Smart Grid Exposed – Take Back Your Power – Documentary by Josh del Sol

CLICK PHOTO ABOVE FOR LINK TO FILM

What do we really know about Smart Meters, other than the usual propaganda about how “they are good for us”,  “they will save us money”, “they are safe”? Let’s find out, are Smart Meters really so “smart” (or safe, or cost effective)?

Apparently, not for the consumer, but they are extremely smart for the power companies that are using them to hike up people’s bills, then shut off their power until they agree to pay the increased costs. And, indirectly, for the medical profession and mortuaries that profit from the illness and death that overexposure to EMR/EMF/RF radiation causes, and for the contractors that get hired to rebuild someone’s home after the fire damage caused by so called “Smart Meters” that were improperly installed by under-trained technicians. And, maybe even for lawyers hired to represent victims of forced Smart Meter installation.  But, for us (the consumer), not so much.

I had the opportunity to speak with Josh del Sol about his new documentary, Take Back Your Power: Investigating The “Smart” Grid. Prior to watching his amazing documentary, I didn’t know anything about Smart Meters, they haven’t been installed in my region… (yet). I honestly did not have a clue about the serious risks associated with “Smart Meters” until a friend of mine sent me the link to Josh’s documentary and recommended that I contact him, and I’m so glad she did, thank you, Christine! This is a serious issue that everyone needs to get educated about and involved in.

Introducing Josh del Sol

Josh del Sol is the director and producer of Take Back Your Power: Investigating the “Smart” Grid, his first feature-length film.  Take Back Your Power has in 2014 been named winner of the AwareGuide Transformational Film of the Year, the Indie Fest Annual Humanitarian Award, and Leo Award for Best Feature Documentary (British Columbia).

Born and raised near Vancouver BC, Josh is passionate about the growing movement of social awakening, and has a vision for a more equitable social structure with decentralized energy production and technology which harmonizes with biological life and rights.  Josh finds inspiration in those of courage who speak truth to power, from a place of non-violence and vision, laying the foundation for necessary solutions.  His hobbies include hiking, research, travel and meditation.  He lives in Washington State with his wife and daughter.  Josh can be reached through his contact us page.

Q & A with Josh del Sol

Rebel Siren: It’s great meeting you, Josh, may I ask what initially inspired your documentary “Take Back Your Power”?

Josh del Sol: In the summer of 2011, I started hearing reports about all the problems associated with the Californian “smart” meter installation program. I thought,  ‘Why isn´t this issue being talked about?’  As I dug into the facts and begun to interview experts, it became evident that this is an example of greenwashing to the max.  Utilities and governments are using people’s good intentions to save energy and to be ecologically responsible, and creating a twisted agenda that does not save energy but causes the people harm.  So, I called a cameraman friend and we just started interviewing people who are affected by the radiation, which is actually 1,000x to 10,000 times stronger maximum levels than an active cell phone.  We then got into interviewing experts on hacking, and gathering footage from experts on constitutional and privacy issues.

Rebel Siren: What is the next step in the “Take Back Your Power” movement?

Josh del Sol: The next phase of our movement is to help people easily remove their consent to “smart” meters, and enforce accountability for those that are causing harm by deployment of “smart” meter programs.  To participate, subscribe for free at www.takebackyourpower.net and you’ll receive updates and a notification of solutions when available.  This will be for everyone, whether or not there is a so-named ‘smart’ meter on their home or not.

Rebel Siren: How do you feel about other issues affecting our global civilization such as GMOs, vaccines, weather/climate modification, fracking, etc.?

Josh del Sol: It’s obvious that there are many examples of the corporate-government establishment negatively affecting humanity.  It’s time that these programs need to be reined in, so that our species can continue.  This is becoming blatant even to many within this establishment.  Most who are serving the various negative agendas are not bad people; they’ve just been roped in, indoctrinated and are getting a paycheck.  But people are waking up.

Rebel Siren: Have you had a problem with disinfo-attacks by social media shills that are hired to suppress awareness and prevent public outcry about hazardous profit-over-people programs harming humanity such as the Smart Grid?

Josh del Sol: This doesn’t concern me so much.  When you’re bringing truth forward, there will always be those who don’t like it, because they’ve been making (or will make) incredible profits from people not knowing the facts about what they are doing.  It’s normal that in an information battle, propagandists will be hired.  The important thing is that true facts are provided — even if they are inconvenient.  Truth has a quality that over time, people can feel.  We may get sucked in for a while, but as long as there are those who are willing to speak the truth, there is a way back for us all.  Even for the propagandists, who are at a place where they haven’t yet understood that their lies are also harming themselves.

Rebel Siren: What steps should people take to find out about, prevent and/or get rid of Smart Meters in their area?

Josh del Sol: 1) Watch Take Back Your Power and get informed (stream it or buy the DVD at www.takebackyourpower.net).  2) Remove your consent and enforce liability — in writing.  (Subscribe at www.takebackyourpower.net and you’ll receive updates and a notification of solutions when available.)  3) Email, facebook, tweet, embed the film and/or blog about it online.  4) As you get the word out, create an action group, where you live: www.takebackyourpower.net/directory/  5) Host a screening: www.takebackyourpower.net/screenings/host   6) Request a broadcast on your local TV station: www.takebackyourpower.net/screenings/request-broadcast-permission/

Thank you, Josh! 

~Rebel Siren

More information about Josh del sol and his amazing mission to help rid our world of dangerous Smart Meters can be found here: www.takebackyourpower.net/about

Take Back Your Power: Investigating The “Smart” Grid

Take Back Your Power – YouTube

Take Back Your Power – Facebook

Additional References

Click Photo for stopsmartmeters.org

Stop Smart Meters! (UK)

Health Risks » Texans Against Smart Meters

Stop Smart Meters – California

Stop OC Smart Meters

Resources on radiation: wireless, EMR, RFT, and ionizing

International EMF Alliance – News

Stop Smart Meters! Woodstock NY

Smart Meter Dangers: The Health Hazards of Wireless

Smart Meters – Boulder Colorado Community Network

SmartMetersMurder

Stop Smart Meters Australia

Smart & Radiating meters – No Radiation (ELF/RF EMF/EMR

PG&E Begins Removing ‘Smart’ Meters Due to Health Effects

I encourage everyone to watch Josh’s documentary, Take Back Your Power, click the links, do the research, and say NO to Smart Meters.

Be sure to like my facebook page for updated posts: ~Rebel Siren and love humanity

Alzheimer’s Association Forgets – History Doomed To Repeat Itself

 

Alzheimer’s Disease Now Fastest-Growing Threat To U.S. Health, Report Finds

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/alzheimers-health-united-states-america-threat_n_2820887.html

Can Aluminum Cause Alzheimer’s Disease? by Melvyn R. Werbach, M.D.

“Studies have discovered a direct association between the level of aluminum in municipal drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia.” Source:  http://www.laleva.cc/environment/aluminium_alzheimer2.html

Scientific Studies Concluding The Connection Of Aluminum To Alzheimer’s

Functional and morphological changes in cultured neurons of rat cerebral cortex induced by long-term application of aluminum –

“Aluminum is an environmental neurotoxin and a suspected risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. The neurotoxicity of aluminum on cultured neurons of rat cerebral cortex was investigated using an assay system for synapse formation and immunohistochemistry. The frequency of spontaneous oscillations of intracellular Ca²⁺, which is correlated to the number of synapses, was decreased after exposure to 100 μM of aluminum chloride for 22 days. Long-term application of aluminum (48 days) caused aggregation of cell bodies and fasciculation of processes. Processes and cell bodies were strongly stained by antibody to tau protein, which is one of the main components of Alzheimer’s neurofibrillary tangles. It is suggested that the characteristics of the degeneration of cultured neurons induced by aluminum show some similarities to the pathology observed in brains with Alzheimer’s disease.” Source:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006291X92902179

Elevated brain aluminium and early onset Alzheimer’s disease in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium: a case report:

By Chris Exley, Biologist (University of Stirling) with a PhD in the ecotoxicology of aluminium

Click Photo for Dr. Exley’s Biography at Keele University, School of Life Sciences, Staffordshire, UK

Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
Honorary Professor, UHI Millennium Institute

“Introduction: Aluminium is a known neurotoxin and occupational exposure to aluminium has been implicated in neurological disease including Alzheimer’s disease. Here we present the first comprehensive and unequivocal data demonstrating significantly elevated brain aluminium content in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium.” Source: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/pdf/1752-1947-8-41.pdf

Connecting The Dots

Below is a detailed and referenced article, Making Sense of Science – Aluminum, originally published July 2, 2014 by The Liberty Beacon, helping connect the dots, exposing corporate media lies (disinformation / propaganda) and its resulting status quo “denial” (via the bidding of corporate profiteers), that has gone on throughout history to this day, at the expense of our collective health and global environment.

Making Sense of Science – Aluminum

 Published July 2, 2014, filed under HEALTH

By TLB Contributor: Anna Rodgers

On 10 May, a full page article was featured in the Sun Newspaper, on page 6 about my forthcoming book, Toxic World Toxic People – The Essential Guide To Health, Happiness, Parenting and Conscious Living. Journalist Helen Gilbert pulled facts from it to write her article.

Helen had written about 4 dangerous common toxins in her article titled ‘Whats Your Poision’. – She focused on lead, mercury, cadmium, aluminium (known as aluminum in the USA) that are all around us – not only in the environment but which are now found in some of the foods we eat, the medicines we take, the products we put on our skin and what we build our homes and other structures with. Even many infant formulas contain concerning levels of multiple toxic chemicals, including aluminum. I have written about these 4, fairly extensively in one of the chapters in my book. Helen pulled some facts from that chapter.

By Tuesday afternoon, I had discovered that one of the UK’s largest Science websites “Sense About Science” had completely discredited the article. They wrote a counter article called ‘Tackling Misconceptions About Toxins’

Judging by some pretty major events throughout history, mainstream Science doesn’t always seem to want the public knowing about certain dangerous chemicals because usually they were the organisations that said they were safe from the start, only to be proven otherwise years later.

Does anyone remember the huge lies we were told about smoking, DDT, Lead, Thalidomide, Vioxx to name just a small few? All of these were promoted as safe, healthy, and good for us by these sorts of ‘science’ organisations.

Now we all know the real truth.

