Uncategorized

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=0018GD5KmAFhoxjm03aaYVd8ZWbetk-XlesO6F0pe7jcXABBESODmDUpnYLs7UBChlSo6osCeakMXn32Ctvj1hrHTUhjNmzklv74p0xxGJxr7Q%3D

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.

Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don’t know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.

It’s time to put an end to that free ride.

First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.

However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”

This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.

Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.

Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.

So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.

However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?

On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?

There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.

Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.

It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.

And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”

It’s another assumption sold as fact.

The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.

A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.

The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.

From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.

But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?

And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?

The logic of this is tattered and without merit.

To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”

Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.

Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.

Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.

For example: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.

So let’s see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.

Then let’s also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren’t merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren’t really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed—thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.

There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?

Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what’s left of the immune system—and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.

The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.

For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.

The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn’t. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.

Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.

If that fact seems rather illogical, you’re right. It is.

Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.

This is not a matter of claiming that “a particular disease,” like autism, isn’t caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That’s a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.

Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it’s easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.

And “being a scientist” is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say “the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming,” but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.

Of course, these so-called experts won’t come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.

Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.

Now, it’s all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Rockefeller Brother Fund: We’re Buying Off Evangelicals, Mayors, Governors… For The Earth | ExplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/02/04/rockefeller-brother-fund-were-buying-off-evangelicals-mayors-governors-for-the-earth/

Rockefeller Brother Fund: We’re Buying Off Evangelicals, Mayors, Governors… For The Earth

Gallery

mayors

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
February 4, 2013

In its 2010 review of grants extended from 2005 to 2010, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund admits to buying off (quite literally) so-called “non-green voices”- meaning people outside the environmental community- to sell man-made climate change doctrine to their respective communities.

“(…) foundation dollars extended to support these non-green voices have grown dramatically (…). The RBF has supported “allied voices for climate action” that include businesses, investors, evangelicals, farmers, sportsmen, labor, military leaders, national security hawks, veterans, youth, and governors and mayors.”

This is an actual admission by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund of sustained funding for specific segments to promote the “green” cause. In the document we read that both religious leaders and state/local politicians have been subsidized into selling the myth of man made global warming The report goes on to say that:

rockefeller_bro1
“Foundations, including the RBF, have played a significant role in building the capacity of these groups to organize their base members, communicate publicly about their interest in climate solutions, and advocate for policies that will address climate change domestically and internationally. In addition to its direct financial support of these individual groups, the Fund has also provided technical assistance for strategic development, communications planning, and advocacy training.”

Specifically mentioning the National Board of Governors as beneficiaries, we read:

“Governors and mayors have proven to be very effective advocates for climate change solutions domestically and internationally. Across America, states and localities are developing innovative climate programs and serving as laboratories for pioneering approaches. Many have launched climate initiatives in their cities and states and have seen the economic benefits of doing so.”

The review also describes in some detail how the Fund from 1984 onward has poured bucket loads of cash into climate change propaganda-efforts, including strengthening the implementation of Agenda 21 up to and exceeding the 1992 Earth Summit:

“Two strategies underpinned this phase of grantmaking: 1) distilling consensus on climate science and, 2) moving the discussion of climate change from the scientific community into the policy arena. (…) The RBF organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change. It was also during this period that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 and formal international negotiations on a climate treaty began in 1991; these culminated in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 with a U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that the first President Bush and the U.S. Congress ratified. A review of correspondence between then-RBF president Bill Dietel and program staff clearly indicates that the Rio negotiation and treaty, and the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were specific aspirations of the RBF program at the time.”

Although from the late 1980s onward, it was smooth sailing for the Fund, by 2009 the Rockefellers hit a snag. Acknowledging that the selling of the IPPC rapport has become increasingly difficult since the Climategate scandal erupted, the Fund is now stepping up its efforts to refuel the heavily diminished effectiveness of the effort:

“While public awareness of the urgency for addressing climate change spiked in 2007, a deep erosion of public trust in climate science was sparked by an unauthorized public release of e-mail messages from the computer system at the University of East Anglia in Britain in late 2009. These e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists were using tricks to hide temperature declines and attempting to discredit scientists who were skeptical of human caused climate change.”

Despite the described “erosion of public trust” the Rockefeller’s at the same time marvel at the results of their grant-making schemes from 2005 to 2010:

“As philanthropic giving has grown over the past several years, with it have grown new organizations, new alliances, and new campaigns. Just a few short years ago, climate change was addressed by a small subset of the environmental movement. It is fair to say that the issue now has a growing movement of its own. Powerful voices from business, faith, national security, youth, labor, and agricultural groups have joined the fight for robust climate change policy.”

To illustrate that this buying off on a mass scale of so-called “non-green voices” by the Rockefellers is far from an incidental funding-program, we know that the Rockefeller Foundation also actively engaged celebrity-journalists. As far back as the mid seventies the Foundation has been busy buying off reporters and funding media-empires into existence. Even then “climate change” was actively being promoted as a tragic result of human meddling in the affairs of mother earth. Genetically engineered food was already being pushed as the cure to remedy all ills. The 1974 Rockefeller Foundation journal reports:

“Several science editors were asked to participate in Foundation meetings on climate change, food production and interstate conflict, genetic resistance in plants to pests, and aquaculture. Stories appeared subsequently on the front page of The New York Times, and the Associated Press carried substantial stories which were widely used. In each instance, the writers were introduced to our program officers and encouraged to use them as resource people. (Officers are now, in fact, being called on by journalists, particularly in areas of current high news interest such as food production, population problems, environmental issues, and the arts.).”

On several occasions, and in different publications spread throughout its long and sordid past, the Rockefeller Foundation openly brags using media- figureheads for their own purposes. In none of these instances does the RF mention any problem encountered with any of the media moguls they contacted. In the 1974 yearly report, Bill Moyers is mentioned as one of the beneficiaries of information disseminated by the Foundation.

“In preparing its remarkable 25-part series on the world food situation, the New York Times reporters have become acquainted and have established fruitful ongoing relationships with a good many of our officers. Our staff have provided substantial information and further contacts for Bill Moyers in his television series dealing with the problems of global interdependence. These are only a few of the many productive new relationships we have established with representatives of the mass media.”

Another arm of the octopus, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) put out a document in 2009 describing specific tricks used by the Fund to reach congregations unwilling to go along with the UN’s population control programs:

“UNFPA has found that leaders of faith ‐ and interfaith ‐ based organizations are open to discussing reproductive health, if issues are addressed with care and sensitivity.”

These “agents of change” should also be recruited to protect and promote the overall agenda “through countering misinformation campaigns and building social support within the governments for the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development).”

The ultimate goal of these engagement efforts is clearly described:

“Create a conducive socio‐cultural environment (impacting on behaviour, attitudes and practices) to ultimately promote and mobilize key communities towards achieving the goals of the ICPD PoA (International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action) and the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals).”

“The National Religious Partnership on the Environment is an alliance of the US Catholic Conference, Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life, National Council of Churches, and the Evangelical Environmental Network that serves more than 100 million Americans.”

Another UN front, called the Interfaith Partnership for the Environment was admittedly founded in the mid 1980s to, as the UNEP website teaches, “… inform North American congregations about the serious environmental problems facing life on earth.”

The UNFPA, as the enforcement arm of the overall infrastructure, joined with their brother- and sister-agencies in the UN to encircle the world’s religions reminiscent of a pack of hungry wolves:

“Since 2002, UNFPA has emphasized the integration of culturally sensitive approaches into programming efforts. Toward this end, it has worked closely within communities and with local agents of change, including religious leaders.”

The pattern leaves little for the imagination. The old boys are at it again, using their resources to step up the propaganda another notch. After all, after the discrediting of the global warming contrivance, the globalists will have to increase their flow of ammunition in the infowar if they want to have a chance.