Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Category: NWO

5000 Troops Deployed On UK Streets, Manchester, UK: Is This Martial Law?

5000 troops Manchester

 Armed troops deployed on UK streets: Does this constitute Martial Law? Sure looks that way to me. There are of course many videos on the subject doing the rounds, I picked this one as Leak Project takes a good look at the various inevitable claims and theories.

 

Is this a false flag? What do you guys think?

 

 

Manchester Terror Attack

Another terror attack. After a while, one becomes a little desensitised. Hard to know what’s real and what isn’t any more, we’ve so many of these and inevitably, the usual agendas, speculations, theories and counter-theories are coalescing. My heart goes out to the people of Manchester, regardless of what happened of the agendas and conspiracies.

I grew up in the Industrial North of England (Bradford to be precise) and have several friends from Manchester. The stirring hyperbole about “Tight knit community” etc etc doesn’t reverberate with me, as my memories are of a grim brick and concrete industrial hell that I couldn’t wait to leave, and I’m sure after this, the heightened surveillance and policing will make it all the more oppressive and fearful. In fact I recall the North of England as a cultural melting pot constantly on the brink of racial and religious mayhem.

Perhaps terror attacks like this, wether real, staged or whatever, are intended to bring everyone together and “heal the divisions”. You know, Agenda 30, New World Order.

Excuse my weary cynicism folks, and once again, I am sorry for all those affected. I hope people wake up and start asking how and why, and take a look at the bigger picture.

Martin H.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/the-latest-britain-raises-terror-level-after-concert-attack/ar-BBBsYVK?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=SK2MDHP

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/dashcam-footage-captures-bomb-blast-from-outside-concert/ar-BBBpQL9?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=SK2MDHP

Fahrenheit 11/9: Michael Moore’s secret documentary is about Donald Trump

Michael Moore was one of few liberals who predicted Donald Trump’s victory last November, and since then he’s returned to his crystal ball to add a few other prophecies.

Shortly after the election, he told the hosts of Morning Joe that Trump wouldn’t last a term – he’d be impeached or resign first.

Then, last month, during the Tribeca Film Festival, Moore slightly amended that forecast, saying that, in fact, Trump would get booted during his second term.

Michael Moore is taking on Donald Trump for his latest movie. Photo/AP
Michael Moore is taking on Donald Trump for his latest movie. Photo/AP

Moore isn’t done, though. He’s making another prognostication – and this time he’s actively working to make it come true.

“I’m making a movie to get us out of this mess,” the filmmaker wrote on his Facebook page. “Fahrenheit 11/9. I’ve f***ing had it.”

That title is a callback to the 2004 documentary he made about George W Bush and the Iraq War, Fahrenheit 9/11, which is still the highest-grossing documentary of all time after pulling in more than US$220 million worldwide.

The 11/9 of the new title refers to November 9, the date that Trump was declared winner of the presidential election.

In a statement, Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who acquired the movie, said the film may be the “key in dissolving Trump’s ‘Teflon’ shield and, in turn, his presidency”.

For his part, Moore added, “No matter what you throw at him, it hasn’t worked. No matter what is revealed, he remains standing. Facts, reality, brains cannot defeat him. Even when he commits a self-inflicted wound, he gets up the next morning and keeps going and tweeting.

“That all ends with this movie.”

That’s quite a prediction.

The film is still in production and Moore isn’t divulging details, so it’s hard to say what his team has dug up that’s giving him so much confidence.

But the question remains: Is Moore really the guy who’s going to take down a president? Because, let’s not forget, he’s tried before.

Moore made no secret of his motivations with Fahrenheit 9/11 back in 2004. After all, it was a movie critical of the Bush administration that debuted during an election year.

“I would like to see Mr Bush removed from the White House,” Moore said on This Week With George Stephanopoulos that year. In a USA Today interview around the movie’s debut, he added, “This may be the first time a film has this kind of impact.”

Getting the movie to theatres before the ballots were cast, however, was a bit of a mad dash. The release of Fahrenheit 9/11 was initially stymied by a disagreement between the Weinstein’s production company, Miramax, and its parent company, Disney, whose CEO, Michael Eisner, didn’t want to release the film.

