The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”
For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.
One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.
And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:
* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;
* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;
* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;
* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;
* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;
* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;
* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.
These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.
What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.
I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”
I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.
Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.
This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.
But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.
Rockefeller influence is no small thing.
The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.
I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.
You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.
Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?
Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?
Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.
Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.
Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.
A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?
This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.
Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.
Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.
Operation Relentless Medical.
Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.
The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.
Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.
The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.
The public will understand. And will rise up.
This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.
True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.
I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.
Monsanto has managed to saturate the global environment with toxic chemicals and genetically modified seed. Glyphosate is the major component in its flagship product, Roundup, used both in residential gardens and on farms.
The chemical is so pervasive that tests by the Organic Consumers Association found 93 percent of Americans have glyphosate in their urine.1 By comparison, no glyphosate was detected in tap water, which means the chemical is being ingested through food products. It is in fact, the most heavily used weed killer in history.
While much media attention has been levied at glyphosate for the association with cancer, in lower doses the chemical is also a strong endocrine disrupter.2 The health costs associated with exposure to hormone disrupters in Europe are estimated to be over $188 billion annually.3
Corporate spokespeople continue to say glyphosate is safe for use around humans, but recent revelations are beginning to completely unravel the well-orchestrated platform Monsanto is using to deceive the public.4
Monsanto has a long history with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies that has assured its rise to a powerful industrial position.
Now, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the first U.S. agency to declare that Roundup, and specifically the major active ingredient glyphosate, is in fact a probable human carcinogen.
California Takes a Stand Against Roundup
In 1986, voters in California approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. Proposition 65 requires publication of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. This list must be updated once a year and has grown to 800 chemical names since 1987.5
Businesses are also required to notify citizens of chemicals that may be in the products they purchase.
Following classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), in May 2015,6 the OEHHA added the chemical to the state Proposition 65 list.
The decision was finalized in early 2017, making California the first state to take this step to protect their citizens. According to Nathan Donley, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity:7
“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide. The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.
It’s become painfully clear that we can no longer ignore the risk that this pesticide poses to people and wildlife.”
Following a report earlier this month demonstrating the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines when it found glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic,8 Monsanto filed an appeal to stay the effective date of the Proposition 65 decision.9
Inclusion on the list does not prevent sale of these chemicals in California, but rather requires the manufacturer to post a “clear and reasonable warning” that the chemical is known to cause cancer, which Monsanto asserts will damage its reputation and violate its First Amendment rights.10
Unfortunately, the situation between the EPA and Monsanto marks a dangerous circumstance where taxpayer money has been used to shield companies from liability, obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages, and continue to pollute the environment and your health with toxic chemicals.
Europe’s Pesticide Regulations Triggered Backlash From Monsanto
In 2009, Europe introduced legislation to regulate pesticides that threatened the sales of products containing glyphosate.11
The new law uses a hazard-based approach that bans the use of chemicals if they have the potential to cause cancer or birth defects, instead of a risk-based approach where the chemical demonstrates risk to humans under specific dose scenarios.
This new regulation also mandates studies from peer-reviewed scientific literature be included in the approval application.
This created a problem for Monsanto, as industry studies concluded the chemical was safe, but independent studies came to a different conclusion, demonstrating harmful DNA damage in commercial applications.12
In response to new regulations in Europe and the change in IARC classification of glyphosate, Monsanto sponsored scientific reviews in peer-reviewed journals that concluded commercial formulations of glyphosate were not harmful.
The authors were members of the Glyphosate Expert Panel convened by commercial consultancy and commissioned by Monsanto. These scientific papers purposefully manipulated data and included irrelevant data that confused the picture.13
Twelve of the 16 members of the panel served as consultants or were employed by Monsanto. Others had different conflicts of interest. Only one member of the panel had no conflict of interest. Several other regulatory bodies have found glyphosate to be non-carcinogenic.
However, two assessments were founded on fundamental scientific weaknesses and the third had a severe lack of transparency and clarity.
One of the studies interchanged the concept of hazard and risk, apparently to divert attention from a hazard-based approach in the European law that would require a ban for glyphosate.14 Taken together, the whole of the evidence demonstrates carcinogenicity.
