Free Course: The Dark Side of Vaccines

There are two sides to the story of vaccines. The predominant story told to us by government institutions and the mass media is that “vaccines are safe and effective.” But are we really being told the whole story? In this course, we’ll peel back the curtain and peer into the shadows as we examine vaccine safety and efficacy from a critical perspective.

Class Curriculum

Chapter 1: Introduction
Welcome to the Course (0:26)
A Story with Two Sides (0:35)
A Hundred Year Debate (0:48)
The Importance of History (0:17)
Fact Check (references + links)
Chapter 2: Historical Vaccine Safety Issues
The Cutter Incident (1:16)
Simian Virus 40 (1:43)
The Swine Flu Vaccine (0:50)
The RotaShield Vaccine (0:46)
Pandemrix (0:23)
Porcine Circovirus (0:37)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: Simian Virus 40
Chapter 3: Other Vaccine Safety Concerns
Smallpox Vaccine –> AIDS Epidemic (2:28)
Flu Vaccine –> Respiratory Infections (0:43)
DTP Vaccine –> Mortality in Children (1:52)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: Smallpox Vaccine-AIDS
Chapter 4: Evidence of Harm
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1:25)
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (0:24)
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (0:52)
What are the Odds? (0:36)
Unavoidably Unsafe (0:57)
Fact Check (references + links)
Chapter 5: Vaccine Efficacy
Measles Vaccine Efficacy (0:43)
Measles Mortality (1:53)
Measles: Past and Present
Flu Vaccine Efficacy (1:00)
Flu Shot During Pregnancy: Anecdotal Evidence
Duration of Vaccine Protection (0:59)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: Measles
Chapter 6: Manufactured Science
Conflicts of Interest (0:40)
Mumps Vaccine Fraud (0:50)
MMR-Autism Fraud (0:52)
HPV Vaccine Safety Testing Concerns (0:53)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: HPV
Chapter 7: Toxic Metals in Vaccines
Mercury (1:34)
Mercury: Brain Neuron Degeneration
Aluminum (3:20)
Aluminum: Mice Experiment
Autism (1:28)
Let the Science Speak (2:55)
Dr. Bernadine Healy (former NIH director)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: Aluminum Adjuvants-Autism
Chapter 8: Herd Immunity
The Herd Immunity Myth (2:17)
Further Study: Herd Immunity
Chapter 9: The Profit Motive
The Right to Say ‘No’
The Profit Motive (1:52)
Fact Check (references + links)
Chapter 10: Time for Real Science
The Greatest Enemy of Truth
Time for Real Science (1:37)
Dr. Bernadine Healy (former NIH director)
Fact Check (references + links)
Further Study: Additional Resources
Gifts – Giving and Receiving

Washington state Senate passes bill to eliminate exemption for MMR vaccine

The Washington state Senate narrowly passed a measure late Wednesday that would make it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children against measles in response to the state’s worst outbreak in more than two decades….

Measles, Before it was a Catastrophe

General Knowledge Podcast Episode 6 – The Depopulation Agenda

The problem with many conspiracy “theories” is that there’s often abundant objective evidence, science and just plain logic to back them up.   When you consider the nature of debt-based money and how it’s controlled on a global scale and by whom, the horror of our predicament becomes evident.   It’s been centuries in coming.

Where does money come from?   If you don’t know, you’d better find out.   You could start here:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.   —  Henry Ford

Hi everyone! Thanks again for tuning in to Episode 6 of the podcast. In this one we discuss the Depopulation Agenda and the avenues with which the social engineers of our society use certain methods to curb or even cull our population. From poisoning our air, food & water to the eugenics movements right here in Australia to toxic vaccines laced with chemicals to sterilise us.

Make sure you subscribe and give us a 5 star rating on iTunes with a nice little review to help us out! Please consider sharing on social media to ensure we get a bigger audience!

Why your toilet paper is trying to kill you

The vaccine discovery that destroyed Judy Mikovitz’s career

The War on Empathy, Love and Family

How They Live

Former High Financier: At the Top, They’re all Luciferians

Interview with Mind Control Victim Used to Blackmail Politicians as a Child

Border Crisis: The Crocodile Tears of the Empire

2016: Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: “We All Lie For The CIA”

This is CNN, and CBS and NBC and ABC and MSNBC and NYT and the Brainwashington Compost and the entire US MSM

The Real Enemy: YOU

Glyphosate Worse Than We Could Imagine

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated, “It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.” It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

New independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore….

Monsanto Roundup Contains Arsenic, other Toxins: Alarming New Research Study

Chemical Warfare: Crops being drenched with glyphosate immediately before harvest

Vaxtremists Lament White, College-Educated, ‘Whole Foods Moms’ Who Question their Authority

If you are someone who has questions about the safety of vaccines or the wisdom of giving so many vaccines at one time and over the course of a lifetime, or if you question the ethics of forced vaccination laws that deny the right to informed consent to vaccine risk taking, or if you just simply want to exercise the human right to bodily autonomy for yourself and your children when it comes to medical interventions in general, the chances are you’re a “college-educated white woman making decent money.”1

This is what reporter Alfred Lubrano suggested in a recent article in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

According to Lubrano, “The rebel forces in America’s latest culture war—the so-called anti-vaxxers—are often described as middle- and upper-class women who breast-feed their children, shop at Whole Foods, endlessly scour the web for vaccine-related conversation, and believe that their thinking supersedes that of doctors. Typically their families earn more than $75,000 a year.”1

This characterization of the very broad and derogatory label “anti-vaxxers” is based on “various studies,” wrote Lubrano, including the National Immunization Surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.1

In a 2017 referenced public commentary titled “Class and Race Profiling in the Vaccine Culture War,”Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) cited one of these studies published by the CDC in the Journal of Pediatrics.2 The authors of the 2004 CDC study wrote:

Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.3

These women, then, are intelligent, caring mothers who spend time doing their own research when it comes to health care issues, shop for healthy and nutritious food and come from families that are relatively stable and financially secure. The only negative trait Lubrano was able to discern about these women is that they are so confident in their research skills and ability to make rational decisions about risk taking that they prefer to think for themselves and not always take the word of doctors at face value, notably as it pertains to weighing the benefits and risks of using pharmaceutical products like vaccines.

It is worth noting that this is not an unreasonable preference, given the limited amount of training and education about vaccination that doctors receive in medical school and the fact that, after getting a license to practice medicine, doctors get much of their information from the Internet like everyone else.4 5 6 7

Lubrano quoted pediatrician Paul Offit, MD who pushed back on the idea that well-educated mothers (and fathers) have the required intellect to make informed health care decisions for their families. “Frankly, these Caucasian, suburban, educated parents believe they can Google the word vaccine and get as much information as anybody,” said Dr. Offit.1

Epidemiologist Neal Goldstein, PhD agreed with Offit that “affluent” college educated parents are incapable of making rational decisions about vaccination. Goldstein stated:

The affluent classes tend to be more hesitant about vaccinating. [But that’s based] on wrong information that leads them down a rabbit hole of falsehoods. I can spot credible data online, but the general public doesn’t have my training.1

Pelosi Declares a ‘New Era’ of Internet Regulation; E.U. Threatens Same


We’ve all been watching this develop for years now: The internet is being slow-choked, not by rapacious ISPs forcing users to pay for “fast lanes,” but by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who want to have a bigger role in what we’re allowed to do and say online. To be sure, lawmakers are being greatly aided in their efforts by major tech players such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, who are explicitly calling for regulation to maintain current market positions in a sector defined by creative destruction (all hail MySpace and Blackberry!).

In an interview with Recode‘s Kara Swisher, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) pronounced that in the tech sector, the “era of self-regulation” is over when it comes to privacy and speech rules. Sounding a lot like conservative Republicans such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, she zeroes in especially on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as the thing that needs to be torched.

As the title of a new book puts it, Section 230 comprises “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” Author Jeff Kosseff explains that by immunizing websites, platforms, and service providers from “lawsuits over materials that their users upload,” Section 230 “fundamentally changed American life.” Indeed, the internet as we know it is based on both “content created not only by large companies, but by users,” writes Kosseff, who observes that of the top 10 most-trafficked websites in the United States in 2018, only Netflix “mostly provides its own content.” All the rest—Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, et al.—either rely heavily on user-generated content (including potentially actionable reviews and comments about everything under the sun) or exist to guide users to such content (Google, Yahoo).

Pelosi is done with all that, telling Swisher that the freedom of expression empowered by Section 230 is “a gift” and a “privilege” that can be rescinded if major tech companies don’t move in the direction she and other politicians want. She frets over companies such as Facebook and Twitter buying up app makers and other services without explaining themselves to regulators. “Is this just commerce and they see a market opportunity and decide to take it on?” says Pelosi. “Or are they in competition with each other, buying something before somebody else doesn’t buy it and then all of a sudden, three or four firms dominate the marketplace and engines of search and the rest of that?”

“For the privilege of 230,” Pelosi warns, “there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.”

Like many Democrats, Pelosi remains convinced that Facebook helped to throw the election to Donald Trump by not regulating political advertising tightly enough and providing a space for the Russians to practice dark arts (the idea that Russian social media changed the outcome of the election is simply wrong). On top of that, liberals and progressives are calling for more policing of whatever they define as “hate speech.”…

The emperor just hates it when someone points out that he’s naked.   But free speech is not a “privilege”, pelosi’s position is a privilege that she and her “colleagues” in both parties have long been used to abusing in secret  while they squander the blood and sweat of their captive constituencies on mass murder and wholesale theft in their empire games.

Mueller report takes ‘Russian meddling’ for granted, offers no actual evidence

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ report has cleared Donald Trump of ‘collusion’ charges but maintains that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. Yet concrete evidence of that is nowhere to be seen.

The report by Mueller and his team, made public on Thursday by the US Department of Justice, exonerates not just Trump but all Americans of any “collusion” with Russia, “obliterating” the Russiagate conspiracy theory, as journalist Glenn Greenwald put it.

However, it asserts that Russian “interference” in the election did happen, and says it consisted of a campaign on social media as well as Russian military intelligence (repeatedly referred to by its old, Soviet-era name, GRU) “hacking” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the DNC, and the private email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta….