Weapons went from the CIA to ISIS in less than two months

ORIGINAL LINK

Mainstream media in 2013: “Conspiracy Theorists!” Mainstream media in 2017: “ISIS Got a Powerful Missile the CIA Bought!” Years late to the party, mainstream media outlets like USA Today, Reuters, and Buzzfeed are just out with “breaking” and “exclusive” stories detailing how a vast arsenal of weapons sent to Syria by the CIA in cooperation with US allies fueled the rapid growth of ISIS. Buzzfeed’s story entitled, Blowback: ISIS Got A...

via IFTTT

Philip Brailsford: How the Police State Made a Mormon Missionary a Cold-Blooded Killer

ORIGINAL LINK
Philip Brailsford went from spreading love in the Mormon church to gunning down an unarmed innocent father of two for no reason. What happened?

via IFTTT

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: 8 Worst Defenses Of FBI Agent’s Anti-Trump ‘Insurance Policy’ Texts….

ORIGINAL LINK

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: 8 Worst Defenses Of FBI Agent’s Anti-Trump ‘Insurance Policy’ Texts.

via IFTTT

The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Gabriel Rockhill via Counterpunch.org,

One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.

The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.

What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.

To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present).

To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.

Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”

When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.

In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”

To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.

Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one.

Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.

via IFTTT

How Much Do You Really Know About Vaccine Safety?

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

The video above features a lecture by Del Bigtree,¹ an Emmy award-winning producer of "The Doctors" talk show for six years, and one of the producers of the documentary "Vaxxed." I actually attended and saw the talk he gave during the 2017 "Truth About Cancer Live" event in Orlando, Florida, where I was also speaking.

He focuses on vaccine safety and freedom of choice. This presentation was designed to be shared with those who think vaccine safety advocates are foolish and need to "get with the program." This is one of the best presentations I have seen that could have many rational and objective people change their views on vaccines, so feel free to widely share with those who are in favor of vaccines.

"I am a super fan of science," he says. "When we talk about vaccines, and if you question vaccines, you are said to be anti-science. The opposite is actually true … and today I'm going to prove to you [that] the science of vaccines has been fraudulent; it's a lie, it does not exist, and I want you to march out and demand that science begin immediately."

The Vaccine Safety Project

The official refrain repeated by most mainstream media is that vaccines have been thoroughly researched and "hundreds" of studies have proven they're safe, and that no link between vaccines and health problems such as autism have ever been found. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. Importantly, the industry has long shied away from evaluating vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations to determine general health outcomes.

One such study² was finally published earlier this year, and its findings were less than encouraging. Here, they examined health outcomes following the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in Guinea-Bissau, which took place in the early 1980s. This population offered the rare opportunity to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children due to the way the vaccines were rolled out. What did they find?

According to the authors, "DTP was associated with fivefold higher mortality than being unvaccinated," and "All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis." In other words, the researchers concluded the DTP vaccine weakened the children's immune system, rendering them vulnerable to a whole host of other, ultimately lethal, diseases and health problems.

Other West African trials revealed a high titer measles vaccine interacted with the DTP vaccine, resulting in a 33 percent increase in infant mortality.³ In this case, this shocking finding led to the withdrawal of that measles vaccine. But what would have happened had those studies never been done? Clearly, we need many more like them.

In the U.S., federal health officials recommend that children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines between the day of birth and18 years old, with 50 doses given before age six. How does this affect their health? And is anyone actually tracking the health outcomes of the federal childhood vaccine program?

The answer, I'm afraid, is no. We do not know if and how all of these vaccinations are affecting the general health and mortality of our children. We do, however, know that the U.S. has one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any developed nation, and we also have the highest vaccination rates.

Vaccine Adverse Events

Vaccines are not risk-free. Far from it. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."⁴ Vaccines also have the highest number of recalls⁵ of any drug or biological product (vaccines are not drugs but, rather, are considered biologicals by the FDA). The short list of adverse events for which victims have received compensation from the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) include:

Guillain-Barre syndrome	Transverse myelitis
Encephalopathy	Seizure disorder hypoxic seizure
Death	Brachial neuritis
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis	Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP)
Premature ovarian failure	Bell's palsy
Juvenile diabetes	Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Rheumatic arthritis	Multiple sclerosis
Fibromyalgia	Anaphylaxis
Ocular myasthenia gravis	Infantile spasms

Potential side effects actually listed on vaccine inserts include:

Autoimmune diseases	Food allergies	Asthma
Eczema	Juvenile diabetes	Rheumatoid arthritis
Tics	Tourette syndrome	ADD/ADHD
Autism	Speech delay	Neurodevelopment disorders
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)	Seizure disorder	Narcolepsy

What Do Statistics Tell Us About Vaccine Safety?

Barring large-scale studies comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations, general health statistics can give us an inkling as to how well the U.S. vaccination program protects our children's health, and it doesn't look promising.

• One in 6 children has a developmental disability, which includes ADD, ADHD, autism, hearing loss, learning disabilities, mental disabilities, seizures and stammering — many of which are also listed or known side effects of vaccines

• Fifty-four percent of children have a diagnosed chronic illness, including anxiety, asthma, behavioral problems, bone and muscle disorders, chronic ear infections, depression, diabetes, food and/or environmental allergies and epilepsy. This list again mirrors many of the acknowledged side effects of vaccines, and the rise in prevalence of these diseases parallel the rise in required vaccines, yet vaccine promoters insist that these illnesses are in no way associated with vaccinations

Vaccine Makers Are Not Liable for Vaccine Damage

Making matters worse, manufacturers of vaccines that are on the childhood schedule are not legally liable for brain damage or other types of injuries occurring from the administration of these vaccines. This is stark contrast to every other industry, where the manufacturer is financially liable and accountable in a civil court of law for faulty, malfunctioning or unsafe products.

Vaccine manufacturers (and vaccine providers), on the other hand, were granted partial immunity from liability in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, after the vaccine industry threatened to cease making childhood vaccines for release in the U.S. unless they were protected from being sued in civil court for damages.

Then, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively handed vaccine manufacturers a total liability shield from lawsuits for harm caused by FDA licensed vaccines recommended for children — even if there is evidence the vaccine could have been made safer!⁶ The consequences of this are staggering.

