In early September 2018, I purchased a copy of the Daily Mail because on its front cover was a picture of two Russians who were being ‘revealed’ as the assailants responsible for poisoning the Skripals with Novichok. As soon as I saw the picture of the two Russians, I thought that it was odd because it looked to have been highly magnified and showed elements of distortion. Given modern camera technology and the megapixels available to capture detailed images, it seemed strange to me that the picture was of such low quality. When I got home and read the various articles on the subject within the Daily Mail, there were extra pictures of the Russians, which also seemed to exhibit distortion and the more I looked at them, the more I became convinced that the pictures were not as straightforward as they seemed. I believe that the pictures show evidence of having been altered or tampered with. Yet, when I forwarded the details of my concerns to alternative news outlets, none of them seemed to believe that there was anything significant to report on. I then forwarded the details to Russia Today, but even this mainstream news outlet was not prepared to examine the anomalies that I had highlighted. I am not saying that the events pictured in the Daily Mail did not happen. I am just saying that the ‘evidence’ looks to have been altered in some way. If I am right, then it raises questions over why someone would go to the trouble to do this. Have the UK Security Services had the images ‘doctored’ to mislead the public about what the pictures actually prove? Are we being deceived and is the Daily Mail and other mainstream news outlets like the BBC, pushing out anti-Russian propaganda? In the end, all I can do is show where the anomalies are and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. The pictures below have been downloaded from the Mail Online website and all I have done is to add a red oval or a red arrow to the parts of the pictures that look suspicious. Let’s start with the picture of the two Russians at Salisbury train station, where I have highlighted an issue with one of the Russian’s legs. The man on the left clearly has a left leg that looks to be broken, in that a section of the shin is out of alignment with the rest of his leg. Even with enlargement and pixels becoming more ‘blocky’, I do not see how this would cause part of the leg to be shunted to one side. Next, let’s look at the picture of the two Russians walking in Salisbury. Once again, there is a problem with one of the Russian’s legs and with the lady in the foreground. This time, the man on the left seems to have a broken right ankle. From the angle that the photo was taken, the man’s right leg seems to be behind his left leg and yet his right foot is in view and disconnected from his leg at the ankle. In addition and less obvious is the lady in the foreground. From the angle that the picture was taken, where it looks down on pedestrians, the lady seems to be too tall and too big, when compared with the Russians. It is as if she has been photographed separately from behind and then added to the image. Additionally, let’s look at a picture of the Russians walking by some railings in Salisbury, where I have highlighted a problem with one of the Russian’s head, his heel and the road to his left. For me, this is the most problematic picture of them all because one of the railing posts can be seen to go directly into the head of the Russian on the left. Not only that, but the man’s hair seems to go around the back of the post, which should be impossible. If you look at the same man’s left heel, it appears to have a section that is blacked out. Also, to the left of the same man and on the other side of the railings, there is a section of the road that has been greyed out. Finally, we have another impossible picture of the Russians at Heathrow airport. In this one, I have highlighted a trolley behind one of the Russians. Behind the Russian that has just walked through the turnstiles, there is a man who has a trolley behind him and yet the trolley’s wheel appears in front of the man’s leg. If anyone can explain the above anomalies, then I would be very interested to hear from you. For now, I think that it is safe to say that these images are highly suspicious.
0 Comments
When I heard that the Royal Navy had approved a naval technician’s request to conduct Satanic rituals on board one of its ships (HMS Cumberland), I could not believe it. Yet, not only is it true, it is not even a recent event, having happened back in 2004. The reason I know that it is true is because it was reported by the following mainstream UK press outlets: BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and Metro. However, I have no recollection that this was ever reported by radio or television news, which is how most people learn about current affairs. Somehow, a subject that should have been headline news across the country was given minimal coverage, even though it is a very serious public interest matter.