These were not just a little lie but were in fact big big lies, with billions upon billions of pounds being made by many corporations. But more important than that, think about all the people that were harmed because of these lies, the lack of proper testing, and how they were marketed to the public. Deaths, disease and cancers were caused directly because of these lies. And it could actually be in the millions. In all of these cases, studies were falsified, people were paid off to keep quiet or paid to tell lies so that they could continue to sell their product. It wasn’t an easy task to get them to take responsibility for the harm they caused. And in each of these instances, Doctors and Scientists were speaking on behalf of these companies for their medicines, pesticides and cigarettes saying to the public ‘you can trust us we are experts’

Yet look at what we now know. They lied.

Most of you reading this will know that we are now living in a world where our authorities are being bought more than ever before, to do what powerful companies want them to do. Congressmen are being bought to vote on things that interest companies, our Governments tell lies constantly and don’t ever seem to do what they promise and pharmaceutical companies are being sued for fraud and misconduct left right and center. This is pretty much a fact. And its not on a small scale – its rampant abuse.

To those who are aware of this, nowadays when mainstream science ridicule something, it usually is because they are trying to squash the truth from being brought to light to the majority of the public. They try desperately to pull the wool over the eyes of the people by using the same old routine ‘trust me, I’m a expert’

In these situations, I often remind myself of this very famous quote:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

Yep. Damn straight. The concerns about DDT, Lead, Smoking, Vioxx and Thalidomide were all at first ridiculed, violently opposed, but now, are self evident.

Sence About Science pulled apart Helen’s article saying that every statement I had made, was not true and that I was alarming the public.

But little do they realise that how they wrote their article (see the very badly written PDF, see here) was an absolute joke and I can show you why. There are so many holes in what they have written that its almost laughable.

Its immediate to see, that they basically want the public to believe that natural chemicals are far more dangerous than manmade ones, and that no disease or cancer is ever caused to anyone by being exposed to chemicals! Whilst it’s true, some natural chemicals can harm in certain amounts or in those that are sensitive to them, but most of them do not as they don’t have the chemical compositions that synthetic chemicals do. And a good point to make about chemicals in general is, how do we know that some individuals won’t be sensitive to them or worse, seriously harmed by them? Something that is not harmful to one person may in fact be very harmful to someone else! If you have a system in your body that is already suffering from something else, for instance your endocrine system (hormones) aren’t perhaps working efficiently, then a chemical that is proven to harm the endocrine system may very likely make you worse!

It is therefore highly likely that synthetic chemicals are causing cancers (and in this case, causing Alzheimer’s) because we know in the studies that have been done on some of the concerning chemicals that this is where the evidence is pointing! Many man made chemicals are known carcinogens! That is a fact. Yet what is more worrying is that some of the chemicals these organisations support, and say are safe, have been put onto the market before being effectively tested for safety over the long term, or if they are safe when mixed with other chemicals!

So these science bodies are making statements that have not been proven at all to be true in the first place!

They do not know that their chemicals DO NOT CAUSE harm. The statements they make to the public are not based on real facts. They twist words around very cleverly and are relying on gullible people coming to their site who think that what they say is always 100% scientifically and ethically correct. Often these sorts of science websites mix truth in amongst their lies, so that the average person won’t be able to read into the real lies!

They said I am alarming the public with my information but that is GOOD, I want people to be alarmed, we are facing an epidemic with toxicity, like never before seen in the world.

Now, onto the topic of this blog post.

Does Aluminum exposure cause Alzheimer’s?

Well, what is Aluminum?

Aluminum is a natural metal that is found in the earth’s crust. Its now around us in ways we can’t quite even comprehend. Its basically everywhere. Now the science community like to say this that it is indeed everywhere too, but they forget that it wasn’t as prevalent as this 100 years ago! It was always in the soil and some was found in the air, but now its also found in our foods, cosmetics, medicines, and homes.

Many power plants and other industries put loads of aluminium particles into the air. And whilst we do ingest a lot of it through what we eat, we now are also having aluminum added to many everyday items! This is where the problem lies, that its not just found naturally its being added on purpose to cosmetics, food and medicines. Some are saying there’s now also huge levels of extra aluminum in the air, due to ‘GEO–ENGINEERING’.

Most of the public simply do not know this stuff!

When something is found around us so much, its only natural our bodies will also then contain these metals and chemicals. Whilst some levels of course is normal, increased levels is not always safe for an individual, and many studies are showing this to be very true. As you will soon discover, studies have been done on deceased Alzheimer brains and high levels of aluminum have been found in their tissues.

When you understand that aluminum is a proven neurotoxin (which even the scientists don’t deny) and that its found in so many aspects of our lives, then you can perhaps understand that there comes a point when a high level of aluminum becomes a problem (for some people) because the brain just can’t handle anymore of it. Its like slowly drinking alcohol, you might not feel the effects at first, but the more you have, the more likely you are going to behave strangely and eventually feel unwell.

Whilst our body can naturally detox things to a degree, we are not like bottomless garbage bins that can handle having chemicals piled into us. There comes a time when its too much. And many people now have bodies that are already struggling to cope with the amount of chemicals in their bodies.

Lets look at what Sense about Science said in relation to aluminium contributing to causing Alzheimer’s.

Alzheimer’s Society says:

“There is no evidence that aluminium causes Alzheimer’s disease. Aluminium is found in protein build-ups associated with Alzheimer’s disease, but that doesn’t mean that this is due to too much aluminium being present in the body – the same is true of other metals.”

I love how they made such a sweeping and ‘final’ statement to really throw people off the scent. ‘The same is true of other metals’. Oh really. Have you studied all the other metals in relation to Alzheimer’s then and have you studied the effects other chemicals have with several other ones, or what about the thousands of others we have in our environment and therefore in our bodies?

Lets now exam what the ‘other side of science’ is saying about whether or not Alzheimer’s is being contributed to by Aluminum.

A study published on the highly esteemed peer reviewed medical journal site, pub med stated in the abstract of a study by Professor Chris Exley (who by the way seems to be doing a lot of research into the effects aluminum and other metals are having in regards to causing Alzheimer’s and other health problems – so he’s one to pay attention to i’d say – click on his name to read his further studies!):

Aluminium is neurotoxic. Its free ion, Al3+ (aq), is highly biologically reactive and uniquely equipped to do damage to essential cellular (neuronal) biochemistry. This unequivocal fact must be the starting point in examining the risk posed by aluminium as a neurotoxin in humans. Aluminium is present in the human brain and it accumulates with age. The most recent research demonstrates that a significant proportion of individuals older than 70 years of age have a potentially pathological accumulation of aluminium somewhere in their brain. What are the symptoms of chronic aluminiumintoxication in humans? What if neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease are the manifestation of the risk of aluminium as a neurotoxin? How might such an (outrageous) hypothesis be tested? You can see the link for this study here:

And its also very interesting to note that when you type the following keywords Aluminum Alzheimer’s into pub med, 988 studies come up! Of course not all are going to support the hypothesis that Aluminum can cause Alzheimer’s but if you have the time, check out how many actually do! Looks like there’s a lot of concerned people (Scientists!) with some compelling proof, right? And, from what I have been reading their have been scientists that have been very concerned about Aluminium for the last 100 years!

Now it’s also worth saying, am I the only person in the world saying that aluminium could be causing alzheimer’s? No, of course not! Could it be that I have read books, and studies on the same subject matter, and that I also listened to Doctors and Scientists speak out about this very valid health concern in the world today? Yes! Am I lone horse, saying something that no one else knows? Of course not. The numbers on ‘this side’ are increasing every day. And its purely because of Science! The medical studies that have proven certain things in relation to chemicals to be true!

In an article appearing in the Townsend Letter for Doctors (November 1993), Dr. Michael A. Weiner, executive director of the Alzheimer’s Research Institute summarized our present understanding of the dangers of aluminum exposure when he stated:

“aluminum has been known as a neurotoxic substance for nearly a century.The scientific literature on its toxic effects has now grown to a critical mass. It is not necessary to conclude that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease to recommend that it be reduced or eliminated as a potential risk. It is the only element noted to accumulate in the tangle-bearing neurons characteristic of the disease and is also found in elevated amounts in four regions of the brain of Alzheimer’s patients.”

In the past, there hasn’t been many definitive studies that proved this link but last month, a study came out that was undertaken by Professor Exley from Keele University in the UK which showed that they had found ‘unequivocally’, high levels of aluminum in the brain of a deceased Alzheimer’s sufferer. The deceased had been exposed to aluminum at work. (1)

Another subject in the study, also a British woman, who had died of Alzheimer’s was also found to have high levels of aluminum in her tissues. Approximately 16 years before her death, there had been an industrial accident near where she lived where 20 metric tons of aluminum sulphate had gone into the local water supply. So its highly likely the lady literally drank herself to developing Alzheimer’s.

Interesting to note in this image that the ‘alzheimer’ brain reduces greatly in size and looks like its been eaten by something. What could do this? Hmmm perhaps something that eats away at nerves and tissues? What has been shown to do this? Aluminium! It is a selective neurotoxin that attacks the nerves.

And in a story seen in the Daily Mail article titled Top Scientist Links Disabilities with mother’s exposure to mass poisoning in 1988 Professor Exley, (mentioned previously in this article) has been investigating other concerns associated to this massive spill of aluminum sulphate (in case you are wondering why its added to our water supplies it’s to make it appear clear) which happened in Camelford North Cornwall back in 1988. Instead of this chemical going into a storage tank, it was added directly into the water supply without the publics knowledge.

Many locals then went on to drinking this highly toxic water. One of them was Sarah Matta, now a mother to 7 children. After being unsure as to why so many of her children were seriously unwell, Sarah got in contact with Professor Exley (who is one of the UK’s top Scientists in relation to bioinorganic chemistry) to tell him what had happened to her and her family.

6 of her 7 children have disabilities which sound suspiciously to me, like problems that can occur from toxicity. Between them they have: possible autism, developmental problems, speech problems, and anxiety. Sarah herself had blood tests taken and was found to have aluminium levels 20 times higher than is normal.

Professor Exley is extremely concerned that others who were also in contact with the poisoned water supply may have harmed themselves, including their children through their exposure. He told the Daily Mail:

”Aluminium is toxic. Studies in animals show that if you feed mothers aluminium in the water supply, the offspring will exhibit developmental problems.”

I find it interesting we have Science bodies (with very dubious funding connections) talking about Aluminium as being ‘nothing to worry about’ yet a highly esteemed scientist who is an expert in his field has been studying this chemical for many years and is discovering many alarming connections. And it’s interesting to note that he is not gaining anything out of saying Aluminium is dangerous! Yet as you will read below, could it be that Pharmaceutical companies and chemical companies have a lot more to lose?

