Excellent information here, folks. The entire world situation in a nutshell:
The Refusal to Vaccinate document was created by the CDC or the American Academy of Pediatrics ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to CDC recommendations, our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccines between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]
This document, now being used to overcome vaccine awareness, is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why no one should sign it and why it is really something other than what it appears to be.
TWELVE REASONS YOU CANNOT SIGN REFUSAL TO VACCINATE
Here are 12 reasons why no parent can sign this document unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly: this document, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody! It was created to stand up in court, which is why they require the parent’s signature to be “witnessed”.
The document attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated. ….
Confirming what many had suspected when viewing the sudden and intense collapse into anrchy that occurred in Charlotte this week, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN’s Erin Burnett:
“This is not Charlotte that’s out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals.
“We’ve got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They’re not coming from Charlotte.”
As shocking as this statement is, it should not be a total surprise. 18 months ago, as the riots flared in Ferguson, there was one man pulling the strings of this ‘domestic false flag’… George Soros. In an apparent effort to “keep the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August,” liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.
As The Washington Times explains,
There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
Still not buying it? As The New American recently reported,Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor.
That was before hackers with DCLeaks.com published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM.
Those same documents reveal the reason for OSF bankrolling BLM: the “dismantling” of America so that it can be recast according to the vision of Soros and his leftist cohorts. …
Forget its price trajectory and the rest of the prescribed hype for a second. *Why* is Bitcoin a ‘thing’, who said so, when, and what for? Was it genuinely a product of simple private sector ingenuity during a time of maximum need? OR, based on the many Establishment-linked constituencies trading, investing or imminently, regulating it, is it a ‘test balloon’ or ‘beta test’ for a much wider, older elite plan for global monetary revision? In this episode of Money and Fear, we’ll look at Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and the blockchain from much more nuanced political, historical and philosophical perspectives than sell-side, hyped-up evangelists, or even Bitcoin’s standard critics, are used to considering. We’ll weigh Bitcoin against periodic appeals from Establishment sources for a ‘one world currency’. Runaway price movements will be observed against historical “Tulip Bulb Manias” and philosophical considerations regarding “money” will be reconsidered. Do not miss this one-of-a-kind show to find out what this relatively recent monetary “phenom” is supposed to even mean!
‘Unite the Right’ organizer Jason Kessler was reportedly an Obama supporter involved in the Occupy movement as recently as November 2016, before establishing his white supremacist group “Unity & Security for America” in January, 2017.
Per the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.
At one recent speech in favor of Charlottesville’s status as a sanctuary city, Kessler live-streamed himself as an attendee questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kessler’s apparent involvement with Occupy. Kessler appeared visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association.
Kessler himself has placed his “red-pilling” around December of 2013 when a PR executive was publicly excoriated for a tasteless Twitter joke about AIDS in Africa.
Regarding the incident, Kessler stated “… so it was just a little race joke, nothing that big of a deal, she didn’t have that many followers, she probably didn’t think anybody was gonna see it,”
Regardless of Kessler’s past politics, the rightward shift in his views was first put on display in November, 2016 when his tirade against Wes Bellamy began. …
Kessler was a CNN Assignment Editor?
Internet sleuths discovered a CNN report on Occupy Wall St. from five years ago submitted by “CNN Assignment Editor Jason Kessler.” Same guy?
Something’s rotten in many states…
Nothing smells right about any of this. In fact, Lee Stranahan has connected the “Unite the Right” rally to an identical Neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine supported by John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
Five years ago, I spent time as a fellow in a lab at the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard that was devoted to studying “institutional corruption,” and what I particularly appreciated about the lab was that it provided a clear method to investigate and conceptualize the problem. The framework was this: Identify “economies of influence” that may corrupt the behavior of individuals within the institution, document the corruption, and explore the resulting social injury.
Lisa Cosgrove and I joined together in studying the “institution” of psychiatry through this lens, and we focused on its institutional behavior since 1980, when the American Psychiatric Association published the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This was when the APA adopted its disease model for categorizing mental disorders, with the profession then taking up the task of selling this new model to the public. This was the particular guild interest that arose in 1980, and has shaped its behavior ever since. We’re all familiar with the second “economy of influence” that has exerted a corrupting influence on psychiatry—pharmaceutical money—but I believe the guild influence is really the bigger problem.
In our book Psychiatry Under the Influence, we then documented the corrupt behavior, which could be found in every corner of psychiatry: the false story told to the public about drugs that fixed chemical imbalances in the brain; the biasing of clinical trials by design; the spinning of results; the hiding of poor long-term results; the expansion of diagnostic categories for commercial purposes; and the publishing of clinical trial guidelines that inevitably promoted the use of psychiatric drugs.
At the end of our investigation, I had a new way of conceptualizing the social injury that was caused by this corruption: our society had organized itself around a false narrative, one that was presented to us as a narrative of science, but was belied by a close examination of the actual evidence.
Now, with the publication of a new study in the American Journal of Psychiatry titled “The Long-term Effects of Antipsychotic Medication on Clinical Course in Schizophrenia,” we have a new opportunity to observe this “institutional mind” of psychiatry at work. The article, authored by former APA president Jeffrey Lieberman and seven other psychiatrists, is meant to serve as an evidence-based review that defends the profession’s current protocols for prescribing antipsychotics, which includes their regular long-term use. By closely examining this review, we can assess, once more, whether this is a profession that can be trusted to honestly evaluate its evidence base and use that evidence to guide its care.
In 2010, I published Anatomy of an Epidemic, and in that book, I wrote about the long-term effects of antipsychotics, and concluded that there is a history of science that leads to this conclusion: on the whole, antipsychotics worsen the long-term outcomes of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Joanna Moncrieff has similarly written about the hazards of antipsychotics in her book The Bitterest Pills and in published papers. So too has Peter Gøtzsche in his book Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial and various journals.
All of this criticism helped to promote further inquiry into this concern, which put psychiatry on the hot seat: did it prescribe these drugs in a way that caused more harm than good? Did their protocols for the drugs—immediate use for all first-episode psychotic patients and then “maintenance” use of the drugs—need to be rethought?
In their newly published study, Lieberman and colleagues perform what they describe as an “evidence-based” review of these questions. They conclude that there is no compelling evidence that supports this concern. In a subsequent press release and a video for a Medscape commentary, Lieberman has touted it as proving that antipsychotics provide a great benefit, psychiatry’s protocols are just fine, and that the critics are “nefarious” individuals intent on doing harm.
Joanna Moncrieff has already published a blog on Mad in America that is critical of the study, and, in particular, of the authors’ dismissal of studies related to the effect of antipsychotics on brain volumes. Miriam Larsen-Barr, who has done research on user attitudes toward antipsychotics, also wrote a blogcriticizing the study and press release, focusing on how the authors ignore user accounts about how the drugs affect their lives.
In this MIA report, I simply want to look closely at how Lieberman and his collaborators reviewed the literature and individual studies. We can then see whether they have done so in a way that reveals the mind of a group interested in truly investigating the question of the long-term effects of antipsychotics, with the patients’ well-being uppermost in their thoughts, or whether it reveals the “mind” of a group interested in protecting guild interests.
Then, at the end of this exercise, we can ask this essential question: If we can’t trust the profession to develop “evidence-based” treatments that put the interests of patients first, as opposed to their own guild interests, what should our society do? …