Censorship, Controlled Opposition and False Flags. What Do They Tell Us About the Vaccine Agenda?
Has anyone noticed the terms ‘hate groups’, ‘dangerous criminals’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, or even ‘neonazis’ used to qualify vaccine-hesitant people recently?
You may know that last January, the World Health Organization encouraged this type of media bullying by declaring that ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is one of the 10 biggest threats to human health. Since doubt and plurality of opinions can be considered the core principles driving science and democracy, one wonders if such a reckless statement really serves health and ‘humanity’. Or rather if it supports a fast track totalitarian agenda to impose more mandates, censorship and a fierce repression of ‘dangerous’ freedom advocates? In this context, it makes sense to open our eyes and watch out for false flag operations that could suddenly open the door to the next bills and measures implemented/introduced at a global level…
Firstly, one has to wonder why vaccine freedom advocates are treated like terrorists and why vaccine victims are conveniently relabeled ‘hateful antivaxxers’ in the first place. Although thousands of parents have lost children, or seen their child regress into autism, become epileptic or severely injured after a vaccine, one never hears any hate speech in these parents’ testimonies. Rather, one hears their deep suffering, along with amazing courage and dignity. All they really want is peace and for their fragile, damaged loved ones to be cared for. “Let us parents decide what we feel is best for our child, now that society has failed to protect them”. This is their prayer. No calls for harm, no violence.
However, this peaceful stance does not seem to stop mainstream and institutional communication from denying any form of vaccine injury and portraying ‘antivaxxers’ as dangerous. But what if one were to analyse their claims first? If one looks at the open letter to the World Health Organization and the European Parliament that was signed by more than 130 vaccine free choice associations last year, the main things they repeatedly ask for are serious safety studies, independent research and transparency of data. Well, believe it or not, while constantly repeating their need to restore confidence in vaccines, the WHO and the EU still refuse to spend a dime on this research (the same can be said of the CDC in the United States). No research has been carried out to look into adjuvant safety, to test vaccines against inert placebos, to monitor side effects for more than a few days, to test vaccines for increased risk of cancer and infertility, or to create better quality controls of vaccine products. Instead, these organisations fund research in social and behavioral sciences to ‘better understand vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘educate people’. Does that sound normal in any way?
No serious testing…
Is it really acceptable that a handful of people are performing this type of scientific experiment on the whole of humanity? That a few politicians and billionaires decide that vaccines are safe and impose increasing doses onto the entire world population over a lifetime without any real knowledge of long term consequences? Even assuming that their experts were the most qualified and totally independent, what if those who had the fate of humanity in their hands simply made…an error? This should be a wake up call!
If the primary concern was people’s health, mainstream media would surely communicate that vitamin A helps to fight the measles virus, that many vaccinated people still get measles, and that the B and D4 strains of many current epidemics seem to be resistant to the vaccines. They would alert the public to the fact that we could very soon end up with the same situation as we have with resistance to antibiotics, and that we need to think of alternative and complimentary ways to deal with microbes and the immune system.
Measles is not the real issue, it’s democracy and human rights
It’s high time we understand that this is not about measles or any other virus: it’s about democracy and human rights. It’s the desperate attempt of a ‘poison cartel’ – as world activist Vandana Shiva calls the alliance of the biochemical corporations dictating their will on our planet – to keep increasing profits and to cling to power while there is increasing proof and awareness that their policies and products are dangerous and failing, whether they be drugs, fuels or pesticides.
People don’t trust the Big Pharma giants anymore, mostly because they are becoming increasingly aware of the reality of vaccine injury, but also because they realize that, unlike drugs, vaccine products often have no liability or injury compensation program. They also learn that vaccine policy makers such as WHO, HHS or the EMA get major lobby and funding from private interests. And when trust in ‘authority’ is lost, only two options are left: attempt to renew confidence, or take control by force. So the whole measles media campaign is mainly there to establish the principle of ongoing mandatory vaccination on a global scale as a response to the growing loss of trust.
So far the measles strategy developed by the Global Health Security Agenda has certainly been successful in introducing mandates not only for one but many vaccines. To pass such draconian bills, the recipe is well known: use the security argument and other totalitarian rhetoric such as the greater good, solidarity and equal rights before brainwashing people with a dream propaganda.
This is the way new mandates have been pushed in democratic countries such as France and Italy and perhaps soon will be in Germany, despite their formerly strong legal protection of individual rights and informed consent. In the areas where vaccines cannot be mandated by law, they become so in practice: no injection? No…kindergarten, school, child allowance, insurance, medical facilities, employment with public contact, access to public places or transportation.
Right now, priorities of the European roadmap are the harmonisation of vaccine schedules and the creation of a common digital European passport, probably with a microchip on ID documents. New vaccines are planned in this lifelong program (about 270 are in the pharma pipeline, including new ‘gene transfer technology’ vaccines that will work by modifying our DNA) starting with the most profitable ones such as HPV vaccines (average 360€ or 400$ per person) and the yearly flu vaccines. Current proposals include vaccine appointments prompted with notifications on mobile phones and the routine control of vaccine status with every administrative formality (this is already the case in Argentina).
This is just what one can read in official documents and hear in official meetings. Practically, this is a clear shift from disease control to ongoing individual surveillance at its deepest level, with every kind of abuse made possible. It is truly astounding that nobody seems to question this most fundamental social transformation to an Orwellian society.
Supposing this is not really about measles epidemics, but rather about a type of racket linked to population control …
One needs to look further afield to see if any other authoritarian methods are being used to push the vaccine agenda, such as censorship, controlled opposition or even false flag events.
Censorship is the most obvious totalitarian tool, which oddly seems to have become a priority of ‘health’ institutions to restore ‘vaccine confidence’. If the mainstream media have long been silent about vaccine injury and scientific controversy because of their strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, we are now starting to see a higher degree of censorship.
Last year, Pinterest was one of the first social media apps to close accounts from ‘antivaxxers’ calling ‘vaccine hesitancy’ a form of ‘self injury’ and quoting WHO guidelines. Today, GAFA and most web service providers have openly committed themselves to applying this censorship policy. Videos of vaccine injuries and skeptical content are removed, sites are delisted, search algorithms modified, scientific articles ‘retracted’, whistleblowers harassed, etc. In a recent meeting, Unicef officials considered that the different measures of suppression of vaccine critical content proposed by the attending Facebook representative were not sufficient. They suggested simply banning ‘antivaxxers’ and their like from social media. Suppress content, ban the authors… and next, also go after them?
Reversing the accusation is a defense mechanism that has proven to be highly effective. When thousands of families claimed their child had been injured by a vaccine, governement officials in the UK simply called them criminals with ‘blood on their hands’. When freedom activists asked that their fundamental rights be respected, they were called ‘selfish’, and when they called out the evident corruption and abuse of power, they were labelled conspiracy theorists.
The next level is to label them ‘terrorists’. We are almost there… an article featured on NBC reveals this new delirium, that ‘antivaxers are conspiracy theorists, that they have a frustrated narcissitic personality and this leads to scary dangerous behaviors, such as terrorism or wild shootings…
One might think that western journalists and politicians would be deeply ashamed of falling into such basic trash propaganda, but perhaps the experts of the EU social studies on vaccine hesitancy have dug out some old Soviet ‘scientific literature,’ which has quite a long and successful track record of turning political dissent into psychiatric disease, and fed them their first results?
This type of constant blaming and vilification might not seem of serious concern until one realizes what other grave consequences this can lead to. For example, recent measles cases occurring in the Jewish orthodox community of New York were the object of such a constant media hammering that they set off a wave of racist speech and behaviors. What’s really happening in the name of ‘solidarity’? What kind of game is the media playing?
Controlled opposition and lamentable lawyers
‘Controlled opposition’ is, by definition, less obvious. It does not mean that the people and movements involved are necessarily corrupt or functioning government agents, but that they are influenced, manipulated or channeled into specific directions that will undermine their stated end purpose.
Typically, all the media attention is usually focused on activists with less sophistication, such as parents with a highly emotional profile and poor educational background, who preferably concentrate the discussion on a single argument.
A ‘well intentioned lawyer’ with a similar profile will then propose his services to these people to help them defend their cause (for example, a vaccine-damaged child) and immediately benefit from the same attention. Thanks to this publicity, they will collect funds and injury cases, perhaps even winning a small legal battle in first instance. The lawyer will engage the best experts and try to get support from famous personalities, etc. However, at the crucial moment, he will inevitably make a fatal mistake and completely sink the whole process while calling himself a victim of the system. Perhaps some scandal involving him would also come out around the same time. Bad luck, now resources are wasted, people discredited, the whole movement goes down and no attention has been given to other voices…
Unfortunately, this pathetic ‘pied piper’ scenario has been observed time and again in many countries.
False flag operations
A possible illustration could be the case of the controversial lawyer T. Matthew Philips (pictured) in California. It’s interesting to read how an angry and wary journalist describes his modus operandi to ‘deliberately tank two lawsuits’ in a recent article titled ‘New World Disorder, TMP & Millions March to Folly’:
“First, he claimed to lose thousands of signatures, gathered by his hardworking clients, associated with Case One (SB-277, the removal of religious exemptions for vaccines in California). Then, TMatt claimed to suffer from legal amnesia while running in the wrong direction from the winning Glyphosate tsunami of lawsuits as other, real legal minds moved in for the kill on Monsanto-Bayer”.
“He incentivizes repression. He turns eager and unsuspecting clients into road kill along the legal path with a few bad motions or quitting on cases prematurely. Either way, it’s about soaking up time, wasting expenses, draining clients’ resources, tying up their energy and attention until it’s too late for them to fight on or they are too worn out to continue the legal process. It’s a template designed to screw the people”.
On social media the lawyer is indeed openly aggressive towards genuine free choice activists that he himself tries to label as ‘controlled opposition,’ pretending they do not really advocate for free and informed consent but only want more (albeit safe) vaccines.
But the article also discusses more serious concerns, particularly about an event that he is strongly promoting. According to the author,
‘The Millions March against mandatory vaccination’ scheduled for August 31 could perhaps stage a violent incident or false flag operation that, if carried out, could lead the government into shutting down free speech, freedom of association and further repress free choice advocates.
It should be noted that the organizers had attempted to tie the names of notorious safety advocates to the march, but that those publicly dissociated themselves from the event. On July 25, Robert Kennedy’s non-profit association Children’s Health Defense even issued a public statement declaring they do not have any connection, will donate any money, or will support or participate with Millions March in any way. Eventually adding the following comment, “We also remain deeply concerned about a posting by one MMAMV organizer which appears to encourage participants to bring firearms to the event. For these reasons, we do not support the march.”
Finally, a few other facts are crying out for the public to exercise extreme caution.
- Why has such a nationwide event not been banned or censored by social media, while most genuine groups and events are being deplatformed or buried in search results?
- How did the organizers manage to create a grassroots movement that runs such a pro event with nationwide chapters and merchandising in less than a year?
- Where does the funding come from, and why are the ‘big names’ not involved in the first place?
Whatever happens or not on August 31st, this tells us that one should take a serious look at the methods used to promote the universal vaccination agenda. What is really going here?
We know that WHO, CDC and other key players such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the GAVI alliance and G8 countries are increasingly concentrating their efforts on readiness for future pandemics.
A few years ago, H1N1 was a big example of a staged alert declared by the WHO that resulted in billions of sales and massive profits for the pharma industry. And if new flu variants have probably lost their potential to scare the public, other diseases are good candidates. So what draconian measures are being planned in case of a sudden new pandemic? And for how long? What’s the global picture we should be looking at? Should citizens agree to have the exercise of their fundamental human rights effectively abolished by permanent access to, and control of, their bodies?
Millions of people died in WWII because they fought fascism. The Nuremberg Code and the Charter of Human Rights were born out of these tragic episodes, and it’s way beyond time to remember that. It’s also high time to take individual responsibility and raise our voices against the institution of medical tyranny and the profoundly unethical methods used to promote the vaccine agenda.
In a recent reply to criticism of his vaccine safety campaign, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a brilliant piece titled ‘Americans can handle an open discussion on vaccines’. Well yes, we certainly all can and must have an urgent open and public discussion about these issues whether we are in North America, Europe or somewhere else.
This is not simply about measles or ‘flu, as much as they would like you to believe it is.
 Melenotte C., Raoult D. et al. “Measles is A New Approach Needed?”, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Oct. 2018, Vol. 18, n°10, p. 1047-1160.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.