A Film maker also became so concerned about Aluminum and how it has invaded our lives, that he made the film The Age Of Aluminum – you can see the full movie below this post, I highly recommend you take a look. The film exposes environmental disasters that have happened in the UK, South Africa and Hungary due to the Aluminum Industry. The film features an interview with Christopher Shaw who is a well known neuroscientist. He shares his concerns about the effects Aluminum is having on human health:

“Many researchers are beginning to accept that aluminum has some sort of role to play in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Whether it does in others is still an open question, but Alzheimer’s is really coming into focus and it’s fairly clear that the body burden of aluminum from all the sources to which humans are exposed may be contributing to Alzheimer’s disease.”

And Dr Joseph Mercola stated in his article First Case Study To Show Direct Link Between Alzheimer’s and Aluminum Toxicity that Aluminum heads straight to your brain:

Aluminum is to your central nervous system as cigarette smoke is to your lungs. Scientists are clear that toxic metals damage brain tissue and lead to degenerative disease by producing oxidative stress—and aluminum is one of the worst offenders. With Alzheimer’s rates skyrocketing, today’s multiple avenues of aluminum exposure are of great concern. Just as with particles in the environment, once aluminum is in your tissues, your body has a difficult time releasing it. This toxic metal serves absolutely no biological purpose, so the less of it you ingest, the better.

Once in your body, it travels around easily, unimpeded, piggybacking on your iron transport system. It crosses biological barriers that normally keep other types of toxins out, such as your blood-brain barrier. Over time, aluminum can accumulate in your brain and do serious damage your neurological health—regardless of your age. Aluminum toxicity may be doing as much damage to our children as to our seniors.

I could continue on and on about this subject. I could link to the studies proving the concerns. I spent about an hour writing this, I don’t have time to go into it more, but oh boy, I easily could. All that I would urge you to do is, do your own research, look for non government, non pharmaceutical, non chemical company funded studies. That’s where the truth lies. I’ve written a fair bit more about this subject in my book.

Many Alzheimer’s organisations are often funded by the drug companies who make the medications for the treatment of this awful disease. And many of these drug companies also add aluminum to their medicines.

People like myself are simply trying to educate people about decreasing their exposure to Aluminum, and to encourage them to detox their body with proven metal chelators. If the public started doing this on a huge scale, then perhaps its worth considering, would the Alzheimer’s drug industry fall apart? Is this why there is such a huge denial amongst the mainstream Science industry? Whilst some say Aluminium accumulation is not the only cause of this brain disease, it is quite possibly a huge factor.

Another area where a lot of aluminium is also found, is in the vaccine industry as its used as an adjuvant. When you take a look at the chart below, and see how much money is tied up with vaccinations, you can quickly understand that the purchase of Aluminium for just these medicines alone, is actually quite hard to fathom, and therefore, if someone is threatening that industry for fears around its safety, there’s going to be people fighting very hard to keep it all quiet.

And, Alzheimer’s is not the only neurological problem Aluminium can cause. It is now also being linked to causing Autism and other neurological problems. Christina England, investigative journalist for Vactruth writes:

A recent study conducted by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic revealed that the more vaccines that children receive containing the adjuvant aluminum, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems in the future.

In 2013, in their paper, published by Springer Science+Business Media, titled Aluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, they revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum. [2]

And in another study titled Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe? also by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic their abstract states:

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.

So it seems that Aluminum exposure and harm, can come from many different ways, and is very much something to seriously have concerns about. And its alarming if you look a bit deeper at other medicines such as common antacids, taken by millions of people around the world for indigestion, calls for even more concern. Talcid, which is made by Bayer which contains an aluminum derivative clearly states on the insert that:

‘long-term use of high dosage may lead to aluminum deposits in bone and nerve tissue. This may lead to brain damage (dementia) and anaemia. In the case of renal insufficiency and long term use of Talcid necessitates regular check of patient’s aluminum levels’

WOW, right from the horses mouth. The drug company is clearly stating that aluminum can cause dementia! Yep, now you know that they know.

It’s a little bit sinister isn’t it, that these ‘Science’ websites are trying to discredit little old me – who receives no funding from anyone I want to ad, yet they don’t even know what they are talking about. Have they read the package insert of antacids and other medications containing Aluminium derivatives I wonder?

And if anyone wants to dispute that Vaccines aren’t proven to cause autism and mentions Dr Wakefield being a fraud, then why are these 28 studies published in highly esteemed medical journals showing the same findings as his? Sense About Science are the type of organisation that say there’s no link, yet LOOK right here, there’s proof that it is true.

Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research:

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

This where I found writing this article so much fun! For those that are interested in Sense About Science; they say they are a charity and pretty much rely on outside funding and guess where most of it looks like it comes from? Pharmaceutical and chemical companies. And, yes, I’m being a bit lazy here, as I’m just cutting and pasting this next section from wikipedia and it is a bit out of date, but I think you will see what I found is enough to prove my point!

Funding for the trust has been increasing. Some is derived from industrial organizations engaged in scientific dispute, clinical trials and research for which SAS is supportive (e.g. genetically modified crops) as well as major publishing houses. For example for the fiscal year ending 5 April 2008, the trust received £145,902 in donations. Disclosed corporate donations comprised £88,000 with pharmaceutical company Astra Zeneca donating £35,000. Previous donations included other pharmaceutical industries such as Pfizer. This dependency has now been diminished since for the fiscal year ending April 2010, the trust received £183,971 in donations of which only £17,500 was derived from the pharmaceutical industry (Unilever and G E Healthcare), in 2011 the amount diminished further to less than 6% funding derived from industry sources (the trust received £268,184 in donations with £15,000 from industry) with the rest derived from Science Bodies and individuals.

And, I’ve also now found the direct link to Sense about Science’s funding, please check out their huge list…” — (END QUOTE)

Who Can We Trust?

The corporations and irresponsible scientists that profit at the expense of our health and environment? Who can forget hearing about the historical ad, “DDT Is Good For Me-e-e!”? disinformation shills (a.k.a. trolls) that attacked it in defense of DDT. Look at their outrageous comments, and the fact that the video in the article was “removed” on youtube. Those are classic disinformation tactics, obvious once you learn their strategy and recognize their “cookie cutter” format. “Forum Posters” are hired by PR Companies contracted by corporate profiteers, to infiltrate social media, gang-stalk/remove or discredit information in an attempt to sway public opinion.  The truth about DDT, its marketing spin/public acceptance, mass spraying from planes, then subsequent BAN, are outlined in the video below.

 

Despite what corporate profiteers would like us to believe, why would we trust them after their continual duplicitous marketing “spins”? Why would we think that present day aluminum being put into vaccines and our global atmosphere via geoengineering research projects (mass aerial spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium & sulphuric acid nanoparticles), is any different? Let’s keep connecting the dots until the pattern is clear for all to see, trust your own eyes.

Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/

Alzheimer’s Association is associated with biotech/vaccines/Gates/Monsanto etc., and as we know, Gates is simultaneously funding GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH. If we look closely, the conflict of interest is glaring –  http://www.biotech-now.org/health/2014/06/alzheimers-association-offers-part-the-cloud-translational-research-grant-program#

Following the money always leads to where the truth lies. Gates plays Bridge for Alzheimer’s Research 6/2014, and has a vested interest in Geoengineering Research, a.k.a. ALUMINUM (with sulfate, barium, strontium) NANOPARTICLES AERIALLY SPRAYED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. Given the scientific research concluding aluminum and Alzheimer’s, isn’t that a “conflict of interest” AND perhaps the reason Alzheimer’s Association suddenly denies an aluminum connection?

Source: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140606005865/en/Bridge-Players-Nationwide-Unite-Raise-Money-Alzheimer%E2%80%99s#.VEgvrleCCnU

Establishing the connection of BIOTECH to Alzheimer’s research: http://dhmri.org/assets/NCRCSolutionstoGlobalChallenges.pdf

International Science Leaders

National Science Foundation

National Institutes of Health

American Cancer Society

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ** GATES FUNDS GEOENGINEERING (and ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH) http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/01/bill-gates-funding-geoengineering-research )

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Alzheimer’s Association; advance Alzheimer’s research

 Full list: https://lsn.osu.edu/funding

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Institutional Conflicts of Interest an ongoing problem.

http://www.academyhealth.org/files/ethics/report.pdf

Intentional obfuscation in the mainstream at will of its funders, furthering the agenda of the controlling powers, and conflict of interest in medical research, and all facets of our world, is evident if we simply dare to pay attention and think outside the box. ~Rebel Siren – Exposing Corruption and Crimes Against Humanity

Additional References

Rebel Siren – Questioning Vaccine Safety 2019

Dr. Shaw holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology, a Master of Science degree in Medical Physiology, and a PhD in Neurobiology – click photo to go to his biography.

In the video below, Dr. Christopher Shaw discusses the toxic effects of aluminum in vaccines and the severe rise in neurological disorders among the population such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, ALS & more. His extensive research concludes that Aluminum, which is present in most of our vaccines, (as well as our global atmosphere via geoengineering), is the main culprit causing ALS and Alzheimer’s symptoms in laboratory mice. Dr. Shaw’s professional profile; education, experience, qualifications: http://www.neuraldynamicsubc.ca/profiles/shaw.html

More Information On Aluminum Toxicity

Krisha McCoy, MSc

Krisha McCoy holds a Master of Science degree in Nutrition Communication from Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. She completed her undergraduate degree in Nutritional Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Krisha has worked as a nutrition researcher, and is an accomplished health and medical writer, with her work appearing in a variety of print and online publicaitons, including the Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter, HealthDay News, and Livestrong.com, and is a member of the American Medical Writer’s Association.

Aluminum Toxicity (Aluminum Poisoning)
by Krisha McCoy, MSc

Aluminum toxicity occurs when a person breathes in high levels of aluminum from the air, or stores high levels of aluminum in the body.

Eat foods containing high levels of aluminum
Breath aluminum dust in workplace air (INCLUDING OUTDOORS IN THE FORM OF NANOPARTICLES IN OUR GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE AERIALLY SPRAYED FROM PLANES)
Live in dusty environments
Live where aluminum is mined or processed
Live near certain hazardous waste sites
Live where aluminum is naturally high
Receive vaccinations containing aluminum.”

Aluminum Nanoparticle Toxicity In Our Global Atmosphere May Also Cause Heart Attacks?