The argument put forward by non-commissioned officer and confirmed Satanist, Chris Cranmer, was that he was exercising his right to practice the ‘religion’ of his choice. At the time that this happened (2004), the Equality Act 2010 had obviously not yet been passed, which meant that ‘religion’ was not one of the nine protected characteristics that exist today. However, the EU’s Equality Framework Directive 2000 was in force and this obliged member states to “combat discrimination on grounds of disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age in the workplace”. Once enacted, this Directive had to be transposed into law by the countries of the EU and this is how the Equality Act 2006 came into being, as a precursor to the Equality Act 2010. We do not know how the Royal Navy came to its decision to approve the practice of Satanism aboard one of its ships. However, it could be argued that EU Directive 2000 imposed a duty on member governments to enact laws that would guarantee religious freedom in their countries and that this was sufficient justification. The Royal Navy was just recognising in advance, a requirement that it knew it would have to accept in due course. Such an argument is completely false because a person cannot claim to belong to a religion, if it is not recognised by the government to be a ‘legitimate’ faith. To some people, that may seem to be unfair, in that the state should not involve itself in such matters but for now let’s just assume that the government does have a right to make such judgements. In recent years, the government has found it necessary to draw a distinction between religions that are deemed to be ‘genuine’ and those that are frivolous or non-genuine. This seems to have come about because of a campaign to describe one’s religion as ‘Jedi’, when completing a census questionnaire. It appears that there was a belief that if enough people did it, then the government would have to accept the Star Wars inspired ‘Jedi’ philosophy, as an official religion. In December 2016, the UK Charity Commission rejected an application by The Temple of the Jedi Order for registration as a charity. The reason for the rejection was because the Charity Commission was not satisfied that ‘Jediism’ is a legitimate religion, according to the definition in charity law. In its assessment the Charity Commission identified failings due to a lack of spirituality, no requirement for moral improvement and no positive or beneficial impact upon society. The below video summarises the key details of the verdict. What this shows is that the Royal Navy did have a choice. It could have denied the request to allow Satanism within Britain’s armed forces, particularly since the ideas of Satanism conflict with the Royal Navy’s six Core Values and Standards, which are Commitment, Courage, Discipline, Respect for Others, Integrity and Loyalty. The Royal Navy could have applied the same criteria used by the Charity Commission and rejected Satanism on the basis that it is non-spiritual, does not require moral improvement and cannot claim to have a positive impact upon society. According to Wikipedia, “Satanism is a group of ideological and philosophical beliefs based on Satan”. It also says that contemporary religious practice of Satanism is linked to the establishment of the Church of Satan in 1966, which is the church that Chris Cranmer joined. Wikipedia also says that “Satan, also known as the Devil, is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin” and that “sin can .. be viewed as .. any diversion from the perceived ideal order of human living”. If you are not religious and do not believe in God, then you cannot believe in the Devil either and consequently, may not view this as a problem. However, being an atheist or agnostic, does not make you immune from harmful actions that could be directed at you or your community because of a belief system that you do not subscribe to. Whether you believe in Satan or Satanism is not really the issue. The point is that the people who do believe in Satanism are a potential danger to everybody else. If you visit the website for the Church of Satan, it describes itself as “the first above-ground organization in history openly dedicated to the acceptance of Man’s true nature — that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence”. Straight away, that makes you wonder how many below ground versions of Satanism are in existence and therefore, how widespread this belief system really is. The Church of Satan claims not to worship the devil. Instead, it says that Satan is a merely a symbol of their rejection of religious dogma. The problem with this argument is that the Church of Satan is using religion to reject religion. It mocks religious belief and the idea of God and the Devil, whilst simultaneously perpetuating religious belief by choosing to identify with Satan. Surely, if the Church of Satan does not believe in God or the Devil, it would not call itself a church, which is the house of God and it would not identify with God’s adversary. This is an important point because Chris Cranmer claimed that he was exercising his right to "freedom of religion". That clearly cannot be true because Satanism rejects all religions and therefore, by definition, cannot be a religion itself. The Royal Navy was either deceived by Chris Cranmer’s argument or, more worryingly, fully understood the contradiction and used it as a catalyst to undermine the moral framework of the armed services. The reason I say this is because the Church of Satan advises its members who are part of the military not to disclose their beliefs but just to describe themselves as atheists. Clearly, there is a career risk to declaring yourself a Satanist and you have to wonder if Chris Cranmer was given tacit approval, in advance of making his formal request, whereby senior officers assured him of their support, due to their unspoken allegiance to his cause. This would explain why Chris Cranmer took such an unnecessary risk and why he went against the advice of his ‘church’ not to declare his beliefs. The comments that Chris Cranmer made about the Royal Navy’s decision to allow Satanism, demonstrate, in my opinion, that he is not a person of good character and that his views are not in accordance with the Royal Navy’s values. He said that “from a military perspective, I believe in vengeance”. You therefore have to question whether he could be trusted to respect the Geneva Convention, in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war. Also, he said that “I didn’t want to feel that I could not get out my Satanic Bible and relax in bed. I didn’t want to bite my tongue any more when dealing with idiots”. Referring to your work colleagues as ‘idiots’ because they question your belief in Satanism, is not exactly a respectful attitude. Surprisingly, the Church of Satan website presents its ideas in quite a positive way. At first sight, once you get past all of the symbolism and weird pictures, it does not appear to be as extreme as you might have expected. It espouses atheism, rational thought and individualism, which is appealing to people who do not subscribe to religious doctrine, who believe in scientific progress and who see themselves as unique, as opposed to following the crowd mentality. However, for me, this is just clever PR. The initial ideas that the Church of Satan presents are not outwardly radical but I believe that they are designed to draw people into a much darker philosophy. Maybe, we should ask whether Chris Cranmer was the victim of a cult and whether his senior colleagues even considered this as a possibility. Surely, the Royal Navy had a duty to establish whether Chris Cranmer was targeted and brainwashed in some way and whether he was a security risk. Ultimately, the Church of Satan has no compassion for others and is not altruistic. Satanism should have no part in the military, where concern for the welfare of your comrades is a key part of the concept of teamwork that is essential for success in such a role. The unsuitability of Satanism is demonstrated by the quotes below, which are taken from the Church of Satan website.
