Connect with us

Alternative News

Report Sheds Light On The Rockefeller Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the authority of global warming. Why would they do this? Are these people really concerned about our planet or simply profiting and justifying heightened states of security for ulterior motives?

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there so many brilliant scientists publishing papers and making points but are never given any attention? Why are they ridiculed and character assassinated by the mainstream? What is going on here?

New Related Article: Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off it.

advertisement - learn more

The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

advertisement - learn more

William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

In 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen (source)

Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’

Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)

Another quote stressing this point:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)

The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change (the organization that’s pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).

A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.

According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:

The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)

In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)

Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science. It’s something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma. Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that, for some reason, get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.

The 97 Percent Claim

The mainstream media and people who support the idea that humans are warming the planet often quote the fact that ’97 percent of scientists agree with them.’ First of all, this is not true, and again, we don’t know if humans are warming the planet.

“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.

This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.

Below is a video from Lindzen that sums up the issue quite well.

The Other Side of The Coin

A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.

A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’

Why So Much Conflicting Information?

Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.

A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.

The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.

 We Here At CE Care Deeply For The Planet

We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.

Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.

If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.

While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.

Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.

The Rockefeller Report

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa

You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.

An Example of Other Factors Influencing The Climate – A Coming Ice Age?

Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states,

By about 2030-2040, the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics: the phasing of sunspot cycles, the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium, the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives, the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass, the planetary spin-orbit coupling, the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction. During the previous grand solar minima—i.e. the Spörer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.

The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth’s climate is extremely fishy and doesn’t make much sense when you go through the literature, but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia, and hardly studied. It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science, for example, put out a statement saying “The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity.” This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement. It’s also important that readers recognize there isn’t even any course to back up such a false claim.

Don’t believe what is written, research what is written. What’s worse is the ridicule factor, the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced. Something is very wrong with this picture, regardless of your stance on the ‘global warming’ phenomenon. There is more on this later in the article.

The paper  by Morner  goes on to make some very important points:

So as you can see, the comment from IFL science quoted above, again, is simply not true. I’ve provided one of many sources available here, and I encourage other writers to do the same.

The author goes on to conclude:

During the last three grand solar minima…global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions. Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal, and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions…The Arctic ice over expanded significantly…By 2030-2040, we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum, which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data…This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project, instead of this, we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age.

According to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS,

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. (source)

A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.

Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.

Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

Is There An Agenda At Play Here?

In a recent episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and CE team member Richard Enos dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme. What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public. All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, and that the science behind this is solid and well-established, even though it isn’t. If you haven’t signed up already for CETV, go here so you can get access to the full discussion.

CETV is a platform we created to combat internet censorship, which is another topic. Why are they silencing and ridiculing certain narratives? Why not just oppose them with information and evidence?

The Takeaway

Many things in our world, including science, have become extremely corrupted. We see it with medical science and the influence from big pharma, and we see it with regards to federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA being compromised by corporations. Climate science is no different, which is why we see the mass ridicule of those who oppose the agenda by mainstream media.

Our Earth needs help, it needs to be cleaned up, and deforestation must halt as we are experiencing massive species extinction. None of this has anything, in my opinion, to do with human CO2 output.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

High Levels of Damage Have Been Discovered In Trees Near Cell Phone Towers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple studies have raised concerns about different types of unnatural radiation and how it's impacting not only human health, but environmental health.

  • Reflect On:

    How are these technologies able to continuously roll out without any safety testing? Why are they still not required to go through safety testing? Would this not be in the best interests of everyone?

One strong theme among the citizenry of the world that receives no mainstream media attention is the issue of cell phone towers and the health/environmental threats they pose. There are thousands of peer-reviewed publications in vivo and in vitro that make it quite clear that electromagnetic radiation from our favourite gadgets, wireless devices, as well as the cell phone towers all over the globe are having a biological impact that’s a great cause for concern, or at the very least warrant appropriate safety testing before we continue down this path. This is something that has yet to be done.

This is exactly why a few years ago  200 scientists petitioned the United Nations to look deeper into this issue, to no avail.