Michael Moore and George W Bush on the cover of the DVD for his 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Michael Moore and George W Bush on the cover of the DVD for his 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11.

But time was of the essence, so Moore opened up to the New York Times and the resulting story, with the headline “Disney Is Blocking Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush,” did the trick. About six weeks after the story ran, Fahrenheit hit theatres.

(The kerfuffle led to the Weinsteins leaving Miramax, a company they founded, and there still may be some sour grapes. Back to the brothers’ statement: “When we had the opportunity to work with (Moore) on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ we were so persistent that we ultimately had to part ways from Disney and we lost our beloved Miramax, named after our parents, because we believed so strongly in the message.”)

The rush to release Fahrenheit made sense considering the subject matter. Moore wanted the American people to see that Bush had hastily led the US into a misguided war. Then voters would have all the facts by the time the election rolled around in November. It worked, to some extent; a lot of people went to see what conservative pundits at the time labeled anti-Bush propaganda.

And yet Bush was elected to a second term, beating John Kerry.

Will Moore be thwarted again? Maybe, but the filmmaker can rest easy knowing he’s done everything he can to take down a man he’s called a racist, misogynist authoritarian.

This isn’t the first movie Moore made about Trump. In October, he released TrumpLand, which was basically a filmed monologue. In a review of the movie, Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday wrote, “although Moore clearly perceives TrumpLand to be his own version of an October surprise, it’s less game-changing than reassuring, especially to left-leaning voters, some of whom may still be having trouble casting a vote for a candidate they see as fatally centrist, corporation-friendly and untrustworthy.”

That critique echoes why Moore’s 2004 film also failed to alter the election results.

“Fahrenheit 9/11 may very well be the best political commercial in history,” wrote political science professor Costas Panagopoulos in 2004. “But like most political commercials, even really good ones, Fahrenheit 9/11 is unlikely to change enough voters’ minds to alter the outcome of the election.”

Anyone arguing that there’s a limit to what Moore’s movies can accomplish should know that the documentarian isn’t stopping with films. Aside from copious interviews and a “10-point plan” to stop Trump, he’ll be directing and starring in a new TNT show, Live From the Apocalypse, about contemporary politics.

He also announced earlier this month that he’d be performing on Broadway this summer, doing a show about – what else? – the commander in chief. It’s called The Terms of My Surrender and the tagline reads, “Can a Broadway show take down a sitting President?”

Washington Post

Blockchain developer: #WannaCry Ransomware Exposed as a False Flag Attack on Bitcoin

By Vin Armani

In this video, software and blockchain developer Vin Armani examines the WannaCry ransomware that the corporate media acted like it was the end of the world. Ultimately it appears to be an amateurish false flag attack on bitcoin. But upon digging into the bitcoin addresses used in the attack, Vin discovers a potentially much more nefarious attack on bitcoin.

Watch the full broadcast here
Live free and succeed outside the rigged system! Join the Counter Markets newsletter and community

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show on Activist Post, TV Star of Gigolos on Showtime, Agorist entrepreneur and co-founder of Counter Markets. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. Vin is available for interviews at email Vin (at) VinArmani.com.

Read more

The Assault on Trump, By Paul Craig Roberts

Assault On Trump

The Assault on Trump

Paul Craig Roberts

We are witnessing an assault by the national security state and its liberal media on a President of the United States that is unprecedented.

 

Wild and unsupported accusations of treasonous or illegal Russian connections have been the mainstay of the news since Trump’s campaign for president. These accusations have reached the point that there is an impeachment movement driven by the national security state and its liberal media and endorsed by Democrats, the American leftwing which has turned against the working class as “Trump deplorables,” and luminaries such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe. The Washington Post, which was not present at the meeting of President Trump with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, purports to know that Trump gave Lavrov US national security information.

The Russian government has offered the presstitute media a transcript of the meeting, but, of course, the pressitutes are not interested.

The latest story is that Trump tried to bribe FBI Director Comey, before he fired him, not to investigate Trump as part of the “Russian investigation.” Clearly there is no intelligence left in the American media. The President doesn’t need to bribe someone he can fire.

