In Let's Go to the Movies, I will review VAXXED II—the sequel to VAXXED. After flying from city to city for VAXXED screenings, producer Polly Tommey bought the team a bus. Polly and the team traveled across the U.S., filming thousands of doctors, parents, and children telling their stories of vaccine injury, chronic disease, and death. Overwhelmed by the harm and intimate destruction—well beyond what even the VAXXED team had initially realized—they decided to film parents of vaccine-free children, including families with a vaccine-injured eldest child whose death, disabilities, or trauma had inspired the family to successfully protect their younger children. Given the estimated U.S. childhood chronic disease rate of at least 54%—and rising—it is inspiring to see so many healthy children.
Even those of us who understand the extraordinary damage resulting from vaccines will be amazed at the extent to which the U.S. media and government have been able to bully people and organizations and cover up what is really happening. This is an astonishing documentary not just about vaccines and health but about the tragic human cost of not turning off the corporate media and seeking legitimate sources of intelligence. Please do not miss it!
Subscribers can e-mail or post questions and story suggestions for Money & Markets for this week here.
Related Reading:
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf
Related Solari Reports:
The Many Faces of Secrecy with Amy Benjamin
Sneaky Treaties: Globalists and the Corruption of International Law with Amy Benjamin
I think some binaries are significant rather than being thrown up as a false dichotomy, and some stands are important to make. In this case I am firmly anti-vax and believe that this stand is so important on several levels, not least because of the absence of freedom of choice in this matter. The implications of this absence are much broader and more ominous, in my view, than the debate (if you can call it that) over what constitutes and protects human health.
I agree. I have become convinced that the new digital currency system will depend on nanotechnology that lodges in the brain for brain machine interface. The implications include the end of humanity.
One of the quotes I am using in the State of the Currency
“We are focusing on a novel approach for integrating electronics within the brain and other areas of the nervous system, which involves non-invasive syringe delivery of neural network-like mesh electronics into targeted distinct brain regions.” ~ Lieber Research Group, run by Dr. Charles Lieber, Harvard professor and leader in brain machine interface arrested by the Department of Justice in the early weeks of the corona virus “epidemic” https://cml.harvard.edu
Yesterday at work, someone brought up the use of colloidal silver as a treatment for COVID-19. The reaction was surprising. Not only had everyone else heard about it, everyone “knew” it was dangerous. One rather intelligent coworker with almost religious conviction explained that it is not only quackery but a dangerous carcinogen. She then emailed links to everybody, including a list of ways that it is dangerous, all of them, however, qualified with “could” and “might”. There has also been an effort in the EU to restrict its use as an alternative medicine. I can’t imagine this type of reaction for any other alternative therapy that isn’t obviously dangerous. Could colloidal silver interfere with these nano technologies in the brain? Is silver conductive as a colloid? Is there a concerted effort to prevent people from using it because of potential interference? I know very little about the subject and these are honest questions.
Douglas:
Good question – I will address in Money & Markets this evening.
Catherine
I don’t think the conversation should be framed as “pro-” or “anti-” vaccination. I think it should center around the non-adulteration of medicines, whether inoculations or other therapies. I think each of the sides in the false binary would agree that wholesome pharmaceuticals are a boon to mankind, however it is their use as vectors for unexpected and damaging additives that is troubling. Other than that, informed decisions or religious prohibitions should be sufficient to assert one’s willingness for his own treatment or that of minors in his care. That would be liberty.
PS, I consider it a rhetorical blunder to recommend the quality of one’s argument by the skin color of those who support it.
Excellent point. Non-adulteration of medicines, however, is not sufficient. We need the supply chain to have integrity – regulation too. One of the reasons I avoid pharmaceuticals is that my experience indicates a fundamental break down in integrity. If we had non-adulteration, product and process integrity and informed decisions AND religious exemptions, we would be fine.
What did I miss? Don’t understand “PS, I consider it a rhetorical blunder to recommend the quality of one’s argument by the skin color of those who support it.”
A. The integrity and regulation of the supply chain are inseparable from the non-adulteration of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals, so let’s aim for this agreeable outcome.
B. Ms. Benjamin, unbidden, informs us that The Black Caucus or some similar formulation is “way ahead” on the vaccination matter. As is the case with the 97% of scientists who agree that “fossil-fueled” climate change is real, popularity don’t enter into it!
Not true; I said no such thing. If you insist I did, please quote verbatim.
Amy,
I owe you an apology for misidentifying you as the speaker of the words. You see, I catch up on my Catherine while driving (or walking, weather-permitting) and then it’s one after another of recorded interviews, where of course I am not taking notes. Indeed it was Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, who was speaking on very similar topics to yours (including the Nuremberg Principles) and she noted at 38:50 or so in her discourse (Solari Interview 20200224) that it was the African American Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature who stood against the party leadership in declaiming the abject segregation of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated students by proposing to bar the latter from school. It took me 80 minutes or so of re-listening to both interviews from around where I recalled the statements being made, and I am grateful to know I wasn’t hallucinating for many miles of I-71.