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes on the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.  (source)

Special note to our followers: Is 5G safe?  The 5G Health Summit, a worldwide call to action, features the world’s leading independent scientists, doctors and activists in the field. It’s going to be very informative and let people know what they can do about it. It’s all online, you can sign up and watch it for free here.

More on the Summit later in the article. 

Trees

Human health isn’t the only concern. In a  study published in Science of the Total Environment, researchers found,

High-level damage in trees within the vicinity of phone masts. We found out that from the damaged side there was always visual contact to one or more phone mast (s). Statistical analyses demonstrated that the electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers is harmful to trees. Results show that the measurements in the most affected sides of damaged trees (i.e. those that withstand higher radiation levels) are different to all other groups. These results are consistent with the fact that damage inflicted on trees by cellphone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.

This constitutes a danger for trees worldwide. The further deployment of phone masts has to be stopped. Scientific research on trees under the real radio-frequency field conditions must continue.

The study lasted for 9 years and used more than 100 trees.

The field monitoring part of the study was performed in Bamberg and Hallstadt (Germany). Observations and photographic recordings of unusual or unexplainable tree damage were taken along with the measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

In 2015 measurements of RF-EMF (Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields) were carried out. A polygon spanning both cities was chosen as the study site, where 144 measurements of the radiofrequency of electromagnetic fields were taken at a height of 1.5 m in streets and parks at different locations. By interpolation of the 144 measurement points, we were able to compile an electromagnetic map of the power flux density in Bamberg and Hallstadt. We selected 60 damaged trees, in addition to 30 randomly selected trees and 30 trees in low radiation areas (n = 120) in this polygon.

The measurements of all trees revealed significant differences between the damaged side facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. Thus, we found that side differences in measured values of power flux density corresponded to side differences in damage. The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50 μW/m2 ) showed no damage. Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees. These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.

What’s also interesting is that the study points out that natural forms of electromagnetic radiation are not the same and do not have the same impact has unnatural sources of radiation do on plant life. Several researchers have pointed out how this topic has received little attention and these physiological effects are being considered negligible.

The study also concludes that most studies that have  addressed the effects of microwaves on animals and plants have documented effects and responses at exposures below limits specified in the electromagnetic radiation exposure guidelines and it is therefore necessary to rethink these guidelines.

Since 2005, on the occasion of medical examinations of sick residents living near mobile phone base stations, changes in nearby trees (crown, leaves, trunk, branches, growth…) were observed at the same time as clinical symptoms in humans occurred. Since 2006 tree damages in the radiation field of mobile phone base stations were documented.

Trees that were in the radio shadow of buildings or of other trees remained healthy, because, the researchers hypothesized, they were protected from the radiation.

The research on EMF’s and their environmental impact is quite limited, and studies on humans show that this type of radiation affects biological organisms, especially humans. For example, a paper published in 2018 in Environmental Research titled “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health” points out that. 

“Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload.”

What About 5G?

When it comes to 5G, a study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology. It points out that “novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed.” It goes on to emphasize that the range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure.   These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function. In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts, acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.”

Information You Can Easily Send to Friends & The 5g Summit

We decided to produce a short, to the point free ebook called Is 5G Safe? An Easy To Understand Guide that looks at the 5G issue VERY clearly and concisely. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual. In our free ebook, we cover the science behind health effects and environmental effects (trees &  insects, like bees) when it comes to EMF radiation  from sources like 5G, 4G and 3G.

To help get this out to tens of thousands of people, we collaborated with our friends at the 5G Summit. You can download our ebook as a free gift you get when you sign up for the free 5G Summit: Worldwide Call To Action that starts on June 1st, 2020. It features some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and activists in the field. It’s going to be very informative as well as let people know what they can do about it.

–> You can register for the summit and download our ebook here. After you sign up you can download our ebook on the next page.


It will look like this 👇

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Trump Unveils Plan That Would See Big Pharma Reap Massive Profits from COVID-19 Vaccine

Published

on

Aformer Big Pharma executive and a four-star General have just been appointed by President Trump to lead a “Manhattan project-style effort to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.” The effort, called Operation Warp Speed, has set a goal to create 300 million doses of a non-existent vaccine by January.