A report by Global 2000 Friends of the Earth Austria found attempts by agencies and individuals to defend the chemical against evidence showing it causes cancer and damages DNA are scientifically unsound, and are undermined by a serious conflict of interest from the individuals involved.15
Lawsuits May Expose Monsanto’s Prior Knowledge
This short news video discusses one of the lawsuits being brought against Monsanto by farmers for unlawful death following exposure to glyphosate.
The lawsuits allege farmers are developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from exposure, and, in the case of the McCalls in the video above, their Labrador retriever developed the same cancer at the young age of 6.
To date, there are over 700 individual cases being brought against Monsanto at the state and federal level.
In one of those cases in San Francisco, California, a judge unsealed documents that suggest employees of Monsanto ghost wrote studies attributed to academics — studies that were then used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.16
Documents indicate a senior officer at the EPA worked with Monsanto to suppress independent reviews of the ingredients. Insider information was shared with Monsanto to guide the message they published to the public.
The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee even promised to obstruct a Department of Health and Human Services review of glyphosate,17 and indeed that safety review never took place. One of the attorneys for the McCall family, environmental activist and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr., commented:18
“Mounting evidence suggests that Monsanto knew about the hazards posed by glyphosate exposure, but failed to disclose this information to the public. Any time a corporation markets a harmful product to consumers as safe for use, it must be held accountable for the damage caused by that product.
Glyphosate is the product of both modern chemistry and a profoundly corrupt corporate culture. It is sad for our country and our people that such a powerful economic leader can only be trusted to put private greed before public health.”
In 1987 11 million pounds of glyphosate were applied in the U.S, compared to the now nearly 300 million pounds applied each year.19 The increase follows on the heels of genetically modified seed designed to withstand heavy applications of the weed killer. Michigan State University produced a graphic representation of the seed and chemical companies’ size and company ownership that visually demonstrates the sheer size and reach of Monsanto.
Farmers Fight Monsanto’s Aggressive Tactics
Lawsuits are another effort on the part of Monsanto to minimize the dangers of Roundup. Using tactics that include fear and intimidation, Monsanto has worked hard to ensure every farmer uses its genetically altered seed and large amounts of its weed killer, thereby solidifying the company’s market share.20 In 2003, Monsanto sued Michael White, fourth generation organic farmer in Alabama, essentially electing him their “poster boy” to intimidate farmers.21
White’s case is not unique. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for copyright infringement after genetically engineered (GE) seeds inadvertently cross contaminated adjacent non-GE fields. Even though most farmers do not want the cross contamination, nor are complicit in the contamination, Monsanto continues to bring lawsuits and has the means to win the majority of the cases.
White is one of the few farmers free to talk about his court case, as he settled with Monsanto after his case was cleared to go before a jury. White says that the court case destroyed his father’s life and he went to his grave in fear of the agrichemical company.22
Missouri farmers have now filed a large class action suit against Monsanto over illegal herbicide use that has caused phenomenal crop damage. The suit alleges the farmers who planted Monsanto GE seeds didn’t have access to appropriate weed killer for two growing seasons and thus resorted to using illegal chemicals that contaminated and destroyed their fields, and that of neighbors.23Attorney Bev Randles, representing Bader Farms against Monsanto, said in a statement:24
“Monsanto chose to sell these seeds before they could be safely cultivated. Monsanto’s own advertising repeatedly describes its Xtend seeds and its accompanying herbicide as a ‘system’ intended to be used together. But when Monsanto failed to get approval to sell the herbicide, it recklessly chose to go ahead and sell the seeds regardless.”
Glyphosate Associated With More Than Cancer
Glyphosate also causes significant soil damage by decimating microorganisms responsible for biodiversity and biomass of soil. It’s also toxic to soil fungi.25 Repeated, and sometimes even a single use of the chemical, has led to an increase in the severity or re-emergence of crop disease, as the chemical leads to the development of pathogenic levels of microbes that affect crop health.
Studies have also demonstrated a negative effect on populations of earthworms in the soil, necessary for the development of organic material essential to plant health. Each of these factors reduce the health of crop root systems and yield.
Chronic exposure over just two years to Roundup in rat populations led to liver and kidney damage at doses far below what are recommended for use around humans.26 In an effort to slow the rising number of patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in his country, one of the first acts of Sri Lanka’s newly elected president was to ban the importation and sale of glyphosate.27
A case study has also associated levels of glyphosate in children with symptom severity in autism and seizure disorder.28,29 Even at low doses, glyphosate has estrogenic effects30 and may disrupt the balance in your gut microbiome.31
Bayer Company Romancing Monsanto
American-based Monsanto is being courted by German company Bayer, with intentions for a merger. Fifty years ago these two companies were forced to separate to avoid violating antitrust laws in the U.S.32 In a much different political climate, this intended merger appears to have the approval of the new Trump administration.
In mid-January, before taking office, Trump met with the CEOs of both Monsanto and Bayer, who announced in a joint statement they had a “very productive meeting”33 with the incoming U.S. President about the potential $66 billion merger. The deal will likely be financially profitable for both companies at the expense of farmers and consumers.
As both corn and soybean commodity prices are at some of the lowest levels since 2012, rising seed and chemical prices could place many family farms in a precarious financial position. Clay Govier, a fifth-generation farmer in central Nebraska, has used Monsanto products for the past 12 years and expects both seed and chemical prices to increase if the merger is successful.34
The number of American farmers are also at the lowest levels, numbering less than 2 million — the lowest number since the 1800s. Billion-dollar mergers between farming suppliers and buyers are not only affecting the health of the environment and consumer, but also plunging the farmer deep into debt. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently made dire predictions.
According to the USDA, income from farming in the U.S. for 2017 is projected to be negative $1,400, but Wall Street believes that number is closer to negative $6,000. In the face of rising costs and debt-burdened farmers, Monsanto shareholders are suing, claiming the CEO will benefit from the merger with Bayer to the tune of $18 million in cash and benefits despite a conflict of interest and withheld information from investors.35
How You Can Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Pesticides and Herbicides
As it is impossible to rely on governmental agencies and regulatory commissions to protect your health and wellness, it is important to practice preventive strategies to reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. The following suggestions will set you off on the right path.
Purchase organic produce and grass fed meat
Animal products like meat, butter, milk and eggs are the most important to buy organic and grass fed, since animal products tend to bio-accumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables.
Washing all produce before eating helps to reduce your exposure to bacteria and pesticides. Both may also be transferred to melons, oranges and other fruits you peel if the rind is not first washed.
While there are commercial preparations, the safest products are white vinegar37 with a splash of lemon.38 The acidity helps to kill the bacteria, and friction from a vegetable brush helps to reduce the number of chemicals clinging to the produce.
Dry your produce with a paper towel as an extra measure of removing pesticides so they don’t dry to the produce. Remove the exterior leaves of leafy vegetables.
Eat whole foods
Remember that processed foods are in fact processed with a variety of chemicals, and should therefore be avoided as much as possible. Children already diagnosed with ADHD, autism or seizure disorders in most cases have reduced symptoms when processed foods are completely eliminated.
Use natural cleaning products
I recommend you use only natural cleaning products in your home, especially if you have young children or are pregnant. Most health food stores and some grocery stores now carry natural products to clean your home. Most everything in your home can also be cleaned using white vinegar and baking soda.
Switching to natural brands of toiletries is also a good idea. You’d be surprised to find just how many well-known brands of baby products are loaded with harmful chemicals, including fragrances. The Skin Deep Cosmetics Database39 is an excellent source to determine which brands are the safest for your baby.
Use natural outdoor protection
Also avoid using insect repellants that contain DEET. It can be tempting to douse your child or yourself in order to avoid getting bitten, but please be mindful of what you’re putting on your skin. There are safe, effective and natural insect repellant alternatives.40 Use natural methods of controlling insects in your home and garden as well.
Leave your shoes at the door
Walking across lawns and treated gardens deposits pesticides and other toxic chemicals in your carpet and on your flooring. Pets and small children crawling across the floor have the greatest potential for absorbing these chemicals. However, when you eventually take your shoes off at the end of the day, you may also absorb chemicals through the bottoms of your bare feet.
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
21st Century Cures Act Waives Informed Consent for Low-Risk Medical Testing
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Government Admits Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Vaccine Court Is No Safeguard for Vaccine Injured Patients
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
VICP — A Bureaucratic Nightmare That Offers Little Protection
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
Lawyers are few, as the program prohibits private attorney’s fees; many who suffer a vaccine injury cannot even meet the filing deadline due to inability to retain legal counsel
The process is exceedingly slow, with the average case taking over five years to adjudicate — a far cry from the 240-day deadline originally set by Congress for all adjudication decisions; some cases remain pending a decade after they were filed
Decisions cannot be used as precedents for other cases
The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicized the program, which was and still is its statutory duty
VICP Protects Vaccine Makers’ Interests
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
Who Pays for Vaccine Injuries?
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Should Be Repealed
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
Serious adverse events
Quality defects (reduced levels of potency, presence of contaminants, such as glass particles)
Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes Commonplace
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?
Glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides — is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world, and testing suggests a large portion of the global population now has glyphosate in their system.
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” (Class 2A).1,2
Research scientist Anthony Samsel has also reported he has evidence showing Monsanto is well aware glyphosate promotes cancer, and that they’ve had this knowledge since 1981.
Publicly, the company has insisted glyphosate is harmless to both environment and human health, but recent revelations are beginning to unravel Monsanto’s carefully orchestrated plot to deceive the public.
The evidence in question suggests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in fact colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests by manipulating and preventing key investigations into glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential.
What we have here is really the most dangerous situation possible. Taxpayers’ money has essentially been used to help shield companies from liability and obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages.
Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto
But first, some background: Based on the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) followed suit, declaring glyphosate a carcinogen under Proposition 65.
As a result, all glyphosate-containing products must carry a cancer warning. Monsanto attempted to overturn the OEHHA’s decision, but Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled against it.3,4,5 More than 60 plaintiffs are also suing Monsanto claiming Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
One of them is Yolanda Mendoza,6 who has battled stage 4 non-Hodgkin’s for over a year. She believes her cancer was caused by Roundup, which she would spray on her lawn every weekend, using a backpack sprayer. She has lost sensation in her fingers and jaw due to nerve damage.
Monsanto has defended Roundup’s safety in court by leaning on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.7 At the time, Jess Rowland was the associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division,8 and Rowland was a key author of that report.
The EPA’s conclusion, which runs counter to the IARC’s determination, met with severe criticism — so much so, a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA’s decision.
According to some of the members on this panel, the EPA indeed appears to have violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.9
Next, attorneys for plaintiffs suing Monsanto found email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggesting Rowland may have colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate non-carcinogenic.10,11
In one email Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals, adding “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” She directly accuses Rowland of playing “political conniving games with the science” to help Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers.
According to court records, Rowland also warned Monsanto of the IARC’s determination months before it was made public,12 giving the company time to plan its defense strategy.
New Bombshell — Evidence for EPA-Monsanto Collusion Grows Stronger
Then came the next bombshell. Email correspondence showed Rowland helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto’s behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”13,14 referring to the ATSDR investigation.
Jenkins also noted that Rowland was planning to retire in a few months and “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”15 This is about as damaging as it gets.
By colluding with Monsanto to declare glyphosate safe and stopping toxicology evaluations by other federal offices, the EPA has used taxpayers’ money to hide the truth about a dangerous toxin and prevent consumers harmed by the chemical from being able to effectively prove their case in court.
Without the EPA, Monsanto would have a tougher time arguing Roundup is harmless, and the company has gone to great lengths to get the court to discount the IARC’s determination that glyphosate is carcinogenic, insisting the EPA is a far superior agency, referring to the IARC as an “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body.”
Instead of protecting public health, the EPA basically gave the finger to all those who may have been harmed or killed by Roundup by providing Monsanto with the “evidence of innocence” they so desperately need to defend themselves. But now the truth is bubbling out. As reported by Bloomberg:16
“The plaintiffs’ lawyers say Rowland’s communications with Monsanto employees show the regulator who was supposed to be policing the company was actually working on its behalf.
The unsealing of the court documents ‘represents a huge development in public health,’ said Tim Litzenburg, one of the lawyers suing Monsanto.
Regulatory agencies, scientists, consumers and physicians ‘can see some of what Monsanto was actually engaging in behind the scenes, and how they have manipulated the scientific literature to date. That’s important to their decision-making, not just our lawsuits.”
Jenkins went on to write, “I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this, but it’s nice to know they’re going to actually make the effort.” His pessimism was overblown.
Another Monsanto memorandum notes the ATSDR “agreed, for now, to take direction from EPA,” showing Rowland did in fact succeed in his mission to thwart the ATSDR’s glyphosate investigation. Whether Monsanto fashioned him a medal for his feat remains unknown. How Rowland sleeps at night is yet another mystery.
Did Monsanto Ghostwrite EPA Reports on Glyphosate?
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim Monsanto employees ghostwrote EPA reports on glyphosate,17,18,19,20 which were then included in the evidence base the EPA relied on to conclude glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic to humans. Monsanto denies the allegations,21 yet some of the correspondence seems incriminating enough. Bloomberg recounts a 2015 email by Monsanto toxicologist Bill Heydens:22
“‘A less expensive/more palatable approach’ is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while ‘we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,’ Heydens wrote to a colleague. The names of outside scientists could be listed on the publication, ‘but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,’ according to the email, which goes on to say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.”
Other emails suggest Monsanto colluded with Syngenta and Dow to publish favorable studies on glyphosate. Monsanto argues that plaintiffs are “cherry-picking” emails among some 10 million pages of documents. But if a killer writes a million emails in his lifetime and admits his crime in one, that singular instance could hardly be written off as cherry-picked evidence. As noted by The New York Times:23
“The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm.
Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project. ‘I think it’s important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it’s completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,’ said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation.”
Office of Pesticide Programs Disagrees With EPA Ruling on Glyphosate
Adding fuel to charges of malfeasance at the EPA is an internal memo by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) dated December 14, 2015, which makes it clear the ORD disagrees with the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs’ (OPP) determination that glyphosate is “unlikely to be carcinogenic.” The OPP’s opinion was originally published in April 2016. This, according to the OPP, was done in error since the report was not yet finalized, and it was promptly taken down.
However, this did not stop Monsanto from using the report to defend glyphosate’s safety. The ORD memo reveals the department is closely aligned with the IARC’s view on glyphosate, and that ORD scientists raised strong objections against the OPP’s findings, noting the OPP did not follow established international conventions when reviewing glyphosate. As reported by GM Watch:24
“‘Frameworks for data analysis and determination of causality [between exposure to a substance and cancer] that are currently in effect at the EPA and in the risk assessment community include gradations,’ wrote the ORD in its memo. ‘The preliminary opinion of the OPP appears not to follow this approach,’ adds the latter …
[T]he OPP appears to have abandoned the rules for the evaluation of the dangers of a substance to ‘use a yes/no approach which could only lead to describe the substances only as ‘carcinogenic’ or ‘unlikely to be carcinogenic’ for humans. The criticism is very technical, but nonetheless crucial. The EPA classification actually includes, in theory, five different grades:
•Showing suggestive signs of carcinogenicity
•Insufficiently documented for carcinogenicity analysis
•Unlikely to be carcinogenic
Thus there are many nuances that, according to the memorandum of the ORD, disappeared from the preliminary analysis conducted by the OPP.”
No Consensus on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity Among EPA Scientists
The ORD memo admits the evidence of cancer in humans is limited, but stress that animal studies show strong correlation between exposure and cancer, noting that “glyphosate has been tested in several two-year studies in rats or mice. A wide range of tumors have been observed in these studies. Tumors have been observed in the thyroid, liver, skin, pancreas, lymph, testis, mammary gland, kidneys and lung.”
That said, depending on the statistical methods used, the incidence of cancer may be significant or insignificant, and this is a main point of contention. The OPP claims they did not find statistically significant evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, but they didn’t specify which statistical method they used to reach their conclusion. According to the ORD’s memo:
“[T]he category ”unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans’ can without doubt be thrown out. We can discuss whether the level of evidence is sufficiently high for the category ‘probable carcinogen’ … But this classification cannot be rejected.”
As noted by GM Watch:
“Several questions remain: how will the ORD memo … be taken into account in the EPA’s final opinion? Why was the OPP’s preliminary notice published on the agency’s website before being removed a few hours later?
The EPA states that a discussion paper jointly drafted by the two departments was forwarded in September 2016 to a third group of federal experts, whose opinion is expected to be published on 16 March. This new opinion will in turn be revised prior to publication of the EPA’s final official notice.”
Turns out this third group of federal experts —the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) — remain equally split over the issue. On March 16, the report from the SAP meeting was published25 showing a wide range of opinions within the panel. Some feel the “not likely to be carcinogenic” designation should be changed to “suggestive signs of carcinogenicity,” while others argue there’s “no credible evidence of carcinogenicity.”
It still remains to be seen what the EPA’s final and official decision on glyphosate will be, but evidence clearly shows serious collusion between EPA officials and Monsanto has occurred, thereby tainting the entire process and making any determination in glyphosate’s favor highly suspect.
Pesticide Companies Kill Hundreds of Thousands of Children Each Year — Time to End the Massacre!
The EPA carries a tremendous burden. According to two recent reports,26 pesticides like Roundup are taking a major toll on health and life across the globe, and by colluding with pesticide makers to shield them from that liability, the EPA has committed a serious crime against humanity.
According to a recent United Nations (UN) report, pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.27
The report specifically highlights the pesticide industry’s “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics,” noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.
The report also firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion “a myth,”28 while highlighting developments in sustainable and regenerative farming showing biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.
The second report, this one by the World Health Organization (WHO), notes environmental pollution — which includes but is not limited to pesticides — kills 1.7 million children each year. A full quarter of all children’s deaths and diseases could be prevented by reducing environmental risks!
Both of these reports offer the same recommendations in regard to agricultural chemicals — reduce or get rid of them altogether. In fact, the UN report goes so far as to propose a global treaty to phase out toxic pesticides and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.
Donations to Organic Consumers Association TRIPLE-Matched During GMO Awareness Week
During this annual GMO Awareness Week, I strongly encourage you to give the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) your financial support. We are making great headway in promoting organics and fighting for a cleaner, safer food supply, but we cannot do it without your help. This week, you can seriously maximize the impact of your generosity, because I will match each and every dollar you donate to the OCA with $3, up to $250,000.
As noted by OCA in an article commenting on the latest evidence showing what appears to be serious betrayal of consumer trust on behalf of the EPA:29
“Please help keep the pressure on corporations like Monsanto that poison with impunity. We need to raise $200,000 by midnight, March 31, to meet our quarterly online fundraising goal … According to the NYT, while farmers and children exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide were dying from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a high-level EPA official was colluding with Monsanto behind the scenes to hide the truth. And he actually bragged about it …
The only way we will stop Monsanto, and other corporations, from this kind of ruthless disregard for public health is to keep the pressure on — through boycotts, through relentless demands for accountability, and through the courts. We may have lost the battle to label GMOs. But make no mistake — the years of educating consumers about the risks of GMO foods, and the poisons used to grow them, are paying off …
Just this week, a California judge ruled that the state can require Monsanto to label Roundup sold in retail stores as a “possible carcinogen” … OCA, along with another organization, will soon file our own lawsuit against Monsanto — details to be made public soon …”
3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting
By Jon Rappoport
—Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer—
I know full well how incompetent, stupid, amateurish, and ill-prepared government employees can be. But the dog and pony Hillary show of the last few days is truly staggering.
If the effort was to exonerate Hillary Clinton, it was done so badly the American people are more certain than ever that she is guilty as sin.
Here are the top three actions of the past few days that conspired to free her, while actually revealing how culpable she is, to anyone with a few working brain cells:
One: Just by chance, US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the highest law-enforcement official in the land, runs into Bill Clinton at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. They talk in secret, as the FBI is wrapping up its email-scandal probe and is preparing to present its findings. This Lynch-Clinton meeting assures one and all that the fix is in. “Hillary’s guilty, but we’re going to find her innocent.”
Two: In an unprecedented move, FBI Director Comey holds a global press conference. He runs down a massive list of Hillary’s actions, leaving no doubt she is guilty of gross negligence in her handling of classified materials. But then he does an abrupt turn and recommends no prosecution, because the Bureau found no evidence she intended to do harm.
Comey knows, and ensuing press reports emphasize, that intent is not the legal issue. The Federal Penal Code (Title 18, section 793f) makes that clear. Gross negligence is sufficient for prosecution, conviction, and a sentence of up to ten years in prison.
Furthermore, why is FBI Director making his recommendation in public, before the world? His job is simply to turn over the evidence to his boss, Attorney General Lynch, who will decide whether prosecution is the next step. But since, a day earlier, Lynch inexplicably said she would blindly follow the FBI’s recommendation—thereby abdicating her duty as Attorney General—Comey is suddenly doing her job and occupying her position. He is, for the moment, the US Attorney General.
As any fool can see.
Comey is also an appellate judge, because he is interpreting Title 18 of the Federal Penal Code—and interpreting it falsely.
As any fool can see.
Three: Comey then appears before the Congress for a grilling. Are we to assume he expected to get off easily? Of course not. He knew he would be raked over the coals, and in the process he would reveal more clearly how Hillary had violated the law. Comey would continue to assert there was no need for prosecution, while showing the world that prosecution was exactly the proper path. And that’s what happened, during Comey’s conversation with Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Four main facts emerged out of Comey’s mouth:
When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.
When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.
When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.
When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.
Comey admits all this under questioning. He further concedes that lies of this nature would normally be used to mount a prosecution.
Not only that, these lies would be used to form a circumstantial case for intent, the very issue on which Comey found Hillary “innocent.”
Could Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Obama have figured out a worse way to exonerate Hillary? It’s hard to imagine.
More likely, Obama and Lynch decided to put the egg on Comey’s face. He would have to take one for the team.
Comey, in turn, decided that if he was going to be the fall-guy, he would, in the process, lay out the details showing how guilty Hillary was. After all, his own people, his own FBI investigators, had assembled an air-tight case against Hillary. Comey knew they would boil with rage when he exonerated her. So he threw a bone to his team. In effect, he said to them: “I have to recommend no prosecution, but I’ll expose some of what you discovered.”
The question now is, will one or more of Comey’s FBI investigators leak further devastating facts, revealing Hillary’s guilt, to the press?
By chance, this whole travesty of justice was suddenly overshadowed by the events in Dallas, where snipers shot 12 police officers and killed five.
Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer.
In a recent speech, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency discussed the controversial topic of geoengineering, leading some activists to ask whether the agency is actively and deliberately modifying the weather.
In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting about threats to global security. Director Brennan mentioned a number of threats to stability before discussing the science of geoengineering. Brennan said the technologies “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.”
The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.
Director Brennan specifically mentions a type of SRM known as stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI. As Brennan notes, SAI is “a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.”
The study specifically looked at two types of SRM. The first involved marine aerosol concentrations use to increase clouds, while the second looked at increasing the amount of sulphur concentrated in the stratosphere. The researchers stated that their key objectives were to “investigate the potential of aerosols to cool the climate at the global scale, and identify the possible limits in the effectiveness of the Solar Radiation Management techniques as well as the risks related to these techniques.”
The researchers found that the geoengineering techniques which were studied do in fact have the potential to cool the climate and slow down warming. “However, the cooling effect has limitations,” the team writes.“The cooling effect attributable to aerosols would be rather small due to the geographical change in tropospheric aerosol emissions or change in energy production studied here when compared to the warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions,” the paper states.
In other words, the effort, money, and time it would take to invest and create geoengineering methods would likely do very little to actually limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers even state that, based on their models, if the world replaced coal with nuclear power for energy production it would lead to a “temporal cooling effect,” but after several years “the warming effect from simultaneously increased GHG emission would exceed the cooling effect.” Also, the cooling that does result from an increase in aerosols is “often achieved at the cost of air quality” which could “lead to an increase in premature mortality.”
In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.
The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management,” seems to indicate that once geoengineering begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very problem the engineering was intended to solve.
Conspiracy Fact or Theory?
The idea that aerosols could be sprayed from planes is eerily reminiscent of various conspiracies involving the government using weather control technology to manipulate world events. This is what is derogatorily called the “Chemtrails Conspiracy.” Essentially, some believe geoengineering is actively taking place in our skies, and the “contrails” are actually geoengineering programs covertly being carried out. The “chemtrails” label comes from the portion of the crowd that believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes.
Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the theories might be grounded in reality. In February 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Professor Alan Robock discussed the possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of war. Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in the past.
But the government did not simply research these ideas, they actually implemented them. During the Vietnam War the US government operated covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye. The government does not only experiment with technology in foreign countries, they like to try it at home as well. In 2012 it was revealed that the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public.
Whether or not Professor Robock’s theory is correct remains to be seen; but for now, Director Brennan’s speech makes it perfectly clear that America’s favorite spy agency is interested in manipulating the weather on a global scale. Whether it’s happening already or will be in the near future, the thought of the CIA (or any agency of government) using the weather as a weapon of war should make it clear that the U.S. government is not operating with reason or concern for the people.
Peter Kirby is the author of the new book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project. Today we tackle the two questions most frequently asked by chemtrail skeptics: would the government do something like this and could they do something like this. We also talk about John Brennan’s recent call for stratospheric aerosol injection and a 2016 study on the health effects of stratospheric aerosols.