I later went back and incorrectly picked out your interview to comment on and now find myself a bit red-faced, but at least vindicated in terms of hearing what I thought I did. It certainly is not a knock on the caucus for getting it right; my argument is that what is right IS RIGHT, irrespective of who thinks so.
Finally, Amy, you may yourself be gratified to know that I have in recent months explicitly recommended to Catherine that she interview you, and I am sure she can vouch for that claim.
Our editor is working with the transcript now. Here is the comment you are referring to.
“What was very interesting in New Jersey, Catherine, was that the democratic legislators who voted against the bill – the Democrats with a few exceptions – were African-American. What we are seeing now is that African-American legislators have a better understanding of this than the mainstream or Caucasian legislators. The African-Americans understand that if you are going to start throwing children out of school and segregating them on this basis, where is that going to stop? And isn’t this the same rhetoric that they used against Jews and against African-Americans? “They are dirty, they are diseased, they are vermin,” and we see all of that stigmatization going on. I was with a mom the other day whose children have been thrown out of a religious school – a Catholic school. The school administrators are saying that they would have to fumigate the school if she were to come to school. They are really treating these people as if they are walking disease-spreaders, which is so ironic. In truth, the unvaccinated are the healthiest among us. They have fully intact immune systems that work the way our Creator made them”.
The African American legislator who led the effort in New Jersey is a real hero – great courage to do that in a state with deep state and deep pharma base – and lots of local organized crime to implement reprisals for them. In my experience the African-American community has a lot of “real deal” health information – and is not as bought into the main stream narrative in many (not all) cases as the Caucasian groups. Problem is that as a cohort they and many of their politicians are bought off – and they sell out for surprisingly cheap – often leaving Caucasians like me holding the bag.
It is a complex phenomenon. My take away from what happened in NJ Was to check out the legislators who did this – signed up for the guys twitter feed. He is a hero. Still not quite sure why you got so upset. I should note that I have heard and see people say things like “They are dirty, they are diseased, they are vermin,” about African Americans.” The only time I have ever heard it applied to Jews are groups that raise money claiming these things happen claiming that it is used against them. See the documentary Defamation – great coverage of this issue.
I would characterize my reaction as annoyed rather than upset, and I have taken responsibility for mistaking the forum of my statements.
My initial point is that adulterated drugs, more so than their coerced use, is the issue. We pay an FDA to assure the wholesomeness and efficacy of our pharmaceuticals, most of which are voluntary, but any of which are potentially suffused with contaminants that may potentially harm, kill or cause psychological or physiological damage or dependence.
Meanwhile, resistance to the coercion associated with vaccines is not peculiar wisdom of a particular color of people. All people want or should want liberty. And in any case, as the current coronavirus hysteria richly illustrates, a reliably honest government would work wonders to allay fears of further deception and unexpected risks being latent in the fog of war that abounds.
” I think each of the sides in the false binary would agree that wholesome pharmaceuticals are a boon to mankind…”
I don’t agree. Current pharmaceuticals are by and large damaging since they are typically designed to interrupt pathways in biochemistry, and also damage the liver since they are poisons. They are akin to shooting a fly with a bazooka in your house.
“informed decisions or religious prohibitions should be sufficient to assert one’s willingness for his own treatment or that of minors in his care”
Yes, informed consent and religious (or other, such as medical) exemptions would be liberty, but they are LOOOONG gone.
Key words you may have overlooked “wholesome pharmaceuticals are a boon to mankind.” Saying they haven’t is a lot like saying the use of oil as a fuel has been nothing but a negative influence on human development.
My grandfather introduced antibiotics to Tennessee when he returned from a residency at the Mayo Clinic. They have saved my life on more than one occasion. I know what you mean.
?
My vote is we refuse to let them go. The poisoning with current pharmaceuticals is indeed out of control. I still believe that drugs can do much good. If you ever had surgery, nothing like a pain killer for the first 24-48 hours. Hate to be without it.
Thank you Catherine & Amy! Can’t Wait.
No worries, John, and no apology needed. I just wanted to correct the record….
Thank you, Amy. I believe we are in harmony. Indeed this morning, my wife and I recalled the absolutely extraordinary coverage of chemtrails we observed this past Sunday on our return drive, in light of your comments on them and the outbreak of panic-driven media since then. I share the ambivalence of whether they are of beneficial or sinister purpose, but have not the slightest doubt that they are deliberate and unnatural.