Moncef Slaoui, who used to run research and development for the world’s largest vaccine company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), oversaw the development of an Ebola vaccine in tandem with the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a biotech firm the company had acquired two years earlier, that was distributed in the West African nation of Liberia in 2015. Slaoui joined the board of directors of the Human Vaccines Project in 2018; a public-private partnership that intends to “accelerate the development of vaccines and immunotherapies against major global diseases” and counts with the participation of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, including Sanofi Pasteur, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and, of course, GSK.

Joining him will be U.S. Army General Gustave F. Perna, commanding general of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) – the primary provider of materiel to the United States Army – since 2016. As such, Perna has been in charge of logistical management for the Department of Defense’s (DoD) co-production agreements of American weapons systems with foreign countries, in addition to the approximately 149 locations worldwide and over 70,000 military and civilian employees who carry out the command’s motto: “If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, communicates with it, or eats it – AMC provides it.”

The announcement comes two days after a press release by the Department of Defense revealed that a $138 million contract was awarded to ApiJect Systems America for the production of millions of prefilled syringes as part of projects “Jumpstart” and “RAPID” (Rapid Aseptic Packaging of Injectable Drugs). The DoD claims that the contract will “dramatically expand U.S. production capability” of injectable vaccines by October of this year. Project Jumpstart, according to the press release, was coordinated with their Joint Acquisition Task Force and HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), led by Dr. Robert Kadlec, who has recently been the subject of intense scrutiny over some highly questionable ties to Big Pharma and curious past.

A tug of war for the SNS

The Trump administration’s ostensibly independent program to develop and deploy a vaccine against COVID-19 had been in the hands of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner and Trump advisor, Peter Navarro, though Bloomberg reported in April that HHS Secretary Alex Azar had been tasked by Trump to speed up the development of a vaccine and had been meeting for at least a month prior with White House officials.

The rollout is occurring as Congressional attention focuses on irregularities surrounding the supply of ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), a thousand of which were shipped to South Africa just the other day. In addition, yesterday’s so-called “whistleblower” testimony by ousted Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) chief, Rick Bright, is also spotlighting the issues at the SNS, which is controlled by HHS’ ASPR, Robert KadlecBARDA is an office within ASPR that is tasked with sourcing pharmaceutical and medical supplies for the Strategic National Stockpile.

More controversy surrounding the Strategic National Stockpile erupted after Kushner made remarks about the role the SNS plays in emergency deployment situations. Kushner was harshly criticized for implying that the SNS belonged to the federal government and served only as a back-up for states, who should be accumulating their own stockpiles. Despite being contradicted by well-established guidelines, which make clear that the SNS is in place to shore up any deficiencies in a public health emergency, the White House deliberately changed the language on its website to back up Kushner’s erroneous assertions about the stockpile.

What seems clear, however, is that Kushner himself was not the mastermind behind the sudden policy tweak. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a spokesperson for the Office of the ASPR told CNN they had been using such language “for weeks now.” Considering the history of how the SNS came to be in the hands of the ASPR, this latest tweak to how the SNS is managed might just be a new wrinkle in an old plan to mass inoculate the population of the United States.

Mass involuntary vaccines and jostling for profits

Yesterday, President Donald Trump revealed that a decision had been made to mobilize the U.S. military to deliver mass vaccinations across the country. The “massive job,” however, still has no discernable vaccine yet to inject into the American population “at the end of the year.” Trump’s group of medical advisors, including NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, are skeptical that any such vaccine can be developed sooner than 12 to 18 months.

“Duplication only leads to infighting and slowing people down,” said former U.S. ASPR, Nicole Lurie regarding the creation of Operation Warp Speed. She decried the spirit of marketplace competition, stating that the world “should be engaged in this competition against the virus, not against one another.”

With over 110 COVID-19 vaccines in development – only eight of which have entered human trials – the race to be the vaccine chosen for deployment by the ASPR in the forthcoming potentially compulsory vaccination of more than 300 million people has many people seeing green.

