Waching daily Apr 2 2017

The

real goal of the mainstream media is to SUPPRESS and DESTROY human knowledge

he real goal of the corporate-run media is to suppress human knowledge and prevent a

mass awakening of humanity.

The corporate-run media is not about informing, uplifting or educating humanity. It�s not

about connecting you with important world events or bringing you insightful analysis

on finance, medicine, technology, politics, science or the environment.

Instead, the corporate-run media is all about distracting you from the things that matter

while indoctrinating you with falsehoods that have no basis in factual reality. The sinister

agenda behind all this is to keep humanity dumbed down, scientifically illiterate, and

cognitively redirected away from anything that might lead to greater awakening or freedom

to think.

The mainstream media, in other words, is the soma drug of the modern era, designed to numb

your brain, retract your senses, assault your curiosity and ridicule your awakening. The

programming by the media is intended to mandate your obedience, conformity and intellectual

homogeneity.

It�s all under the umbrella of �info-poisoning� which is a far more dangerous assault on your

psyche than even the threat of chemical pesticides on your brain. Yet those chemical assaults

also exist in the form of prescription medications, mercury in vaccines, aluminum in the food

supply and pesticides on your lawn. It�s a full-on assault against your consciousness,

your mind and your freedom to think. And it�s being waged every day by CNN, NYT, WashPo,

MSNBC and other freedom-crushing propaganda outlets for the simple reason that the most

dangerous thing in the world (to the status quo) is an individual who can think

for herself.

For more infomation >> The real goal of the mainstream media is to SUPPRESS and DESTROY human knowledge - Duration: 2:43.

-------------------------------------------

IT 2017 Old VS New Pennywise - Tim Curry VS Bill Skarsgard Analysis and Costumes - Duration: 6:38.

Pennywise is known to be one of the most disturbing and scariest Clowns, who ever existed.

He terrified a whole generation of Kids in the 90's, and is about to come back for our

sanity, in 2017 's remake of the IT Movie.

It is pretty save to say, that Pennywise was one of Tim Curry's most iconic roles, and

that his portrayal of the sinister clown, made him the unforgettable villain, that he

is up until this day.

Bill Skarsgard has to fill pretty big shoes, since he will be compared to Tim Curry's performance.

But what we could see so far, Bill is doing a very great job, in scaring the fudge out

of us.

Could we be any more excited ? In this video, we will take a look and the Old and the new

Pennywise Design in the IT movie, and see, what things might have changed, and what to

expect in the new It remake.

The new costume for Pennywise, has finally emerged in it's full glory on screen this

week, when we given a first look at the new IT trailer.

And we all can agree, that the new 2017 version of Pennywise, looks way different than the

old Pennywise from the 90's.

While Tim Curry's version for the 1990 TV movie favoured a very colourful, more baggy

and chubby overall costume approach, The costume for Bill Skarsgard has certainly seen a bit

more thought and intent to it, in order to portray a figure, that stems from an very

old era.. one could almost say it was more of a timeless design.

The Old Pennywise definitely was way more appealing to young kids.

We all do remember his bright yellow jump suite like suite, with orange furry pom pom

buttons, and the purple blue striped sleeves he was wearing.

I mean.. we all do know that children a re attracted to everything shine and colorful.

His wide popped collar was also mixing with the purple and blue stripes to match the design

of his sleeves.

Since the 90's Pennywise was only 5' 9" feet tall, it gave the figure a very saggy figure

in general.

He also was wearing the classic red Clown Nose, that you saw in any circus show back

in time.

He was able to squish his nose, for some funky squeky noises.

A perfect match, to go with the shiny red lips, that were a trademark of Tim's Pennywise.

Blue eye shadow was covering his upper eyelids are were underlining quite fitting for Tim's

naturally green eyes.

He could transform into a being with pointy, fang like sharp teeth, when he was about to

kill his next victim.

The 90's Pennywise, was full of dark humor and bad jokes.

Of course he was the only person who could juckle about his own sillyness.

The character was approximately his 40s , and of course staying more true to Tim Curry's

actual age at the time.

Which had a different feel to it, than Bill Skarsgards version of the Clown, who was born,

just a few months before the TV Mini series aired in the 90's.

Bill Skarsgard told Entertainment Weekly: I've been doing some clown research, Bill

told . I'm not sure if there was so much clown phobia before the novel.

There's obviously been this thing where people find clowns are unsettling, but nobody explored

it the way Stephen King did.

He's not even a clown.

I'm playing just one of the beings It creates.

Staying a good 6ft 3in tall, the new Pennywise is a way more slender and spindly version

of himself, that works quite well with the crooked movement we all could witness, at

the end of the new It 2017 Trailer.

Taking a deeper look at his makeup, we notice that the blue eyeshadow from the original

design is gone for good.

A constant red sharp line now marks each side of his face, originating at his eyebrows,

and creating one constant connection to each side of his mouth.

The red lips still, are one of Pennywise's trademarks and have only been touched up a

bit.

They also got rid of the classic clown nose, and simply matched the dark red color of his

lips.

The eyes transformed into a demonic yellowish color.

Almost as yellow, as his teeth, hidden behind the creatures lips.

Asked about the revamped costume approach of the new Pennywise, costume designer Bryant

was telling Entertainment Weekly: The costumes takes inspiration from Medieval,

Renaissance, Elizabethan, and Victorian eras.

The costume definitely incorporates all these otherworldly past lives, if you will.

He is definitely a clown from a different time.

Every part of the costume aims to suggest something ancient and evoke something disturbing.

That pleating is actually Fortuny pleating, which gives it almost a crepe-like effect.

Its a different technique than what the Elizabethans would do.

Its more organic, its more sheer.

It has a whimsical, floppy quality to it.

Its not a direct translation of a ruff or a whisk, which were two of the collars popular

during the Elizabethan period There is almost a doll-like quality to the

costume.

The pants being short, the high waistline of the jacket, and the fit of the costume

is a very important element.

It gives the character a child-like quality.

The tight fit of the gloves are intended to make his hands appear porcelain.

If you look at the sleeves, there are the two puffs off the shoulder and biceps and

again on the bloomers, I wanted it to have an organic, gourd or pumpkin kind of effect

It helps exaggerate certain parts of the body.

The costume is very nipped in the waist and with the peplum and bloomers it has an expansive

silhouette.

The design is aimed at creating a subliminal suggestion of an insectoid creature, something

fans of the original movie might already be conjuring up.

The pompoms are orange, and then with the trim around the cuffs and the ankles, its

basically a ball fringe thats a combination of orange, red, and cinnamon.

Its almost like Pennywise fades into his environment.

But there are accents to pull out the definition of the gray silk � It makes him almost like

a shadow.

The image itself also hints at Pennywises ability to fade into and out of his surroundings,

since you might notice that he appears to be floating.

If you prefer Tim's Curry version of Pennywise, or Bill Skarsgard, is for you to decide.

But I think it is pretty save to say, that each version of the sinister clown, will find

it's own supporters and they both will be remembered, to have made a big impact in to

our modern horror culture.

Thank you guys for watching.

If you enjoyed this video, please leave a like and Subscribe.

I also welcome any new Patreons.

Stay frosty!

For more infomation >> IT 2017 Old VS New Pennywise - Tim Curry VS Bill Skarsgard Analysis and Costumes - Duration: 6:38.

-------------------------------------------

Are you suffering more than is necessary? | daily sprout 184 - Duration: 0:53.

- Are you suffering before it's actually necessary?

(relaxed guitar)

This is a great quote from Seneca

that reminds us of, that again, that tendency

to borrow tomorrow's worries and troubles,

and experience the suffering from them today.

If that's the case, then you are adding to your suffering,

because actually, that might be something for tomorrow,

and often it's never as bad, in reality.

But you are experiencing this suffering nonetheless

when you anticipate, and when you feel and experience it.

So remind yourself of that,

that by anticipating and experiencing suffering today,

you're suffering more than is actually necessary.

(relaxed guitar) So why don't you,

kick stress in the sprouts?

Get signed up for my Daily Sprout video,

and get it direct to your inbox,

and never miss another Daily Sprout again.

For more infomation >> Are you suffering more than is necessary? | daily sprout 184 - Duration: 0:53.

-------------------------------------------

WHAT EXACTLY IS "HERD IMMUNITY" WHEN IT COMES TO VACCINE - health - Duration: 14:02.

WHAT EXACTLY IS �HERD IMMUNITY� WHEN IT COMES TO VACCINES? DOES IT ACTUALLY WORK?

Vaccine safety has been making major headlines lately, and for good reason. More and more

people are starting to recognize the risks associated with vaccines, particularly with

some of their more dangerous ingredients like mercury and aluminum. However, many still

argue that we�re better off getting vaccinated than not, so much so that children are ostracized

from their schools if their parents decide they don�t want them to be vaccinated.

People all over the world have voiced their opinions on this topic, many of whom seem

to think that their children will be in danger if they�re in contact with other children

who aren�t vaccinated. Do unvaccinated children really pose a threat to society, or is this

just something Big Pharma and the government have conditioned us to believe?

Because of a concept called �herd immunity,� many people believe that through the widespread

implementation of vaccinations, we can completely eradicate the spreading of disease. However,

this commonly used term is vastly misunderstood and is, as a result, used misleadingly to

support the pro-vaccine argument.

What Is Herd Immunity?

Herd immunity, or community immunity, is a theory stating that a pattern of immunity

amongst a group of individuals should lead to a decline in incidence of infection. This

term is often associated with the pro-vaccine movement, as it�s said that the more individuals

vaccinated in a given population, the less likely that population is to spread disease.

Contrary to popular belief, there are actually many holes within this argument.

Let�s start with the origin of the term �herd immunity,� during the pre-vaccine

era. Herd immunity was first discussed in the 1920s, but the researchers at the time

were actually referring to naturally-occurring herd immunity. These researchers discovered

that a number of children at the time had naturally developed immunity to the measles

virus, as the amount of new cases lowered, even among children living in higher risk

conditions .

Naturally-occurring herd immunity takes time to appear in a population. For example, when

measles first enters a population that has never been exposed to it before, herd immunity

is zero. Measles can be transmitted from person to person, so it�s easy to imagine how quickly

it could spread during the pre-vaccine era.

Fast-forward a few years, to when measles has circulated the general population a few

times, and natural exposures will eventually lead to long-term immunity. It�s pretty

incredible to think that our bodies can adapt and evolve just to keep us healthy. The developing

immune system contracts a disease, mounts an immune response, resolves the illness,

and is left with lifelong immunity to a specific virus.

Essentially, it wasn�t uncommon at the time for someone to get it, get better, and then

be immune to it for the rest of their life. Death via measles was rare, which remains

true to the present day, yet people largely attribute this to vaccination. The truth is,

measles vaccine failures have been documented for a quarter of a century around the world.

One study even found that individuals who had been vaccinated twice for measles could

still contract the virus.

Gastroenterologist and vaccine expert Dr. Andrew Wakefield explains that naturally-occurring

herd immunity will develop in natural disease cycles within unvaccinated populations after

going through 2-yearly epidemics. Wakefield maintains that with each rapid spread of disease,

herd immunity rates increase significantly. As he explains: �As a consequence of natural

Herd Immunity, in the developed world measles mortality had fallen by 99.6% before measles

vaccines were introduced.� Of course, not every single person will reap

the benefits of herd immunity. If your immune system isn�t strong, which is often the

case with newborn babies, seniors, and cancer patients, it�s far more difficult to generate

immunity.

So, somewhere between now and the 1920s, society started to correlate herd immunity with vaccines.

Big Pharma and immunization supporters took the concept of naturally-occurring herd immunity

and used it to market vaccination programs. All of a sudden, people started to believe

that mass vaccinations equated to mass disease eradication and that vaccines were better

for our bodies than its natural ability to strengthen our immune systems and fight off

diseases.

How Herd Immunity Relates to Vaccines (Sort of)

When it comes to vaccinations, what many scientists are concerned about is the �herd immunity

threshold,� or the percentage of the population that needs to be vaccinated in order for herd

immunity to occur.

According the the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, as low as 40% of the population

would need to be vaccinated in order for herd immunity to be achieved. However, for many

contagious diseases, the government maintains that the herd immunity threshold lies more

around the 80-95% range.

What many of these scientists and government officials seem to forget to mention in their

�herd immunity� arguments is that there is a significant difference between naturally-occurring

immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. For starters, when immunity occurs naturally,

it lasts a lifetime, whereas vaccines can only really protect you from anywhere between

two and ten years.

So, we�re expected to pump ourselves full of mercury and other chemicals as frequently

as every two years, getting our �booster shots,� instead of trusting our bodies to

do this for us for free? Many of these vaccines are actually marketed as providing lifelong

immunity, when in reality you only reap their benefits for a much shorter timeframe. However,

this was realized long after vaccines were already being implemented widespread.

This means that for years people were receiving vaccines that they thought would be effective

for life, when in reality they held an expiration date. Prior to this discovery and the development

of �booster shots,� there weren�t any wide-scale epidemics or disease outbreaks,

so what does this say about herd immunity and vaccines? Dr. Russell Blaylock, an American

neurosurgeon and author, explains:

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was

in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime.

This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it

was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after

being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers,

have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been

vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was

unprotected for decades.

Blaylock isn�t the only scientist to come forward and question the effectiveness and

safety of vaccines. More and more researchers are coming forward every year. For example,

according to Lucija Tomljenovik, a post-doctoral research fellow in the department of Ophthalmology

and Visual Sciences at the University of British Colombia:

The statement that high levels of vaccination prevent disease outbreaks is not accurate

as infectious diseases do in fact occur even in fully vaccinated populations as well as

individuals. The likely reason for this is that vaccines primarily stimulate humoral

immunity (antibody-based or Th2 responses) while they have little or no effect on cellular

immunity (cytotoxic T-cells, Th1 responses), which is absolutely crucial for protection

against viral as well as some bacterial pathogens. This may be the reason why vaccine-induced

immunities are transient, requiring booster shots, while naturally acquired immunity conferred

by the cellular immune system in the absence of vaccination tends to be permanent. Taken

together, these observations may explain why outbreaks of allegedly vaccine-preventable

diseases do occur in fully vaccinated populations and why, immunity (or its absence) cannot

be reliably determined on the basis of serologic determination (measure of antibody levels)

[137], which is the most common measure of vaccine efficacy in clinical trials.

Dr. Larry Palevsky, a board-certified pediatrician who studied at the New York School of Medicine,

has also voiced his concerns on vaccines and the lack of transparency regarding the safety

of immunizations.

When it comes to herd immunity specifically, he says:

This whole concept of herd immunity is very interesting, because we were taught that herd

immunity occurs because a certain percentage of a population gets an active illness. Therefore

by a certain percentage of getting the active illness, they impart a protection onto the

remaining part of the population that has not gotten the illness yet. And so the herd

that is getting the illness is shedding the illness and protecting those who have not

gotten it.

In vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain

percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated. And

that has NOT been shown to be true, because the true herd immunity in theory is based

on an ACTIVE DISEASE, and we know that despite what we�re taught, vaccination does not

mimic the natural disease.

So we cannot use the same model of herd immunity in a natural disease in the vaccination policy.

But unfortunately, we do use it even though it cannot be used because it doesn�t have

scientific backing. What�s most interesting to me is that the entire concept of herd immunity

fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the viruses and the bacteria all

on their own, and that what turns them on and off may have nothing to do with the percentage

of people who have been infected.

It�s also important to note that the safety of vaccines is completely unknown. There is

not enough research performed on vaccines, in particular on ingredients like aluminum

and mercury, and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was caught falsifying

information on vaccine safety. The vaccine-autism link has been completely dragged through the

mud in mainstream media, treating the subject as if it�s a joke, when in reality there

are numerous studies proving there may be a correlation.

CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson publicly apologized for falsifying research, much of

which is considered �pro-vaccine.�

Dr. Thompson explained, �The CDC has put the research 10 years behind, because the

CDC has not been transparent. We�ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so

paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Really what we need is for congress

to come in and say, give us the data.�

He then pointed to a specific CDC study he co-authored in 2004 that determined:

�The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause

autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.�

In regards to the 2004 study, he said:

�I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our

2004 article I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding

studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes,

including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses

should be transparent.�

In an attempt to right his wrongdoings, he stated:

�It�s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper and uh, I went

along with this, we didn�t report significant findings. I�m completely ashamed of what

I did, I have great shame now that I was complicit and went along with this, I have been a part

of the problem.�

To be clear, I am not telling you not to get vaccinated, nor am I recommending your children

don�t get vaccinated, either. I believe that everyone should be entitled to make their

own decision regarding vaccinations and that everyone has a right to be fully informed

on the risks associated with them.

You may be wondering why mercury and other harmful ingredients are added to vaccines

in the first place, but that�s like asking why certain chemicals are in the flu shot,

supplements, or pharmaceutical drugs: The obvious and extremely sad answer to me is

that they�re added in order to keep us sick. Most of the drugs and treatments prescribed

to patients have some sort of adverse effect, which makes sense from a business perspective;

how else would Big Pharma continue to make money if they actually successfully treated

illnesses?

Don�t be afraid to question everything, including the medical industry. When it all

comes down to it, Big Pharma is a money-making machine that couldn�t be successful if everyone

were healthy. They do an excellent job of overstating the benefits of drugs and vaccines

and understating the risks, so the best you can do is complete your own research and make

informed decisions. I don�t care if you�re pro- or anti-vaccines; my sole mission here

is to shed some light on the other side of vaccines, the one that is rarely shared with

the public.