As a result of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court removing civil liability for vaccine injuries and deaths, vaccine makers have no incentive to conduct safety studies on their vaccines pre- and post-licensure; the FDA has no incentive to maintain high standards for proof of new vaccine safety; the CDC has no incentive to make vaccine policies safer; NIH has no incentive to fund research into vaccine side effects and high risk factors that make some individuals more susceptible to vaccine harm; and the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the 1986 law has little incentive to make awards to the vaccine injured.

In fact, the U.S Supreme Court majority misinterpreted the legislative history of the 1986 law, although that history was correctly interpreted by dissenting Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who disagreed that Congress in 1986 intended to completely shield vaccine manufacturers from civil liability.⁷

Nevertheless, the net result now is that vaccine manufacturers have gotten a free pass when their products cause vaccine injuries and deaths because the only possible way a vaccine injured person in the U.S can sue a manufacturer is if the company possesses evidence a vaccine causes a particular problem and failed to disclose it to the FDA. If pharmaceutical companies plead ignorance about vaccine side effects because, for example, they didn't fully investigate potential side effects, they're in the clear!

Adding insult to injury, if you or your child suffers a permanent injury or dies after getting a federally licensed and recommended childhood vaccine and you file a VICP claim, it is now your responsibility to prove causation.

That's right, it's now up to you, your lawyer and whatever experts you can afford, to identify the science to explain your or your child's injury and argue with U.S. Department of Justice attorneys representing the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services about why you or your child should receive compensation.

Had the vaccine manufacturer or the U.S. government done the appropriate safety studies, you'd be able to use their own research in arguing your case, and this is yet another reason why proper vaccine safety studies are not being done. If you somehow manage to prove your case and win, compensation for pain, suffering and death is capped at $250,000. Despite all of these hurdles, the VICP has paid out more than $3.7 billion for vaccine injuries and deaths since 1988.⁸

Most Vaccine Safety Studies Are a Joke

As noted in this lecture, safety studies for vaccines are nothing like what you'd expect. While drugs are typically studied for side effects over a number of years, the hepatitis B vaccine, for example, which is injected into newborn babies, had a safety review period prior to licensure of four days (GlaxoSmithKline's brand, Engerix) and five days (Merck's Recombivax).

On top of that, no placebo group was included, making it all the more difficult to discern whether a problem might be related to the injection. The polio vaccine has a safety review period of just 48 hours. What this means is if the child died on day three, it didn't count, because they were no longer looking for or tracking potential side effects.

Here, the subject group received the polio and DTP vaccine, while the so-called "placebo" group received only the DTP vaccine — the same vaccine that provided evidence it raised mortality in African children fivefold. This is NOT the way to establish vaccine safety, and this is what everyone is referring to when they say "hundreds" of studies have "proven" vaccines are safe.

Hundreds of Vaccines Are in the Pipeline

Manufacturers are also highly incentivized to develop more vaccines, and to get them to market as quickly as possible, which again means cutting corners when it comes to safety studies. Indeed, this is exactly what happened after Congress granted vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability. Before 1986, the CDC only recommended 23 doses of seven vaccines for children between 2 months and 6 years old.⁹ Today, the total is up to 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.¹⁰

Some 270 experimental vaccines are already in the pipeline. How many of those will be added to the CDC's schedule of recommended childhood vaccines that are turned into school mandates in the states? How many can a child bear? Where is the breaking point? And how do we know a breaking point has not already been reached? Judging by our health statistics, I'd suggest we've passed the breaking point already.

Vaccine safety is further hindered by the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which is in charge of vaccine safety, is also in charge of promoting vaccines to the public and defending vaccine safety in court! (When you file a VICP vaccine injury claim, you're actually suing the U.S. government, not the vaccine maker.) These conflicts of interest seriously hamper the DHHS' ability to fulfill its mandate to make sure all vaccines are safe.

Conflicts of Interest Prevent Vaccine Safety

But it doesn't end there. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which tells the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which vaccines should be included on the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, also has significant conflicts of interest. In this case, some panel members have been found to have financial ties to the drug companies making and selling the very vaccines they're voting to include on the schedule.

And once a vaccine is added to the schedule, these companies have risk-free access to a market of 78 million American children because most federally recommended vaccines are mandated by state governments for children to attend school. With that kind of financial incentive, is it any wonder this federal committee has tacked 46 doses of vaccines onto the childhood schedule since 1986? As noted in a 2000 investigation into ACIP by the U.S. Government Reform Committee:

"The CDC grants blanket waivers to the ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject, regardless of their conflicts, for the entire year … [ACIP reflects] a system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without the advice and consent of the governed."

Last but not least, the CDC, which also has a role to play in vaccine safety, spends $4.9 billion of its annual $11.5 billion budget on the purchase and promotion of vaccines. Now, if any FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccine were found to be dangerous, what incentive does the government have to pull it off the market? Federal agencies have basically morphed into becoming funders, advertisers and product distributors for the vaccine industry.

The CDC even holds at least 27 human vaccine-related patents, plus another five patents for veterinary vaccines,¹¹ which dampens the agency's incentive to find or acknowledge any safety or effectiveness issues with vaccines. The revolving door between government agencies and the industry adds further complexity to these conflicts of interest.

Julie Gerberding is a perfect example of this. After promoting and defending the safety of vaccines as director of the CDC from 1998 until 2009, she left CDC to accept a lucrative executive position with Merck & Co. as president of the company's vaccine division. Since 2014, she has served as Merck's executive vice president of strategic communications, global public policy and population health.¹²

What the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Tells Us About Vaccine Safety

In his presentation, Bigtree addressed the federal vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). VAERS was a vaccine safety provision included in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and is a passive reporting system. As such, it suffers from the same malady as other passive reporting systems, which is underreporting. Research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50-to-1, meaning only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported.

In the case of VAERS, published estimates suggest only between 1 and 10 percent of serious health problems that occur after vaccination are ever reported,^13,14 so VAERS may have an underreporting rate as high as 100-to-1. This means that for every vaccine adverse event report that makes it to VAERS, it may need to be multiplied by 100 to get closer to reality.

Under the 1986 law, doctors and all vaccine providers have a legal obligation to report vaccine side effects to VAERS, but they don't, and there are no legal sanctions or professional ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a vaccine reaction report to the VAERS database themselves, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction and your doctor or vaccine provider refuse to make a report.

At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. (An easy way to review information in the VAERS database is the user-friendly MedAlerts website, accessible through NVIC.org, which contains searchable information on vaccine adverse events that have been reported to VAERS since the reporting system began operating in 1990.)

In 2016 alone, 59,117 reports were added. According to Bigtree, these included 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations and 10,284 emergency room visits. Again, you likely need to multiply these figures by 100 to get a more accurate estimate of how many vaccine-related health problems have really been occurring in the U.S.

This means the annual vaccine-related death toll may be closer to 43,200, and permanent disabilities may number around 109,100. Mind you, that's just in one year. Regardless, as Bigtree notes, "This is no way to conduct science." How can you assess harm when you likely have only 1 percent of the data?

Automated Reporting Test Suggests 1 in 10 People Suffers Vaccine Reactions

In 2010, the CDC had the brilliant idea of hiring a company to automate VAERS in such a way that any potential vaccine reactions reported to doctors participating in the Harvard Pilgrim HMO would automatically be uploaded into the VAERS database. What did they find? Preliminary data showed that out of 376,452 individuals given 45 different vaccines, 35,570 possible vaccine reactions were identified.

This means nearly 1 in 10 people suffered a reaction after vaccination concerning enough to be reported, yet the official CDC mantra is that the risk for serious vaccine injury or death is 1 in 1 million. Alas, while creation of VAERS in the 1986 law presented an opportunity to finally get a better understanding of the number of potential vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths occurring after vaccinations given in the U.S., the CDC didn't follow through.

According to the company hired and paid $1 million to create this automated reporting program, "There was never any opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation."

The Greater the Number of Concurrent Vaccines an Infant Gets, the More Likely They Are to Die

Neil Z. Miller, author of "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies," downloaded the VAERS database and created a program to extract all reports involving infants. In all, there was an extraction and analysis of the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction.

The reports were stratified by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place, focusing on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here are the results:

• Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
• Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
• Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were "off-the-charts" statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
• Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age

What the Institute of Medicine Says About Vaccine Safety

Bigtree also summarized vaccine safety reports issued by physician committees at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1991¹⁵ and 1994.^16,17 These reports were among the vaccine safety provisions included in the 1986 National Chlldhood Vaccine Injury Act. Both IOM committees found much of the evidence in the medical literature was too inadequate to be able to ascertain whether nine government recommended childhood vaccines reviewed were — or were not — causing commonly reported health problems.

Another IOM report, published in 2012, "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,"¹⁸ is one of the most important reviews of scientific evidence about vaccine injuries and deaths. This report summarized evidence for 155 reported vaccine-related adverse effects associated with eight government recommended childhood vaccines.

Out of 155 health problems reported after vaccination, 134 of them could not be evaluated due to a lack of enough methodologically sound scientific studies! The vaccine-related health problems being evaluated include very serious effects such as encephalitis, seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, psoriatic arthritis and much more. Clearly, vaccine science is simply either not there or not solid enough for rational conclusions to be made about cause and effect.

Although vaccine safety advocates have criticized the IOM's reports as minimizing the full extent of vaccine risks, no other recognized scientific institution in the world has so clearly acknowledged that vaccines can and do cause injury and death, especially for susceptible individuals, and that there are large vaccine science knowledge gaps about safety that need to be addressed.

For the 2012 IOM report, over a period of three years, a physician committee reviewed over 1,000 vaccine studies related to safety issues associated with eight childhood vaccines. The committee excluded studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry (but did include studies funded by the federal government). The eight vaccines studied were:

Hepatitis A-hepatitis B	Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine	Meningococcal vaccine	Pneumococcal vaccine
Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis, also known as DTaP or Tdap	Varicella zoster (chickenpox)	HPV vaccine	Influenza vaccine

Also of great importance, the IOM looked at two distinct categories of science in this report:

1. Epidemiological research (large studies comparing the health outcomes of different groups of people)
2. Bench science (basic science research into the biological mechanisms at work in the body at the cellular and molecular level)

This is important because many of the studies the CDC relies on as evidence that vaccines don't cause any problems are epidemiological studies and, if poor methodology is used, the conclusions of epidemiological studies can be fatally flawed. In the 2012 review, the IOM committee reviewed both kinds of science.

The most shocking conclusion of this report is that, for more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported after these eight vaccines were given, the IOM committee was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder. In short: The scientific evidence was insufficient to make a conclusion in most cases.

So, the committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes following receipt of certain vaccines, including multiple sclerosis, lupus and autism. In 2013, a physician committee at IOM also pointed out that the current federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule for infants and children from birth to age 6 had not been adequately studied for safety.¹⁹ According to the IOM's²⁰ 2013 "Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety" report, studies are needed to examine the:

• Long-term cumulative effects of vaccines
• Timing of vaccination in relation to the age and health of the child
• Effects of the total load or number of vaccines given at one time
• Effect of vaccine ingredients in relation to health outcomes
• Biological mechanisms of vaccine-associated injury

Why We Must Protect Vaccine Exemptions

All of these facts point to why we simply must protect flexible vaccine exemptions in federal vaccine policies and state vaccine laws. We must have the right to choose and refuse. Moreover, when an individual experiences a deterioration in health after vaccination, doctors also need to understand the danger of giving more vaccinations until or unless the vaccine can be conclusively exonerated as a causative or contributing factor to that health deterioration.

And guess what? There are well over 100 brain and immune system disorders associated with vaccination for which there's insufficient science to ascertain whether or not the vaccine might be a causative factor.

What this tells us is that physicians — or anyone — recommending and administering vaccines to people, particularly to vulnerable infants and children, need to apply the precautionary principle of "first do no harm" and respect the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking, including vaccine risk-taking. This is critically important when the foundation of science supporting the safety of any given vaccine, alone or in combination, for any given individual is so weak.