Alumina nanoparticles may cause coronary disease as well as being a contributing factor of dementia/Alzheimer’s

Nanotechnology is a rapidly growing industry that has elicited much concern because of the lack of available toxicity data. Exposure to ultrafine particles may be a risk for the development of vascular diseases due to dysfunction of the vascular endothelium.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18456438

Geoengineering Is Big Business

NOVIM – Climate Engineering (decade long SWCE short wave climate engineering research including field experiments beginning in 2009), pay special attention to their site photo entitled, “comtrails” (with an “m”) and notice how the streaks match what we often see in our global skies: http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering

CLICK HERE to go to Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals UK, associated with UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara) Nanotech Department, and Novim.

NOAA – A Bibliometric Analysis of Climate Engineering Research: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Belter_Seidel.WIREsClimateChange2013.wcc229.pdf

Council On Foreign Relations – Workshop On Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering 2008 –  Briefing Notes – http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_041209.pdf

NASA – Von Karman Lecture with Riley Duren, Principal Engineer and Chief Systems Engineer for the Earth Science Directorate at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory discusses at length, the hazards of GEOENGINEERING:

For More Information On The Dangers Of Geoengineering And How To Get Involved

Global Skywatch

Agriculture Defense Coalition

Geo-Engineering | Thrive

Aluminum Oxide Particles – Chemtrails Spraying in California

Chemtrails Project UK – Campaign to Ban Chemtrails and Geoengineering

 

Facebook Violates Its Own Community Standards Allowing Rampant Cyberstalking & Harassment Of Activists

Friend or faux?

Despite facebook’s rigidly enforced “real name“ policy, there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of fake profiles & pages created by sock puppets, (shills; hired infiltrators, TROLLS), that are allowed to remain on facebook to harass people.

Shills create fake pages to impersonate activists, gang-stalk report activists, and spread disinformation as an attempt to influence public perception, also to prevent public outcry for the corporations they shill for.  Even after multiple reports by honest people that alert facebook to the problem, the shills (trolls) are allowed to remain; while activists using legitimate pen names, such as Rebel Siren, as well as other people using alternate names for various reasons such as personal safety or a nickname they’ve gone by their entire lives, immediately get suspended.

Facebook’s “real name” policy is supposedly designed to prevent “bad behavior“, such as dishonesty and deception; which is not an issue with good people no matter what their name, especially well meaning activists seeking to raise awareness and share information for a safer, healthier world! The bottom line is, disinformation shills a.k.a. trolls are exploiting facebook’s “real name“ policy and getting away with it.

Oh, the irony!

Instead of agreeing to conduct a proper investigation, facebook merely suspends/removes activists’ profiles while allowing the disinformation shills whose mission it is to target and harass activists, a.k.a. cyber-stalking, to run rampant attacking honest people. “Bad behavior” as defined by using “fake names” according to facebook policy, is most definitely an issue with the disinformation shills a.k.a. trolls who routinely exhibit the worst of it on social media, yet are allowed to remain and run rampant with whatever names they use, whether fake or “real”.

The trolls are allowed to continue with relentless cyber-bullying and harassment, despite multiple reports made on them. How difficult is it to get a profile suspended by reporting it? For activists, it’s nearly impossible. We report those that target and harass us repeatedly, without success, always with the same message, it “does not violate facebook’s community standards”. For the trolls, it seems easy, they make one report and it’s down that day, but why is that? What do the trolls have that honest people don’t? Corporate backing? Unlimited funding? An insider-facebook aide abusing their job to assist them? We can only speculate.

The disinformation shills a.k.a. TROLLS chose to sell out humanity in favor of dirty energy, Monsanto/GMOs, geoengineering, fracking, vaccines, false flag deceit, and the list goes on, hired as “forum posters” by corporate contracted public relations companies, creating profiles for the sole purpose of perpetuating corporate deceit by targeting and harassing outspoken activists, yet these trolls are allowed to remain unchecked on facebook (and youtube), while decent people trying to make a difference get raked over the coals. As outlined in Dispelling Internet Disinformation Tactics – Debunking The Debunkers the tactics used by these fake profiles & pages are indeed relentless forms of cyberstalking & harassment that clearly falls into the category of “bad behavior”. So then, why would facebook enforce its “real name” policy, yet allow truly fake profiles/pages to continue harassing people? (Hence, the nickname, “fakebook“).

For example, there were FAKE “Rebel Siren” pages that have been reported SEVERAL times and others, as well as having been banned from the real Rebel Siren page. The FAKE “Rebel Siren” pages had been created by disinformation shills a.k.a. TROLLS, for the purpose of harassing and impersonating, in an attempt to discredit & “destroy the reputation of”, also known as the tactic of “character assassination“.

The trolls that had created FAKE “Rebel Siren” pages used unauthorized copies of Rebel Siren’s real profile picture and cover photo, and went so far as to mirror posts to confuse & trick people. The fake pages have only known trolls with fake profiles themselves “liking” it, except for some people that had been deceived.

Trolls with fake names such as “Randall Flagg” a Stephen King character (see end). Not only is it FAKE, it’s a copyright violation, yet “Randall Flagg” has been allowed to run free on facebook harassing activists, despite being reported multiple times: The CULT – Jim Jones’ disciples had nothing on these facebook trolls. Even more frustrating, the FAKE “Rebel Sirens” remained on facebook, while the legitimate Rebel Siren profile was indefinitely suspended; further meaning that the REAL page, Rebel Siren, was left vulnerable to troll attacks, such as by a TROLL illegally using the copyrighted Muppet character “Beaker“ (a “page” with 2 likes, not the official Muppet page), an OBVIOUS fake (been since deleted).

ALL troll attacks on the real Rebel Siren page including disparaging memes, insults, name calling, ridicule, and general harassment during the time of profile suspension at the date of this blog, had been cataloged to be used as further EVIDENCE against “fakebook” for allowing such shillidiocy, cyberstalking, and harassment to run unchecked.

Facebook seems to willingly allow FAKE troll profiles/pages to run amok, yet immediately suspends real profiles based solely on “name” regardless of the truth, and failing to take into account post & comment history.

It is highly irresponsible of facebook to enforce its “real name” policy, and suspend profiles with no investigation into the facts, as well as blatantly disregarding potential consequences of forcing people to use legal names, opening them up to identity theft, in-person harassment, and possibly bodily harm from unbalanced obsessive stalkers, and in some cases where domestic violence was a factor, stalking and abuse from ex husbands or boyfriends. It also makes facebook liable.

Troll attacks happened on Rebel Siren’s page during the time of suspension such as a troll using a fake name, “Beaker”. It was reported via screenshot and email to facebook in detail, yet they had refused to acknowledge it, while Rebel Siren’s profile continued to remain suspended, and every new Rebel Siren profile got suspended also. What gives?

Clearly, facebook violates its own “community standard” by allowing such things as a heartbreaking “snuff video” of kitten torture (highly disturbing video of two psychopathic deviates torturing an innocent kitten, dousing it with lighter fluid,  setting it on fire, then murdering it, too heinous to include in this article), various other shameful animal abuse and inappropriate psychopathic content.

Facebook routinely allows FAKES (such as known disinformation shills) to run rampant, while suspending real people using other names. For example, in the news recently, the LGBT community recently received an apology by facebook recently for attempting to force them to use their “real names” after some homophobic hater, (probably using a fake name himself), reported them. The LGBT community didn’t just bend over and take it, they spoke up and started a petition at change.org collecting 35,000 signatures, giving rise to the apology from facebook’s Cox:

Facebook apologizes to LGBT community over ‘real’ name policy Source: http://straightfromthea.com/2014/10/02/facebook-fail-drag-queens-targeted-for-deletion-receive-apology1/ Facebook has long required its users to go by their “real names” on the site for security purposes, to stand out from other social networks and so it can better target advertising to people. Now, the company says the spirit of its policy doesn’t mean a person’s legal name but “the authentic name they use in real life.”

This begs the question, isn’t it blatant discrimination to allow some users to go ahead and use “other” names, while forcing the rest of us to submit legal identification and use “real names” despite the fact that we are known for our pen names, nicknames, maiden names, stage names, and business names? Even with all the recent controversy, discrimination, and overall unfairness of facebook’s so called “real name” policy and the public apologies to the LGBT community publicized in the news recently; Rebel Siren, author and advocate for humanity, remained disallowed to use a legitimate, proven PEN NAME on the profile.

Instead of further pursuing the matter with low level employees named, “Arnold” and “Barry” that were virtually unresponsive; only capable of generic responses, refusing to investigate and failing to honor several written requests to be routed to facebook’s legal department. “Fakebook’s” duplicitous actions are being exposed in this article with hopes it will raise awareness about the ongoing dissonance with facebook’s ever-changing user-unfriendly “policies” and generate a more positive outcome for everyone that’s forced to deal with this utter absurdity. Since the initial date of this article, facebook’s legal department has been contacted and apprised of the situation, including being cc’d on all future correspondence regarding this serious issue of rampant cyberbulling of activists.

What motivates facebook to allow rampant harassment by obvious fake profiles/pages (whether it looks like a “real name” or not), yet take readily “suspend” those of us that actually care about life and the world we live in and speak up in hopes of making a difference? Obviously, there is money involved. Why would facebook admit to such blatant discrimination by publicly apologizing to the LGBT community that’s been all over the news agreeing to allow them to use their “stage names”, yet blatantly IGNORE everyone else, including those of us seeking to raise awareness about global issues that affects all life on this planet?

If facebook allows one group of people to use other names, (such as the LGBT community), then facebook must allow everyone to do so, otherwise it’s pure discrimination, unfair to all users, not to mention that their “real name” policy is proving to be an epic fail, and that is only ONE element to this complex issue, there is also an issue of SAFETY. Facebook is jeopardizing activist’s safety, as well as other people whose safety may be at risk if they use their “real names”. Is facebook “bought” by corporate interests, or holding to an inept policy, or BOTH?

Obviously, “names”, whether fake OR real, do not keep cyberbullying off of facebook. Why does facebook choose to perpetuate cyberbullying by honoring the reports of known trolls that target and relentlessly harass activists, yet ignore the reports and pleas of real people that are trying to make a difference? Is there justice in allowing cyberbullies with fake profiles & pages to run rampant, but honest people to get the boot simply based on the fact that they had been targeted & reported by cyberbullies? What is facebook’s policy about disclosing the reports and investigating those that do the reporting to see if they are hiding anything or on a revenge mission? Will it take legal action to get this out into the open?

Meanwhile, perhaps facebook should reevaluate its inefficient, generic “policies” and come up with a better way of identifying truly fake profiles that are actual cyberbullies, such as an investigatory overview of comment and posting history (which was requested in writing several times), rather than focusing solely on “names”. It is evident that examining someone’s ACTUAL behavior on facebook would be a much better gauge of WHO they are than simply what their “name” happens to be. Honestly, and quite ironically, using the pen name Rebel Siren, allows this author to be more professional and objective in posts & comments on facebook. If forced to use a given name, posts would be much more emotional and unrestrained, just as they were prior to using pen name only. Certainly seems like a backfire waiting to happen, eh facebook? For those of us with common sense and the ability for critical thinking, let’s examine the growing problem of rampant, widespread cyberbullies in more detail:

Technology’s progression is often equated with the advancement of human societies. Pivotal innovations, such as the Internet, have forever changed how people interact. Though these developments have allowed the human race to make great strides in many fields, they have also allowed forms of transgression to become more rampant and widespread. This is evident when considering how traditional bullying has evolved into an issue today known as cyberbullying. While bullying and cyberbullying are often similar in terms of form and technique they also have many differences. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying allows the offender to mask his or her identity behind a computer. This anonymity makes it easier for the offender to strike blows against a victim without having to see the victim’s physical response. The distancing effect that technological devices have on today’s youth often leads them to say and do crueler things compared to what is typical in a traditional face-to-face bullying situation. Source: https://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/communications/research/vol3no1/04DoneganEJSpring12.pdf

Let’s take a look at another negative situation facebook has brought upon itself due to its irresponsible, revolving door policies and ongoing privacy infringement.

An Austrian law student says more than 17,000 people have signed up to join his class action lawsuit against Facebook over the social media group’s alleged violations of its users’ privacy. Twenty-six year-old Max Schrems appealed last week to a billion Facebook users to join a claim he filed in Vienna. – Source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-austria-lawsuit-idUSKBN0N019420150409

Upon further investigation into facebook faux pas, we discover that “real names” can cause even bigger problems on “fakebook”. Facebook further contradicted its  “real name” policy, violating its own “community standards”,  by allowing the DEA to create a fake profile of a woman they busted to try to bait and lure her friends and family, without their knowledge. Hm, isn’t that “entrapment”? Isn’t entrapment illegal? Facebook, a lot of good your so called “real name” policy did in that circumstance. That was a real name alright, but still a FAKE, despite “proper id” which law enforcement officers, government officials, and even common crooks, can easily gain access to. Can you say, “backfire“?

DEA Impersonated Woman, Set Up Fake Facebook Page, Posted Photos From Her Seized Phone To Make It Look Real Chris Hamby, over at Buzzfeed, has an incredible and crazy story about the DEA impersonating a woman, creating a fake facebook profile without her knowledge or permission, and posting photos from her seized cell phone, all in order to try to get information from others. The specifics involve a woman, Sondra “Sosa” Arquiett, who was apparently the girlfriend of Jermaine Branford, a guy who was accused of (and eventually pleaded guilty to) drug trafficking. Arquiett was a minor player, charged with basically allowing Branford to use her apartment for storing and processing the cocaine he was trafficking. Arquiett was eventually sentenced to probation. Where this gets interesting, however, is that Arquiett has now filed a civil suit against the US and DEA agent Timothy Sinnigen, who allegedly set up the fake facebook account. Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141006/17572528748/dea-impersonated-woman-set-up-fake-facebook-page-posted-photos-her-seized-phone-to-make-it-look-real.shtml

As if those situations aren’t revealing enough, facebook recently disclosed its purchase of an Aerospace company, U.K.-based Ascenta for its globe-spanning Internet plans and use of solar powered DRONES. Drones? For the purpose of providing internet to remote parts of the globe at “low cost”? What if natives in remote regions have no way to prove their “real name”, facebook? Clearly, “fakebook” has its priorities straight. Why not just put that effort into something people in remote regions can really use, such as FOOD, SHELTER, and CLEAN WATER. Or, advocate for sustainable agriculture and clean skies? Or anything that benefits humanity? The future sustainability of the planet? Nourish underprivileged children? Technology to create a cleaner environment? ANYTHING other than another way to make more useless dollars, contributing to the demise of global society.

A Socially Irresponsible Social Network | Business Line

Take a look around at what our world is becoming and the rise in conditions such as autism, alzheimers, cancers, autoimmune disorders and various other ailments that can be directly attributed to the toxicity in our food system, water, medicine, vaccines, and AIR and for what? Corporate profit? It’s sad to see such destruction being perpetuated by those that have no idea what they’re really doing due to the fact that they themselves are adversely affected by vaccines, GMOs, herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins abundant in our atmosphere by corporations that put profit above our health and sustainability of the planet. We are conditioned from birth to accept the system. It makes me wonder if humanity is a thing of the past or a never-was? Our “technology” has far surpassed our wisdom and will surely be the demise of our species.

The following are only a few “fakebook” users on the growing list of known TROLL profiles/pages that facebook allows to run free, cyberstalk and harass activists, violating its own community standards and highly irresponsible “real name” policy, many of whom are still there despite multiple reports:

Rusty Tanner (to harass activist Russ Tanner), facebook id#  1529571003924184

Fuck Alex Jones, facebook id# 522936674406041 (THIS ONE REMAINED UP FOR YEARS DESPITE NUMEROUS REPORTS OF THE NAME ALONE IN OBVIOUS VIOLATION OF FACEBOOK’S SO CALLED “COMMUNITY STANDARDS”)

Khan Trayles, (pronounced “contrails”) facebook id# 100008370794331

We Love GMOS and Vaccines, facebook id#1380693538867364

Captain Carl the Chemtrail Pilot, facebook id# 244247085785036 (this offending shill page remains up harassing people)

Jay Uzinato, facebook id# 1662205672

Reschekle Berglesteinowitz, facebook id# 100008246919631

Yuri Zephyros, facebook id# 100004839065506

Portia Plantago-Lanceolata, facebook id# 100006534365399

Randall Flagg (copyright violating troll), facebook id# 100008244554284

Danni Bannanni, facebook id# 1449245650

Eman Sugob, (“Name Bogus” spelled backwards) facebook id# 100007374608251

Bob Solo, facebook id#100003622144034

10/16/15 UPDATE – finally removed after months of contact with facebook’s legal department legal@fb.com – FAKE “Rebel Siren – Public Figure” facebook id#1530415123861880 (to harass real author/activist Rebel Siren)

Update, finally got removed after SEVERAL MONTHS of emailing facebook’s legal department – FAKE “Rebel Siren – Exposing Corruption and Crimes Against Humanity” facebook id#559789960831840 (shill page created to harass author/activist Rebel Siren by “mirroring” the REAL page)

Peter WiganPete Greenall, facebook id# 100008201523866

Madisondrugs Loon, (to harass activist Madisonstar Moon) facebook id# 256567904530799 (this fake page was literally up for YEARS before finally being removed)

Plus HUNDREDS MORE fake shill pages and profiles remain up harassing people.

CLICK TO VIEW

Madisonstar Moon’s profile & page routinely gets attacked and banned, as well as specific content often gets removed for “violating facebook’s community standards” for no valid reason. It’s completely senseless to allow the cyberstalking disinformation trolls to run rampant and allow their hateful, antagonistic pages, posts, and comments, while removing activist’s profiles, pages that are clearly not “violations”. See video below for yet another example of “fakebook’s” blatant discrimination siding with cyberstalkers. Activists are being targeted, attacked, harassed, and bullied by trolls with obvious fake pages such as, “Madisondrugs Loon” (for example, above it is accusing well known activist, Russ Tanner of being what it is; a criminal against humanity).

This is the kind of thing we’re up against as activists every day that we dare to speak up and share information, to be victimized by rampant shill-idiocy plaguing our social media forums, running wild on “fakebook“, with facebook’s consent.

“Madisondrugs Loon” had been reported over and over by every activist that knew about it, yet continued to run freely harassing activists & cyberstalking the real Madisonstar Moon, before finally disappearing. Below, “Paid Shill“, speaks for itself and was on facebook also for YEARS before finally being removed, while activist’s profiles & pages continue to be violated and placed on suspension for a variety of bogus reasons.  If you come up against troll profiles using fake names such as the one below, report them for using fake names and see how long it takes facebook to take appropriate action, if ever.

Click photo above for Huffpost Tech article by Sam Fiorella, “Exposing Cyber Shills and Social Media’s Underworld“.

Disconnecting people from family, friends, and fellow activists, deleting all of the work we’ve done to raise awareness & share information on your forum, leaving our pages unattended without a profile to admin it, vulnerable to more troll attacks, only proves the point and makes activists stronger. But, you know what it makes facebook? Part of the problem.

Facebook faces criticism over its privacy policy – CNET

Facebook faces criticism amid claims it breached ethical guidelines

Facebook responds to criticism of its experiment on users

Criticism of Facebook – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC News – Facebook emotion experiment sparks criticism

Facebook facing suit over private messages – Jan. 3, 2014

Facebook Lawsuit – Huffington Post

17,000 join Facebook class action lawsuit – Orlando

Student launches Facebook lawsuit over privacy concerns

Facebook Obtained Nearly $2 Billion From Legal Judgments Against Spammers

Global Problem Profiteer – Bjørn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor Copenhagen Business School

Pseudo-intellectual global problem profiteers, a.k.a. “Disaster Capitalists”, contribute to the destruction of the planet while masquerading as “socially conscious allies”…

“Global problem profiteer”, Bjørn Lomborg, joins The Heartland Institute of Chicago exposed in Yale article, “Strange Bedfellows”, for simultaneously denying and supporting climate science, and advocating geoengineering as a solution to a problem, (anthropogenic climate change), that they deny is happening in the first place.

Regardless of the “stance” you may have taken on the so called “debate”, you’ve got to wonder, what gives? First and foremost, see it for the giant waving red flag that it is and realize the entire “debate” is a carefully concocted spin to suppress awareness in the mainstream in order for global problem profiteers to continue peddling dirty energy while pretending to “care”. A Skeptic Finds Faith in Geoengineering – NYTimes.com

The perpetual spin of the revolving door is dizzying. It’s as though we are living in a giant masquerade ball where changing of masks is as frequent an occurrence as going to the bathroom, and smells exactly the same.

Excerpt from Yale’s Strange Bedfellows? Climate Change Denial and Support:

‘The Lomborg Maneuver’

The Heartland Institute is hardly alone in considering geoengineering as a solution to a problem it basically doesn’t see as a problem in the first place. Bjørn Lomborg and ‘Lomborg Maneuver’ – opposition to ‘real-world’ actions, but support for more radical approaches?

In recent years, Bjørn Lomborg has often downplayed the threats from climate change while pushing geoengineering as a short-term solution. So too have Newt Gingrich, the former EPA staff economist Alan Carlin, and the American Enterprise Institute, which earlier this year posted a seminar calling solar radiation management “an evolving climate policy option” on its website, a site chock-full of climate contrarianism.”

One environmental group has taken to calling this straddle the “Lomborg maneuver” – “switching from opposing real-world action on climate change to supporting the most extreme possible action on climate change.” —

“While Bjorn Lomborg has never literally denied that the climate is changing, his economic theories have always served those who do. A Danish economist, Lomborg has won international notoriety. The Wall Street Journal loves his editorials” – Bjorn Lomborg: The Sustainability Critic: Greentech Media

DESMOGBLOG.COM meticulously highlights Lomborg’s contradictions: http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg

Lomborg’s spin: “Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which seeks to study environmental problems and solutions using the best available analytical methods. He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, and is the editor of How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?”

Bjørn, why don’t you tell us how much global problem profiteers get PAID these days and we’ll tell you how much that “COSTS us”.

Contact | Bjorn Lomborg

Email: EA@lomborg.com

Beware the rampant, insidious propaganda (disinformation) infiltrating every aspect of our existence. Think critically, do your research, trust your instincts, refuse to participate in the web of deceit. ~Rebel Siren

PROPAGANDA formal definition:
prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda“. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, spin, publicity; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.

Kymatica

The key to awareness is to lift the lid on the mainstream “box” and expand consciousness rising above the many petty distractions that inundate our lives.

The powers-that-be suppress awareness as a tool of oppression, to strip us of our freedom, liberty, dignity; to monetize, control, and manipulate us; keeping us disconnected from nature, each other, and ourselves, all the while exploiting us and our planet at the expense of our collective health and future sustainability.

What can we do? We CAN free our minds, find clarity and take responsibility for ourselves and our planet, and stand strong to defend & protect humanity and nature that sustains us.

If people dare to look beyond mortal exteriors of messengers to hear what they’re saying, rather than judging others according to “society’s standards”, truth can be heard.

Self, separatism, fear, are components of ego… We must all seek to rise above the limitations and suppression of this mortal realm, rising beyond ego and the fear “ego” begets, and instead, move towards truth, light, love; HUMANITY… where we are one.

The Heartland Institute of Chicago EXPOSED by Yale University

 

The Heartland Institute of Chicago EXPOSED (along with others).

“Strange Bedfellows? Climate Change Denial and Support for Geoengineering”

By David Appell

Original Article Published October 30, 2013: 

Potential benefits of geoengineering, despite attendant risks, appeal to some interests showing little concern for the seriousness of the climate change issue generally. What goes here?

These days, an article headlined “Geo-Engineering Seen as a Practical, Cost-Effective Global Warming Strategy” would hardly be surprising.

But what is surprising is that the headline came from a group denying global warming exists: The Heartland Institute in Chicago.

Well-known for its aggressive contrarian position on man-made global warming, and widely lambasted for its “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” billboard featuring a picture of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, the Heartland Institute might seem unlikely to propose a solution to a problem it doubts exists. So why did the group run an article on geoengineering in the December 2007 issue of its newsletter Environment & Climate News?

Written by David Schnare, at the time an EPA staff scientist and now a director at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., the article is based on testimony Schnare gave to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works earlier that same year. Schnare mentions the ease, speed, and relative low cost of geoengineering schemes like injecting sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere, called solar radiation management (SRM). In particular, Schnare in that article cited research by scientist Ken Caldeira* of Stanford University (and now also the Carnegie Institute) and concludes “reducing greenhouse gases will cost around 2 percent of the gross domestic product, while geo-engineering (by putting reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere) will cost about one-thousandth of that.” Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen’s 2006 article helped pave way for more serious consideration of geoengineering options.

But Schnare’s article, written just a year after Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen’s seminal and controversial 2006 article calling for serious active research into solar radiation management, ignores the many complications, side effects, and unintended consequences of SRM that worry many. Crutzen had specifically mentioned undesirable destruction of protective stratospheric ozone. And SRM does nothing to stop ocean acidification, instead creating a world never before seen, high in carbon dioxide while relatively low in temperature.

Only in the last sentence of his article did Schnare casually advocate a vigorous development away from carbon-based energy sources, writing “the most sensible approach would be a mixed strategy of geo-engineering…and vigorously developing a transition from carbon-based energy, to include research on scrubbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

Despite this article and others, and at least one presentation at its annual conferences, “Heartland doesn’t have a position on geoengineering,” according to Joseph Bast, the Institute’s president and CEO.

‘The Lomborg Maneuver’

The Heartland Institute is hardly alone in considering geoengineering as a solution to a problem it basically doesn’t see as a problem in the first place. Bjorn Lomborg and ‘Lomborg Maneuver’ — opposition to ‘real-world’ actions, but support for more radical approaches?

In recent years, Bjorn Lomborg has often downplayed the threats from climate change while pushing geoengineering as a short-term solution. So too have Newt Gingrich, the former EPA staff economist Alan Carlin, and the American Enterprise Institute, which earlier this year posted a seminar calling solar radiation management “an evolving climate policy option” on its website…a site chock-full of climate contrarianism.

One environmental group has taken to calling this straddle the “Lomborg maneuver” — “switching from opposing real-world action on climate change to supporting the most extreme possible action on climate change.”

How might one reconcile such seemingly contradictory positions? and why do they often come from politically conservative individuals and organizations? In his recent book, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, Clive Hamilton argues that this pair of positions maintains the dominant power structures of society, especially the roles of the energy mega-corporations that have a great deal to lose from any shift away from fossil fuels.

Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, writes “…these results are consistent with the more general argument that conservatives tend to take a more hierarchical view of society, as a natural order in which some groups are dominant and some subservient. Like a patient who will accept the doctor’s diagnosis only if the illness is treatable, a solution to global warming that does not destabilize a person’s worldview — but in fact validates it — makes recognizing the problem palatable. As the identity of conservative white males tends to be more strongly bound to the prevailing social structure, geoengineering is the kind of solution to climate change that is less threatening to their values and sense of self they are consistent with the ideas of control over the environment and the personal liberties associated with free market capitalism. Just as the need to defend a cultural worldview makes conservative white males prone to repudiate climate science, so that worldview will make them prone to support geoengineering solutions”.–

Hamilton cites research by Dan Kahan of the Yale Law School and others showing that facts must accommodate one’s cultural values if they are to be accepted. Kahan calls this the cultural cognition thesis — that cognitively, cultural values come before facts in assessing many public risk conflicts, and to be accepted, facts must accommodate those values. Kahan concludes “as a result of a complex of interrelated psychological mechanisms, groups of individuals will credit and dismiss evidence of risk in patterns that reflect and reinforce their distinctive understandings of how society should be organized.” Australian professor Clive Hamilton sees geoengineering as less threatening to conservatives’ ‘values and sense of self.’

This thesis helps explain many of the current sharp divisions over public policies, especially those with scientific origins such as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified foods. Those with values that place more emphasis on the individual would be expected to dismiss environmental and technological risks if solving them requires restricting industry and commerce. Those who more highly value egalitarianism and community are generally suspicious of capitalism’s disparities and its emphasis on individual initiative, and they therefore are more likely to advocate top-down regulation of commercial activity.

In the context of climate change and geoengineering, Kahan and his colleagues found that making their study participants aware of geoengineering’s potential to address climate change, while making them aware also of restrictions of carbon dioxide emissions, helped to overcome the cultural polarizations that dog the climate change issue. The researchers found too that their study subjects exposed to geoengineering ideas — in particular those who more highly value individualism were slightly more concerned about the risks of climate change than those who were not exposed.

All people are prone to the cultural cognition thesis, especially those at the more extreme ends of the spectrum. But not all realize that the thesis goes both ways. For instance, the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg — who often downplays the risks from climate change (he recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “OK, things have gotten a wee bit warmer outside”) while advocating a geoengineering approach — accused “global warming alarmists” of advancing solutions that appeal to their core cultural values. In an interview last year with RightWing News.com, Goldberg said, “One of the reasons why conservatives are right to be suspicious of global warming is that it confirms the exact same suite of policy approaches that these people were arguing for when they were worried about a population bomb. You know, managed scarcity, throw a wet blanket on capitalism, manage the economy.” But Goldberg did not acknowledge that his own beliefs and ideology might influence his attitude and approach to the climate problem no less than those he was criticizing.

Not Without Risks

The reality is that geoengineering itself carries risks, raises difficult ethical considerations, and poses the possibility of unintended consequences, so it is not the slam-dunk first choice solution to problems posed by a warming planet.

Ironically, some of those who say climate is too complex to be forecast, or who criticize models used in climate science as being incomplete or inaccurate, seem to have no trouble advocating geoengineering quick fixes which themselves carry climate and environmental complexities, or which would require extensive modeling to understand implementation and implications.

All geoengineering schemes have unwanted side effects, and some can be significant. Solar radiation management by aerosol injection into the upper atmosphere, for instance, mimics large volcanic explosions, like the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption that caused about one degree Celsius of global surface cooling for a year or two (returning to normal over the succeeding three years).

But that eruption also caused a 10 percent drop in worldwide precipitation, because it reduced evapotranspiration rates over land, and that situation didn’t return to normal for about three years.

There are concerns too that solar radiation management would reduce the essential Asian monsoon or cause drought in Africa. A recent modeling experiment by Simone Tilmes, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and colleagues found regional rainfall reductions of up to 7 percent when geoengineering reduced incoming solar energy so that climate forcings were at a pre-industrial level even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels quadrupled.

There is another large cost to geoengineering by solar radiation management: once undertaken to reduce temperatures, it must be kept up essentially forever or warming will resume in a very rapid and dangerous fashion (see figure on original post). Andrew Ross and H. Damon Matthews, in a study published in Environmental Research Letters, found that temperature would rise by up to 0.76°C in the first year after termination of a 40-year (2020 to 2059) SRM project, with up to another degree in the next two decades.

Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change. Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews. 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045103. Permission: IOP Publishing Ltd, under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA license.

Such abrupt climate change can shock ecosystems, especially affecting marine biodiversity by giving advantage to mobile or opportunistic species. It would be even more abrupt and dangerous if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to rise ever higher. Such threats would hang heavy over future generations, obligated to pay billions of dollars every year to continue to manage solar radiation for an increasingly out-of-kilter planet they did not create, having to carry the burdens of rapid and abrupt climate change were war, revolution, or economic distress to force a halt to the risk management effort.

And these are hardly the only reasons that geoengineering, though tempting, may not be the best solution to climate change, as scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University wrote in his “20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea.”

‘Laudably Honest’

Of course, not everyone sees a problem with favoring a certain solution because it aligns with their cultural values. “I think it’s laudably honest,” says Eli Lehrer, president and co-founder of the R Street Institute, a Washington-based thinktank that, in its words, “supports free markets; limited, effective government; and responsible environmental stewardship.”

“Many want to use climate change to talk about a pre-existing agenda,” says Lehrer, who accepts the scientific evidence of manmade climate change and favors a carbon tax. “They may well be right. I’d like to do it too.”

Lehrer sees geoengineering as a common sense approach deserving of research, but to be undertaken only if the problem proves severe enough. “It’s probably the best solution to an extreme situation,” he says, adding that a goal of zero carbon emissions is not achievable or “worthwhile.” He disagrees with actually doing geoengineering any time soon, calling the potential adverse impacts “extreme and potentially dangerous.”

Humans vs. Nature

Since Crutzen’s 2006 paper, geoengineering is no longer a taboo subject, feared even for polite discussion, because it can offer an alternative way out of a nagging carbon problem — bariatric surgery instead of strict dieting.

Many scientists now are seriously exploring solar radiation management and ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, philosophers are weighing the moral and ethical dimensions of geoengineering, and even a few environmental groups have opened their minds to concepts once considered anathema. The newly released IPCC Working Group I Fifth Assessment Report mentioned geoengineering for the first time ever.

Geoengineering solutions retain the idea of human’s technical mastery over nature. Instead of human societies changing to accommodate the natural world they rely on, climate engineering — consciously or not — is the view that nature can be fundamentally bent and manipulated to accommodate humanity. Wresting with nature is, in a very real way, the story of human development, and taming the wild world has brought some (but by no means all) wealth, relative comfort and ease, and freedom from basic wants. At the same time, that insistence on control now poses risks to the planet as the most fundamental stage on which that existence plays out.

“There is something increasingly desperate about placing more faith in technological cleverness when it is the unrelenting desire to command the natural world that has brought us to their point,” Hamilton writes in the last chapter of his book. “Unless we understand why a certain kind of rationality seems to have failed, appeals to more reason are quixotic. After all, the separation of natural and human history and the dominance of a certain form of calculative rationality were each products of the same Enlightenment process.” — end

SOURCE:  http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/10/strange-bedfellows-climate-change-denial-and-support-for-geoengineering/

We can only speculate that The Heartland Institute of Chicago’s duplicitous actions are the direct result of funding by the fossil fuel industry, (big oil, coal, et al). They no longer disclose their funders to the public: “Regrettably, listing our donors in this way allowed people who disagree with our views to accuse us of being “paid” by specific donors to take positions in public policy debates, something we never do. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors. This is standard practice by nonprofit advocacy organizations regardless of their philosophies.” http://heartland.org/funding

However, according to other sources, there is a definite monetary connection to big oil, coal, tobacco, and the pharmaceutical industry, (among others):

“The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget, although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland’s overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan. Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.

MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was “$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade”.

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil. In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland. Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris, Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters. The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link between anti-global warming skeptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health”.

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it. The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as “particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart.” Heartland has stated that its authors were not “paid to defend Wal-Mart” and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.

In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. The shortfall led to the Illinois COAL lobby sponsoring the institute’s May 2012 climate conference – the “first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

There is prevalent double-dipping in the crude world. For example: “BP – Deceiving The Public About Geoengineering”: https://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/bp-deceiving-the-public-about-geoengineering/

ICCC3 June 2009 VIDEO: “The conference’s key message, global warming is not a crisis was delivered directly to the nation’s capitol and elected officials”.

ICCC4 July 2013 VIDEO: “Reconsidering the science and economics”.

If The Heartland Institute and BIG OIL have their way, the planet will be rendered an uninhabitable wasteland, and all life, including the human species, will be EXTINCT. Shouldn’t we take better care of our home? HOME, the documentary: http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU

More about The Heartland Institute: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/heartland-institute/

The Heartland Institute of Chicago – PERPETUATING PROPAGANDA FOR MONETARY GAIN
One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606

PHONE (312) 377-4000, EMAIL think@heartland.org

PROPAGANDA formal definition:
prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, spin, publicity; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.

 

Questioning 9/11

Richard Gage from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth offers insight that mainstream media neglected to tell us about.

Question everything, always do your own research, never believe the mainstream “spin”, they say what they are told to say by their corporate owners. Keep looking outside the mainstream, such as these two informative videos, to find real perspectives, questions, and answers, you will not find on industry funded mainstream media outlets.

Russell Brand Exposes Trolls/Shills a.k.a. “the furious five” FOX NEWS

 

Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney Back Oil Shale – Climate Progress

Shale Markets, LLC / Global Oil and Gas News, Marketing

Report: Fox News LIES about climate change 93% of the time

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/

Weather derivatives and weather risk management

BP Oil – Deceiving The Public About Climate Science and GeoEngineering | Rebel Siren

 

Francis Mangels – Retired USDA Biologist with the US Forest Service – Scientific Findings, Lab Reports Conclusive Evidence of Climate Engineering

Mr. Francis Mangels’, retired USDA Biologist with the US Forest Service (35 years), scientific findings:

GEOENGINEERING  — What We Know as of 7/7/14, +70 lab reports, photo/objective evidence, logic, facts, research, and scientist observations:

LAB/FIELD REPORTS — Normal rain is zero ug/l metallic elements, pH about 5.6.

o A lined pond (guzzler) near Redding has about 375,000 ug/l of aluminum. We are concerned that deer and wildlife drink this water. USFS ignored letters.

o Sugar Pine Canyon Creek, Redding, CA has 4,600,000 ppb of aluminum (normal soil 15,000 ppb) in upper and lower stream. Fish losing scales, ulcerous, sick.

o Sisson meadow pond sludge water in Mt Shasta has 12,000 mg/kg of aluminum, and pond is fed by city spring water, but exposed to sky (sample taken at outlet).

o Mt. Shasta City Park spring water had 1540 ug/l of aluminum in 2009. Other streams have more. Aquatic and terra insects about 20% of numbers since 2007.

o Since terrestrial insects are now very low, song bird populations are also very low. Road and window kill birds or wildlife are very lean, diseased, or cancerous.

o Fish and insects died in Cold Creek, Mt Shasta. Aluminum, lead, arsenic. Of 200 trout stomachs examined in 2014, none had an aquatic insect, 95% had nothing.

o Strontium, barium, and aluminum are often found in soil. “Dust” does not explain high amounts in the rain or snow, nor zero, nor concentration above soil numbers.

o Outside soils in Mt. Shasta area in 2007 have over 1.6 % or 16,000 mg/kg of aluminum. Soil is 13000 mg/kg (1.3%) aluminum under my house, likely natural.

o Snowdrift near McCloud on Mt Shasta at 8000’ has 61,100 ug/l aluminum, 83 of barium, and 383 of strontium, over 4 times that of protected soil.

o 2013 rain report in Mt. Shasta gauge is 13,100 ug/l aluminum, 130 barium, 138 strontium. Undrinkable by state standards, 13 times the allowable limit.

o Lab reports of storms range from 0 to 30 ug/l in rain with no spraying to 13,100 ug/l of aluminum; always positively correlated to jet spraying (national info).

o Mt. Shasta samples were taken by a USDA scientist with legal water sampling experience and MS degree; he uses a plastic USNWS rain gauge on a 7’ pole.

o Samples show a direct relationship to contrail density: More contrails, higher Aluminum, Barium, and/or Strontium in water; also boron, titanate, and arsenic.

o Zero readings of any elements prove our samples are not self-contaminated.

o The Mt. Shasta city water report indicates that aluminum, barium, strontium, lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, boron, and chromium are not found in city water yet.

o Other states show high Al, Ba, Sr, As, B, Pb, Fe, and Mn, but any may be zero.

o Iron/manganese may be meteor dust. Lead is from planes or old leaded gasoline.

o Some have higher Al, Sr, or Ba, or zero on any, so formulas may change.

o Radioactivity in rain was tested with a Geiger counter, no abnormal indications.

o Some readings may be the result of local polluting industries. However, results are nationally correlated to jet spraying, over 90% with no local factory source.

o Fibers that appear instead of dust have Welsbach elements; they are a spray error.

o Geoengineering activist sites posting scientists’ data after the UV report was then crashed 8 times by hackers (military/corporate). Activist sites have over 12 million hits. Debunkers only 175.

o Ultraviolet B is up 1200% of normal. UVA also up. UVB causes skin cancer and sunburn, and cell death on plants. Nanoparticles destroy ozone.

o Mutagenic effects on corn, ovaried tassels, tomatoes. Tree top and bark damage evident, notably betulaceae, tulipifera, deodars, maples. Grapes, legumes immune.

SAMPLING PH – From USDA 1983 Soil Survey Siskiyou Co. and rain reports.

 When contrails are inactive, rain is under 6 pH. With activity, pH is 6.5 to 7.5.

 The pH of rain is directly and nationally related to contrail pre-storm weather front spraying. Over 600 tests have been made, and this pattern continues.

 Coniferous Douglas fir forest north of Redding, CA was tested by USDA Soils specialists Komar and Jim Collins at 7.4 pH. He said it should be 5.5 for the soil.

 Normal acidity for Mt. Shasta area Deetz 125, 126 soils, a habitat of acidic black oak and mixed conifer forest, is 4.5-6.0. Now it is 6.5-7.5 pH in over 400 samples.

 About ten samples were taken by meter in McCloud, CA of yards, oak forest, and gardens. They ranged from 7.0 to 8.5, or un-naturally alkaline. pH papers agreed.

 The St. Francis organic garden and lawn in Mt. Shasta was 5.5 pH in 2003, now 6.5 to 7.0. Soil is 10-20xs more alkaline. The pH papers, meters, kits all agreed.

 Garden compost is black oak leaves, acorns, and ponderosa pine needles (acid), maybe mixed in grass. Sulfur slightly lowered pH.

 A pH increase is likely oxides, hydroxides, and carbonates of Welsbach elements.

 Contrails boomed during George Bush years 2000-2008, especially after 2006 and pH increased remarkably in soil and rain in those anti-environment years.

 Garden production declined for acid-soil-loving vegetables; potatoes, tomatoes. Most root crops declined in Deetz soils, but unpredictable in neutral Diyou soils.

 Some metallic cations are toxic to biological systems, and could explain 90% loss of aquatic insect populations in 4 headwater streams. Less change below springs.

 Natural insect variations occur, but not an 80% loss, particularly of diptera that live in sediment deposits in streams, where toxic metals accumulate.

 The metals, etc. are not from China, and scientists on Mt. Rainier verified it.

 The three main cations (as nanoparticles?) cause endocrine/enzyme malfunction. They are the basis for, or act similar to, prion diseases such as “mad cow.”

 Sufficient evidence indicates correlation with neurological, lung, and bone diseases, particularly in children as autism, asthma, and in adults as Alzheimer’s.

 Breathing and neural problems increased after spraying, esp. elderly and children. Autism 1/15,000 to 1/50, Alzheimer’s is now 1 of 3 a plague in 2013 says CDC.

 Five pet dogs refuse to drink rain/snow water, but insist on tap water. Witness!

 Similarly, neural, skin, lung, cancer, or endocrine problems are now frequently reported in cats (meticulous groomers), dogs, and horses (drink pond water).

MILITARY CONTRAIL OBSERVATIONS – Observations, telescopes, retired military.

 In telescopes, contrail jets have few side windows, and usually military kc135 or kc434s. Some contract Boeing 737s have belly/wingtip nozzles. Video/pics available.

 Some contrails are multi-colored; often the middle streak shiny blue, brown, dark gray, but outside two are white. 2 or 4 engine jets, often with 3-6 trails, some offset.

 San Francisco Flight Aware says over 30 jets per day over Mt. Shasta are normal, about 100 West Coast. Odd patterns happen, at any altitude, but should be unusual.

 Heavy spraying days are often just before weather fronts, and mostly military jets. A weather lady on TV-12 remarked on this 11/24/10 and was fired.

 Contrail jets are most active dawn to dusk. Commercial jets do not usually leave persistent contrails, but military jets almost always do. Some jets contrail at night.

 Cloud formations and combinations are changed, new, and unusual since 2003.

 Before 2000, skies were typically a deep blue. Now skies are typically whitish haze or gray-brown blue, and true blue is unusual due to high elevation jet pollutants.

 In the 1950s to 1980s, a normal contrail was maybe 30 jets long and disappeared. Now they last several hours to all day, especially since 2003, or George Bush years.

 Some jets emit a ball of smoke over 5 degrees in diameter, and the contrail begins. If it were a lens of cold air, it would not be a ball, but fade in or out. Impossible display.

 Some contrails appear to have particulate matter streaming down out of them, much like fireworks displays, leaving trails of smoke as the particles descend. Smoke balls.

 Some contrails converge to a point, often over Mt. Shasta, then re-align, cross, curve, grid format, or radiate (asterisk-like) out from the mountain. Atypical flight variants.

 Two-engine and four-engine jets leaving 3 or 5 line contrails, with nozzles seen in mid-belly or wings. Military jets leave persistent contrails, usually in odd numbers.

 Pro-military congressmen and USFS claim contrails are harmless. Results of certified mail/phone: no answer, ignorance, security reasons.

 Many locals and USFS indicate lightning is more violent after jet spraying, esp. width and number of bolts. The number of thunderstorms is below normal and erratic.

 Heat of condensation in physics indicates micron-sized particles reduce rainfall. California is in a drought since spraying began, as rain transfers to Eastern USA.

 Contrail composition measured in rainfall is the same as indicated in the San Diego conference Feb 20 and in Welsbach geo-engineering patents used by military jets.

 Geo-engineers at the Feb. 20, 2010 meeting in San Diego saw D. Keith admit on camera that spraying may have terrible consequences. They don’t know.

 The military says that “engine erosion” causes metals in contrails, but won’t say more (military secret). Do engines wear out to require an extra 20 million tons Al per year?

 Solar collection panel efficiency remarkably decreases with contrail spraying, robbing investors of their just share of solar electric power up to 50%. Industrial jeopardy.

 At “What in the World Are They Spraying” viewing in Redding, CA 12/10 a full panel of medical, ex-military, solar experts, and scientists affirmed it before over 500 people.

 Weathermen report consistent upper atmosphere conditions, but one day has 50 trails and the next day none, can one believe all jets cancelled? Where is consistency?

 Once a year, we watch two jets fly at a giant thunderhead, melt a 1-mile blue hole in it, fly through it, and the storm falls apart. What a drought-causing weapon!

 Many photos are available of straight lines, X’s, grids, circles, squares combos in high clouds, and in nature this is impossible; a military weather weapon system.

 Only the military industrial complex has funding capability; a black hole budget ($1.3 trillion) and control to be able to do geoengineering at $5 billion per year.

 Mud rain in Chico, CA on 5/14/12 had 58,000 ug/l Al, 480 Sr, and 413 Ba. “Never seen it before. Hard to get off,” the newspaper said, “Dust in rainy weather.” Oh?

 We observed a military jet 1/2 mile away spraying Shasta via nozzles, returning over precisely the same route ½ hour later, not spraying (no time to land), routine pattern.

 Why would all these scientists be making this stuff up about climate and geoengineering effects? A fact is a fact is a fact, not a belief or opinion.

This is revised as new reliable observations and data are available. By Francis Mangels.

Thank you again, Mr. Mangels, for the outstanding scientific work you have shared with the Rebel Siren BLOG, and for your bravery in facing the disinformation trolls that targeted and attacked you. I am honored to publish your report and look forward to more from you in the future.

GEOENGINEERING REFERENCES:

Council on Foreign Relations- Unilateral Geoengineering Briefing Notes 2008

Novim – Climate Engineering 2009

NOAA – Bibliometric Analysis of Climate Engineering Research – 2013

National Academy Press – Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (2015)

Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative

Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research since 2007

Climate Engineering Conference 2012-2017

Has The anti-Geoengineering Movement Been Hijacked? – Michael J. Murphy

Former USDA Crop Loss Adjuster Rosalind Peterson Keynote Speaker At 60th Annual UN Climate Conference 2007 To Address Weather Modification, Geoengineering, and Jet Fuel Pollution

Documented Government Experiments on US Citizens

With this kind of information revealed, excluding the paid shills, how can anyone still deny that weather modification and climate engineering is a reality?…

Unethical Experimentation In the US (Wikipedia is not my first choice for information, however, they have compiled a legitimate and verifiable list of unethical human experiments – always do your own research and share information widely): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Unethical human experimentation and industrial polluting of our land, water, and air, have been a reality for decades upon decades.

US Radium clean up is taking decades: Uranium Contamination In Navajo Nation “Five Year Plan“ AND – the EPA’s “five year plan” turned into a 40 year plan: Clean Up Of Toxic Uranium Legacy Taking Decades by Green Fire Times

Dynamic Aviation (aerial spraying, one of many aviation companies that perform aerial spraying services and with the following list of customers, it’s unlikely that they spray only pesticide). Its Customers:

• U.S. Department of Defense
• U.S. Department of Interior
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U.S. Department of Commerce
• U.S. Air Force
• U.S. Navy
• U.S. Army
• U.S. Marine Corps
• NASA
• Science Application International Corporation (SAIC)
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• Northrop Grumman
• Clarke Mosquito Control
• Johns Hopkins University
• University of Texas
• Optech
• Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)
• BAE Systems

Dynamic Aviation Customers (where the above information was obtained, click this link to verify): http://www.dynamicaviation.com/our-customers/

Dynamic Aviation AERIAL APPLICATION (Again, Dynamic Aviation is only one of many aerial companies contracted to perform aerial chemical spraying): http://www.dynamicaviation.com/flight-solutions-and-services/aerial-application/

NCAR/UCAR EOL “Development, Deployment, Data, Discovery – Research Aviation Facility has been in operation since 1967, serving the NSF geosciences community by providing research platforms and expertise in airborne installations and measurement techniques”:  https://www.eol.ucar.edu/about/our-organization/raf 

NCAR/UCAR EOL – PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE – Quote: “Are you thinking about a field study in a remote part of the world that requires international agreements and clearances?  Are you a researcher who has a great scientific idea but little experience in planning and implementing a multi-agency, multi-facility and multi-scientist campaign? Are you overwhelmed by the prospect of having to make logistics arrangements for a “measurement super site” in a location where little to no infrastructure exists?“. For more info on EOL “field projects”: https://www.eol.ucar.edu/field-projects

Geoengineering field experimentation ramped up in 2009: http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering/.

Feasibility of Space-Based Monitoring for Governance of Solar Radiation Management, Summer 2011: http://www.aerospace.org/2013/07/31/feasibility-of-space-based-monitoring-for-governance-of-solar-radiation-management/

Koch Bros (big oil profiteers/climate skeptic funders) Weather Derivatives: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1999/11/22/story7.html

Geoengineering and the Science Communication: A Cross Cultural Experiment (Yale Law) 2012: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=faculty_publications

Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars – Science & Technology Innovation Program Nov 2011: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf

Royal Society of Chemistry – Energy & Environmental Science, March 2011: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2011/EE/c1ee01256h#!divAbstract

History and Problems in Weather Modification Ronald B. Standler Scientific Attorney, 2002: http://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm

Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative – Partnership of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Royal Society, and TWAS, the world academy of sciences: http://www.srmgi.org/

HARVARD – Stratospheric Aerosol Injection for Geoengineering Purposeshttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.U41E..05T

Edgewood/Aberdeen Army Experiments on Military Personnel:

From 1955 to 1975, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps conducted classified medical studies at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. The purpose was to evaluate the impact of low-dose chemical warfare agents on military personnel and to test protective clothing and pharmaceuticals.” — (see link below for more)

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/edgewood-aberdeen/index.asp

The moment 18-year-old Army Pvt. Tim Josephs arrived at Edgewood Arsenal in 1968, he knew there was something different about the place.

..

“It just did not look like a military base, more like a hospital,” recalled Josephs, a Pittsburgh native. Josephs had volunteered for a two-month assignment at Edgewood, in Maryland, lured by three-day weekends closer to home.

..

“It was like a plum assignment,” Josephs said. “The idea was they would test new Army field jackets, clothing, weapons and things of that nature, but no mention of drugs or chemicals.”

..

But when he went to fill out paperwork the morning after his arrival, the base personnel were wearing white lab coats, and Josephs said he had second thoughts. An officer took him aside.

..

“He said, ‘You volunteered for this. You’re going to do it. If you don’t, you’re going to jail. You’re going to Vietnam either way — before or after,'” Josephs said recently.

..

From 1955 to 1975, military researchers at Edgewood were using not only animals but human subjects to test a witches’ brew of drugs and chemicals. They ranged from potentially lethal nerve gases like VX and sarin to incapacitating agents like BZ. – CNN (Source link below).

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/health/human-test-subjects/index.html

.

Information should be shared, not hoarded or “sold”, therefore, everything published on Rebel Siren is sharable, no cost, and accessible to everyone in the world. ~Peace