---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
~According to a study published in the September 2014 issue of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology,12 rates of autism strongly correlate with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines.
One
commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption has to
do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell
lines. Fetal cell lines used in vaccines were obtained from voluntary
abortions performed in the 1960s and are still used today
Many
other types of cells are used as growth mediums for vaccines, and some
of those raise moral issues as well. Growth mediums include animal cell
strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters and insects. Some
religious sects oppose vaccines made from animal cells, citing Levitical
guidelines on exposure to certain animals and blood products
There
are scientific objections to fetal cell vaccines as well. A study
published in 2014 found rates of autism strongly correlate with the
introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines
In
2002, Lancet published evidence showing polio vaccine contaminated with
SV40, a monkey virus, was responsible for up to half of the 55,000
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases that were occurring each year
Censored
research also provided evidence that retroviruses in vaccines may be
linked to chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other diseases
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption
has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal
cell lines. As reported in an April 26, 2019, article in Christianity
Today:1
“For
certain Christians, the decision of whether to vaccinate comes down to
the origins of the vaccines themselves. Some pro-life parents cite a
moral disgust and a deep lament over the use of 58-year-old aborted
fetal cell lines in development for several recommended immunizations,
including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and chickenpox …
The
fetal cells that disturb parents … originate from material procured
from two abortions that took place in the 1960s … For immunizations to
work, they require the virus to be hosted in a living cell.
Cell
biologist Leonard Hayflick, working at the Wistar Institute in
Philadelphia, reasoned that fetal cells would be protected from outside
pathogens and the ‘cleanest’ type to use in vaccines.
He
partnered with a Swedish scientist to procure the fetal tissue from an
elective abortion in a country where it was legal … Vaccine-makers still
use the cell lines called WI-38 today.
These
fetal cells from the “Mrs. X” abortion were used to grow weakened or
inactive viruses in the development of two vaccines: the rubella vaccine
(the R in the MMR vaccine) and one version of rabies vaccine …
Around
the same time, the British Medical Council in the UK also produced
vaccines from fetal lung cells. Using cells procured through an abortion
in 1966, a culture called MRC-5, they created vaccines for hepatitis A,
chickenpox, and shingles. A polio vaccine was also made and used in
other countries but not the U.S.”
An Ethical Dilemma for Many of Faith
Vaccine manufacturing is not dependent on the ongoing procurement of aborted fetal tissue, and the Catholic Church issued a statement2 in 2005 assuring Catholics that by getting vaccinated they are not “cooperating in evil.” Yet
the idea of injecting themselves or their children with a substance
manufactured using aborted fetal cells still makes some Christians,
Jews, Muslims and those of other faiths or personal beliefs feel morally
uneasy.3 Pro-vaccine advocates and most agnostics have a hard time comprehending why though. As reported by Christianity Today:4
“National Institute of Health director Francis Collins suggests
comparing it to organ donation after a child was shot. ‘There was a
terrible, evil loss of life of that child and yet I think we would all
say that if the parents decided and they wanted something good to come
of this and gave their consent, that’s a noble and honorable action,’ he
said.
‘Does that translate
into a parent, after going through a pregnancy termination, deciding
that they would like the fetal tissue to actually help somebody?’”
However, the article points out that the consent issue actually presents a second ethical dilemma rather than solving the first. Since
the fetal tissues were obtained in an era before medical informed
consent really became the norm, there’s no guarantee either that the two
women gave such consent, or understood that their fetuses’ cell lines
would be used to create injectable vaccines for decades to come. An
article on Patheos.com also discusses this issue, displaying the typical
intolerance:5
“Here’s
what confuses me. People are allowed to donate organs. Parents can even
donate their children’s organs. We typically see this as a good thing …
Those two abortions were not
performed to obtain fetal tissues for vaccines. They were elective
abortions that would have been performed regardless of scientists’
interest in using fetal cells … for developing vaccines.
I
understand that abortion opponents see those two abortions as murder.
But you know what? When a child or an adult is murdered, their organs
can still be donated … If the child is dead either way, why not donate
their organs? …
I’ve heard some
suggest that vaccines contain residual fetal DNA. Even if that is the
case, why would that be so different from cases where someone receives a
heart transplant, or a kidney transplant? … Or what about a blood
transfusion?”
Is Using Animal Cells a Morally Superior Choice?
Clearly,
this issue is far from cut and dry, but I think it’s important to at
least try to empathize with another person’s point of view. The author
of the Patheos article concludes that, most likely, the religious
objection to vaccines made with fetal cells has more to do with the “ick
factor,” opposed to the sentiment that it’s tissue obtained from murder
and therefore immoral to partake in. However, that is conjecture
as many individuals have deeply held religious beliefs opposing abortion
and use of aborted fetal tissue for scientific research or other
purposes. Today, many other types of cells are used as growth
mediums during vaccine production, and many of those raise moral issues
as well. Vaccine growth mediums include6 animal cell strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters7 and insects,8 as well as cells from bacteria or yeast. As just one example, the flu vaccine Flucelvax, introduced in 2014, is grown in kidney cells from dogs.9 Bovine serum (from cow’s blood) is also used for some vaccine components, and trace amounts may remain in the vaccine.10 The use of animal cells doesn’t entirely solve the moral dilemma for all religious faiths though. As noted by Christianity Today:11
“There
is a subset of the Christian opposition to vaccines that also takes
issue with certain animal cells used in medical research, citing
concerns over Levitical guidelines on animals and blood products …”
Other Reasons to Question Human Fetal Cell Line Vaccines
Regardless
of whether you believe the use of fetal cells from abortions in vaccine
production is morally reprehensible or completely justified, there may
be other reasons to object to being coerced or compelled to use vaccines
— or give your children vaccines — that were made using human fetal
tissue cells. According to a study published in the September 2014 issue of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology,12 rates of autism strongly correlate with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines. Three
vaccines in particular were found to be significantly correlated with
autism: MMR, varicella (chickenpox) and hepatitis A vaccines. According
to the study authors, autism rates rose sharply each time one of these
vaccines was released. As reported in this paper:13
“The
children vaccinated with MMRII, Varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines
varied from 19 to 35 months of age at the time of vaccination. Autistic
disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and
1996 for the US, 1987 for UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5
for Denmark.
Change points in
these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of
human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines … Further, linear regression
revealed that Varicella and Hepatitis A immunization coverage was
significantly correlated to autistic disorder cases. R software was used
to calculate change points.
Autistic
disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of
vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and
retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens.
This
pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark.
Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to
vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells.”
Part
of the problem has to do with what’s called “insertional mutagenesis,”
where DNA mutations are created via a viral vector, either naturally or
intentionally.14 Indeed, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Powerpoint presentation15
from 2005 discusses the history of cell-substrate DNA in biological
products and some of the “perceived safety issues associated with DNA.”
As reported by Global Research in September 2014:16
“…
Dr. Theresa Deisher, lead scientist and SCPI founder noted that, ‘Not
only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic
disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia
and lymphomas’ …
Instead of
conducting safety studies [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]
regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to
no greater than 10ng17
… Deisher’s team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere
from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called ‘safe’ level.
‘There
are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human
endogenous retrovirus — the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus)
and its association with childhood lymphoma,’ noted Dr. Deisher.
‘The
MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were
propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are
contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a
right to know this!’”
Infected Monkey Cells Linked to Human Cancer Cases
In 2002, the journal Lancet18
published evidence showing polio vaccine contaminated with SV40, a
monkey virus, was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma cases that were occurring each year. I wrote about this
in “The ‘Vaccine Shock’ of the Year.” The puzzle began in 1994, when Dr.
Michele Carbone, a Loyola University researcher, found the virus SV40,
which had never before been detected in humans, in half of the human
lung tumors he was studying. Within a couple of years, SV40 had also been implicated in other cancers. As noted in a 2004 review19 of the then-available evidence:
“Persuasive
evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today
and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular,
pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates
that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human
primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
At first no one could
fathom how the virus had been transmitted into the human population. But
in a videotaped interview (above), the late Dr. Maurice Hilleman — a
world-renowned vaccine pioneer who developed more than three dozen
vaccines and developed Merck’s vaccine program — admitted Merck’s
responsibility in unleashing this virus via their polio vaccine, which
was made by growing the poliovirus in kidney cells from rhesus monkeys.20
How Skeptics Skew the Truth and Misrepresent Science
On
a side note, were you to do an online search for the SV40-cancer link,
you’ll find plenty of “fact-checkers” who claim that none of this is
true — that SV40 is not connected with cancer at all, and that the idea
has been “totally debunked.” As “proof,” they’ll often furnish a quote from the Institute of Medicine’s October 2002 summary report,21
which says, “Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a
cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether
it might have caused cancer in humans.” However, there’s more in
that report. The “debunkers” are counting on you not wanting to pay the
$30.99 fee to read the whole report, which sheds more light on the
cancer connection. The good news is you don’t have to buy the report see
what’s in it, as the information is included in a publicly available,
free document, “Research on SV40 Exposure and the Development of
Cancer.”22 This
document is a transcript of testimony by Dr. James Goedert, then chief
of the National Cancer Institute’s viral epidemiology branch, given
before the Congressional House Committee on Government Reform on
September 10, 2003. In it, Goedert quotes the IOM’s study
verbatim, which actually says the “evidence is inadequate to reject a
causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer.”
Goedert further adds:
“The committee stated that
the ‘biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure
could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions’ and that
‘biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the
polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans.’”
In
other words, the IOM could not find enough evidence to say SV40 in
polio vaccines doesn’t cause cancer. In fact, they found moderately
strong evidence that it might, which is the exact opposite of what the
so-called fact-checkers would like you to believe.
More Science Needed to Find Risks of Viral DNA Sequences
It has remained a contentious issue, for sure. As noted in the 2006 paper, “SV40 and Human Cancer: A Review of Recent Data”:23
“The
debate on the possible adverse effects of SV40 for humans has been
contentious. High rates of recovery of SV40 DNA sequences from cancer
tissues have led some investigators to propose that SV40 infection may
have a role in the development of mesothelioma, brain tumors,
osteosarcoma and NHL [non‐Hodgkin lymphoma].
Other
investigators have not been able to confirm the presence of SV40
sequences in the tumors and have been skeptical about the role of SV40
in human cancers.”
A 2010 Virology Blog post24
also summarizes some of the history of SV40 and the evidence for and
against it being capable of causing human cancers. That said, the SV40
issue aptly illustrates the potential hazards of using animal or human
cells as growth medium for vaccine viruses. Another example of the same concept was the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, which in 2010 was temporarily suspended25,26 after being found to be contaminated with “a substantial amount” of DNA from the porcine circovirus.27 RotaTeq was also found to contain the DNA fragments. In the end, the FDA declared both vaccines were safe to use.28 Similarly,
Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., has warned about the presence of retroviruses in
vaccines and their link to chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other
diseases. To learn more, see my 2018 interview with her.
Contentious Embryonic Research Continues
The
fact that some have religiously based objections to the use of human
and/or animal cells in vaccine manufacturing is perhaps more
understandable when you consider that embryonic research has always
been, and continues to be a contentious issue with many moral and
ethical implications. For example, a July 2018 article29
in Nature addressed novel research in which scientists are pushing the
boundary on how long they can grow a human embryo in the lab. In this
case, the embryos used were collected for in vitro fertilization but
were no longer needed and had been offered up for scientific research. The
team, led by developmental biologist Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, let the
embryos grow for 13 days — far longer than had ever been done before,
and just shy of the 14-day cutoff for embryonic experimentation. As
reported by Nature:30
“[N]ew
high-resolution, digital images are revealing in fine detail how
muscles and nerves grow a few weeks later in development. Such
discoveries could lead to a better understanding of how birth defects
and developmental disorders arise, as well as why some pregnancies fail.
But
alongside their promise, these new techniques are pushing researchers
into uncharted ethical territory. Beginning in the late 1970s, ethicists
and scientists converged on the ‘14-day rule’, which limits work on
human embryos to a fortnight after fertilization — a time when the first
hints of the nervous system appear, and the last point at which an
embryo can divide …
The
researchers showed that with the right cocktail of growth factors and
nourishment, human embryos in culture can ‘implant’ onto the bottom of
the dish. Remarkably, the embryos didn’t require any maternal tissue to
trigger the early remodelling steps that occur after implantation …
As
the results of this research accumulate, the technical advances are
inspiring a mixture of fascination and unease among scientists. Both are
valuable reactions, says [bioethicist Josephine] Johnston.
‘That
feeling of wonder and awe reminds us that this is the earliest version
of human beings and that’s why so many people have moral misgivings,’
she says. ‘It reminds us that this is not just a couple of cells in a
dish.’”
Synthetic Embryos Created From Human Stem Cells
Other scientists, in an effort to push past the 14-day threshold, are creating synthetic embryos from human stem cells.31 These synthetic structures are not covered by the two-week rule, allowing them to examine embryonic development far longer. They may eventually also be used in drug trials,32 to evaluate a drug’s effect on fetal development, which could help determine whether a drug is safe for use during pregnancy. According to Nature,33
“These constructs lack certain components essential for full
development, and couldn’t give rise to a human if implanted.” Still,
that hasn’t prevented ethical concerns from arising. Martin Pera, a
stem-cell biologist at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine told
Nature,34 “I think it really is a gray area. How do we regard these structures that are developing?” While
the general view is that synthetic “embryoids” — developed solely for
study and not for implantation — are “too simplistic” to raise ethical
concerns, others disagree. Among them, bioethicist Insoo Hyun at
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, who pointed out that
correctly defining the exact features that would make a synthetic
embryo too close to the real McCoy is a tremendous challenge. He told Nature,35
“The potential is there for something to be constructed that’s much
further along than 14 days, and that could develop if you were to
implant it into the uterus.” A September 11, 2019, article in
Nature continues this conversation, pointing out that the latest
scientific advances allow synthetic embryos to develop to the point they
develop what’s called “the primitive streak” — a band of thick epiblast
that stretches from the cranial to the caudal end of the embryo. With the emergence of the primitive streak,36
it’s possible to distinguish the top and bottom (the future head and
anus) of the embryo, and according to Nature, “some people consider this
to be when an embryo becomes an individual human being.” Zernicka-Goetz told Nature37
“We will have to confront ourselves with the question of what is a
human embryo, and whether these models really have the potential to
develop into one.” The technology does raise a number of debatable
questions. Is the creation of synthetic embryos a justifiable means for
every end? Should they be allowed to be grown like fake meat? Will synthetic embryos eventually be used in vaccine production? If so, would moral questions still remain? As
for the use of natural embryos and fetal cells, should people just “get
over” the “yuck” factor — or their deeply held moral and religious
beliefs — regardless of how the cells used in scientific experiments and
vaccine production were obtained? And does the end (more consistent
vaccine production) justify the means (the use of “the earliest version
of human beings”) to advance scientific knowledge and develop commercial
products? *Article originally appeared at Mercola. Reposted with permission.
Climate. Now who wudda thought. The
very mega-corporations and mega-billionaires behind the globalization
of the world economy over recent decades, whose pursuit of shareholder
value and cost reduction who have wreaked so much damage to our
environment both in the industrial world and in the under-developed
economies of Africa, Asia, Latin America, are the leading backers of the
“grassroots” decarbonization movement from Sweden to Germany to the USA
and beyond.
Is it pangs of guilty conscience, or could it be a deeper agenda of the financialization of the very air we breathe and more?
Whatever one may believe about the dangers of CO2
and risks of global warming creating a global catastrophe of 1.5 to 2
degree Celsius average temperature rise in the next roughly 12 years, it
is worth noting who is promoting the current flood of propaganda and climate activism. Green Finance Several years before Al Gore and others decided to
use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate
action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a
complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the
giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of
billions of future funds to investments in often worthless “climate”
companies. In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a
Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate
“Green Bond.” They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the
major French bank Credit Agricole. In November 2013 Elon Musk’s
problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed
security. Today according to something called the Climate Bonds
Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding.
The creators of the bond idea state their aim is to win over a major
share of the $45 trillion of assets under management globally which have
made nominal commitment to invest in “climate friendly” projects. Bonnie Prince Charles, future UK Monarch, along
with the Bank of England and City of London finance have promoted “green
financial instruments,” led by Green Bonds, to redirect pension plans
and mutual funds towards green projects. A key player in the linking of
world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of
England head Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank
for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired
then by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial
Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about
climate related risks.” That was certainly a bizarre focus for world
central bankers. In 2016 the TCFD along with the City of London
Corporation and the UK Government initiated the Green Finance
Initiative, aiming to channel trillions of dollars to “green”
investments. The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form
the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg
of the financial wire, it includes key people from JP MorganChase; from
BlackRock–one of the world’s biggest asset managers with almost $7
trillion; Barclays Bank; HSBC, the London-Hong Kong bank repeatedly
fined for laundering drug and other black funds; Swiss Re, the world’s
second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow
Chemical, mining giant BHP Billington and David Blood of Al Gore’s
Generation Investment LLC. In effect it seems the foxes are writing the rules for the new Green Hen House. Bank of England’s Carney was also a key actor in
efforts to make the City of London into the financial center of global
Green Finance. The outgoing UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip
Hammond, in July 2019 released a White Paper, “Green Finance Strategy:
Transforming Finance for a Greener Future.” The paper states, “One of
the most influential initiatives to emerge is the Financial Stability
Board’s private sector Task Force on Climate-related Financial
Disclosures (TCFD), supported by Mark Carney and chaired by Michael
Bloomberg. This has been endorsed by institutions representing $118
trillion of assets globally.” There
seems to be a plan here. The plan is the financialization of the entire
world economy using fear of an end of world scenario to reach arbitrary
aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” Goldman Sachs Key Actor The omnipresent Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs, which spawned among others ECB outgoing President Mario Draghi
and Bank of England head Carney, has just unveiled the first global
index of top-ranking environmental stocks, done along with the
London-based CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project. The CDP,
notably, is financed by investors such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of
America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, American International Group, and
State Street Corp. The new index, called CDP Environment EW and CDP
Eurozone EW, aims to lure investment funds, state pension systems such
as the CalPERS (the California Public Employees’ Retirement System) and
CalSTRS (the California State Teachers’ Retirement System) with a
combined $600+ billion in assets, to invest in their carefully chosen
targets. Top rated companies in the index include Alphabet which owns
Google, Microsoft, ING Group, Diageo, Philips, Danone and, conveniently,
Goldman Sachs. Enter Greta, AOC and Co. At this point events take on a cynical turn as we
are confronted with wildly popular, heavily promoted climate activists
such as Sweden’s Greta Thunberg or New York’s 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and the Green New Deal. However sincere these activists may be, there
is a well-oiled financial machine behind promoting them for gain. Greta Thunberg is part of a well-connected network tied to the organization of Al Gore
who is being cynically and professionally marketed and used by such
agencies as the UN, the EU Commission and the financial interests behind
the present climate agenda. As Canadian researcher and climate
activist, Cory Morningstar, documents in an excellent
series of posts, what is at stake is a well-knit network that is tied to
US climate investor and enormously wealthy climate profiteer, Al Gore,
chairman of Generation Investment group. Gore’s partner, ex-Goldman Sachs official David
Blood as noted earlier, is a member of the BIS-created TCFD. Greta
Thunberg along with her 17-year-old US climate friend, Jamie Margolin,
were both listed as “special youth advisor and trustee” of the Swedish
We Don’t Have Time NGO, founded by its CEO Ingmar Rentzhog. Rentzhog is a
member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Organization Leaders, and part of
the European Climate Policy Task Force. He was trained in March 2017 by
Al Gore in Denver, and again in June 2018, in Berlin. Al Gore’s Climate
Reality Project is a partner of We Don’t Have Time. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who
made a huge splash in her first days in the US Congress for unveiling a
“Green New Deal” to completely reorganize the US economy at a cost of
perhaps $100 trillion, is also not without skilled guidance. AOC has
openly admitted that she ran for Congress at the urging of a group
called Justice Democrats. She told one interviewer, “I wouldn’t be
running if it wasn’t for the support of Justice Democrats and Brand New
Congress. Umm, in fact it was it was these organizations, it was JD and
it was Brand New Congress as well, that both, that asked me to run in
the first place. They’re the ones that called me a year and a half ago…”
Now, as Congresswoman, AOC’s advisers include Justice Democrats
co-founder, Zack Exley. Exley was an Open Society Fellow and got funds
from among others the Open Society Foundations and Ford Foundation to
create a predecessor to Justice Democrats to recruit select candidates
for office. The Real Agenda is Economic The links between the world’s largest financial
groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a
radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a
vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine
concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live.
Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for
“sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars
in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute
the real powers that be. In February 2019 following a speech to the EU
Commission in Brussels by Greta Thunberg, then-EU Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker, after gallantly kissing Greta’s hand, appeared to
be moved to real action. He told Greta and the press that the EU should
spend hundreds of billions of euros combating climate change during the
next 10 years. Juncker proposed that between 2021 to 2027, “every fourth
euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate
change.” What the sly Juncker did not say was that the decision had
nothing to do with the young Swedish activist’s plea. It had been made
in conjunction with the World Bank a full year before in September 26,
2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg
Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others. Juncker had cleverly
used the media attention given the young Swede to promote his climate
agenda. On October 17, 2018, days following the EU
agreement at the One Planet Summit, Juncker’s EU signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with Breakthrough Energy-Europe in which member
corporations of Breakthrough Energy-Europe will have preferential access
to any funding. The members
of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson, Bill
Gates, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, HRH Prince
Al-waleed bin Talal, Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio; Julian Robertson
of hedge fund giant, Tiger Management; David Rubenstein, founder
Carlyle Group; George Soros, Chairman Soros Fund Management LLC;
Masayoshi Son, founder Softbank, Japan. Make no mistake. When the most influential
multinational corporations, the world’s largest institutional investors
including BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank
of England and other central banks of the BIS line up behind the
financing of a so-called green Agenda, call it Green New Deal or what,
it is time to look behind the surface of public climate activist
campaigns to the actual agenda. The picture that emerges is the
attempted financial reorganization of the world economy using climate,
something the sun and its energy have orders of magnitude more to do
with than mankind ever could—to try to convince us ordinary folk to make
untold sacrifice to “save our planet.” Back in 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer,
told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de
facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from
the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with
problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Since then the economic policy strategy has become far more developed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below.
Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc. F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant
and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University
and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the
online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
In the world of mysterious vanishings and
disappearances there is perhaps no more high profile a figure as retired
law enforcement officer and investigator of disappearances David
Paulides, author of the Missing 411series of books, in which
he discusses some truly outlandish vanishings that have remained
unsolved. Paulides has put forward a rather good number of frankly odd
connections between these cases, including the presence of bodies of
water, brightly colored clothing, which I have covered here before,
the fact that many witnesses cannot rightly recall when the vanishing
actually happened, the missing of articles of clothing, missing time,
and others. Yet among all of these common threads is one that stands out
as particularly odd, and which does little to provide any answers, and
that is that in a fairly good number of cases the victims were out
picking berries. It is an unusual feature of Paulides’ accounts that is
just about as incredibly bizarre as it is unexplained, and here we will
look at just a few of these.
One unusual vanishing case revolving around berry picking is the odd
case of of 6-year-old Lillian Carney, who in August of 1897 went missing
in the U.S. state of Maine as she was out with her parents for a happy
day of picking blueberries. According to the parents, she had vanished
right under their noses, there one second and gone the next. A
preliminary search of the area would quickly expand to over 200 hundred
searchers scouring the region and calling the girl’s name, all to no
avail. After an extensive search, Lillian was found in the woods in a
dazed, trance-like state. When asked what had happened to her, the dazed
girl replied that she had been in a place in the forest where the sun
had shone the entire time she had been there. This was rather odd
considering the weather at the time of her disappearance had been partly
cloudy, she had been enveloped by a thick canopy of trees far from any
town, and she had been missing overnight, for around 46 hours. What was
this continuous “sunlight” she saw, and what significance does it have
in Lillian’s disappearance? Was this a UFO abduction of some sort, or
just her imagination? It remains unknown.
It is interesting that the girl in this case was found alive, albeit
with an amazing story to tell, and a similar case also comes from the
1800s, concerning a 3-year-old girl named Alice Rachel Peck. On August
25th 1898. Alice wandered off from her home in an effort to follow her
mother, who was out picking berries not far away, and then had gotten
lost. A massive search was launched to try and find the missing girl,
that would stretch out for 3 days without any trace turned up. Then, on
August 28, she was found in safe and in good health about 5 miles from
where she had vanished. The girl was reportedly in a sort of trance at
first, but when she came back to her senses she was able to relate how
she remembered meandering barefoot along an abandoned road, even though
she had been wearing shoes shortly before her disappearance, as well as a
bonnet that had also vanished, and that she had had nothing to eat but a
few berries.
When asked how she had managed to overcome the series of steep drops
and boulders that stood in the way of where she had gone missing and
where she had been found, she gave the cryptic response: “The Black Man
helped me,” who she claimed had guided her and carried her over
obstacles, notably away from where she had disappeared. Who was this
“Black Man” and what had caused her to go missing from right in front of
her house? Was this an animal or something else? Indeed, what happened
to her shoes and bonnet and what would have happened to her if she had
not been found? We will probably never know. In later years we have the case of 2-year-old Eddie Hamilton, of
Saskatoon, Canada. Little Eddie was out picking berries with his parents
on the day of July 6, 1928, when they looked away for just a second and
their son seemed to have just disappeared right under their noses. A
look around the area showed no signs of him, and it was bizarre as he
had just been there literally seconds before. The Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (RCMP) would be called in and also conduct an intensive search
of the area, but the boy had seemingly just ceased to exist. A massive
search operation with tracker dogs and aircraft and eventually involving
2,000 police, rescue workers, and volunteers would also turn up no sign
of the missing boy other than some sporadic footprints that could not
be followed through the thick undergrowth. For months there was no further word on what had happened to Eddie
Hamilton, and then tragedy struck when a local duck hunter found the
body of a toddler floating in White Bear Lake. At first no connection
was made to the missing Hamilton, as White Bear Lake was some distance
away from where he had vanished over rough and rugged terrain, yet it
would indeed be found to be him and that he had died not too long after
his disappearance. Yet how had he ended up in that faraway lake? It has
never been explained how a toddler had traversed that distance or if he
had been dumped there by someone else, and the mysterious disappearance
and death of Eddie Hamilton remains an ominous enigma. Just a few years later we have the strange account of 7-year-old
Wesley Piatote, who was out picking huckleberries with his mother and
grandmother on August 4, 1932 in Washington state when he wandered off a
bit from the others. The sound of the woods was then punctuated by two
sharp screams that had obviously come from Wesley and which seemed to
have been cut off somehow. However, the boy was nowhere to be seen, and
the two frantic women searched everywhere for him to no avail, and a
subsequent search by authorities was equally unsuccessful. It is a
mystery as to why he screamed and why they had seemed shortened or
stifled. Was this a wild animal attack, an abductor, or what? No one
knows, and Wesley Piatote remains missing. Also in the 1930s there is the case of 5-year-old Jack Pike, in the
area of Manitoba, Canada, which is in some ways eerily similar to the
Piatote case. On September 5, 1935, the family went out to do some
casual blueberry picking near a place called St. Norbert, and it was a
calm, beautiful day, yet things would take a sharp descent into the
strange rather quickly. Mere minutes after starting to pick berries,
Jack’s mother said she heard the boy let out a scream that seemed to be
choked off in the middle, odd considering he was right there nearby, or
at least he had been. When they looked to where their son had just been
seconds before he was nowhere to be seen. In an ominous twist, the boy
was found several days later in an area that had been intensely
searched, lying unconscious across the raging Red River on the opposite
side from where he had vanished. Unfortunately, he would die in the
hospital later without ever being able to explain what had happened to
him or how he had mysteriously evaded search efforts or gotten across
that river. What happened to him? Who knows? In 1940 we have the case of 9-year-old Simon Skogan, who on July 2,
1940 was out spending the day picking berries with his grandfather near
the town of Tuelon, near Winnipeg, Canada. At some point the boy just
sort of vanished, with the grandfather unable to quite explain how it
had been possible, as they had been walking along together. An intense
search turned up no trace of the boy, but some odd tales would come in
from some of the Natives living in the area. It was claimed that a
person had been sighted out in the surrounding swamps and marshland who
seemed to be surviving off the land and even stealing milk, but who
would run away when anyone approached. It is unclear if this was the
missing boy or not, but it remains an odd detail in a disappearance that
has never been solved. No one has ever seen Simon Skogan since. The following decade, on July 17, 1954, 3-year-old Gary Bailey was
out picking blueberries with his family at Spears Mountain, in Knox,
Maine. At one point he got separated from his parents for just a moment,
and then seemed to have just stepped off the face of the earth. A
500-member-strong search team thoroughly combed the area, and would not
find any sign of the boy until suddenly two of the searchers heard
something odd around one day into the search operation. After hearing a
shout, the two searchers homed in on the noise to find the missing boy,
alive but noticeably shaken and with some inexplicable scratches on his
face. The odd thing was that he was located on the opposite side of
Spears Mountain, over remote, perilous terrain, which was deemed
impossible for one so young to have traversed on foot in darkness. How
did he get there to that harrowing location within the span of 24 hours?
The boy himself was unable to articulate what had happened to him and
it remains a mystery. There has been some amount of speculation that these disappearances
are perhaps orchestrated by mysterious forces from beyond our
comprehension, and one case that seems to perfectly illustrate this is
one from 1965, from Luumäki, Finland, near the village of Hermunen. On
August 19, 1965, four members of the Kuninga family were out picking
blueberries in the surrounding woodland, and at one point they spread
out to see who could pick the most berries. At this time they still made
sure to stay within eyesight of each other, but things would soon take
an odd twist. At around noon on that otherwise calm and sunny day, the father,
Matti Kuningas, would claim that he had heard something rather peculiar
coming from the darkened woods, which sounded like odd “bubbling sounds”
coming from up on the slope he was on. Although he couldn’t see
anything strange up that way, the strange gurgling noises continued, and
at some point he realized that he was not alone. Looking back up the
slope he noticed a “a small man-like being” perhaps around 3-feet tall,
with orange skin and wearing green skintight coveralls, sitting there
above staring down at him. It peered at him for some time before
standing up to come walking towards the startled man with a shambling,
stumbling gait as a sudden gust of wind swept through the area. The
peculiar creature then veered off to the side to come to the edge of a
bog before vanishing into thin air. When he looked at his watch, Matti
realized that a full 30 minutes had gone by of which he could not
account for. It would later turn out that the son, Teuvo Kuningas, had also seen
the strange little man, even claiming he had heard it utter “human-like
speech,” and it was also found that the entity had been sitting atop a
massive, mossy stone that no one could remember ever having been there
before. Interestingly, although both of them had seen it, they both
claimed that they had been under the influence of some paralyzing effect
that had somehow prevented them from calling out for help, and they
would also claim that they had experienced some sort of repelling effect
that kept them from approaching the entity. Teuvo would also explain
that the anomalous boulder also had a slight repelling effect, and that
he had not been able get close to it. It is unknown what connection this utterly bizarre case has to the
others we have looked at here, other than its link to picking berries,
but it makes one wonder, and oddly it is a theme that stretches across
many of such oddball vanishings. It all seems almost absurd, as how
could berries and picking them have anything to do whatsoever with such
mysterious cases? What explanation could it possibly hold? How can the
simple act of picking berries translate into unsolved disappearances and
reappearances? What is going on here? David Paulides himself has always
remained almost frustratingly elusive on giving his own judgement on
what might be to blame, and we are left struggling to piece it all
together with the other myriad threads of the odd that hold such cases
together. Is this all just strange coincidence? Picking berries? What
significance could that possibly have? At the moment it seems almost
beyond our ablity to even process, and whatever is going on here is
perhaps far stranger than anyone can even guess.
Posts
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption
has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal
cell lines. As reported in an April 26, 2019, article in Christianity
Today:1