 Comments (10)


via IFTTT

Conspiracy Theorists Were Right: Corporate Media Finally Forced to Admit America Armed ISIS

ORIGINAL LINK

While the mainstream media opted to protect the United States government by treating anyone who dared to question the government’s role in the rise of ISIS as crazy conspiracy theorists, a new report is forcing the MSM to admit that those “conspiracies” were true all along.

via IFTTT

“FBI appears to have investigated – and considered prosecuting – FOIA requesters”: Investigative rep…

ORIGINAL LINK

“FBI appears to have investigated – and considered prosecuting – FOIA requesters“: Investigative reporting blog and FOIA tool provider Muckrock shows that as far back as 2016, the FBI refused to produce documents that had the names of deceased FBI staff (nullifying any privacy concerns), but consistently failed to redact personal information about the requesters — a clear violation of privacy:

“Despite redacting the names and email addresses of the public servants handling the case, the FBI released not only the author’s name and address in the file (technically improper since there was no waiver, albeit understandable) but the name, email address and home address of another requester who also used the script to file requests. Their name along with their email and physical addresses were left unredacted not once, not twice, not thrice – but seven times, not including the email headers, several of which also showed their name and email address.”

Other emails show that the FBI’s Obama-era FOIA office consulted a number of people from the Criminal Justice Information Services division for the purpose of singling out “suspicious” FOIA requests for possible prosecution targeting.

I’d love to know what they considered a “suspicious” FOIA request.

via IFTTT

Why America’s Law Enforcement Empire Resembles Secret Police In A Dictatorship

ORIGINAL LINK

TheLastAmericanVagabond.com

Secret police are characteristic of dictatorships, or so goes the conventional thinking on the subject. Police in democracies operate for the most part transparently and within a set of rules and guidelines that limits their ability to gratuitously punish citizens who have done nothing wrong. If a policeman operating under rule-of-law steps out of line, […]

The post Why America’s Law Enforcement Empire Resembles Secret Police In A Dictatorship appeared first on The Last American Vagabond.

via IFTTT

Hillary, Huma carted off 'Muslim' files, other docs

ORIGINAL LINK

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin

Faced with allegations of mishandling classified information, the State Department allowed Hillary Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin to take files of telephone calls, schedules and other work-related information under the claim they were “personal” and “unclassified, non-record” materials, according to newly released documents.

The records newly obtained by the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch show that Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”

And Clinton was allowed to take personal correspondence and gift binders, which could be relevant to allegations that donations were made to the family’s Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative in exchange for favorable policy decisions.

WND previously reported emails obtained by Judicial Watch showed Abedin doing favors for a Russia-connected group on behalf of the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

Abedin, who grew up in Saudi Arabia, worked for an organization founded by her family that promotes the kingdom’s strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. She was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation

Previous Judicial Watch investigations revealed numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server.

The records newly uncovered by Judicial Watch also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton that were accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements.”

Former senator Tom Coburn provides the solution to how “we the people” can finally wrest control from Washington insiders in “Smashing the DC Monopoly,” available at the WND Superstore.

The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.” Judicial Watch noted the receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated. A “prohibited source” of gifts, for example, is “one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.”

The documents show the State Department records would not be “released to the general public” under any Freedom of Information Act request.

“We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“These new documents show the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her calls logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws,” Fitton said.

“When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?”

Hillary team gets a pass

The revelations come amid news that FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was dismissed by special counsel Robert Mueller in the “Russia collusion” investigation for demonstrating personal bias against President Trump, was a key figure in the bureau’s investigation of Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

FBI agent Peter Strzok

It was Strzok who, according to sources cited by CNN, changed the language of FBI Director James Comey’s earlier draft describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” It was a critical legal distinction that Comey used to explain why he did not refer charges to the Justice Department.

Abedin and longtime Clinton counsel Cheryl Mills, according to official FBI summaries of their interviews with Strzok, made misleading statements regarding Clinton’s mishandling of national secrets but faced no consequences, unlike former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was charged with a felony, the Daily Caller reported.

Clinton violated State Department standards by using several home-brew email servers to conduct her official government business as secretary of state. In his July 5, 2016, announcement, Comey said the bureau’s investigation found that of 30,000 emails Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. A few, Comey said, bore markings that identified them as classified.

The bureau also discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that Clinton had not turned over to the State Department – three of those emails contained classified information. And Comey said it was “possible” that hostile foreign governments had gained access to Clinton’s personal account, noting she also regularly used her mobile device on foreign trips, including “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”

Comey’s finding conflicted with Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them.

State required keeping released docs secret

The new information obtained by Judicial Watch includes a list of official and personal calls, and schedules that carry a special notation that the documents were released to Clinton on the condition that they not be made public.

Judicial Watch point out that the notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 form, which authorizes the removal of personal papers and non-record materials. The form was signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records.

Judicial Watch said it has a pending request to depose Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.

via IFTTT

Media Roots retweeted: One-third of all people killed by strangers in America are killed by police. 97% of the officers are not charged with a crime, 99% are not convicted. Even in the most egregious cases the system refuses to hold police accountable: https://t.co/1lpFvmDp4C

ORIGINAL LINK

Samuel Sinyangwe @samswey

Media Roots retweeted:

One-third of all people killed by strangers in America are killed by police. 97% of the officers are not charged with a crime, 99% are not convicted. Even in the most egregious cases the system refuses to hold police accountable: https://t.co/1lpFvmDp4C

via IFTTT

Bundy case defendants turn tables on FBI, demand compensation

ORIGINAL LINK

Bundy Ranch standoff

It’s not like the FBI isn’t under fire already, with its unwillingness to refer charges against Hillary Clinton amid evidence she mishandled classified information and the investigation by mostly Clinton-supporting investigators into allegations the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.

 

Now, there’s another issue: two men acquitted of charges in the 2014 Bunkerville, Nevada, standoff involving rancher Cliven Bundy are suing the FBI and former Director James Comey for “malicious prosecution,” claiming the bureau presented false evidence in their case and destroyed exculpatory evidence.

Montana resident Ricky Lovelien and Idaho resident Steven Stewart were cleared of 10 charges they faced but spent a year and a half in jail without bail, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

They were accused of driving from other states to Bunkerville to support Bundy, who was under fire from the government for allegedly trying to halt federal agents from rounding up his cattle.

Now  lawsuits have been filed on their behalf by lawyer Larry Klayman under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Mark Taylor and Mary Colbert write in “The Trump Prophecies” about the miracle of the 2016 election, and what the Body of Christ should do – now – for the nation.

“Steven Stewart’s claim lies against certain agents, employees, and/or directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including James Comey and unnamed John and/or Jane Does who presented false evidence to the U.S. Department of Justice and engaged in the destruction of evidence which caused the malicious prosecution of Mr. Stewart and for which he was imprisoned without bail for a year and one half,” the complaint states.

“This severely harmed Mr. Stewart’s economic and other means of livelihood and caused extreme emotional distress. Mr. Stewart was deprived of his freedom in violation of the 5th Amendment, and his right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and his right to protest under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution,” it explains.

The standoff at Bunkerville had attracted individuals from all across the country, when, the complaint charges, “FBI and other federal agents violently assault[ed] Mr. Bundy’s family members before and during their efforts to seize the land that Mr. Bundy’s family had ranched on for decades.”

Stewart “was unarmed throughout the entirety of the standoff and obeyed all of the commands issued by the federal agents.”

Nevertheless, he was accused of conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to impede a federal officer, carrying a firearm, assault on a federal officer and threatening an officer.

Klayman states in the complaint: “It was clear from the very beginning that the FBI did not possess any real evidence to substantiate any of the charges brought against Mr. Stewart – since none existed – but still pursued his prosecution anyway and did, in fact, cause the DOJ to indict and prosecute Mr. Stewart.

“The FBI agents at the subject of this complaint improperly influenced the U.S. attorney for the district of Nevada to prosecute Mr. Stewart as a direct result of pressure from, and on direct orders from, former President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.”

It was the FBI, along with the Bureau of Land Management, DOJ and others “working in concert, [who] actually engaged in the obstruction of justice by destroying and spoiling evidence and hiding of exculpatory evidence to try to obtain a wrongful conviction against Mr. Stewart.”

Stewart ended up in jail for about 18 months, Klayman explained.

The claim is directed to the FBI, and another was sent to the BLM and Department of the Interior.

Stewart is asking for about $58,000 in damages.

Similar concerns are raised over the prosecution of Rick Lovelien, who is claiming damages of about $8,300 for, among other things, a frozen water line in his home that burst because he was in jail and there was no one to empty the lines or run a heater.

Politico reported this week that the “drumbeat” of criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is commissioned to probe Russian influence on the election, has gotten louder.

 

Republicans have now called for a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.

Mark Taylor and Mary Colbert write in “The Trump Prophecies” about the miracle of the 2016 election, and what the Body of Christ should do – now – for the nation.

via IFTTT

WHO: Medical marijuana has no public-health risks

ORIGINAL LINK

(London Daily Mail) The World Health Organization has declared that CBD – the relaxant property of cannabis used in medical marijuana – should not be a scheduled drug.

As legalization of cannabis has spread rapidly across the United States and around the world, health officials have cautioned that we do not have enough research to rule out any down sides.

But today, after months of deliberation and investigation, the WHO has concluded that cannabidiol (CBD) is a useful treatment for epilepsy and palliative care, and does not carry any addiction risks.

via IFTTT

YouTube threatens to shut down Health Ranger channel over this podcast that discusses the FBI’s routine obstruction of justice and forensic science fraud

ORIGINAL LINK
Seven weeks after the posting of a podcast that examines the FBI’s corruption and cover-up regarding the Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, YouTube has threatened to censor the Health...

via IFTTT

Far left Politifact now being used by Facebook to censor bombshell news that Democrats don't want you to read

ORIGINAL LINK

(Natural News) Some may look at conservatives’ rejection of Internet fact-checkers and assume that they want to bury the truth and keep the public uninformed. However, this is not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that most fact-checkers, such as the ones currently being used by companies like Google and Facebook,...

via IFTTT

The Enemy Within - The "Intelligence Community"

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

It was the Holy Grail of #TheResistance, the smoking gun they had been desperately searching for, solid evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to steal the presidency from its rightful owner: an email written and sent before WikiLeaks published the DNC material directing Trump’s attention to the data dump and even offering an “encryption key,” whatever that may be, so he could get a jump start on the news cycle.

Collusion! Impeach! Gotcha!

Except it wasn’t true.

CNN, which initially reported the story, had the date of the email wrong: a 14 had somehow morphed into a 4. It turns out that CNN had never actually seen the email, but only had it described by “multiple sources.” CBS ran a story supposedly “confirming” the provenance of the incriminating email, and MSNBC followed suit with former Los Angeles Times national security reporter Ken Dilanian, whose reputation as a mouthpiece for the CIA is well-earned: Dilanian went on the air endorsing the story and tying it into the by now elaborate conspiracy theories that preoccupy #TheResistance.

Of course it was the purest coincidence that no less than three major media outlets got the Trump email story wrong. Yes, those “multiple sources” sure were busy.

It’s absurd to think that this episode is a case of simply getting it wrong: this was undoubtedly a deliberate lie, planted in the media by the same rogue “intelligence community” that invented Russia-gate. It didn’t matter that the truth would eventually come out: look at how many times the original story was tweeted and retweeted over social media, and then consider how many people don’t know it’s been debunked.

It seems like years since the Russia-gate investigation was launched, amid predictions of Trump’s imminent doom. So what have they come up with so far? Enough evidence of foreign meddling in American politics to drive the Podesta Group out of business. Mike Flynn is in trouble not because of his Russia contacts but due to his lobbying on behalf of Turkey while in office. Of the many Russia-is-after-us stories that have come down the pipeline recently, a good many have been debunked.

In short, Russia-gate is getting old, and going nowhere. It needed a jolt to kick it back into life again, and who cares what’s true and what isn’t? The point of circulating a lie, even a debunked one, is to normalize the inconceivable. A coup against the President? Why not? Violence directed at his supporters? Oh, it’s a moral obligation. War propagandists don’t need fact-checkers, and this is a war we’re in. We’re all living on a battlefield as the struggle for power goes on around us and our intelligence community – or at least the leadership – conducts open warfare against the President.

We’ve seen the same pattern unfold abroad, as the CIA and its ancillary organizations undertook regime change operations in countries throughout the world. Remember the “color revolutions” of the Bush II era? Or look at what happened in Ukraine, where the elected president was driven out of office by a CIA-bought-and-paid-for mob. They hope to replicate their Ukrainian success in the US.

Is it really necessary to explain why this is a deadly threat to the Constitution, the rule of law, and everything we stand for as a nation?

Are we to be turned into some Third World banana republic, with coups, counter-coups, and a political police answerable to no one?

The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which forbade the CIA from carrying out actions designed to influence US domestic opinion, was justified by officials on the grounds that these limits prevented them from doing their job. Of course, if we had known that they considered it their job to pick and choose who can be President, perhaps Smith-Mundt would still be intact. As it is now, our spooks can use government resources to push their political agenda, and rest assured they have one: they are a de facto political party as well as a welter of government agencies.

Particularly frightening is the politicization of the FBI, which seems to have become a bludgeon in the hands of the President’s enemies. Their involvement with the Trump “dossier,” their refusal to hand over key documents to congressional oversight committees, not to mention the bizarre grandstanding of former FBI director James Comey – all point to a worrisome partisanship that has somehow infiltrated US law enforcement and called into question the integrity of our entire legal system.

We have given these people access to our most private information: they have a “legal” mandate to invade our privacy at will. We’ve given them unlimited resources, although nobody knows how much they really spend. We’ve allowed them to roam the earth, overthrowing governments, assassinating opponents, and engaging in dirty tricks that we’ll never even know about. So the question isn’t “How did they get to the point where they can conceivably pull off a coup?” – it’s “Why didn’t this happen sooner?”

We are facing a mortal threat to our republic, to our liberties, and to the future of democracy in America, and it’s not coming from overseas. The danger is coming from within our own government – the permanent national security bureaucracy, which was never elected by anyone to anything, and is now determined to impose its will on a country that voted the “wrong” way.

via IFTTT

Trump: ‘Fake News Media Out of Control…a Stain on America’

https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-fake-news-media-out-of-controla-stain-on-america.html

MSM Forced To Admit Ingredient In Vaccines Causes Autism

ORIGINAL LINK
Brandon Turbeville

Natural Blaze

December 6, 2017

While corporate mainstream media outlets and Big Pharma have attempted to hide and silence criticism of vaccines as crazy, anti science, and even Russian propaganda, recent research has managed to cut through the haze of disinformation peddled by these outlets. Indeed, even propaganda outfits like the Daily Mail have been forced to acknowledge Dr. Chris Exley’s new research.

‘Perhaps we now have the link between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the link being the inclusion of an aluminium adjuvant in the vaccine,” said Professor Chris Exley from Keele University.

His study revealed that autistic children have up to ten times more metal in their brains than the levels of what is considered safe adults. The research also points out that aluminum crosses the membrane that separates the blood and brain and that it accumulates in cells that are necessarily involved in maintaining a constant internal existence, i.e. temperature.



Exley’s research suggests that children suffering from autism may have genetic changes that are responsible for their accumulation of aluminum that healthy people are able to remove.

In his own article for the Hippocratic Post, Dr. Exley wrote,

Research at Keele University, published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, provides the strongest indication yet that aluminium is a cause of ASD.
The aluminium content of brain tissues from five donors who died with a diagnosis of ASD was found to be extraordinarily high; some of the highest values yet measured in human brain tissue. 

Why for example, would one of the four major brain lobes of a 15-year-old boy with autism be 8.74 (11.59) micrograms/g dry weight – a value which is at least 10 times higher than might be considered as acceptable for an adult never mind a child?
Yet, while the aluminium content of each of the five brains was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation. 

The majority of aluminium was identified in non-neuronal cells, which are involved in maintaining a constant internal environment. 

Aluminium was also found in inflammatory cells in the brain, alongside clear evidence of inflammatory cells heavily loaded with aluminium entering the brain via the surrounding membranes and those that separate the brain from circulating blood. 

The fact that the majority of aluminium found in brain tissues in ASD was within cells and associated with tissues that maintain the body’s internal environment is, at least for now, unique to ASD and may begin to explain why young adolescents had so much aluminium in their brains. 

Perhaps there is something within the genetic make-up of specific individuals which predisposes them to accumulate and retain aluminium in their brain, as is similarly suggested for individuals with genetically passed-on Alzheimer’s disease. 

The new evidence strongly suggests aluminium is entering the brain in ASD via inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been for certain immune cells at injection sites for vaccines that contain aluminium to increase the body’s immune response.

Despite erroneously claiming that Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his research were discredited, the Daily Mail nevertheless republished Dr. Exley’s article on their own website. Even despite the media blackout on the dangers of vaccines, the actual science is getting harder and harder to ignore. It also stands as yet one more reason that individuals, vaccinators or not, stand up against medical tyranny and forced medical procedures and stand for individual choice in all matters related to vaccines.

You can hear Dr. Exley’s interview with Heather Callaghan of Natural Blaze regarding the dangers of aluminum here.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAaTBgQLqE

Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Can reshare with author name, link back, links and bio intact.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 1,000 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

via IFTTT

Former CIA Chief Regrets Intel Treatment of Trump...

ORIGINAL LINK

Former CIA Chief Regrets Intel Treatment of Trump...


(Top headline, 3rd story, link)

---

Related stories:
'Journalism for rent': Inside secretive firm behind Russia dossier...
Demoted DOJ official's wife worked for FUSION GPS during campaign...
Mueller focusing on possible obstruction by President...
18-day period...
BANNON FACES GRILLING?
House gavel with impeachment power up for grabs...

via IFTTT

30 Year NSA Employee Shares Why They Are Watching You & It Has Nothing To Do With Terrorism

ORIGINAL LINK

William Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He is one of the highest placed intelligence officials to ever blow the whistle on insider NSA ‘knowings.’ He made headlines when he resigned in 2001 after 9/11, having worked more than thirty years for the agency. He was a leading code-breaker against the Soviet Union during the Cold war, and was repelled by the United States’ massive surveillance programs.

He’s had quite the go, starting in 2002 when he let the public know of a system ( ‘trailblazer’) intended to analyze data carried on communication networks (like the internet). He exposed the agencies eavesdropping program and has faced harassment from the FBI, NSA and more. He has been in and out of the court room ever since he decided to resign and blow the whistle.

These mass surveillance leaks  are nothing new, as we’ve seen by the leaks recent NSA whislte-blower Edward Snowden has provided us over the past few years. In an interview that was blacked out by the U.S media, Snowden referred to a Super National Intelligence Organization known as the “Five Eyes” that do whatever they want, and are far beyond the laws of their own country. You can read more about that HERE.

Binney hasn’t stopped, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever come out of the NSA. He is now saying:

“At least 80% of fibre optic cables globally go via the US, this is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores. The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” (see sources)

According to the Guardian:

“The NSA will soon be able to collect 966 exabytes a year, the total of internet traffic annually. Former Google head Erich Schmidt once argued that the entire amount of knowledge from the beginning of humankind until 2003 amount to only five exabytes.” (see sources)

 Binney has supported the recent revelations of Snowden, and says he has contact with a number of other NSA employees who are appalled  with what the agency does.

Total Population Control

 What used to be considered a conspiracy theory is becoming much easier for more people to see. Mass surveillance is not about the protection of national security,  it’s about controlling the entire population.  We are made to believe that intelligence agencies are working to protect us, when the truth is that they have their hand in what they claim is a threat to us. A great example of this is 9/11. Again, we must question the world’s constant direction towards a total security state, what is happening today is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. If events are really created and justified (like 9/11), and the ‘war on terrorism’ is a complete sham, think about what that means for a second. Ask yourself, why are they doing this?

“There is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.” JFK (source)

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential disaster of the rise of mis-placed power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes” Dwight Eisenhower (sources)

Everything we do is monitored. As a result, anything that threatens the interests of those wishing to ‘control’ us will most likely be known about. At the same time, I’m sure there are many individuals within these departments that share the beliefs of the masses, I do not wish to make anybody who is or has been apart of these agencies as “evil.”

Mainstream media continues to push the idea that an increased need for security is needed. They do this by using terrorism propaganda, and more. Anything they can use to brainwash the population that our world is in a state of constant threat is to their advantage, and allows them to infiltrate and take over countries,resources and more while using their corporately owned media to justify this type of action.

It’s great to hear Mr Binney come out and say something like this, to him we say thank you.

As I always do with these articles, I’d like to emphasize that mass surveillance is not the NSA’s biggest kept secret. This came to light recently with the very first public disclosure of the “black budget” by Snowden (despite numerous researchers already exposing it.) I’m talking about “Special Access Programs,” they do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as deep black programs, and involve projects that the human race knows nothing about. You can read more about that HERE.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-claims-nsa-seeks-total-population-control-2014-7

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

via IFTTT

Why Are More American Teenagers Than Ever Suffering From Severe Anxiety? - The New York Times

Why Are More American Teenagers Than Ever Suffering From Severe Anxiety? - The New York Times:



'via Blog this'

oops: CIA ‘mistakenly’ destroys copy of 6,700-page US torture report

ORIGINAL LINK

The CIA inspector general’s office has said it “mistakenly” destroyed its only copy of a comprehensive Senate torture report, despite lawyers for the Justice Department assuring a federal judge that copies of the documents were being preserved. The erasure of the document by the spy agency’s internal watchdog was deemed an “inadvertent” foul-up by the inspector general, according to Yahoo News.

via IFTTT

The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

ORIGINAL LINK

Friday was one of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an “arm of Russian intelligence,” and therefore, so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named “Michael J. Erickson” – someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify – to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had “uploaded.” The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began publishing those emails online – and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It’s impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it’s necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow to the Trump/Russia collusion story:

There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story – and then hyped it over and over and over – the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 – which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks – as everyone by then already knew – had published. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

How did CNN end up aggressively hyping such a spectacularly false story? They refuse to say. Many hours after their story got exposed as false, the journalist who originally presented it, Congressional reporter Manu Raju, finally posted a tweet noting the correction. CNN’s PR Department then claimed that “multiple sources” had provided CNN with the false date. And Raju went on CNN, in muted tones, to note the correction, explicitly claiming that “two sources” had each given him the false date on the email:

All of this prompts the glaring, obvious, and critical question – one which CNN refuses to address: how did “multiple sources” all misread the date on this document, in exactly the same way, and toward the same end, and then feed this false information to CNN?

It is, of course, completely plausible that one source might innocently misread a date on a document. But how is it remotely plausible that multiple sources could all innocently and in good faith misread the date in exactly the same way, all to cause to be disseminated a blockbuster revelation about Trump/Russia/WikiLeaks collusion? This is the critical question that CNN simply refuses to answer. In other words, CNN refuses to provide the most minimal transparency to enable the public to understand what happened here.

 

Why does this matter so much? For so many significant reasons:

To begin with, it’s hard to overstate how fast, far and wide this false story traveled. Democratic Party pundits, operatives and journalists with huge social media platforms predictably jumped on the story immediately, announcing that it proved collusion between Trump and Russia (through WikiLeaks). One tweet from Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, claiming that this proved evidence of criminal collusion, was re-tweeted thousands and thousands of times in just a few hours (Lieu quietly deleted the tweet after I noted its falsity, and long after it went very viral, without ever telling his followers that the CNN story, and therefore his accusation, had been debunked).

This tweet is from a member of Congress today. It was RT'd more than 7,000 times (and counting), and liked more than 15,000 times. It's based on a completely false claim, from a debunked CNN story. This happens over and over. This seems damaging. And still no retraction. https://t.co/fixSRKUxxx

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 8, 2017

Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes, whose star has risen as he has promoted himself as a friend of former FBI Director Jim Comey, not only promoted the CNN story in the morning, but did so with the word “Boom” – which he uses to signal that a major blow has been delivered to Trump on the Russia story – along with a gif of a cannon being detonated:

boom https://t.co/9RPPltRq8k pic.twitter.com/eyYHkOMEPi

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) December 8, 2017

Incredibly, to this very moment – almost 24 hours after CNN’s story was debunked – Wittes has never noted to his more than 200,000 followers that the story he so excitedly promoted turned out to be utterly false, even though he returned to Twitter long after the story was debunked to tweet about other matters. He just left his false and inflammatory claims uncorrected.

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall believed the story was so significant that he used an image of an atomic bomb detonating at the top of his article discussing its implications, an article he tweeted to his roughly 250,000 followers. Only at night was an editor’s note finally added noting that the whole thing was false.

It’s hard to quantify exactly how many people were deceived – filled with false news and propaganda – by the CNN story. But thanks to Democratic-loyal journalists and operatives who decree every Trump/Russia claim to be true without seeing any evidence, it’s certainly safe to say that many hundreds of thousands of people, almost certainly millions, were exposed to these false claims.

Surely anyone who has any minimal concerns about journalistic accuracy – which would presumably include all the people who have spent the last year lamenting Fake News, propaganda, Twitter bots and the like – would demand an accounting as to how a major U.S. media outlet ended up filling so many people’s brains with totally false news. That alone should prompt demands from CNN for an explanation about what happened here. No Russian Facebook ad or Twitter bot could possibly have anywhere near the impact as this CNN story had when it comes to deceiving people with blatantly inaccurate information.