What we are witnessing is the determination of the national security state to keep their prized “Russian Threat” in its assigned role as the Number One Threat to the US. The liberal media, owned by the CIA since the 1950s is in accord with this goal.

The American media is so accustomed to its enslavement by the national security state that it does not think of the consequences. But Professor Stephen Cohen does. I agree with him that the greatest threat to national security “is this assault on President Trump.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47076.htm

Cohen said that there is a 4th branch of government, the intelligence community, which obstruts the management of American foreign affairs by the executive branch and Congress.

As an example, he reminded us that “In 2016, President Obama worked out a deal with Russian President Putin for military cooperation in Syria. He said he was going to share intelligence with Russia, just like Trump and the Russians were supposed to do the other day. Our department of defense said it wouldn’t share intelligence. And a few days later, they killed Syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end of that. So, we can ask, who is making our foreign policy in Washington today?”

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy thought he was in charge, and he was assassinated for his belief. JFK blocked an invasion of Cuba, the Northwoods project, a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, and spoke of ending the Cold War.

In the 1970s President Nixon was driven from office, because he thought he was in charge of foreign policy. Like Kennedy, Nixon was a threat to the national security state. Nixon pushed through SALT 1 and the anti-ABM Treaty, and he opened to China, defusing those tensions as well. The military/security complex saw its budget dwindling as the threat dwindled. Nixon also determined to withdraw from Vietnam, but was constrained by the national security state. Nixon, the most knowledgeable president about foreign affairs, was forced from office, because his efforts in behalf of peace constituted a threat to the power and profit of the military/security complex.

It is important to understand that there is no evidence whatsoever against Nixon in the Washington Post “investigation.” The Post’s reporters simply put together a collection of inuendoes that cast aspersion on Nixon, whose “crime” was to say that he learned of the Watergate buglary at a later date than he actually did. Nixon kept the burglary quiet until after his reelection, because he knew that the CIA’s Washington Post would use it in an effort to prevent his reelection.

The “crime” for which Nixon was really removed was his success in establishing more peaceful and stable relations with Russia and China.

Trump, being in real estate and entertainment, was unaware of the landmines on which he was stepping when he said it was time to normalize relations with Russia and to rethink the purpose of NATO.

The US military/security complex sits on a budget extracted from very hard-pressed American taxpayers of $1,000 billion dollars annually. By threatening to normalize relations with the enemy which was created in order to justify this vast budget, Trump presented as the major threat to the American National Security State’s power and profit.

This is why Trump will be broken and/or removed as President of the United States.

Once again democracy in American is proving to be powerless. There is no one in Washington who can help Trump. Those who could help him, such as myself, cannot be confirmed by the US Senate, which is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

Trump tried to connect the suffering American people to their government, an act of treason against the oligarchy, who are making an example of Trump that will dissuade politicians in the future from making populist appeals to the people.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/18/the-assault-on-trump

 

NY Library Brings Drag Queen To Kid’s Story Hour

The Associated Press released video footage from inside a Brooklyn public library as it hosts Drag Queen Story Hour for kids, something that has been scheduled every month since last fall.

The children sit around as a man who calls his alter-ego Lil’ Miss Hot Mess reads them stories and leads them in sing-alongs about drag queens. In the AP video, he reads a story about a female character whose friends think she should be less of a tomboy and dress and act like a girl. In another story, you hear the man read to the kids, “We can both be grooms.”

Lil’ Miss Hot Mess asks the kids, “Who wants to be a drag queen when they grow up?”

“Drag Queen Story Hour is fantastic because it addresses all of these issues of gender fluidity and self acceptance and all of these topics that, um, are real — are very, very real,” said Kat Savage of the Brooklyn Public Library.

And the packed room of parents apparently loved it.

“It was great!” one enthusiastic mother said. “So much energy.”

Another mother said, “You know, that’s what I’m looking for in all of our outings, is to present different ways of being in the world and make that fun and available to my kid.”

The library has received some backlash for hosting this reading hour, but Lil’ Miss Hot Mess, who doesn’t give his real name for fear of harassment, doesn’t mind: “Those are people who think gay people are sinful, or evil, or, you know, bad to begin with. So, we’re just starting from such different places that it’s kind of irrelevant to me.”

