Watch health professionals apply CPR to an infant immediately after injecting her with 3 vaccines … sadly she dies (Philippines)

“Meanwhile, in the Philippines, this infant received 3 vaccines and now they are doing CPR on the child.”  The baby died.

The deepest condolences to these parents. Absolutely heartbreaking. Watch the video of the medical staff trying to revive the little one they just minutes before injected with three vaccines. Safe? Really? (Note the video is currently pinned to the top of the Rangitikei FB page & you will only be able to view it if you are a FB member.  You will also have to ‘uncover’ it as they have protected you from seeing the ‘violent or graphic content’ … the violence of the staff trying to revive a little one killed with their violent medical procedure). And no disrespect to this dear family who lost their precious baby … I am sure they have posted it as a warning to others. I am re posting it for the same reason.

If you watch Vaxxed testimonies on Youtube you will find many many more examples like this one. Perfectly healthy babies gone for their wellness checks & immunisation only to end up disabled or dead.

The risks for vaccine injury are 1 in 39 and the pharmaceutical companies are exempted from liability. These are frequently explained away as mere coincidence. Heartbreaking reports from parents indicate this may occur minutes, hours or days after the vaccine. Any parent’s worst nightmare. I had a conversation recently with a mother whose baby began to seizure 15 minutes after a vaccine was administered. A vaccine she did not want due to a previous reaction, however she was threatened with child protection services and did not want to lose her child. She had no come back, attempts by her to complain about these health professionals were met with brick walls. This was NZ too.

RELATED:

A 2010 study via US Dept Health & Human Svces revealed one out of every 39 children vaccinated with government-mandated vaccines suffers serious injuries

 

 

Former Salesman for vaccine maker Merck & Co. tells why he would not vaccinate his own son

LarryCook333

48.7K subscribers

http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com – “If you believe what you are told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.” In 1991 Scott Cooper and his wife researched vaccine safety and efficacy, determined vaccines are NOT safe or effective, and refused to vaccinate their son. Interestingly, their son was much healthier than his vaccinated peers throughout childhood. At the time, Scott worked as a sales rep for Merck & Co., a large vaccine manufacturer, and he had dived deep into researching vaccines and the risk associated with vaccination. His Pediatrician was befuddled that Scott would not vaccinate, especially because he worked for a large vaccine manufacturer! His son continues to be healthy, and Scott and his wife have no regrets about not vaccinating their son. A STOP Mandatory Vaccination Production Produced by Larry Cook Founder and Director of http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com Contribute here: http://www.gofundme.com/ohwupg The Vaccine Research Library http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com

Photo: screen shot from the video

Did you know NZ is a leader in governmental use of AI?… there’s been a call for an independent regulator here to monitor & address the associated risks of the tech

From theconversation.com

New Zealand is a leader in government use of artificial intelligence (AI). It is part of a global network of countries that use predictive algorithms in government decision making, for anything from the optimal scheduling of public hospital beds to whether an offender should be released from prison, based on their likelihood of reoffending, or the efficient processing of simple insurance claims.

But the official use of AI algorithms in government has been in the spotlight in recent years. On the plus side, AI can enhance the accuracy, efficiency and fairness of day-to-day decision making. But concerns have also been expressed regarding transparency, meaningful human control, data protection and bias.

In a report released today, we recommend New Zealand establish a new independent regulator to monitor and address the risks associated with these digital technologies.

---

Read more: To protect us from the risks of advanced artificial intelligence, we need to act now

---

AI and transparency

There are three important issues regarding transparency.

One relates to the inspectability of algorithms. Some aspects of New Zealand government practice are reassuring. Unlike some countries that use commercial AI products, New Zealand has tended to build government AI tools in-house. This means that we know how the tools work.

But intelligibility is another issue. Knowing how an AI system works doesn’t guarantee the decisions it reaches will be understood by the people affected. The best performing AI systems are often extremely complex.

To make explanations intelligible, additional technology is required. A decision-making system can be supplemented with an “explanation system”. These are additional algorithms “bolted on” to the main algorithm we seek to understand. Their job is to construct simpler models of how the underlying algorithms work – simple enough to be understandable to people. We believe explanation systems will be increasingly important as AI technology advances.

A final type of transparency relates to public access to information about the AI systems used in government. The public should know what AI systems their government uses as well as how well they perform. Systems should be regularly evaluated and summary results made available to the public in a systematic format.

---

Read more: Avoid the politics and let artificial intelligence decide your vote in the next election

---

New Zealand’s law and transparency

Our report takes a detailed look at how well New Zealand law currently handles these transparency issues.

New Zealand doesn’t have laws specifically tailored towards algorithms, but some are relevant in this context. For instance, New Zealand’s Official Information Act (OIA) provides a right to reasons for decisions by official agencies, and this is likely to apply to algorithmic decisions just as much as human ones. This is in notable contrast to Australia, which doesn’t impose a general duty on public officials to provide reasons for their decisions.

But even the OIA would come up short where decisions are made or supported by opaque decision systems. That is why we recommend that predictive algorithms used by government, whether developed commercially or in-house, must feature in a public register, must be publicly inspectable, and (if necessary) must be supplemented with explanation systems.

Human control and data protection

Another issue relates to human control. Some of the concerns around algorithmic decision-making are best addressed by making sure there is a “human in the loop,” with a human having final sign off on any important decision. However, we don’t think this is likely to be an adequate solution in the most important cases.

---

Read more: Automated vehicles may encourage a new breed of distracted drivers

---

A persistent theme of research in industrial psychology is that humans become overly trusting and uncritical of automated systems, especially when those systems are reliable most of the time. Just adding a human “in the loop” will not always produce better outcomes. Indeed in certain contexts, human collaboration will offer false reassurance, rendering AI-assisted decisions less accurate.

With respect to data protection, we flag the problem of “inferred data”. This is data inferred about people rather than supplied by them directly (just as when Amazon infers that you might like a certain book on the basis of books it knows you have purchased). Among other recommendations, our report calls for New Zealand to consider the legal status of inferred data, and whether it should be treated the same way as primary data.

Bias and discrimination

A final area of concern is bias. Computer systems might look unbiased, but if they are relying on “dirty data” from previous decisions, they could have the effect of “baking in” discriminatory assumptions and practices. New Zealand’s anti-discrimination laws are likely to apply to algorithmic decisions, but making sure discrimination doesn’t creep back in will require ongoing monitoring.

The report also notes that while “individual rights” — for example, against discrimination — are important, we can’t entirely rely on them to guard against all of these risks. For one thing, affected people will often be those with the least economic or political power. So while they may have the “right” not to be discriminated against, it will be cold comfort to them if they have no way of enforcing it.

There is also the danger that they won’t be able to see the whole picture, to know whether an algorithm’s decisions are affecting different sections of the community differently. To enable a broader discussion about bias, public evaluation of AI tools should arguably include results for specific sub-populations, as well as for the whole population.

A new independent body will be essential if New Zealand wants to harness the benefits of algorithmic tools while avoiding or minimising their risks to the public.

Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin and Joy Liddicoat, collaborators on the AI and Law in New Zealand project, have contributed to the writing of this piece.

SOURCE

https://theconversation.com/call-for-independent-watchdog-to-monitor-nz-government-use-of-artificial-intelligence-117589

https://www.biometricupdate.com/201905/academics-call-on-new-zealand-to-regulate-ai-as-brookings-issues-guidance

Image by Computerizer from Pixabay

 

Before you say yes to the Gardasil HPV vaccine parents, please watch this video

VAXXED TV

66.5K subscribers

Colton and his mother Kathleen share his story of vaccine injury following the Gardisil vaccine with the VaxXed team in Oren, Utah. Camera and editing by Joshua Coleman.

Johnson & Johnson, ovarian cancer risks, and the law

From whenwomeninspire.com

Across America, women are taking the fight to Johnson & Johnson. The massive company behind many of the nation’s favorite products has come under fire amongst claims that their product, talcum powder, can cause ovarian cancer. If you want to take part in this class action lawsuit, make sure you seek out a professional compensation lawyer and get the Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks details here.

About the lawsuit regarding Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks

The claims come after the resurfacing of a study from 1982. As a result of this study, a group of researchers took their findings to Johnson & Johnson. They told them that the results of their research clearly suggested a link between talcum powder and a higher risk of developing cancer.

Twelve years later, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition also appealed to the company to ask them to recall the products and stop making talcum powder with its current ingredients.

The group spearheading the lawsuit versus the company claim that the company knowingly ignored the research and never told the public about it. They didn’t put warning labels on their products, and they even advertised that people use the potentially cancerous products on high-risk parts of their bodies.

READ MORE

https://whenwomeninspire.com/2019/11/28/johnson-johnson-ovarian/

How did 274K babies end up on psychiatric meds? (Dr Mercola)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• An estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017. The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25
• The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told
• Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children
• There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem
• Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia

In the U.S., an estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017.¹ The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25.² However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.

With regard to overdiagnosis, one 2013 study³ found only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.

As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.

 

According to a 2017 study,⁴ 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013.

According to data⁵ presented by a watchdog group, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.

Recent studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.

READ MORE

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/19/depression-chemical-imbalance-myth.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1ReadMore&utm_campaign=20190919Z1&et_cid=DM347532&et_rid=711345274&fbclid=IwAR1p6oyziZJewum0Us_A1XTZgL8Q1-pihXlUdiE7m0jhZ3QZWEutA_4Hxzs

California Nurse Gives Gardasil Vaccine to Own Daughter who Develops Leukemia and Dies 10 mnths later

Health Impact News

The VAXXED team interviewed a mother in Long Beach, California, who is a nurse and was pro-vaccine. She explains that all her children were up-to-date on their vaccines before she gave her daughter the Gardasil vaccine at age 16.

As a nurse, she routinely gave vaccines to patients at work, and never questioned these vaccines. She states that she was never taught about their side effects.

So when she heard that Gardasil was a vaccine to prevent cancer, and that her daughter needed to have it before she became sexually active, she did not hesitate to have her daughter come in to the office where she worked, where she herself administered the first vaccine.

After that first vaccine, her daughter was always tired, and they thought maybe she had “mono.” Her body ached all the time, and she had difficulty walking long distances. Prior to the vaccine, her daughter was healthy and active.

Her mother did not associate these symptoms with the vaccine, however. She attributed it to a poor diet and a busy lifestyle.

Because of her daughter’s fear of vaccines, she decided to bring the second Gardasil vaccine home and give it to her daughter in their home.

Soon after the second vaccine, her daughter was diagnosed with leukemia. 10 months later, she was dead.

I want to share my story because it is very important.

This vaccine is horrible. I don’t know if I wouldn’t have given it to her if she would still be here.

And I feel really responsible because I gave it to her physically…

I just thought I was doing what was right to protect my daughter from cancer, and she got cancer!

I tried to protect her…

Watch the entire interview at the link:

https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/california-nurse-gives-gardasil-vaccine-to-own-daughter-who-develops-leukemia-and-dies/?fbclid=IwAR121h5KB-OoZZnhCwfs2gFbngZwOl4mfLrJTdjUTfQjLpu9ZLm2r6lhWj0

The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight

Ten Thousand Chemicals in Food and Food Packaging: What Are These Substances Doing to Our Children?

From greenmedinfo.com

The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. with three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Public health challenges related to the foods that American children eat are a not-infrequent topic of national conversation. With 38% of children either overweight or obese, the childhood obesity epidemic tends to top the list of concerns, along with related issues such as children’s fast food consumption and the damaging effects of junk food advertising.

According to a recent nationally representative survey, about 60% of the calories consumed by Americans come from “ultra-processed” foods and beverages–defined as products resulting from “several sequences of industrial processes” and including additives “used to imitate sensory properties of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product.” Alarmingly, the survey showed that adolescents (10- to 19-year-olds) were among the biggest consumers of ultra-processed foods and that their intake of these foods increased from 2007 to 2012, rising to over two-thirds (68%) of total calories consumed.

Given that teens are relying on additive-filled processed foods for the bulk of their calories, it is noteworthy that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. Published in July 2018 in Pediatrics, the AAP commentary has three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight.

READ MORE

https://www.greenmedinfo.health/blog/ten-thousand-chemicals-food-and-food-packaging-what-are-these-substances-doing-ou?fbclid=IwAR017-CJSSPblpeNJIa0BumMMfPgpY0rEvMrxhP2bv71qLW6sQ0eUECMIss

More important info on Milford’s post-aerial 1080 drop water

WHAT’S IN THE WATER? MILFORD SOUND, FIORDLAND

NOTE: The NZ authorities do not practice the precautionary principle with the spreading of 1080 poison. In fact they are now legally allowed to drop it into your waterways without the previously required consents, even though the manufacturer’s warning says take care not to drop it into the waterways. Whilst they continue to claim it is harmless, there is much independent research that says otherwise. (See 1080science for further independent info). In light of that, in my opinion it is safer to follow the precautionary principle, that is, proceed as if there were a possible risk to your health rather than assume there is none. Since 1080 is a known teratogen I believe it is particularly important for pregnant mothers or even those who think they may be or who could be pregnant, to distance themselves from an area where 1080 is being distributed, particularly aerially because of the drift of the dust over long distances.  I believe these are the concerns being raised here, and particularly also with regard to warning tourists of the risks of drinking the water, who may not be able to read the signs (if there indeed are any). Finally, of particular concern is the topography of Milford Sound. When it rains at Milford Sound, “all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed”.  EWR.

---

By Carol Sawyer

Bowen Falls, Milford Sound….. the water intake for supplying Milford Sound township, and all tourist boats and accommodation, is approx. 200m upstream of the Bowen Falls and approx. 100m below the 1080 poison bait drop zone, where 1080 poison baits were aerially dropped on 15 October, 2019.

See smallest map attached. The person who provided that map says:

“Blue (circle) is rough location of intake. Red is a big pipe running from intake into the hydro electric station. It creates the power. Also here is where the only filter for our drinking water is…it’s a UV filter. Then it is distributed to vessels and accommodations. Our drinking water is straight from the Bowen River valley. I have walked up the pipeline before… quite steep in places.”

The significance of all of this is that the aerial 1080 drop could possibly have contaminated the water supply. As well as that, poisoned carcasses will, as we know from experience in all aerial 1080 drops, end up in that waterway as well, also then being a source of contamination.

1)Bowen Falls – Photo Te Ara, Encyclopaedia of NZ
2)Water intake – approximate position provided.
3)Area around Milford Sound excluded from aerial 1080 poison… map provided by Dept of Conservation.

 

Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt says a leading legal academic! (UK)

More evidence of insanity in the ranks of the so called academics. Or is it simply evidence of the deep seated corruption we are now facing? I think the latter. EWR

From the Telegraph, UK

Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.

Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.

As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.

Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.

 

In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.

She said: “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”

Individuals are placed on the “Barred List” and banned from working with youngsters or vulnerable adults if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence, or one involving the mistreatment of a child.

Miss Reece criticised the rules for leading all sex offenders to be “tarred with the same brush,” saying that while “careful screening” was “important,” the issuing of a “blanket ban” violated the rights of criminals who wanted to adopt or work with young people.

She highlighted the case of a grandfather with a conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old dating back to when he was 29, who was refused permission to adopt his own grandchildren.

The ban could contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and may leave the Government open to legal challenge, Miss Reece warned.

Comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples, she suggested that if blanket bans on the former were allowed, it would make sense to bar those who were not married from adopting because parents who were wed were less likely to separate with harmful consequences for the child.

She also highlighted the case of four nurses who recently won a High Court challenge after being barred for having convictions. One of the nurses was banned over a police caution for leaving her own children alone in their home.

“Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk,” the academic said.

“This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.”

Miss Reece has been at the LSE since September 2009, having previously worked at the University of London, University College London and Birkbeck College.

A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method, and was awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book Prize in 2004 for a monograph called “Divorcing Responsibly.

She has also argued that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity.

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public.

“The review is very much focused on seeing whether the rules have gone too far in stopping normal volunteering with children, while continuing to carry out criminal records checks on people in sensitive posts, such as in the NHS.”

 

SOURCE

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html?fbclid=IwAR3dJLlMkODR7ZYyDZZe60Va5yzwH3VV90O04uTBXzpg8gFhWjLIJDvtBiI