Vaccines: What Is Not on Insert Labels?

… Conveniently, we rarely ask, where does our food come from? How and where was it grown? What was sprayed on it prior to our consumption? Thus we are going to re-record something that even most top health educators and opinion leaders on vaccines are unaware of: what goes into the making of vaccines, and what is hidden from you that should give you pause? Afterward, ask yourself: do you want vaccines in your body?

For the most in-depth, honest, scholarly, and objective examination of the methods by which vaccines and their hidden ingredients are prepared, we turn to award-winning British investigative medical journalist Janine Roberts, who paints an entirely different picture of the darker inferno in vaccines that does not appear on product labels. This is the same Janine Roberts who brought to the world’s attention blood diamonds, genocide in the Congo, and the destruction of aboriginal cultures by the Australian government.

Roberts’s account of conversations between high-level members from the World Health Organization (WHO), federal health agencies, and expert vaccine scientists who determine whether a certain vaccine will be approved, is horrid. Her investigations are based on official meeting documents and her attendance at emergency vaccine meetings, and confirm that our world’s vaccine and health experts agree that there is no solution in sight to resolve the potential threats posed by these hidden ingredients.1

The story begins with the vaccine industrial complex’s attempt to reduce manufacturing costs by seeking government approval to use cancerous cell lines in the development of vaccines. The industry’s rationale is that cancerous cells are “immortal.” Current vaccine methodology relies on animal cells, such as fertilized hen embryos and monkey kidneys, that die quickly in culture. Using cancerous cell lines is also much cheaper than relying on the purchase of animals, especially monkeys, that need to be sacrificed for vaccine substrates.

Roberts records two separate meetings – a meeting of the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on November 9, 1998, and a subsequent gathering of the Evolving Scientific and Regulatory Perspective Workshop less than a year later. The conversations were conducted at a scientific level between top officials and expert scientists from the FDA, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the WHO, and others, each providing evidence and/or confirmation that all vaccines are dangerously contaminated. …

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccines-dark-inferno-what-not-insert-labels

Can we all agree that we’re living in under a depopulation regime?  Or is that a conspiracy theory?

Govt Moves Ahead with Domestic Encirclement

Advocacy groups like the ACLU have succeeded in blocking cybersurveillance bills masquerading as so-called “cybersecurity” legislation for years, but this week, proponents in Congress slipped the package into the 2016 omnibus budget authorization. The omnibus budget includes funding for core functions of government, including the US military, so the chances that the White House will veto it are approximately zero.

Unfortunately, the version of the cybersurveillance bill that appears at the end of the omnibus budget is worse than any prior iteration of the scheme we’ve seen thus far. Cybersecurity experts say it wouldn’t do anything to protect US computer networks, but would give the government far more power to spy on us without warrants or individualized suspicion. Worse still, the legislation would protect companies like Google and Apple from civil lawsuits if they hand over our private information to the government without court orders or warrants.

The ACLU joins many other civil liberties groups in signing a letter to Congress urging them to remove the cyberspying bill from the omnibus before it passes. The letter lays out the fundamental problems with the legislation, which if enacted would:

  • Authorize companies to significantly expand monitoring of their users’ online activities, and permit sharing of vaguely defined “cyber threat indicators” without adequate privacy protections prior to sharing;
  • Require federal entities to automatically disseminate to the NSA all cyber threat indicators they receive, including personal information about individuals;
  • Allow the president to establish the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the FBI, and any other appropriate civilian federal entity as a portal through which companies may share information with liability protection;
  • Authorize overbroad law enforcement uses that go far outside the scope of cybersecurity; and
  • Authorize Companies to engage in problematic defensive measures.

The cyberspying bill has nothing to do with protecting US computer networks, and everything to do with handing over huge new surveillance powers to unaccountable agencies like the FBI and NSA.

Tell your legislator to oppose it.

http://privacysos.org/node/1868

Doenbeafraid, we mean you no haaam…. it’s for your own saaafteeey….  you’re afraid arent you??  We work so haaad to protect you….

Cruz Remark Reveals Surveillance State Has Grown, not Shrunk

http://www.infowars.com/cruz-remark-during-debate-reveals-surveillance-state-has-grown-not-shrunk/