Plans are to expand the program to other libraries in New York City.

Vice did a short film on these monthly drag queen story hours when they began last year and discovered they also happen in San Francisco. A mother interviewed for the film said she’s already taken her daughter to two of them and is glad to expose her preschool daughter to the concept:

“From the very beginning, kids are pushed into these gender roles, which is absolutely absurd because they’re just kids. I want her to have the opportunity to just be whoever she’s going to be, and know that her parents are going to love her and be happy whether she’s a she or a he or anywhere in between.”

More:

https://thecontrail.com/forum/topics/nyc-san-francisco-public-libraries-host-monthly-drag-queen-story?xg_source=activity

(Thanks Snafu!)

If China Can Fund infrastructure with Its Own Credit, So Can We

Image result for china credit infrastructure funding

May 15th-19th has been designated “National Infrastructure Week” by the US Chambers of Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and over 150 affiliates. Their message: “It’s time to rebuild.” Ever since ASCE began issuing its “National Infrastructure Report Card” in 1998, the nation has gotten a dismal grade of D or D+. In the meantime, the estimated cost of fixing its infrastructure has gone up from $1.3 trillion to $4.6 trillion.

While American politicians debate endlessly over how to finance the needed fixes and which ones to implement, the Chinese have managed to fund massive infrastructure projects all across their country, including 12,000 miles of high-speed rail built just in the last decade. How have they done it, and why can’t we?

A key difference between China and the US is that the Chinese government owns the majority of its banks. About 40% of the funding for its giant railway project comes from bonds issued by the Ministry of Railway, 10-20% comes from provincial and local governments, and the remaining 40-50% is provided by loans from federally-owned banks and financial institutions. Like private banks, state-owned banks simply create money as credit on their books. (More on this below.) The difference is that they return their profits to the government, making the loans interest-free; and the loans can be rolled over indefinitely. In effect, the Chinese government decides what work it wants done, draws on its own national credit card, pays Chinese workers to do it, and repays the loans with the proceeds.

The US government could do that too, without raising taxes, slashing services, cutting pensions, or privatizing industries. How this could be done quickly and cheaply will be considered here, after a look at the funding proposals currently on the table and at why they are not satisfactory solutions to the nation’s growing infrastructure deficit.

The Endless Debate over Funding and the Relentless Push to Privatize

 In a May 15, 2017, report on In the Public Interest, the debate taking shape heading into National Infrastructure Week was summarized like this:

The Trump administration, road privatization industry, and a broad mix of congressional leaders are keen on ramping up a large private financing component (under the marketing rubric of ‘public-private partnerships’), but have not yet reached full agreement on what the proportion should be between tax breaks and new public money—and where that money would come from. Over 500 projects are being pitched to the White House. . . .

Democrats have had a full plan on the table since January, advocating for new federal funding and a program of infrastructure renewal spread through a broad range of sectors and regions. And last week, a coalition of right wing, Koch-backed groups led by Freedom Partners . . .  released a letter encouraging Congress “to prioritize fiscal responsibility” and focus instead on slashing public transportation, splitting up transportation policy into the individual states, and eliminating labor and environmental protections (i.e., gutting the permitting process). They attacked the idea of a national infrastructure bank and . . . targeted the most important proposal of the Trump administration . . . —to finance new infrastructure by tax reform to enable repatriation of overseas corporate revenues . . . .

In a November 2014 editorial titled “How Two Billionaires Are Destroying High Speed Rail in America,” author Julie Doubleday observed that the US push against public mass transit has been led by a think tank called the Reason Foundation, which is funded by the Koch brothers. Their $44 billion fortune comes largely from Koch Industries, an oil and gas conglomerate with a vested interest in mass transit’s competitors, those single-rider vehicles using the roads that are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Clearly, not all Republicans are opposed to funding infrastructure, since Donald Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and his Republican base voted him into office. But “establishment Republicans” have traditionally opposed infrastructure spending. Why? According to a May 15, 2015 article in Daily Kos titled “Why Do Republicans Really Oppose Infrastructure Spending?”:

Republicans – at the behest of their mega-bank/private equity patrons – really, deeply want to privatize the nation’s infrastructure and turn such public resources into privately owned, profit centers.  More than anything else, this privatization fetish explains Republicans’ efforts to gut and discredit public infrastructure  . . . .