Second, the “multiple sources” who fed CNN this false information did not confine themselves to that network. They were apparently very busy eagerly spreading the false information to as many media outlets as they could find. In the middle of the day, CBS News claimed that it had independently “confirmed” CNN’s story about the email, and published its own breathless article discussing the grave implications of this discovered collusion.

Most embarrassing of all was what MSNBC did. You just have to watch this report from its ‘intelligence and national security correspondent” Ken Dilanian to believe it. Like CBS, Dilanian also claimed that he independently “confirmed” the false CNN report from “two sources with direct knowledge of this.” Dilanian, whose career in the U.S. media continues to flourish the more he is exposed as someone who faithfully parrots what the CIA tells him to say (since that is one of the most coveted and valued attributes in US journalism), spent three minutes mixing evidence-free CIA claims as fact with totally false assertions about what his multiple “sources with direct knowledge” told him about all this. Please watch this – again, not just the content but the tenor and tone of how they “report” – as it is Baghdad-Bob-level embarrassing:

Think about what this means. It means that at least two – and possibly more – sources, which these media outlets all assessed as credible in terms of having access to sensitive information, all fed the same false information to multiple news outlets at the same time. For multiple reasons, the probability is very high that these sources were Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee (or their high-level staff members), which is the committee that obtained access to Trump Jr.’s emails, although it’s certainly possible that it’s someone else. We won’t know until these news outlets deign to report this crucial information to the public: which “multiple sources” acted jointly to disseminate incredibly inflammatory, false information to the nation’s largest news outlets?

Just last week, the Washington Post decided – to great applause (including mine) – to expose a source to whom they had promised anonymity and off-the-record protections because they discovered that she was purposely feeding them false information as part of a scheme by Project Veritas to discredit the Post. It’s a well established principle of journalism – one that is rarely followed when it comes to powerful people in DC – that journalists should expose, rather than protect and conceal, sources who purposely feed them false information to be disseminated to the public.

The Post made the right call to report off-the-record comments given they were offered with fraudulent intent. This should be done far more often to actually powerful-in-DC people who spread lies while hiding behind anonymity https://t.co/EFLEI4eaq8 pic.twitter.com/v6yIJvheT1

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 27, 2017

Is that what happened here? Did these “multiple sources” who fed not just CNN but also MSNBC and CBS completely false information do so deliberately and in bad faith? Until these news outlets provide an accounting of what happened – what one might call “minimal journalistic transparency” – it’s impossible to say for certain. But right now, it’s very difficult to imagine a scenario where multiple sources all fed the wrong date to multiple media outlets innocently and in good faith.

If this were, in fact, a deliberate attempt to cause a false and highly inflammatory story to be reported, then these media outlets have an obligation to expose who the culprits are – just as the Washington Post did last week to the woman making false claims about Roy Moore (it was much easier in that case because the source they exposed was as nobody-in-DC, rather than someone on whom they rely for a steady stream of stories, the way CNN and MSNBC rely on Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee). By contrast, if this were just an innocent mistake, then these media outlets should explain how such an implausible sequence of events could possibly have happened.

Thus far, these media corporations are doing the opposite of what journalists ought to do: rather than informing the public about what happened and providing minimal transparency and accountability for themselves and the high-level officials who caused this to happen, they are hiding behind meaningless, obfuscating statements crafted by PR executives and lawyers.

How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this – and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate – that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them.

Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend – one could say a constant – when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential and reckless stories that have been published – and then corrected, rescinded and retracted – by major media outlets when it comes to this story.

All media outlets, of course, will make mistakes. The Intercept certainly has made our share, as have all outlets. And it’s particularly natural, inevitable, for mistakes to be made on a highly complicated, opaque story like the question of the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and questions relating to how WikiLeaks obtained DNC and Podesta emails. That is all to be expected.

But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I literally cannot list them all. Just consider the ones from the last week alone, as enumerated by the New York Times yesterday in its news report on CNN’s embarrassment:

It was also yet another prominent reporting error at a time when news organizations are confronting a skeptical public, and a president who delights in attacking the media as “fake news.”

Last Saturday, ABC News suspended a star reporter, Brian Ross, after an inaccurate report that Donald Trump had instructed Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, to contact Russian officials during the presidential race.

The report fueled theories about coordination between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, and stocks dropped after the news. In fact, Mr. Trump’s instruction to Mr. Flynn came after he was president-elect.

Several news outlets, including Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, also inaccurately reported this week that Deutsche Bank had received a subpoena from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, for President Trump’s financial records.

The president and his circle have not been shy about pointing out the errors.

That’s just the last week alone. Let’s just remind ourselves of how many times major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump/Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted – often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:

• Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
• An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
• WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
• A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
• RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
• Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
• Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
• Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)

That really is just a small sample. So continually awful and misleading has this reporting been that even Vladimir Putin’s most devoted critics – such as Russian expatriate Masha Gessen, oppositional Russian journalists, and anti-Kremlin liberal activists in Moscow – are constantly warning that the U.S. media’s unhinged, ignorant, paranoid reporting on Russia is harming their cause in all sorts of ways, in the process destroying the credibility of the U.S. media in the eyes of Putin’s opposition (who – unlike Americans who have been fed a steady news and entertainment propaganda diet for decades about Russia, actually understand the realities of that country).

U.S. media outlets are very good at demanding respect. They love to imply, if not outright state, that being patriotic and a good American means that one must reject efforts to discredit them and their reporting because that’s how one defends press freedom.

But journalists also have the responsibility not just to demand respect and credibility but to earn it. That means that there shouldn’t be such a long list of abject humiliations, in which completely false stories are published to plaudits, traffic and other rewards, only to fall apart upon minimal scrutiny. It certainly means that all of these “errors” shouldn’t be pointing in the same direction, pushing the same political outcome or journalistic conclusion.

But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can’t mean hiding behind PR and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

At minimum, these networks – CNN, MSNBC and CBS – have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information, or explain how it’s possible that “multiple sources” all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they’re attacked as “Fake News” should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks – the reason those attacks resonate – is themselves and their own conduct.

The post The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened appeared first on The Intercept.

via IFTTT