What is odd about the Church of Satan is that it advocates individuality, whilst also requiring that its members strictly adhere to the teachings of its founder, Anton Szandor LaVey (1930—1997). It claims to be anti-religious, whilst describing itself as a religion. It also rejects the idea that there is anything beyond our physical existence, whilst believing in the power of black magic and curses. The Church of Satan is so full of contradictions that it should not be taken seriously, except for the fact that it is a dangerous philosophy that threatens normal societal values. Its founder is just an ordinary person with ideas for how best to live your life but his philosophy is merely a selective conglomeration of earlier ideas. The Church of Satan offers nothing new in terms of understanding the meaning of life. It just arrives at nihilistic conclusions that seek to diminish humanity by revering and promoting the law of the jungle. In the video below, Christopher Lee talks about the very real dangers of Satanism and makes reference to Anton Szandor LaVey. He also mentions Sammy Davis Jr., without seeming to realise that he was a member of the Church of Satan. In the next video, so called High Priest (Black Pope), Peter H. Gilmore, confirms that Sammy Davis Jr. was a member of the Church of Satan, along with Jane Mansfield. However, he also explains that there are members in every walk of life, including the military. Jane Mansfield’s early death in a car accident has been linked to her association with Anton Szandor LaVey and the Church of Satan, as explained by LaVey’s daughter (Karla) in the below interview with Joan Rivers. Given the above details, you have to wonder how it is that the Royal Navy recognised Satanism as a legitimate religion, thereby allowing Satanistic rituals to be performed on one of its ships. Something is very wrong here and yet no one seems to want to talk about it. This is further demonstrated by the earlier mentioned mainstream articles, where none of them questioned what was being reported. Instead, they seemed to endorse what had happened, by conveying the information to the public as if it was just an everyday news story. By not asking questions, you could argue that the mainstream media is being quietly complicit and thereby promoting Satanism, through their failure to challenge it. That is not to say that members of the public have not challenged the decision. Unfortunately, the response provided by the MOD to a Freedom of Information request, was deliberately evasive and just said that it was about respecting religious beliefs. Chris Cranmer has gone from being recognised as a Satanist by the Royal Navy, to then lobbying the MOD to accept Satanism as an official religion. After that, he was promoted to Chief Petty Officer and subsequently transferred to a position within the MOD in London. And, believe it or not, Chris Cranmer's mother claims that he was head-hunted to take up his MOD role in Whitehall. For someone with very odd beliefs, he is doing very well for himself. Maybe he has friends in high places?
Throughout the UK there is a drive to install smart meters in everybody’s home. They are promoted as being progressive, convenient and good for the environment. By implication, this means that if you are against the installation of a smart meter in your home, then you are a Luddite, unintelligent and a threat to the world’s climate.
The old saying that ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’, needs to be borne in mind when looking into the issue of smart meters. The reason I say this is because the installation of smart meters does not cost the customers of utility companies a penny. Instead, they are told that this technological upgrade is being done for the benefit of the people, by government and corporate interests that only have our welfare at heart. Isn’t that nice of them? Where do I sign to claim my free lunch? Over the years, I have come to realise that the government cannot be trusted. Furthermore, not only can the government not be trusted, it cannot be trusted on anything. How I came to this realisation is a bit of a long story, so I won’t go into it here. However, if you feel differently and you are prepared to trust the government, then please give one of your fellow citizens a moment of your time to explain why I believe that your trust is misplaced. In fact, I can do it in the single sentence below. Smart meters have not been proven to be safe. Now, I admit that the above sentence might not be as subversive as you were expecting but bear with me. I could have said that smart meters are dangerous. That would have been a mistake because something that is dangerous can be safe if it is used in very specific and limiting ways that minimise the risk. For example, biological scientists work with dangerous diseases all of the time but they do so in specialist negative pressure buildings, incorporating a variety of safety measures and emergency procedures. In other words, it all depends on the context. So, let me expand the earlier sentence. Smart meters have not been proven to be safe in standard home environments. If the above statement is true, then why, you may ask, is the government promoting smart meters and encouraging people to have them installed? Well, in essence, it is because the government, multinational corporations and those in authority, simply do not care about the health of citizens. In fact, they are quite happy to experiment on the public, without their knowledge or consent and this has been proven time and time again, despite our government accepting the principles of the Nuremberg Code through their agreement to Article 7 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So, what is really going on? Firstly, there is a great deal of money to be made. Secondly, and more importantly, it enables the state to establish a communications network for mass surveillance and control of the population. Even if we do not live in a totalitarian fascist state quite yet, which is debatable, the infrastructure that such a state needs is being rapidly established and we are going along with it because we have been told to and because we do not question what we are told. One clear illustration of how the people are being misled is in the promotional material provided by the government. The government has its own smart meter website, which starts with a section about the benefits of smart meters but it is not until you get near to the end of the web page that safety concerns are addressed. And making health matters the government’s lowest priority is further reflected in the language that they use to describe the dangers that consumers face. Look at the sentence below for an example of the deceptive practices that they use. “Public Health England has advised that the evidence suggests that exposures to the radio waves produced by smart meters do not pose a risk to health.” Let’s break that down. Public Health England is an executive agency of the government’s Department of Health and Social Care. Its statement on smart meters starts by saying that it “has advised”, which simply means that it has an ‘opinion’ on smart meters. What is that opinion? Does it say that smart meters are safe? No. You cannot expect a straightforward statement like that from government. Instead, it has advised that “the evidence”, which we will have to accept has been rigorously collected and studied by suitably qualified scientists, “suggests”. Wait a minute, the evidence is too uncertain to be absolutely sure, so it ‘suggests’, which means that it leans towards a particular viewpoint. And the viewpoint it leans towards is “that exposures to the radio waves produced by smart meters”, the magnitude of which is not disclosed, “do not pose”, by which they mean ‘cause’, “a risk to health”, by which they mean ‘ill health’. Wow, talk about covering your bases. So, in summary, Public Health England has an opinion on smart meters, based upon an unspecified data set, which leans towards the viewpoint that they do not cause illness. Does that re-assure you? I would 'suggest' that Public Health England is being deliberately vague about the risks that people face because it knows something that you don’t. So, let’s follow their advice trail to see what other gems it produces. If you go to Public Health England’s specific health section on this subject (Smart meters: radio waves and health), the ambiguity over this issue just gets worst. So let’s look at some key quotes.
This is an extra-ordinary admission. Public Health England is not researching the safety of smart meters before they are rolled out; they are doing it as the roll-out is happening. This is an admission that the government is experimenting on the population and does not know enough to be able to state with confidence that smart meters are not detrimental to health. The question is, if the research eventually proves that smart meters are dangerous, how will the government put this right? I believe that there is already too much invested in the programme for anything in the short term to stop what is happening. If any early research does suggest dangers, the government will simply say that more research needs to be undertaken. In the long term, as Keynes once said, we are all dead. So what does it matter? Well, it matters if people want to live healthy lives that are not ended prematurely through the reckless actions of an uncontrolled and overly powerful telecommunications industry.
In other words, the government will not accept any claims from citizens that smart meters should not be installed on their property, or should be removed from their property, because of concerns about their safety.
This is plainly nonsense. Public Health England is an executive agency of the government’s Department of Health and Social Care. It is not independent of government; it is government. This is a sleight of hand by the state to fool people into believing that the advice to use smart meters is unbiased. Interestingly, Public Health England is also distancing itself from the decisions to use, what they admitted earlier, was not a fully tested technology. Why would they want to do that if they are so confident that smart meters are not harmful?
This statement says it all. Instead of their earlier statement that smart meters do not pose a risk for health, Public Health England now says that it “considers”, which means that it is not ‘sure’, that there “is no convincing evidence of harm”. Well, then how convincing does the evidence need to be and how much is needed, for Public Health England to change its opinion? Also, is this not an admission that there is already some evidence to the contrary of what Public Health England is advising?
It gets even better. Once again, we are talking about ‘convincing evidence’ but now we are told that there are guideline levels for radio wave exposure that should not be exceeded. Public Health England advises that smart meters do not pose a risk for health because there are assumptions about the level of exposure that people are likely to be subject to when using smart meters. How the guideline levels were derived is not explained but don’t worry because people using smart meters are not expected to have exposures that exceed those levels. Clearly, the implication here is that guideline levels have been set because there is believed to be a threshold, which if exceeded, is hazardous to health. That is worth bearing in mind because there is another agency that the government relies upon to convince the public not to be concerned. It is called the International Commission On Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICONIRP) and it states on its website that “The Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz) published in 1998 are now being revised and replaced step by step, as explained in the Statement on EMF guidelines (2009).” In other words, the existing guidelines about the levels of safe exposure to the frequencies that smart meters operate within are to be updated. And I have never known scientists to relax guidelines. They never say we were mistaken; people should drink more alcohol, eat more sugar and saturated fats and do less exercise. Guidelines tend to become more stringent and I expect this is what will happen in the case of radio wave exposure. If nothing else, it is an admission that the current guidelines are out of date and insufficient for underpinning government advice on the safety of smart meters. After the safety section on the Public Health England web page, there is another section called ‘Timeframes for installation’, where it says that “All homes and small business sites will be offered smart meters by their energy company between now and the end of 2020”. This is very important wording because the government knows that you do not need to accept the ‘offer’ to have a smart meter installed. They know this but they are not explicitly making it clear to the public. Once again, they are being deceitful and this can be confirmed by visiting Citizens Advice (Refusing a smart meter). The Public Health England web page then directs the reader to another site called Smart Energy GB, which also has a section about the safety of smart meters, near the lower part of its list of FAQs. And this is what Smart Energy GB says about health concerns: “The smart meters used in Britain have undergone one of the most rigorous safety testing regimes in the world and exceed every UK and EU safety standard.” Now, this is clearly false because we saw earlier where Public Health England admitted that it “has been carrying out an extensive programme of research to assess exposures from the devices as the technology is rolled out.” So, if Public Health England says that research into the health effects of smart meters is taking place as the roll out takes place, then how can Smart Energy GB say that smart meters have “undergone one of the most rigorous safety testing regimes in the world”? Both statements cannot be correct. The roll-out of smart meters in the UK is being run by the government’s business partner Capita, which was granted, by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, now called the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), a 12 year licence, with an estimated value of £175M, to run a company called the Data Communications Company (DCC), through which it would manage the data and communications service providers. A company called CGI IT UK Ltd, signed an 8 year contract with DCC, worth an estimated £75M, to develop and operate the smart meter messaging system. Arqiva Ltd signed a 15 year contract with DCC, worth an estimated £625M, to provide the smart meter communications network in the north of England and Scotland. Telefonica UK Ltd signed two 15 year contracts with DCC, worth an estimated £1.5B, as the service provider for the Midlands, East Anglia, Wales and the south of England. Overseeing all of this is a company called Gemserv Ltd, which signed a 4 year contract, worth an estimated £10M, to administer the Smart Energy Code. What I find odd about these contracts is that they are all for different timescales. DCC only has a 12 year licence and yet it is able to enter into contracts with Arqiva and Telefonica that run for 15 years. The government’s industrial partner is somehow subcontracting over timescales that go beyond its licence to operate. How is that possible? Whatever the answer is to that question, you can see that there is a lot of money in the smart meter business. The combined value of the above contracts is £2.385B. If you have not yet had a smart meter installed, then you can refuse to accept the ‘offer’ that is coming your way. If you do already have a smart meter but are concerned about the safety of these devices, you can ask for them to be switched to ‘dumb mode’, so that they do not transmit but I am not sure that I would trust the energy companies not to switch the smart meter back on again. Though, having said that, you can purchase an RF meter to detect whether the smart meter is still pulsing. The other option is to have the smart meter removed and replaced with an analogue meter. This is not a straight forward process but it can be done. Please see the article from This is Money. For an understanding of what is going on with the roll-out of smart meters, please watch the video below called The Smart Agenda by Mike Mitcham, who set up the website Stop Smart Meters, which is now part of the International EMF Alliance. There is a small issue with the sound at the beginning of the video but it only lasts a short time. The content is very informative and highly recommended. In Mike Mitcham’s presentation at Alternative View 5 (AV5), he references another video that is well worth seeing called Take Back Your Power. There is a very dark side to the history behind smart meter technology. Barrie Trower is a scientist who worked for the government in this area for many years and what he says is shocking. He is referenced in a BBC article about TETRA (TErrestrial Trunked RAdio), which is the communications system used by the emergency services and other government agencies. He is also referenced on the TETRAWATCH website, which raises concerns about the TETRA Airwave system. He therefore has credibility and when he calls the government 'liars', then given what I have already presented here on smart meters, I am inclined to believe him.
Year after year, decade after decade, the public that use the National Health Service (NHS) and the people that work in it, have witnessed a relentless decline in the provision of services and the general working conditions. The key questions are, why has this happened and why is it continuing to happen?
If all political parties support the NHS, as they claim, then its decline cannot be because of the effect of conflicting political ideologies. Instead, it appears to be due to wilful neglect. The powers that be seem to have conspired to reorganise the NHS in a way that is designed to demoralise the public and the medical profession, so that the only solution is the provision of healthcare by the private sector. The Health and Social Care Act 2012, is the method by which the NHS is being deliberately dismantled before our very eyes. If an organised crime cartel was running the country, instead of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition that pushed this legislation through, then you would have to wonder how they would have done it any differently. The details of the Act were never made available to the public during the 2010 election campaign and yet within two months of the coalition being formed, a white paper called Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, was put before parliament, with the assistance of management consultancy firm McKinsey and Company. This eventually led to the bill that officially set the privatisation of the NHS in motion. Despite claiming that they wanted to stop top down reorganisations of the NHS, the coalition established an Act of parliament that removed the obligation of the Secretary of State for Health, to be responsible for the health of citizens. That’s like having a Secretary of State for Defence who is no longer responsible for protecting citizens from outside threats; or a Secretary of State for Education who is not accountable for the provision of teaching and student attainment. How are you supposed to run a public healthcare system, if the person in charge is not responsible for the outcomes? Well, if the idea is to remove the word ‘public’, so that the market runs healthcare, then the Secretary of State for Health need only be responsible for the structures that allow that market to function. To stop that from continuing to be the case, there needs to be a campaign to bring the responsibility for healthcare back to the Secretary of State for Health. Anything less, ultimately means surrendering the NHS to a cartel of private healthcare companies, where naked capitalism will thrive and where the vulnerable will suffer. Please watch the video below, which neatly explains what has really been going on and why it needs to be stopped.
I remember the MMR controversy in the UK when, back in 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a research paper in The Lancet that suggested a possible link between the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and the diagnosis of autism. The problem seemed to be related to having all three vaccines administered together though a single injection. Significantly, the paper did not claim to have proven a causal relationship between MMR and autism but at the subsequent press conference, Dr Wakefield advised caution and suggested that use of the MMR vaccine should be suspended until more research could be done.
Due to the publicity surrounding the news story, parents became reluctant to let their children have the MMR vaccine. However, parents were not against the idea of vaccination itself; they just wanted a safer alternative and therefore pushed for three separate injections over a longer period of time. This seemed to me to be a good solution but I remember being shocked when the government refused to make this option available. Their argument was that parents would be less likely to bring their children to a clinic for all three injections, meaning that the children would be more at risk. This was a completely nonsensical argument because the reason why parents sought three separate injections was precisely because of their concern for their children and not because they were feckless and unlikely to go through with the treatment. As a result, MMR vaccination rates dropped and Dr Andrew Wakefield was blamed for the increased infection rates that followed. After this, Dr Andrew Wakefield was discredited and struck off as a doctor by the British General Medical Council (GMC) but the controversy over the MMR vaccine has continued. Since then, Andrew Wakefield has been involved in the production of a film about autism called Vaxxed. It is a film that proves that Andrew Wakefield’s research should have been taken more seriously because following the original controversy, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States, was tasked with conducting its own research into the matter. Years later, when the CDC published its results, it declared to have scientifically proved that there was no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. That would have been the end of the matter had a CDC insider and whistle blower not come forward to claim that the CDC had committed fraud by deliberately ‘adjusting’ their results to take away a link that had been discovered. You would think then, that the mainstream media would be all over this story because the consequence for the health of children is massive. Yet, few people know that this even happened. The minimal coverage that the main stream media gave to the Vaxxed film was primarily focussed on re-asserting that Andrew Wakefield cannot be trusted, that medical scientists know best and that anyone who doubts them must be stupid. When you watch the film there are certain things that stand out, which in my case, convinces me that we are not being told the truth. They are as follows:
The sky rocketing rates of autism suggest that there is an urgent need to get to the bottom of what is happening. Science is not always black and white because there are assumptions that underlie medical research and its subsequent findings and conclusions. These need to be heavily scrutinised and if it means challenging established views, then that is what is necessary to resolve the issue. It is also worth noting that there is a great deal of money in the pharmaceutical industry and we cannot rule out the possibility that financial interests may have impacted outcomes in a way that is detrimental to the public interest. The Vaxxed film below is a version that includes Spanish subtitles (the video that I originally used included French subtitles but has since been taken down, which may be an indication of how controversial this subject is) but it is still worth watching and you can then come to your own conclusions on this subject. At the end of the film, there are 4 recommendations and you have to ask yourself why none of them have been implemented.
According to Brian Gerrish, an Ex Royal Navy Warfare Officer and now an editor for the UK Column, there is a charitable organisation called Common Purpose, which has infiltrated almost every aspect of UK society. Mr Gerrish claims that Common Purpose has been operating for many years to undermine the UK’s key institutions, by offering management training that seeks to re-frame the attendees of its courses. Apparently, this is achieved by using Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) to change the way people interpret information about their role in society and how they can affect its future.
According to Mr Gerrish, Common Purpose is a pro-EU charity with links to the Marxist organisation Demos. He says that its intentions are to subvert UK institutions, so that the economy and wider aspects of UK society are destabilised. If you look at how the UK has been transformed from a world power to little better than a third world country since joining the EEC, then Mr Gerrish may have a point. It would explain why politicians no longer represent their constituents, why common law is being usurped and why the police, the health service, the armed forces, education and transportation are barely able to function. It is as if the UK has been eroded from within. What is suspicious about Common Purpose is the amount of money that it receives from public bodies to place managers on its courses. According to the BBC article below, the Department for Work and Pensions spent over £¼M on such courses between 2002 and 2007 and the DWP is only one of many taxpayer funded organisations to do so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7929210.stm Another thing that is suspicious about this so called charity is the secrecy that surrounds its activities, as it prefers to operate according to Chatham House rules. There is something very unsettling about Common Purpose and what it is doing to the UK. Below is an interesting interview with Mr Gerrish, where he explains what he knows about the organisation and how he learnt about it. The interview is a few years old but it is still very much worth seeing.
According to the medical profession, there are only 3 legitimate treatments for cancer:
The problem here is the influence of big business in the running of the medical profession, which imposes restrictive practices that stifle innovation in the healthcare sector. This means that the losers are the patients who are denied viable treatments. Clearly, the public needs to be protected from people offering false hope but that is very different from refusing to test and authorise the use of substances where there is evidence that they work in curing cancer. The pharmaceutical industry cannot patent natural products and therefore has no interest in testing and approving them for use. However, without the stamp of approval from the medical profession, such treatments are just labelled ‘quackery’ and well-meaning people are put out of business and denied a licence to practise. This happens even when the medical profession has tried to treat people and failed. Despite not being able to help the patient, the medical profession seems to prefer that the patient should die, rather than be treated by a promising alternative therapy. The influence of big business on the medical profession is so strong that it skews the judgement of doctors and leads to unnecessary suffering. There is more money to be made in treating cancer than there is in actually curing it. So, it is better to maintain things as they are, rather than make genuine innovations that will help people to get better. Below is a documentary that looks at this subject in detail. It discusses alternatives that have been shown to cure cancer, which include vitamin B17, shark cartilage, mistletoe and bicarbonate of soda. I highly recommend it. Also, do not suppose that the suppression of cancer cures is just something that happened in the past. It is still happening today. Please look at the presentation below about a treatment called GcMAF. It should be noted that alternative therapies are not guaranteed to work any more than traditional treatments by conventional medicine. However, by ruling out complimentary approaches, people are being denied opportunities for healing that may be viable in their case. Alternative treatments also have less damaging side effects and people should have the right to choose which approach they would prefer to undertake. Below is another very good documentary that deals with both sides of the issue. It explains that when Ronald Reagan had cancer in the 1980s, he received a non-conventional treatment that proved to be effective for him. However, this documentary also provides examples where alternative therapies were not successful. Until recently, I had never heard of a company called Idox and I suspect that few British people have heard of it either. Yet, it should be known by everyone. The reason that it is not well known is because much of our media is no longer independent and does not hold the government to account.
Idox is a private company whose primary aim is to serves its customers. So, why is it now involved in UK elections, when elections are about constituents and not customers? That is the question that the mainstream media should be asking but don’t hold your breath. In terms of UK elections, the Idox customer is the UK State and if that does not represent a massive conflict of interest, then I do not know what does? The earliest time that I know about, where Idox had an involvement in a UK election, was back in 2012, when it was used in Scotland to provide 'count software' and to 'manage postal votes'. One of Idox’s senior non-executive directors is former Tory MP Peter Lilley (please see the link below to an article from the ‘The Herald’). His connection to the company has generated concerns that have been raised with the Electoral Commission. However, Peter Lilley’s involvement misses the point, which is why Idox or any other private company is allowed to participate in any UK elections in the first place? http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14478267.Concerns_raised_over_senior_Tory_MP_link_to_election_count_firm/ When there were elections in the past, council workers would count the votes. Now, it seems that councils struggle with the availability of staff, which is why Idox says that its services are needed. But how did this happen? Why are council workers no longer available to provide manual counts? What has brought this series of events about and who thought that utilising private companies was a good solution? If you speak to a computer expert, they will tell you that if a computer is connected to the internet, it can never be secure. Forget passwords, firewalls, encryption and the like, if a computer is connected to the internet, it is vulnerable and therefore so is its data. However, Idox will try to convince you otherwise, even though it has already been found to have compromised data that should never have been released. Please see the article below (another from ‘The Herald’), which explains that a data leak took place because of a problem with an Idox platform that was used to host electoral roll data. It also points out that the largest shareholder in Idox is a company called Liontrust Asset Management, which is run by Sir John Beckwith, who also happens to be one of the largest donors to the Tory party. http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/15299358.IT_firm_handling_Scottish_elections_leaked_data/ How can Idox be trusted with the UK’s electoral process when the problem highlighted above was not an isolated example? Please see the article below from the Daily Mail. It explains how in 2014, an Idox ‘software error’ led to the leak of millions of names and addresses on the electoral role. Furthermore, this ‘error’ affected 90 councils around England and Wales (approximately 25% of the total for both countries combined). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623853/Electoral-roll-data-leaked-Millions-names-addresses-illegally-sold-junk-mail-firm.html Below is a link to a promotional video by Idox, where Glasgow City Council recommends its services. Why a city council is being used to endorse a private company in this way, I do not know. However, I have only been able to provide a link to the video because the video owner will not allow it to be embedded into websites that it does not control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-7ybYfSjZw While I do not want to criticise the staff in the video, who probably believe what they are saying, I strongly disagree with the statements made. In particular, I do not see the need for electronically counting votes. The old system of using council workers to count votes worked perfectly well before and while it is not as fast as a computer, it is far less open to corruption than computer systems run by private interests. Finally, it is worth noting that Idox was used to count the EU referendum votes in Scotland. It must be a coincidence then that there were less votes for Leave north of the border than there were in the south.
If Theresa May and the Conservative government is really pursuing the Brexit that the British people voted for, then why does Theresa May keep talking of establishing deeper and closer ties between the UK and the EU? Why does she keep talking about a more intimate partnership, when the UK voted to end its toxic relationship with EU through a permanent divorce?
A consequence of Theresa May’s actions is to place Britain’s sovereignty in jeopardy. This is because Britain’s defence forces are being amalgamated with those of other European countries. Defence union is progressing at pace and if it is allowed to continue, then Britain will no longer be an independent nation and foreign forces will operate within the British isles. This needs to be stopped and people need to know what it happening so that it can be opposed. The following video explains much of what is happening. Please share it with UK forces veterans or any one who has the power to bring this to the attention of the British public. |
AuthorA citizen journalist. Archives
October 2018
Categories
All
|