If the goal is to privatize and monetize public assets, the last thing Republicans are going to do is fund and maintain public confidence in such assets.  Rather, when private equity wants to acquire something, the typical playbook is to first make sure that such assets are what is known as “distressed assets” (i.e., cheaper to buy).

A similar argument was advanced by Noam Chomsky in a 2011 lecture titled “The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival”. He said:

[T]here is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to [privatize] the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them . . . .

What’s Wrong with Public-Private Partnerships?

Privatization (or “asset relocation” as it is sometimes euphemistically called) means selling public utilities to private equity investors, who them rent them back to the public, squeezing their profits from high user fees and tolls. Private equity investment now generates an average return of about 11.8 percent annually on a ten-year basis. That puts the cost to the public of financing $1 trillion in infrastructure projects over 10 years at around $1.18 trillion, more than doubling the cost. Moving assets off the government’s balance sheet by privatizing them looks attractive to politicians concerned with this year’s bottom line, but it’s a bad deal for the public. Decades from now, people will still be paying higher tolls for the sake of Wall Street profits on an asset that could have belonged to them all along.

One example is the Dulles Greenway, a toll road outside Washington, D.C., nicknamed the “Champagne Highway” due to its extraordinarily high rates and severe underutilization in a region crippled by chronic traffic problems. Local (mostly Republican) officials have tried in vain for years to either force the private owners to lower the toll rates or have the state take the road into public ownership. In 2014, the private operators of the Indiana Toll Road, one of the best-known public-private partnerships (PPPs), filed for bankruptcy after demand dropped, due at least in part to rising toll rates. Other high-profile PPP bankruptcies have occurred in San Diego, CA; Richmond, VA; and Texas.

Countering the dogma that “private companies can always do it better and cheaper,” studies have found that on average, private contractors charge more than twice as much as the government would have paid federal workers for the same job. A 2011 report by the Brookings Institution found that “in practice [PPPs] have been dogged by contract design problems, waste, and unrealistic expectations.” In their 2015 report “Why Public-Private Partnerships Don’t Work,” Public Services International stated that “[E]xperience over the last 15 years shows that PPPs are an expensive and inefficient way of financing infrastructure and divert government spending away from other public services. They conceal public borrowing, while providing long-term state guarantees for profits to private companies.” They also divert public money away from the neediest infrastructure projects, which may not deliver sizable returns, in favor of those big-ticket items that will deliver hefty profits to investors.

A Better Way to Design an Infrastructure Bank

The Trump team has also reportedly discussed the possibility of an infrastructure bank, but that proposal faces similar hurdles. The details of the proposal are as yet unknown, but past conceptions of an infrastructure bank envision a quasi-bank (not a physical, deposit-taking institution) seeded by the federal government, possibly from taxes on the repatriation of offshore corporate profits. The bank would issue bonds, tax credits, and loan guarantees to state and local governments to leverage private sector investment. As with the private equity proposal, an infrastructure bank would rely on public-private partnerships and investors who would be disinclined to invest in projects that did not generate hefty returns. And those returns would again be paid by the public in the form of tolls, fees, higher rates, and payments from state and local governments.

There is another way to set up a publicly-owned bank. Today’s infrastructure banks are basically revolving funds. A dollar invested is a dollar lent, which must return to the bank (with interest) before it can be lent again. A chartered depository bank, on the other hand, can turn a one-dollar investment into ten dollars in loans. It can do this because depository banks actually create deposits when they make loans. This was acknowledged by economists both at the Bank of England (in a March 2014 paper entitled “Money Creation in the Modern Economy”) and at the Bundesbank (the German central bank) in an April 2017 report.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, money is not fixed and scarce. It is “elastic”: it is created when loans are made and extinguished when they are paid off. The Bank of England report said that private banks create nearly 97 percent of the money supply today. Borrowing from banks (rather than the bond market) expands the circulating money supply. This is something the Federal Reserve tried but failed to do with its quantitative easing (QE) policies: stimulate the economy by expanding the bank lending that expands the money supply.

The stellar (and only) model of a publicly-owned depository bank in the United States is the Bank of North Dakota (BND). It holds all of its home state’s revenues as deposits by law, acting as a sort of “mini-Fed” for North Dakota. According to reports, the BND is more profitable even than Goldman Sachs, has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase, and has seen solid profit growth for almost 15 years. The BND continued to report record profits after two years of oil bust in the state, suggesting that it is highly profitable on its own merits because of its business model. The BND does not pay bonuses, fees, or commissions; has no high paid executives; does not speculate on risky derivatives; does not have multiple branches; does not need to advertise; and does not have private shareholders seeking short-term profits. The profits return to the bank, which distributes them as dividends to the state.

The federal government could set up a bank on a similar model. It has massive revenues, which it could leverage into credit for its own purposes. Since financing is typically about 50 percent of the cost of infrastructure, the government could cut infrastructure costs in half by borrowing from its own bank. Public-private partnerships are a good deal for investors but a bad deal for the public. The federal government can generate its own credit without private financial middlemen. That is how China does it, and we can too.

For more detail on this and other ways to solve the infrastructure problem without raising taxes,  slashing services, or privatizing public assets, see Ellen Brown, “Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure,”a policy brief for the Next System Project, March 2017.

______________________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, a Senior Fellow of the Democracy Collaborative, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

If China Can Fund infrastructure with Its Own Credit, So Can We

Australian parents who don’t vaccinate their children will be fined $14 per week by the authoritarian regime

This is disgusting. Australia has truly surrendered it’s freedom of choice:

Image: Australian parents who don’t vaccinate their children will be fined $14 per week by the authoritarian regime

(Natural News) If you live in Australia and want to exercise your right not to vaccinate your kids, you’d better be prepared to pay for that privilege. The new federal budget will see parents who don’t vaccinate losing AUD$14 per week, which equates to around USD$10.49 at today’s rate, from their family tax benefit payments. The measure will be set in motion starting July 2018, and it is expected to raise millions of dollars while punishing those who don’t want to vaccinate their kids.

Health Minister Greg Hunt and Social Services Minister Christian Porter have said that taking this approach rather than withholding a supplement at the end of the year would be a good way to constantly remind parents that they need to vaccinate their kids. It will also apply to families who do not get their four-year-olds a health check, which presumably is yet another way to try to push vaccines on kids.

Families who want to catch up on their vaccines will be able to do so for free under a $14 million program. The government will also spend $5 million to promote the benefits of vaccination in areas that have lower immunization rates, such as the far north coast of New South Wales.

Australia is a hostile place for anti-vaxxers

Most countries take a dim view of those who oppose vaccines, but Australia is a particularly unfriendly place for them. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s “No Jab, No Play” policy excludes kids who haven’t been vaccinated from going to preschool or childcare unless they have an official medical exemption. “Vaccine objection” would not be considered a valid reason to skip the shots under the proposal. Laws that prevent unvaccinated children from going to school already exist in some parts of Australia, including Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.

Meanwhile, the recently updated vaccination standards of The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia urged members of the public to report any midwives and nurses who are sharing beliefs that could be construed as opposing vaccination.

In addition, some Australian children are being denied medical treatment because their immunizations are not up to date. A poll of more than 2,000 parents found that one out of every six children who were not current on their vaccinations had been refused care. According to that study, 95 percent of the country’s children were fully vaccinated despite the fact that a third of parents had concerns and one-tenth of parents felt vaccines could be behind autism.

Vaccine injury reports average at 125 per day in our nation, which is hardly a drop in the bucket. In 2016, more than 45,000 adverse events following vaccinations were reported, some of which were life-threatening. This only pertains to the cases that were actually reported; many are never reported because the parents don’t understand the process or have been convinced by medical professionals that doing so is not necessary.

Vaccines are loaded with dangerous chemicals, chemical adjuvants and other toxins that can cause many adverse effects, including death. While the Australian government seems to think this financial punishment will serve as quite a deterrent, it’s safe to assume that many parents will be all too glad to part with AUD$14 to avoid having to shoot their children up with formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury, among other toxins.

Sources:

News.com.au

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Vaccines.news

ABC.net.au

HeraldSun.com.au