Feature photo | President Donald Trump, left, listens as Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive, speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, May 15, 2020, in Washington. Alex Brandon | AP

Article written by Raul Diego, for MintPress News where it first appeared. Posted here with permission. Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Send This To Anyone Looking To Understand The Dangers of 5G

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The 5G debate is a big topic, yet many are still not clear exactly what 5G is and what the dangers are. We created a free, short and factual ebook to explore the topic from a neutral perspective.

  • Reflect On:

    Are you aware of what exactly 5G technology is? Are we hearing the whole truth about 5G from the mainstream media? Did you know that there are already thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing dangers associated with EMFs?

It’s one of the greatest debates of our recent times, perhaps only vaccines is a bigger health topic. The reason why there is such opposition to 5G is not because those people have been misinformed, it’s because they have chosen to do the research outside mainstream media. Unfortunately for the masses, mainstream media is designed to push narratives that benefit the corporations that own them, not tell the truth – this is not conspiracy, it’s basic economics.

Are you clear on exactly what 5G is? Are you wondering why there is such a debate about the subject? You’re not alone. Many people are wondering why this new technology has so many people concerned, and unfortunately, mainstream media is not doing a good job of informing people so they do understand, so we’re here to help!

As we promised during our 5G campaign we ran last year, we focused a great deal of our attention and energy working to raise awareness about 5G. We also spent the last year working within the community to find out the best ways to take part in stopping the rollout. Over the last year, we’ve had millions of eyes on the content we produced, effectively helping to raise more awareness about the issue, and now, we have created our first free ebook on the subject, and it focuses on bringing together the science of 5G in an easy to understand guide.

Information You Can Easily Send to Friends

One of the biggest challenges out there when it comes to alternative information is that it is often written in a very one sided manner, or it’s written with a great deal of emotion. Sometimes, information also comes off very ‘conspiracy-ish’ and it makes it hard to send to some of our friends and family. This, unfortunately, makes it difficult for ALL people to read and take from it as bias begins to creep in.

So we decided to produce a short, to the point free ebook called Is 5G Safe? An Easy To Understand Guide that looks at the 5G issue VERY clearly and concisely. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual. In our free ebook, we cover the science behind health effects and environmental effects when it comes to EMF radiation coming from sources like 5G.

Because of the way mainstream media has covered issues such as 5G, the general public has been misled into thinking there isn’t already droves of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of EMF, especially those related to the specific technology used in 5G. They also leave out the fact that thousands of doctors and scientists have been trying to warn the public about 5G, and instead only focus on ‘internet-based conspiracy theories,’ so as to attempt to cast enough doubt on the subject that no one looks into it.

Short and simple, the mainstream media has been irresponsible in reporting on the 5G issue. There has not been journalism, only repetition of what others who have not looked into the subject are saying. For this reason, it’s imperative people do their own research on the subject. We are in a time where we must get engaged in the creation of our world and society as people. Voting for politicians and listening to their ideas is not the answer, it is merely an illusion. We must get clear on what we truly want, and engage in creating it.

To help get this out to tens of thousands of people, we collaborated with our friends at the 5G Summit. You can download our ebook as a free gift you get when you sign up for the free 5G Summit: Worldwide Call To Action that starts on June 1st, 2020. I am one of the speakers in the summit and I focus on the consciousness implications of 5G and what the whole issue is pushing humanity to do.

The summit is another very important tool in understanding this issue as it brings together 40 of the top experts on this subject. You will learn about the science behind it and all that is being done to stop 5G rollout around the world.

–> You can register for the summit and download our ebook here. After you sign up you can download our ebook on the next page.
It will look like this 👇

The Takeaway

There is already a ton of peer-reviewed research about 5G and EMFs that should stop the 5G rollout. Most people simply don’t know about it. As the 5G rollout continues around the world, we are at a crucial junction in learning and taking clear action. Sitting back and waiting to see what happens will likely create the same results we have always seen when we do that – we allow a world to be created that we do not thrive in. So let’s get clear, get centred, and get engaged in creating a world where we can truly thrive.

As we always say in the CE Protocol, we are at a time where Breaking The Illusion is important in realizing we are not living ina society that truly supports our desire to thrive, but we can change that!

Register for the 5G Summit and download the ebook here.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!