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for 4 which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
- “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)
Given the IOM report’s findings that there has not been a single study conducted to prove the safety of the entire schedule, the meme we posted stands as factually true, and those who have used it as a justification for censorsing and defaming us are clearly acting from political motivations reflective of the interests of their primary funders, such as the Gates Foundation.
CALL TO ACTION
It’s time to let us know you are listening, and reading this article. Our social media footprint has undergone massive censorship, and as we hope you have seen, this expose’ explains what’s behind it. Please share/like/comment on this article to help us compensate for what may be our soon-to-be exit from social media in general. Deplatforming is happening to the best of us. But there is a solution. Make sure you are signed up to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/2kjN4HH.
Support Independent Media – Join or Donate to GreenMedInfo
Join thousands of supporting newsletter fans who have become actively supporting members and take advantage of powerful features and upgraded content, including e-courses, e-books, and a research library of thousands of documents.
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
Ex-Google Engineer Fears AI ‘Killer Robots’ Could Perpetrate Unintended Mass Atrocities
- The Facts:
An ex-Google software engineer warns of the industrial development of AI in terms of the creation of 'killer robots,' which would have autonomy in deciding who to kill without the safeguard of human intervention.
- Reflect On:
Can we see that events such as the potential creation of 'killer robots' ultimately stem from the projection of our collective consciousness, in a way that we as awakened individuals are empowered to change course?
We have entered a time in our history in which advanced technologies based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) may become increasingly prone to unintended actions that threaten the safety and autonomy of human beings. And those of us who believe in the safety and autonomy of human beings–trust me, most at the top of the current power pyramid don’t need to become increasingly aware and vigilant of this growing threat.
The arguments for and against the unfettered development of AI and its integration into military capabilities are as follows: those in favor of the development of AI simply point to the increased efficiency and accuracy bestowed by AI applications. However, their unrestrained zeal tends to be based on a rather naive (or feigned) trust in government, corporations and military intelligence to police themselves to ensure that AI is not unleashed into the world in any way that is harmful to human individuals. The other side of the argument grounds its fundamental mistrust in current AI development on the well-documented notion that in fact our current corporate, governmental and military leaders each operate based on their own narrow agenda that give little regard for the safety and autonomy of human beings.
Nobody is arguing against the development of Artificial Intelligence as such, for application in ways that will clearly and incontestably benefit humanity. However, as always, the big money seems to be made available in support of WAR, of one group of humans having dominance and supremacy over another, rather than for applications that will benefit all of humanity and actually help to foster peace on the planet.
Ex-Google Engineer Speaks Out
Perhaps there is no way to fully prevent militaries from doing research into AI enhancements to their applications. However there seems to be one clear line of demarcation that many feel should not be crossed: giving AI programs sole authority to determine if a given individual or group of human beings should be killed.
Software engineer Laura Nolan resigned from Google last year in protest after being sent to work in 2017 on Project Maven, a project used to dramatically enhance US military drone technology, and put much more of the onus on AI to determine who and what should be bombed or shot at. She felt that her work would push forward a dangerous capability. She could see that the ability to convert military drones, for instance into autonomous non-human guided weapons, “is just a software problem these days and one that can be relatively easily solved.”
Through the protestations and resignations of brave people like Laura Nolan, Google allowed the Project Maven contract to lapse in March this year after more than 3,000 of its employees signed a petition in protest against the company’s involvement. It should be indicative to all of us that these big corporate giants do not make ethical decisions on their own, since they are fundamentally amoral, and continue to require concerned human beings to speak up and take actions in order for humanity’s interests to be considered.
Since resigning, Nolan has continued her activism amidst news about the development of “killer robots,” AI machines designed to operate autonomously on the battlefield with the capacity to kill large swaths of enemy combatants. She has called for all AI killing machines not operated by humans to be banned. She joined the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and has briefed UN diplomats in New York and Geneva over the dangers posed by autonomous weapons.
Unlike drones, which are controlled by military teams often thousands of miles away from where the flying weapon is being deployed, Nolan said killer robots have the potential to do “calamitous things that they were not originally programmed for”:
The likelihood of a disaster is in proportion to how many of these machines will be in a particular area at once. What you are looking at are possible atrocities and unlawful killings even under laws of warfare, especially if hundreds or thousands of these machines are deployed.
There could be large-scale accidents because these things will start to behave in unexpected ways. Which is why any advanced weapons systems should be subject to meaningful human control, otherwise they have to be banned because they are far too unpredictable and dangerous. (source)
Pledge From AI Researchers?
Certainly we see mainstream headlines like ‘Top AI researchers say they won’t make killer robots‘ where pledges have reportedly been made:
More than 2,600 AI researchers and engineers have signed a pledge to never create autonomous killer robots, published today by the Future of Life Institute. Signees include Elon Musk, Alphabet’s DeepMind co-founders Mustafa Suleyman, Demis Hassabis, and Shane Legg, as well as Google’s Jeff Dean, and the University of Montreal’s Yoshua Bengio.
However this does not mean that we can desert our posts and trust that corporations that could make billions of dollars from contracts to advance such automated applications will decline to pursue them if they thought they could get away with it. Indeed, it is the watchful eyes and powerful words of conscious people that has so far prevented this from occurring.
Events in our world such as the emergence of autonomous ‘killer robots’ are ominous and foreboding, but we need not shrink away from this kind of news in a state of fear and resignation. If we can see, in the bigger picture, that it is ultimately a projection of our collective consciousness that brings these events into being, then we can take these events to be a trigger for each of us to determine exactly what kind of world we want to live in going forward, and have that determination clearly reflected in our thoughts, words, and actions. In this way, we participate in the larger awakening process and help to move humanity forward in the transition to a world of greater peace and harmony.
US Navy Confirms UFOs Are Real Using Two Videos of Mysterious Objects
- The Facts:
The US Navy has acknowledged footage showing multiple UFOs that was released a couple of years ago by the To The Stars Academy. They've recently confirmed that the videos are indeed real.
- Reflect On:
Why is all of this mainstream UFO disclosure happening when we've had years of secrecy? Is the mainstream establishment trying to control the narrative? Where are they going with this?
First of all, we don’t need government and military agencies to know that UFOs are real. Thousands of whistleblowers with verified credentials, as well as millions of pages of declassified documents have been released over the past several years that make one thing quite clear, UFOs are real, and there is a long history of military encounters.
We’re talking about objects that are tracked on radar, photographed, and video taped that are seen traveling at speeds and performing maneuvers that no known air-craft can mimic. These objects are constantly seen defying our known laws of aerodynamics. I’ve written about multiple instances, there are thousands. For example, here’s an article about an incident with the Chilean Air Force, they received a radar return of a UFO equal to the size of ten or more aircraft carriers. They had visual confirmation as well.
There are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything we can deploy – Lord Admiral Hill Norton, Former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee)
General Carlos Cavero told the world in 1979, “everything” has been “in a process of investigation both in the United States and in Spain, as well as the rest of the world.” On a global scale, “the nations of the world are currently working together in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon” and there is “an international exchange of data.” (source)
A lot of mainstream disclosure has happened within the past couple of years, and the topic really attracted a lot of attention from those who were previously unaware of the reality of this phenomenon when the To The Stars Academy, headed by former rock star Tom Delonge, and his team of ex high ranking government and Department of Defence personnel obtained multiple videos from the Pentagon of these objects and released them for public viewing.
One of the biggest mouthpieces for “the establishment,” The New York Times, admitted something that the establishment, or facets of it, have been concealing for years; UFOs are real. The Times broke the story about the secret Pentagon program to study UFOs where the videos in this article came from, but any UFO researcher knows these programs are more in-depth, expensive, and expansive than anything that’s described here. These programs are vast, very expensive and go much deeper than a simple Pentagon program to study UFOs.
Not long ago, A Michigan State University economist teamed up with multiple researchers, including Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development and they found trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from housing & D.O.D. Based on my research, these programs are going towards the study of UFOs, extraterrestrials as well as an already established secret space program. Fitts makes that point as well. Everything in this area is simply deemed “classified,” receiving absolutely no oversight from Congress. They’re referred to as deep black projects that in 2008 ex-Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer described as projects that the “Commander in Chief has no idea about.”
A 1997 US Senate report described these “special access programs” as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.” (source).
The Navy Acknowledgment
In the latest news with regards to mainstream UFO disclosure, the US Navy has acknowledged the videos of UFOs that were released by TTSA. The objects seen in the three clips of declassified military footage are “unidentified aerial phenomena,” Navy spokesperson Joe Gradisher confirmed to CNN. (source)
In the footage below from 2004, sensors lock on a target as it flies before it accelerates out of the left side of the frame, too quickly for the sensors to relocate it.
What is Mainstream UFO Disclosure All About? Can We Trust It?
TTSA has done nothing but bring awareness to the fact that these objects are real. They’ve stayed away from the extraterrestrial question, but CEO Tom Delonge has always been quite open about the fact that some of these objects are indeed extraterrestrial, and that this is known.
The chief of the disclosed program at the Pentagon, and now a member of TTSA also stated on CNN that he believes we’re not alone, and that this phenomenon is evidence of that. (source)
As former Princeton physics professor and NASA astronaut Dr. Brian O’Leary once said, “there is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been visiting us for a very long time.” (source)
A lot of people within the community are pointing towards the fact that government and mainstream media has been nothing but deceptive to us. This is very true, so why should we believe what they put out with regards to UFOs?
The truth is, it’s quite clear that there has been a long campaign of disinformation. In fact, there has been “an official campaign of ridicule and secrecy” with this subject (First director of the CIA, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, NY Times). Many people have lost their lives and governments, or factions within the government and those who sit above them, have done their best to cover up this topic. It’s been covered up for many reasons, perhaps because of the new energy technology that’s involved with this subject, and the fact that the disclosure of the fact that some of these objects are not from this planet really leaves no aspect of humanity untouched.
It has huge implications and would change many things. But now, it’s all being disclosed, which is confusing people.
There are multiple theories out there, one of them is that the that the global elite are preparing for a supposed false flag alien invasion. They would use this the same way they use terrorism, to heighten national security, take more of our rights away, and actually have an excuse to weaponize space. To do this they would promote a “threat” narrative, and that this is what some of these objects represent.
Another theory is simply that they are not in charge, and that it’s simply time to disclose this reality to the human population, slowly but surely.
Another theory is that they want to simply control the narrative with this topic. The global elite are clever, and by disclosing what was and is becoming obvious to the population they then have the power of “what we say is the truth.” Furthermore, disclosing the reality officially could be used to continue its secrecy. By disclosing that UFOs are real and that “this is all we know and there is still much to find out” would be a truth within a lie. Having studied this topic for a number of years, what is known goes deep into extraterrestrials, extra dimensional beings, reverse engineering of craft and much more. It’s quite clear that a lot more is known than the just simple reality of UFOs, which represents the tip of the ice berg.
Are we seeing an effort by the global elite to simply control the narrative of what is and what isn’t? Do they want to take disclosure into their own hands and tell the people about it, in their own controlled way rather than having the lid blow off of everything?
At the end of the day, UFO disclosure within the mainstream is a positive thing. That being said, we must always exercise caution and critical thinking as, most likely, the mainstream wants to control the narrative. There is a lot more credible information in the form of leaks, whistleblowers, books, and documents that go far beyond what the mainstream will ever tell us. The more the public wakes up to this reality, the more they must realize that just because something is presented by the mainstream, does not mean that it’s the be all and end all of what is known.
With all of this being said, I also believe there is still a lot of disinformation out there within the UFO community.
There is a massive shift in consciousness happening on our planet right now. We are curious, we are asking questions and we are starting to realize that there is a lot more to the story here on planet Earth that what we’ve been told or have been made to believe.
One of those realizations is that we are not alone, and that we never have been. Truth is inevitable, it will be discovered by us, not given to us. It’s time to think for ourselves.
Another Alleged Epstein & Prince Andrew Victim Comes Forward Implicating Joe Biden & “Many Others”
- The Facts:
Recent events such as the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein seem to be causing more victims of sex trafficking who had stayed silent for so long to come out and speak.
- Reflect On:
Can we create a safe and open space for alleged victims of sex trafficking to speak out with confidence, and trust that our growing discernment will ensure that the truth rises to the top?
Members of the Awakening Community often wonder, aside from our personal work being done to look inside and heal, forgive, and raise our vibration, if there is a need for external actions in the world that will help move us forward in our collective journey and foster a better and more harmonious world.
Might I suggest that at this precise moment in our history, it is incumbent upon us to come together as a community to provide a safe and sacred space to those who have been victimized by the massive, coordinated global pedophilia and trafficking rings whose full scope and influence on our world we are just starting to fathom. And that means listening to what they have to say, and aspiring to use their testimony to gain a better understanding of our world and what has been happening under the cover of darkness and privilege, difficult as this may be for many of us to accept.
Women and men who have for decades lived silently in fear of being further harmed or even killed if they spoke out, now see a ray of hope in the recent convictions of members of the NXIVM cult and the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. There is now a sense that the fundamental complicity or at least the willful ignorance about these rings at the highest levels of global law enforcement is changing, and that many of the good people in these organizations are now being empowered to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It has previously been said to me that officers wishing to pursue leads into human trafficking crimes were often dissuaded from further action and told, ‘That’s not what the taxpayers are paying you to do.’
I know of victims who are not ready to come out in public, either because they are not far enough along in their healing journey, or they still cannot fully believe that government, law enforcement, and the judiciary are now on their side. When we consider how much we have uncovered about the far-reaching complicity of powerful institutions to silence victims and protect high-level perpetrators, there is justification for these feelings.
For those who are coming out of hiding and providing testimony, heightening our powers of discernment is critical to the process. We will not be creating a safe space if we simply believe anything we hear from anybody, for there are sure to be attempts at disinformation and manipulation for ulterior motives. At the same time, we must withhold snap judgments, and temper the application of our pet conspiracy theories so that we can focus on allowing each person to feel and be heard.
Our discernment will require us to take each testimony word by word, case by case, and ask ourselves about the motivation behind it, if the facts line up and there is consistency, and whether or not there seems to be a hidden agenda. The testimony of Christine Blasey-Ford and her allegations of attempted rape against Brett Kavanaugh in his Supreme Court nomination hearings serve as an example in which red flags were lifting up at every turn, especially in the way mainstream media unequivocally pronounced her to be credible and honest every step of the way. Her testimony could clearly be seen as having a political agenda behind it.
The Testimony Of Jessica Collins
By and large, most cases will be more subtle. One person who has recently come out with a video claiming to be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and [Prince] Andrew Windsor certainly seems worthy of our attention. Although she does not claim to be a victim of child trafficking (she was first abducted as a student at the Catholic University of America, after she went for what she thought was a legitimate job interview), the testimony of Jessica Collins is compelling. She put a link to the video below multiple times on Twitter on September 3rd:
A look into some earlier tweets and other information reveals that Jessica’s 18-year old daughter died of Opioids in 2017, which Jessica does not believe was a suicide. In a tweet on September 3rd, she discloses that only because she believes her daughter was murdered is she speaking out. And she herself does not believe that the Department of Justice and Law Enforcement are truly attempting to prosecute these crimes at this time:
I was raped by Washington DC politicians. They murdered my daughter. That is why I am speaking out. Joe Biden, John McCain and many others are involved. They allow me to speak for bc they know Americans will not believe me. https://t.co/zkklOkf41u
— JLCollins (@MidNiteMJ) September 4, 2019
There is a lot to sift through in the testimony of Jessica Collins. I won’t go over it here but would refer you to this Before It’s News article to examine some of the more salacious claims. My purpose here is to pass on this video to our readers to share and evaluate for themselves, based on the following request made by Jessica in the video itself:
My name is Jessica Collins. I live in Virginia. Today is September 3rd, 2019. If anything happens to me it’s because this information is true and I have a lot more information about who I was trafficked to and the government people who are in the White House today.
If you could redistribute this video please save it and redistribute it. If anything happens to me at least I have this out. I have been threatened. My car was disabled by a government employee when the Jeffrey Epstein news broke.
I have been without a vehicle for 40 days. I don’t know what else to say.
Please save this video. Please redistribute. Please try and spread it. There is no way that this is going to get out there in the media. Must we the American people do the work?
The government is involved and I was trafficked for nearly 17 years. Please try to help by redistributing this, tweeting it, talking about it. I do everything that I can. Thank you for listening. Together we can get to the bottom of this and hold the criminals accountable.
Jessica Collins’ last tweet was on September 6th. There don’t seem to be any communications from her since then. Let us pray that she is safe and finds a way to tell her whole story.
We have to allow everyone who comes forward as a victim of sex trafficking the chance to speak until they have been fully heard. We must have confidence that the truth will ultimately rise to the top and shine so brightly that attempts at dark deception and manipulation, clever as they may be, will no longer prevail.
82-Year-Old Woman With Dementia Gets Her Memory Back After Changing Her Diet
Recently, an 82-year-old woman who suffered from dementia, who couldn’t recognize her own son has miraculously got her memory back...
The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World
George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking...