Evergreen State’s "Independent" report whitewashes campus meltdown, claims professor

Evergreen State College

    

Evergreen State College released a 38-page “Independent” report on the protests and riots of last spring that is far from “independent,” claims a former administrator at the college.

Last spring, Evergreen State was engulfed in riots after a Bret Weinstein, a former professor, sent an email questioning the school’s “day of absence,” which called for white students to leave campus for a day of diversity workshops while students of color stayed on campus to participate in a different form of diversity programming.

“If Evergreen’s looming financial crisis becomes fatal, we now have a historical document placing blame not on Bridges, but on [Weinstein].”

After accosting Weinstein in class and verbally berating him to the point that the campus police chief suggested he leave campus for his own safety, the student protesters then held several high-ranking administrators hostage until they agreed to comply with a list of demands.

The report was commissioned to review the situation and provide feedback on how the college could prevent and control a recurrence of similar disruptions.

President George Bridges nominated people to conduct the “Independent” review, which was then followed by vetting and approval of the nominees by the Board of Trustees.

Multiple faculty members and a former high-ranking administrator, however, claim that the report is far from “Independent.”

In particular, the fact that Bridges allegedly “handpicked” members of the “Independent External Review Panel” made some faculty question the validity of the report.

Michael Zimmerman, former Provost and VP of Academic Affairs at Evergreen State, told Campus Reform that because members of the panel were handpicked by Bridges, the report could not be considered “Independent” in any way.

In addition, Zimmerman claimed that Bridges and his Chief of Staff, John Carmichael, saw a “draft report” of the panel’s findings before the final draft was released.

While Zimmerman acknowledged that he is not in the position to imply thoughts to anyone else, he remarked that “the only thing that seems reasonable is that [Bridges] wanted to make sure it didn’t say anything he wasn’t happy with. He was paying for it, he wanted to make sure it said what he wanted it to say.”

Further, the panel conducting the report interviewed 15 people, 12 of whom were faculty, staff, or administrators at Evergreen State. All three of the students who were interviewed, meanwhile, expressed a positive view of the protests last spring, and none had a neutral or negative perception.

As Zimmerman pointed out, the former chief of campus police, Stacy Brown, was not interviewed, nor was Bret Weinstein.

Peter Dorman, an economics professor at Evergreen State College, concurs that the panel should have interviewed people from all sides of the controversy.

“I think the review team should have interviewed all the principals, on all sides,” Dorman told Campus Reform. “They should have solicited the views of Bret Weinstein, Naima Lowe, and anyone else in a position to provide evidence and interpretation. Above all, they should have interviewed many students on all sides of this controversy.”

Dorman also believes that it would be mistaken to think that the college blew up over a “radical social justice agenda,” asserting that the demonstrations and official Equity Plan that the campus supported “were long on attitude and rhetoric but limited in actual demands for institutional change, even though there are obvious (from my point of view) equity gaps that ought to be addressed.”

Naima Lowe – the Evergreen State professor who berated white colleagues on campus, declaring that “You are now those motherf***ers that we’re pushing against” – was also not interviewed for the report, and was only mentioned once.

While the report does not mention Bret Weinstein by name, it does place much of the blame on him, referring to a “faculty member” who conducted interviews with national media outlets, including Fox News, “that were used to make a political point, magnify the events’ significance, and ended up drawing to campus radical groups from the left and right, intent on causing further disruption and attracting more media attention to the Evergreen events.”

Perhaps the most egregious error in the report, according to Zimmerman, is when the panel deliberately lied about campus events, even commending the administration for avoiding “physical injury and damage to property.” In fact, there was at least one physical assault, which student protesters prevented campus police from investigating, and damage to property in excess of $10,000.

“We are also impressed that in the handling of the events in real time-while controversial for many-the administration kept its cool and managed the situation (sometimes despite withering criticism) in a way that avoided physical injury and damage to property,” the panel stated in the report. “We commend all of these actions, and noted from our interviews that additional initiatives are under consideration as well.”

Zimmerman told Campus Reform that he lost all faith in the integrity of the panel after reading that statement.

“Although I had very little belief in the integrity of the panel or the panel’s work, when I came to that, I realized that I had nonetheless given them too much credit,” he remarked, adding that the panel’s conclusion was “unbelievable” because Evergreen State’s own police reached the exact opposite conclusion.

Dorman, for his part, said the report solidified “the standard narrative about a campus gone wild with violent ultra-leftism,” explaining that “by avoiding all the uncomfortable questions, it leaves their answers to right wing ideologues.”

The economics professor gave examples of questions that should have been answered by the panel, such as “What exactly was the relationship between the administration and the demonstrators?” and “Why was the administration unwilling to criticize, much less actively respond to, abusive behavior by some demonstrators?”

“Since there were no organizations or elected leadership behind the demonstrations,” he added, it is also worth asking, “how well did the demonstrators represent students concerned with social justice at Evergreen?”

Dorman said he doesn’t know why the administration wasn’t willing to condemn some of the more abusive behavior by protesters, pointing out that this caused great harm to the college and suggesting that students should seek about more effective approaches when they want to bring about change.

“This is the aspect of the events that caused the greatest harm to the college, so it should have been explored in detail. My view is that students normally go through a learning process in many aspects of their life, including activism,” he explained. “I would like students to be more effective in promoting change than what we saw last spring, but I am willing to cut them a lot of slack.”

Another Evergreen State professor, Mike Paros, even compared the report to an “April Fools” joke of some sort.

“Somehow I must have missed the customary ‘April Fools!’ proclamation that normally follows these types of hoaxes, fake stories, and practical jokes,” Paros remarks in an op-ed provided to Campus Reform, asserting that faculty and staff members are scared to speak out because they fear losing their jobs if they do.

“Faculty and staff are also embarrassed but remain silent out of fear of losing their jobs,” he writes, saying school employees are well aware “that the college President himself will ultimately decide how to implement the twelve percent budget cuts needed to make up for plummeting enrollment.”

Paros notes that Evergreen professors enjoy being granted “unprecedented autonomy to create curriculum,” and that they “resist recommendations for more ‘student-centered’ courses,” as suggested in the report.

However, the professor stresses that most of the students he teaches “don’t want to be shielded from ideas and content they find discomforting and challenging,” saying they “resent being stereotyped as intellectually and emotionally fragile due to their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, veteran status, and age,” and that “Many feel humiliated by the vulgar behavior of fellow students and the administration’s cowardly reaction.”

Zimmerman agreed that the report shows that Evergreen State is playing the “blame-game” in order to minimize damage to the college, trying to blame Weinstein for most of their falls.

“What they’re trying to do is blame Bret for inciting most of this, by being a racist, and then going public,” said Zimmerman. “[Weinstein] is not a racist. He is no more racist than anyone else on the campus.”

Zimmerman pointed out that Weinstein was merely asking for a dialogue on some of the proposals being promoted at Evergreen, which Zimmerman believes “are more likely to do harm to the underrepresented groups that they were designed to fix, that they were designed to help, than proponents thought they would.”

“If Evergreen’s looming financial crisis becomes fatal, we now have a historical document placing blame not on Bridges, but on [Weinstein],” Paros states in an unpublished local newspaper op-ed. “Nor do I support the panel and Bridge’s prejudicial and paternalistic view that the current Evergreen student can no longer handle innovative, interdisciplinary, and thought provoking courses simply on the basis of belonging to a particular category of people.”

Evergreen State College did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @asabes10

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/387052-Evergreen-States-Independent-report-whitewashes-campus-meltdown-claims-professor

Could an independent vaccine safety group save the U.S. from government corruption?


Image: Could an independent vaccine safety group save the U.S. from government corruption?

(Natural News)
It’s no secret that everything we’re told about vaccines by the mainstream media and major “health” organizations is a lie. Agencies like the CDC may be charged with protecting public health, but they continue to demonstrate that they are more concerned with upholding their archaic narratives and protecting Big Pharma’s profits than the American people. Is an independent vaccine safety organization the solution? The World Mercury Project team believes it could be the answer to corruption in U.S. government — and they might just be right.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared last year, the CDC is really nothing more than an “edifice of fraud,” and other federal agencies like the FDA, EPA and USDA aren’t any more respectable. The amount of power yielded by unelected government agency officials borders on unconstitutional, and in fact, evades the Constitution entirely (by design). The administrative power federal agencies have granted themselves is a force that Americans need to reckon with, if we truly want change.

There are many questions surrounding vaccines and vaccine safety, but federal agencies have made it clear that they cannot be trusted to give us real answers. Look no further than the admissions of guilt from CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson for proof of that. Thompson came forward, confessing that he and his colleagues destroyed evidence linking the MMR vaccine to autism.

Federal agencies abuse their power

There have been many, many whistleblowers over the years, who’ve been brave enough to come forward about the corruption, lies and deceit that have overtaken federal agencies across the board. While their testimonies have been greatly appreciated by those willing to listen, far too often they are simply ignored or publicly smeared by the mainstream media. In this way (among others), federal agencies are already operating at near-authoritarian level; those who expose them are hung out to dry, and there’s little room to question their self-imposed authority.

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.

As Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger, author of the books The Administrative Threat and Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, explains that federal agencies are essentially modern-day royalty. “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights,” he writes.

USA Today notes that non-judicial administrative courts decide cases and impose penalties without a jury or even an actual judge — courts like the  Vaccine Claims/Office of Special Masters, which are run by unelected bureaucrats.

Hamburger says that the increase in power yielded by the administrative branch coupled with a decreasing emphasis on the importance of the legislative and judicial branches spells out “big trouble” for the U.S. as we know it.

Corruption influences major policy decisions

The expansion of administrative power is not the only problem plaguing the U.S. government agencies. Major conflicts of interest are a substantial problem in government offices like the CDC or FDA. World Mercury Project (WMP) notes that watchdog groups, legislators and even researchers have documented the growing problem of bias caused by conflict of interest within these agencies.

Ties to the very industry these agencies are supposed to regulate are perhaps the most glaring of problems; not only do the CDC and FDA often rely on external experts with financial ties to the pharma industry, members of their advisory committees often own stock in vaccine companies. How can we expect these agencies to be impartial when they clearly have something to gain by approving certain products?

Both the Office of Inspector General and the Committee on Government Reform have made note of this clear conflict of interest over the years. The Committee first outlined this problem nearly 20 years ago — and little to nothing has been done to rectify it. Conflict of interests, cronyism and corruption abound in administrative agencies, and no one is standing in their way.

These agencies also fail to actively look for adverse effects of vaccines. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a huge flop; as sources explain “no active effort is made to search for, identify and collect information, but rather information is passively received from those who choose to voluntarily report their experience.”

There are substantial limitations to the current monitoring system — but the agencies in charge of it have made no effort to make the VAERS system more complete. As few as one percent of vaccine-related adverse events are reported — and even then, the CDC reports 4,500 “serious” health events are declared annually.

As an agency charged with protecting the public, you’d think this should be more concerning. Instead, the CDC maintains “while these problems happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.” Thousands of people are being harmed, while administrative overlords do nothing but collect stocks and kickbacks.

Independent science is the solution to government failure

The list of wrongdoings at the behest of the CDC and FDA is a lengthy one: WMP reports that the agencies are guilty of working to conceal unwanted outcomes during testing, ignoring whistleblowers and silencing them, relying on outdated information and publishing misleading safety studies and more. The FDA recently came under fire for hiding their findings about glyphosate in food, for example.

As WMP contends, “With the FDA and CDC having repeatedly demonstrated their prioritization of industry profits over public safety, the time is past due for creating an independent agency that takes vaccine safety seriously.” Independent science has always been the most trustworthy and reliable — why should an agency tasked with protecting public health be any different?

Stay up-to-date on the latest government controversies at Corruption.news.

Sources for this article include:

WorldMercuryProject.org

USAToday.com

NaturalNews.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-25-independent-vaccine-safety-group-us.html

Enough is Enough: Why The U.S. Clearly Needs An Independent Vaccine Safety Organization



Most Americans are oblivious to the huge annual burden of chronic illnessinjuries and deaths linked to vaccines. Some of the blame for the public’s ignorance belongs to a complicit media that “pretends that vaccine-related injuries do not occur.” However, the lion’s share of culpability for the buried story likely rests with the two federal agencies charged with vaccine oversight—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—both of which regularly engage in various forms of deception to uphold their bland narrative that vaccines are unambiguously safe.

The two agencies claim that they only license vaccines and allow them to remain on the market if the vaccines’ benefits outweigh their potential risks. Yet credible accusations have surfaced for years—aired by legislatorsresearcherswatchdog groups and many others—that both the FDA and CDC lack the impartiality required to make accurate judgments about vaccine safety. How can they, when the CDC’s dual mandate is both to monitor vaccine safety and promote vaccines?

Recognizing that this represents an “enormous” and “inherent” conflict of interest, a few gutsy legislators periodically have attempted to establish an “objective and non-conflicted office,” the sole purpose of which would be “to address, investigate, and head off potential vaccine safety problems.” Thus far, these efforts have gone nowhere, but even a cursory look at the agencies’ capture by industry confirms that it is time to stop allowing the fox to guard the hen house.

Self-interested experts

There are many reasons why the public needs and deserves an independent vaccine safety organization. One of the most significant criticisms has to do with the FDA’s and CDC’s business-as-usual reliance on external experts with financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies and/or products that they are evaluating. Little has changed since a congressional Committee on Government Reform outlined this problem nearly two decades ago. The Reform Committee examined the doings of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which determines whether new vaccines should be licensed, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which recommends vaccines for inclusion in the childhood vaccine schedule.

The congressional committee noted that FDA and CDC advisory committee members and chairpersons own stock in the vaccine companies under consideration as well as owning vaccine patents. The CDC “grants conflict of interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member,” even if a member has a financial stake in the decision.

The Reform Committee also discussed the example of the FDA’s vote to approve the ill-fated rotavirus vaccine. Ten of the fifteen VRBPAC members were either absent or were excluded from the vote, whereas five “temporary” members parachuted in to join the remaining five in voting to license the vaccine. Moreover, “three out of the five [permanent] members…who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.”

Overall, the congressional review sketched a portrait of an “old boys network” of experts and advisors who “rotate between the CDC and FDA, at times serving simultaneously.” In one case, after finding that an expert had served continuously for 16 years, the chairman asked, “With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 16 years?”

Despite stern rebukes, CDC and FDA don’t fix the problems

Unfortunately, there is no grounds for assuming that the two agencies have fixed these rampant conflict-of-interest problems. A 2009 report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services determined that CDC continued to display “a systemic lack of [ethics] oversight.” Virtually all (97%) of the individuals sitting on CDC advisory committees, including ACIP, omitted relevant financial disclosure information from their required ethics form, and CDC rarely complied with the requirement to “identify and resolve all conflicts of interest…before permitting [those individuals] to participate in committee meetings.” Although the OIG sternly rebuked the CDC to do its job in obtaining complete financial disclosures, the CDC balked at “fully implementing” the recommendation, describing it as “impractical.”

In 2014, a Drexel University researcher examined 15 years’ worth of conflicts of interest at the FDA, framing them as a significant “health policy problem” driven by both financial ties and “selection” mechanisms (that is, committee members who are “predisposed to favor pharmaceutical companies”). A 2015 article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)illustrates the ongoing magnitude of the problem, showing how drug and device companies paid roughly $3.7 billion to U.S. physicians and teaching hospitals over just one half-year period; as the BMJ incisively states, “financial conflicts of interest in medicine are not beneficial, despite strained attempts to justify them and to make a virtue of self-interest.”

Not serious about serious adverse events

Although the FDA and CDC claim to take vaccine safety seriously, another favorite tactic is to downplay actual and potential vaccine risks. This is particularly apparent when the two agencies denigrate the very surveillance system that they co-administer. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) carries out spontaneous surveillance, meaning that “no active effort is made to search for, identify and collect information, but rather information is passively received from those who choose to voluntarily report their experience.” Because of these features, FDA and CDC authors readily admit that their system has “inherent limitations,” and Harvard researchers agree, noting that VAERS is subject to “incomplete recognition of potential adverse events, administrative barriers to reporting, and incomplete case documentation.” The VAERS capture rate of as little as one percent of actual vaccine-related adverse events “preclude[s] or delay[s] the identification of ‘problem’ vaccines”—“potentially endangering the health of the public.”

Even with the massive underreporting, VAERS receives approximately 30,000 reports annually, up to 4,500 of which the CDC characterizes as serious—meaning that “the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death.” Lest the public worry about these thousands of reported injuries, the CDC has a ready answer. The agency asserts (without the slightest hint of irony) that “while these problems happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.” Both the CDC and FDA shore up this oddly unconcerned attitude by regularly publishing boilerplate agency-authored VAERS analyses that declare “no new or unexpected [adverse events] patterns.”

Circumvention and circumlocution

Cozy corporate alliances” and an emphasis on public-private partnerships tilt the CDC’s and FDA’s actions in favor of industry in numerous ways. For example, the CDC and vaccine manufacturers co-fund a variety of “sock-puppet mouthpieces” disguised as independent non-profits; these front groups make it possible for the CDC to circumvent lobbying restrictions and support a compulsory vaccination agenda. World Mercury Project has described numerous other examples of bias and wrong-doing at both agencies. The CDC, for example, has:

Meanwhile, the FDA has:

  • Refused to give “any serious consideration to the abundant and mushrooming evidence of thimerosal’s profound toxicity.”
  • Relied on “outdated information, unwarranted assumptions and errors” and published misleading safety studies to allow unsafe levels of aluminum to remain in childhood vaccines.
  • Ignored advice from within its own ranks to pay closer attention to vaccine safety so as to avoid “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”
  • Permitted vaccine manufacturers to use phony placebos to conceal vaccine risks.

Enough is enough

Two to four million individuals suffer “serious, disabling, or fatal injury” associated with prescription drugs each year (including an estimated 128,000 deaths), but these incidents tend to remain outside the public eye. Even with the opioid epidemic, it took over a decade for the media to begin reporting the story and even longer (until 2017) for the government to declare the epidemic a national health emergency.

It is unconscionable that vaccines with doubtful safety data continue to be rushed onto the market while the ensuing injuries and deaths remain in the shadows. With the FDA and CDC having repeatedly demonstrated their prioritization of industry profits over public safety, the time is past due for creating an independent agency that takes vaccine safety seriously. A former program director at the National Institutes of Health wrote a couple of years ago about the role of vaccines in creating a powerful medical establishment—supported by drug-profit-hungry businessmen and philanthropists. In that author’s words, “improved public health is possible only by switching the current corruptive and abusive culture of ‘who you know’ to a culture of ‘what you know.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/pu1YODg7ndA/

Will Greenland join the family of independent nations?

Greenland cargo jet

    

Greenland’s election in late April was largely a vote on independence – a crucial and unifying issue. Whatever the ultimate composition of the ruling coalition, the secession from Denmark seems to be a foregone conclusion. Six out of seven political parties support the idea and they won. A referendum will also offer a thumbs-up. The Greenlandic people have been inspired by Iceland’s example and want to make their home, the largest island in the world, a member of the family of independent nations. Some suggest that independence could be declared by 2021.

Greenland left the EU in 1984 while not leaving the Kingdom of Denmark – an EU member state. This was an unprecedented situation. There was no mechanism in place in those days for pulling out of the bloc but this island did it. This proves that Scotland and Northern Ireland could find a way to remain simultaneously parts of the UK and the EU if they wanted to. There’s no need for hard choices; they could have both.

Greenland was granted home rule in 1979 and self-rule in 2009. Denmark’s constitution recognizes its right to become a sovereign nation but it would then lose the subsidies it receives from Copenhagen, which make up about 60% of the island’s annual budget.

Greenland isn’t green. Roughly 80% of its land is covered by ice, but that percentage is diminishing each year, paving the way for crops and scenery that brings in tourists. Iceland has recently made big strides toward becoming a tourist destination. Greenland could take a page out of its book.

Tourist infrastructure and mining can help bring Greenlanders closer to their goal of becoming a self-sufficient country. Rare-earth elements could turn it into a diplomatic flash point. China’s influence is strong and will probably grow, as Greenland badly needs foreign investment.

But in that case it would have to leave NATO, casting doubt over the fate of the US Air Force base in Thule, which is a component of NORAD and the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. Last year the US completed a significant upgrade of that site. The island is going to leave Denmark and NATO at just about the same time that the US Navy is accelerating its plan to beef up its Arctic capability.

The melting ice offers more than just new economic opportunities. It is also revealing the danger to the environment posed by a US top-secret Cold War military base where toxic agents were stored. The site was abandoned in 1967 under the assumption that it would remain eternally frozen. Now it is rising to the surface as its ice covering melts. This problem is not making the local population more warmly disposed to the US. The idea of the two countries working together militarily is not popular. Former Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vittus Qujaukitsoq believes that “The American presence has been nothing but trouble, nothing but environmental pollution, and it has created a crisis of trust between Greenland and Denmark.”

Once it loses Greenland, Denmark will no longer be an Arctic state, but China could have a proxy vote in Arctic matters, as Paula Briscoe, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, put it. As an independent state and a new member of the Arctic Council, Greenland will have to cooperate with Russia, the world leader in icebreaker construction. Moscow can share its wealth of experience finding profit in the region – something Greenland will badly need. The Russian-Chinese relationship is warming up in the Arctic, and Greenland could benefit from that. Once it is independent, it will not have to abide by the sanctions against Russia, thus paving the way for a thriving economic relationship with that country, spurred by the lucrative opportunities that are emerging as the snow continues to melt.

Greenland’s independence will no doubt inspire secessionist movements in Denmark (such as the Faroese independence movement) and across Europe, where aspirations for independence are on the rise. Scotland, Catalonia, Basque, Flanders, Veneto – the list can go on. With the opportunities for economic prosperity about to open up and the relations between the Arctic Five regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Greenland will not have to choose between the West or the East. It could freely define its own national interests and do the right thing as interpreted in Nuuk, not in the capitals of the NATO member states. Equipped with a reliable base of resources, it could take the best from its Arctic partners, Russia, China, Australia, or anyone with a lucrative deal to offer. Greenland will be able to make its own decisions as to whether it needs other nation’s military bases on its territory that only make it a target in the event of an armed conflict that doesn’t concern Nuuk.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/384769-Will-Greenland-join-the-family-of-independent-nations

Independent journalism investigation reveals the CDC to be hopelessly corrupt when it comes to vaccine safety research


Image: Independent journalism investigation reveals the CDC to be hopelessly corrupt when it comes to vaccine safety research

(Natural News)
More damning truths about corruption at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been uncovered by investigators from the World Mercury Project, revealing that the nation’s top public health agency has been actively working alongside criminal elements to hide the facts about the dangers of vaccines.

Information compiled as part of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by the World Mercury Project show that CDC officials gave preferential treatment to unscrupulous scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark, including the infamous Poul Thorsen who was exposed for conning American taxpayer dollars in order to manufacture false safety data about the connection between autism and vaccines.

As explained by World Mercury Project board member Brian S. Hooker, who also serves as Science Advisor at the group Focus for Health, the CDC knowingly refused to evaluate the claims made by Thorsen, even after it was revealed that he had basically stolen $1 million in grant money to pocket for himself.

At least four high-level CDC officials were informed about Thorsen’s illicit dealings in the name of science, and yet none of them did a single thing to address them, nor did they perform due diligence in taking a second look at Thorsen’s work after it was revealed that he’s nothing more than a conman posing as a science researcher. These individuals include:

• Dr. Coleen Boyle, Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD)

• Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, Chief of the Developmental Disabilities Branch

• Joanne Wojcik, a Public Health Analyst at the Developmental Disabilities Branch

• Diana Schendel, a former senior epidemiologist at the NCBDDD

Multiple studies that the CDC uses as “evidence” that vaccines don’t cause autism are completely fraudulent

What these four individuals refused to do was tell the truth about multiple studies about autism that were published without undergoing the legally-required ethics clearances. These studies include the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, which was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, and a population-based analysis of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, also known as MMR, that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

“On the 30th of November 2009, Coleen Boyle, Diana Schendel, Joanne Wojcik, and Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, along with Danish grantees, failed to report this serious ethical violation in previously published research, as well as a study near publication,” writes Hooker.

“They sought to cover their tracks on their failure to ensure Poul Thorsen had obtained all the needed ethical approvals for autism bio and genetic studies. Two studies were published in which legally required ethical permissions were apparently never applied for and granted, according to their notes. When repeatedly asked to provide them, Thorsen did not.”

What this suggests is that the CDC willfully ignored the publishing of false science in defense of vaccines like MMR that other independent studies have linked to causing autism. They also looked the other way in trying to right the wrong of retrieving the stolen money that was used by Thorsen and his colleagues to publish pseudoscience in favor of vaccine industry interests.

Both papers, in other words, should have been immediately retracted and comprehensively scrutinized before even being reconsidered for republication. But instead, the CDC pretended as though nothing had happened, and continues to this very day to peddle the lie that all vaccines are completely safe and effective.

“… [T]he seminal Denmark study on the MMR and autism, used to ‘debunk’ the vaccine-autism hypothesis both in the Institute of Medicine’s 2004 report ‘Vaccines and Autism’ as well as in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s Omnibus Autism Proceedings, is an illegal study,” adds Hooker.

You can read Hooker’s full analysis of CDC corruption by visiting the World Mercury Project.

Sources for this article include:

WorldMercuryProject.org

NaturalNews.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-06-cdc-hopelessly-corrupt-when-it-comes-to-vaccine-safety-research.html

Independent witnesses report silent ghost plane over Ripley, UK which ‘turned the sky dark’

Was a ghost plane really seen in Derbyshire's skies?

    

Separate reports of a mysterious ghost plane have emerged in Derbyshire where witnesses have seen a dark, silent shape’ sweep across the sky.

Onlookers have stated they have seen a dark shape in the sky at around 6.45pm on Monday night at different locations across the county.

Mark O’Brien believes he saw a quiet, low-flying plane fly above him after picking his daughter up from her swimming lesson in Ripley.

He said: “It was so low, it must have been only been around two or three houses high. I thought it was going to crash at one point but it was large and very quiet.

“I remember it flying above me and my heart stopping for a second. It looked like an old World War Two plane but it was dark so I couldn’t make it out.

“I panicked because I thought it was coming down on the houses near Ashford Rise which is near my house. There was no noise or smoke. It just flew off and disappeared between some nearby trees.

“I came into work today and told my colleagues about what had happened, thinking they would expect me to be crazy.

Dozens more sightings of silent ghost plane over Derbyshire

“But one of them said they had saw the plane as well fly around Heage. It’s so weird really but I know quite a lot of people have seen them before”.

Lyndsey Taylor, of Barnsley, claims to have seen two ghost planes at the same time as Mr O’Brien, only this time near the village of Hope, in the Derbyshire Peak District.

She said: “The whole thing was really weird, we were driving towards Bamcroft when the radio suddenly lost all signal and the sky just went really dark.

“All of a sudden this huge old aeroplane flew straight over our heads, completely silent and was heading for the ground.

“My partner and daughter both saw the same thing. We thought it was going to crash, but then it just disappeared.

“Seconds later we saw what looked like the same aircraft, this time to our left, and it banked over on its side and looked as though it was going to crash before disappearing.

“There is no way a real plane could have had the speed or the height to pull out of it, but we heard no crash at all.

“The plane looked really old with propellers and was green.

“The whole thing lasted a couple of seconds and before we knew it, it was all over and it had got brighter again.

“I don’t know if there is such a thing as a ghost plane, but I cant think what else it can be.”

Pam Orridge said the news of the new sightings prompted her to remember a sighting from a few years ago.

She said: “My son and I were driving along the A6 towards Rowsley from Darley Dale.

“We had just passed Church Road on our left and well before Arconic Forgings and Extrusion also on the left.

“Suddenly in front of us was an aircraft flying very low towards us.

“So low we thought it would crash into us but then it banked sideways and disappeared.

“We could not identify the aircraft other than it was old because it happened so quickly and left us quite shocked.”

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/381312-Independent-witnesses-report-silent-ghost-plane-over-Ripley-UK-which-turned-the-sky-dark

Google Just Partnered With Mainstream Media to Wipe Independent Journalism Off the Map

googlegoogle

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA – (MPN) Search engine and advertising monolith Google continued to press its offensive against alternative media this week with an announcement unveiling a new $300 million project called the Google News Initiative.

The initiative encompasses a range of new projects announced by the tech giant, which has long been accused of enjoying a monopoly position and of siphoning off digital advertising revenue from traditional news publishers.

Google sees it differently, however, and asserted in a press statement announcing the initiative that it “paid $12.6 billion to partners” while driving “10 billion clicks a month to publishers’ websites for free.” The company is now promising to continue working “with publishers to elevate accurate, quality content and stem the flow of misinformation and disinformation.”

The move will likely drive the stake further into the heart of independent media while merging Silicon Valley with mainstream publishers traded on Wall Street and aligned with the agendas of beltway politicians in Washington.

The Washington Post's Don Graham, left, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett and Google's Eric Schmidt, right, chat during the annual Allen and Co.'s conference, July 7, 2005, in Sun Valley, Idaho. (AP/Douglas C. Pizac)The Washington Post's Don Graham, left, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett and Google's Eric Schmidt, right, chat during the annual Allen and Co.'s conference, July 7, 2005, in Sun Valley, Idaho. (AP/Douglas C. Pizac)

The Washington Post’s Don Graham, Billionaire Warren Buffett and Google’s Eric Schmidt chat at the annual Allen and Co.’s conference, July 7, 2005. (AP/Douglas C. Pizac)

According to Google:

The commitments we’re making through the Google News Initiative demonstrate that news and quality journalism is [sic] a top priority for Google. We know that success can only be achieved by working together, and we look forward to collaborating with the news industry to build a stronger future for journalism.”

Launched in a partnership with a range of traditional corporate media giants – including The Washington PostThe New York TimesFinancial Times, and U.S. newspaper giant Gannett – the project promises to combat so-called “fake news” and misinformation. Many reasonably fear, based on recent trends, that this will mean the further marginalization of non-hegemonic left-wing and conservative media — as well as a sort of “death by algorithm” for already-struggling publishers who once flourished, prior to the hysteria over alleged “Russian interference” and propaganda in the 2016 elections.

GoogleWebGoogleWeb

Anders Nienstaedt for MintPress News.

The initiative will include a new lab to analyze and parse out what is deemed “mis- and disinformation during elections and breaking news moments;” a fact-checking partnership with Stanford University and corporate media non-profit groups like the Local Media Association and the Poynter Institute; and a new service meant to expedite reader subscriptions to pay-gated news websites, among other new projects.

In the past decade, companies that enjoyed a monopoly in the U.S. media market — such as Gannett, Hearst, and The Times — saw their readership base, as well as the advertising revenue on which they depend, largely evaporate in the face of the rise in online news outlets. Such new competition included state-funded broadcasters like Al-JazeeraPressTV and RT, as well as dissident voices at smaller news sites offering original journalism, like MintPress NewsTruthoutMonthly Review, the World Socialist Website, and a range of alternative and volunteer-based journalism outfits across the globe.

Last April, Google clamped down on alternative media with new structural changes to its algorithms — accompanying the change with an announcement tarring alternative media with the broad black brush of “misleading information, unexpected offensive results, hoaxes and unsupported conspiracy theories” as opposed to what it called “authoritative content.”

As a result, organic search-engine traffic to these sites uniformly plummeted to less than half of what it had previously been, devastating many publishers.

Staving off regulation

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., stands in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Jan. 12, 2017. (AP/Evan Vucci)Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., stands in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Jan. 12, 2017. (AP/Evan Vucci)

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., stands in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Jan. 12, 2017. (AP/Evan Vucci)

Google parent company, Alphabet Inc., has seen its stock dive this week amid a broader selloff of tech stocks resulting from the Cambridge Analytica controversy embroilingFacebook.

While former Google and Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt once argued that “policymakers should work with the grain of the internet rather than against it [and] allow innovation to flourish,” tech platforms have faced mounting pressure from governments across the globe, which are constant threats to step in and regulate the lawlessness that once reigned across the world wide web.

Indeed, companies from the same corporate-media roster with which Google is now partnering have been leading the charge calling for regulation, arguing that the tech giant failed to protect users from alleged abuse in the form of false information spread by Russian operatives.

By last November, Schmidt was already caving in to pressure on the company resulting from the hue and cry over “Kremlin meddling” in the U.S. electoral process.

Arguing that he was opposed to censorship, the Google leader nonetheless announced that the company would begin to purposefully reduce the presence of “misinformation” sites, like Russian government-owned Sputnik and RT, on Google News by “deranking” the sites in news search results and “trying to engineer the systems” to prevent the classification of “propaganda” as legitimate news.

Facebook, which is witnessing a PR meltdown after the revelation that it allowed the data of 50 million users to be misused by right-wing political operatives, is also undertaking measures to prioritize content from mainstream outlets like The Times while using the fact-checking services of corporate nonprofits and wire agencies like Associated Press.

An algorithmic gag to silence the people

As the share prices of corporate media outlets and Silicon Valley alike begin to tumble and the rise of anti-systemic social movements, anti-capitalist perspectives and opposition voices continues unabated, it’s become a matter of consensus for politicians, billionaire tech geeks and media moguls alike that the internet must be policed in a stricter manner.

The “new media” monopolists of Silicon Valley and the once-dominant traditional print media have clearly agreed that the “fake news” frenzy is a convenient pretext to step up their censorship of the internet through new algorithms, allowing them to boost their profit margins and silence opposition through a new framework of “algorithmic censorship.”

This new model overwhelmingly favors those who see information and journalism as an article of commerce alone. It poses a stark threat not only to internet users’ ability to access information, but to the ability of citizens and social movements that hope to interact with, participate in, and wield influence over the political and economic activities that determine our lives and the fate of communities across the world.

Elliott Gabriel is a former staff writer for teleSUR English and a MintPress News contributor based in Quito, Ecuador. He has taken extensive part in advocacy and organizing in the pro-labor, migrant justice and police accountability movements of Southern California and the state’s Central Coast.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/google-partnering-mainstream-media-journalism/

Independent group, now called Unite America, names its Senate candidates — all two of them

A group hoping to create a third political force in America — one with some of the trappings of a party but thus far operating outside of partisan politics — on Tuesday named the two candidates it plans to run for the U.S. Senate in November.

In forming the Centrist Project last year, senior strategist Joel Searby had targeted Senate seats in seven states. Tuesday’s announcement — which included news that the group had changed its name to Unite America — introduced Craig O’Dear, a candidate in Missouri for the seat now held by Democrat Claire McCaskill, and Neal Simon, who is running for Democrat Ben Cardin’s seat in Maryland.

Unite America is also endorsing three gubernatorial candidates, including one incumbent, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, who was elected as an Independent but faces dismal approval ratings in his state.

The group’s goal was to win enough Senate seats to deprive either major party of a majority, forcing them to compromise with each other and to cooperate with Unite America. They ask candidates to endorse their five principles and to pledge that if elected to the Senate they will not caucus with either party.

“The end goal emphatically is better governance,” said Dartmouth public policy professor Charles Wheelan, whose 2013 book “The Centrist Manifesto” helped inspire the movement. “Everybody is about winning elections and they seem to forget that the purpose of winning is to govern.”

But the group has discovered that building a movement is difficult without an infrastructure to support candidates, from money to data to campaign advisers to a national message. The group ended 2017 with $258,120 on hand.

“Something we’ve been learning is it is not a process where you can handpick someone and go create a senate or gubernatorial candidate out of thin air,” said Searby.

“Now that the word is getting out that we do have an infrastructure, that there [are] over 20,000 people in our grassroots and hundreds of thousands of Facebook followers, people are saying this is maybe something I want to be a part of,” Searby said.

But Unite America’s executive director, Nick Troiano, refuses to identify the group’s work as party building.

“The aspiration is not to become a political party,” Troiano said, adding that he sees parties as “part of the problem.”

He then added, “Pragmatically speaking, to elect candidates to office … we have to be able to replicate some of the structures that parties have.”

The other independent candidates running for governor with the backing of the group are Greg Orman of Kansas, who mounted a competitive but unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2014, and Maine Treasurer Terry Hayes, a former Democrat.

Orman said in his remarks that about half the country “thinks we need a third party.” And he described the need for a preexisting apparatus that provides personnel, data and messaging.

Wheelan said in an interview Tuesday that “we certainly are building a party apparatus” but “without a lot of the baggage.”

Talk of a third party has simmered with increasing frequency since Donald Trump took over the Republican Party. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in favor of a third party earlier this month. “It’s time for something new,” Brooks said.

Juleanna Glover, a veteran Republican operative who worked for former Vice President Dick Cheney, also wrote a New York Times op-ed recently in favor of a third party, and pointed out that 61 percent of Americans support the formation of another party, according to Gallup.

Unite America’s core message has broad appeal.

Orman said they want to upend a system in which “you win elections by painting your opponent as the most extreme version of themselves and trying to make voters afraid of them or hate them.”

“We can find common ground on almost every major issue that divides us,” he said.

But the test for Unite America will be how many elections they win. And if their candidates are successful, then their challenge will be keeping those elected officials from joining one of the two parties in exchange for help in getting things done.

Read more from Yahoo News:

 

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/independent-group-now-called-unite-america-names-senate-candidates-224742068.html