Russian Astronaut On The ISS Allegedly Sees 5 UFOs In New Footage
IN BRIEF
- The Facts:
A Russian astronaut stationed on the ISS claims to have seen 5 'UFOs' in his video footage. The objects lasted in frame for about 52 seconds.
- Reflect On:
Are we seeing greater news coverage of this type of story in mainstream media due to a greater public acceptance of the topic?
I’m not sure this story would have been so widely covered if it had happened 3 or 4 years ago, but given the rise in public awareness around UFOs, Russian cosmonaut Ivan Vagner’s footage of what appears to be 5 lights ‘flying’ in unison was met with mainstream media curiosity.
Vagner referred to the lights as:
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe welcomed Charles Eisenstein on the show to discuss community, COVID, and making sense of our current chaotic times. Click here to listen!
“Space guests, or how I filmed the new time-lapse […] you will see something else, not only the aurora”
He made these statements in a Tweet showcasing footage of a breathtaking time-lapse of aurora australis over the earth taken from the International Space Station (ISS) where he is stationed. Vagner does admit that these are only potentially UFOs as he writes in a follow up Tweet:
“At 9-12 seconds, 5 objects appear flying alongside with the same distance,” Vagner wrote in a follow-up tweet. “What do you think those are? Meteors, satellites or … ?”
In the footage, which you can see below, we see the aurora australis passing near Antarctica and Australia. At around the 9 second mark, you see what looks like 5 lights flying in unison coming up from the Earth horizon. The video you see below was shot in a time-lapse, therefor the brief images of the 5 objects you see coming up over the horizon lasted for about 52 seconds.
This is not the first time ISS related footage of what appear to be UFOs has been brought to public awareness. Although in previous incidents, the mainstream media was less interested in reporting on it. Perhaps due to the general lack of public acceptance? We wrote back in 2015 and 2016, about two separate occurrences where NASA cut live video feeds of the ISS following what appeared to be strange phenomenon caught on tape. Both incidents are linked above, and while neither can be proven as being an actual craft, it is interesting to note that live feed footage was cut on both occasions.
“There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been visiting us for a very long time, that their appearance is bizarre from any kind of traditional materialistic western point of view, that these visitors use the technologies of consciousness, they use toroids, they use co-rotating magnetic disks for their propulsion systems, that seems to be a common denominator of the UFO phenomenon.”
– Dr. Brian O’Leary, former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor (source)
The Takeaway
It is no secret that UFOs have become a much more widely accepted topic in recent years. This is primarily due to widespread mainstream media coverage of recent US Navy footage that was released and confirmed to be UFO in nature. This essentially means they do not know what these flying objects are. The next plausible question is “who is manning these craft?”
For those interested in exploring this topic further, it’s important to note that the evidence available in the realm of the UFO, ET and contactee phenomenon is extremely vast. It’s not a fringe topic where cheap evidence is brought forth in the form of grainy images or videos online, it’s a realm where high ranking military, government personnel, astronauts and more high profile figures have personally blown the whistle to share evidence with the public that western governments refuse to share at this time. We’ve covered this topic in great detail over the last 11 years and you can find tons of information going through our archives or by watching our coverage on CETV.
Dive Deeper
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
ALTERNATIVE NEWS
Julian Assange WON’T Be Extradicted To US Rules British Judge
Published
1 hour agoon
January 4, 2021By
Joe Martino
IN BRIEF
- The Facts:
A UK Judge ruled that given WikiLeak's founder Julian Assange's mental health, she will not have him extradited to the US as his mental health may suffer further.
- Reflect On:
It's important to note that the Judge did not recognize the function of journalism in Assange's actions, she only decided in his favour based on his mental health.
A decision that will come as a shock to many given most thought it was ‘over’ for Assange, British Judge Vanessa Baraitser decided not to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the US, where he would face espionage charges, due to his mental health. Assange is charged with 18 counts of conspiring to hack a US government computer and the publication of confidential military records pertaining to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, including the infamous 2007 Apache helicopter incident in Baghdad that saw US soldiers kill a dozen people including two Reuters journalists.
According to the Judge’s decision, she feels freedom of speech rights don’t allow for Assange to have “unfettered discretion to decide what he’s going to publish,” but he appears to be in extremely poor mental health and for that reason alone he won’t be extradited. Judge Baraitser believes Assange would have been given all legal and constitutional protections in the US but felt that given the conditions of a likely supermax US prison, Assange’s mental health would suffer even more, putting his life at risk.
“I find that the mental condition of Mr Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” – Judge Vanessa Baraitser
Judge Baraitser has accepted the evidence of multiple medical experts to come to this conclusion,
“The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man who is genuinely depressed about his future,”
Assange has now been taken back to Belmarsh prison where he will apply for his release on bail. It’s expected his legal team will focus the bail case on the conditions at the high-security prison and the worsening Covid-19 pandemic.
What I find personally interesting about this case is that it appears there is still not much of an acceptance by government and law enforcement that what Assange did was a function of journalism and helpful for the public as a whole. That is to say, he exposed secrets, corruption, and wrong doings of the US government, something the people should actually know, yet the sentiment of ‘rulers’ remains that no, this was a threat to national security, not journalistic, and we should never have to answer to the illegal actions we took – only Assange does.
This case is important because whatever precedent is set with Assange will later be the rule for any other journalists who decides they want to expose government secrets. Future journalists and whistleblowers will think twice, three times, and even four times before doing what was once a celebrated act by most.
His case represents a threat to what’s left of free, honest and open journalism. And you can tell this is true amongst some as even some mainstream outlets can sense the severity of what this case means for them, all while other mainstream outlets bury Assange in lockstep.
Assange’s prosecutors say he helped US defence analyst Chelsea Manning breach the US Espionage Act, and was complicit in hacking by others and published classified information that endangered informants. Assange did some controversial things, there’s no denying that, and it’s possible that you could argue that releasing some information from government computer hacks could be dangerous to national security, but were his leaks actually dangerous? Perhaps to the pride of those in charge.
“Snowden and Assange put America’s national security at risk” is merely a talking point used to deflect from the vast civil rights issues they both exposed the US government guilty of. The difficult part for the general public in making sense of these cases is that mainstream journalists bought right into the talking point, and informed citizens to think that way also. Now weeding through the many perspectives can be a difficult task.
Dive Deeper
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
ALTERNATIVE NEWS
50 Percent of Healthcare Workers in Riverside County, California Refuse To Take COVID Vaccine
Published
2 days agoon
January 2, 2021By
Arjun Walia
IN BRIEF
- The Facts:
50 percent of healthcare workers and hospital staff in Riverside County are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are those who have concerns with vaccine safety ridiculed and labelled as anti-vax conspiracy theorists? Why are the concerns never really acknowledged or addressed? Is the COVID vaccine even able to stop/prevent infection and transmission?
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.
What Happened: Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it. At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials.
According to the L.A. Times, “The vaccine doubts swirling among healthcare workers across the country come as a surprise to researchers, who assumed hospital staff would be among those most in tune with the scientific data backing the vaccines.”
The “scientific data” as the L.A. Times puts it has also come into question by academicians, scientists and doctors. For example, Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a piece in the journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed “95% Effective” COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.” In it he outlines how there is no proof showing that the vaccine can and will prevent infection and/or transmission of the virus.
Another recent article published in the BMJ by journalist Paul D. Thacker highlights the conflicts of interest that exist between the United Kingdom’s COVID-19 advisors, which also seems to be a common theme around the globe.
Even Kamran Abbas, a doctor, executive editor of the BMJ and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine. This is evident by the fact that other cheap therapies have shown a tremendous amount of promise and success for treating COVID-19, yet they’ve been heavily ridicule by the “medical-political complex,” as Abbas calls it.
The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates. – Abbas
These are simply a few examples as to why it comes as no surprise to many that frontline health-care workers are refusing to take the vaccine. Afterall, how necessary is it really for a virus that has a 99.95 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70? For people over the age of 70 the survival rate is still 95 percent. This data comes from more than 50 seroprevalence studies that have now been published. Let’s not forget about the fact that tens and thousands of doctors have openly opposed lockdown measures as a means to combat the virus, citing a lot of information showing the harms lockdowns are having from deaths that could have been prevented, to economic impacts, starvation, poverty and much more.
The L.A. times points out that “The extent to which healthcare workers are refusing the vaccine is unclear, but reports of lower-than-expected participation rates are emerging around the country…To persuade reluctant workers, many hospitals are using instructional videos and interactive webinars showing staff getting vaccinated. At an Orange County hospital, Anthony Wilkinson, an intensive care nurse who cares for coronavirus patients, said he had co-workers who had “lost faith in big pharma and even the CDC.”
Why This Is Important: Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”
In it, he outlines the fact that,
Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.
Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.
Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. (source)
When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.
Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new: Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having stated,
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.
A study published in the journal EbioMedicine as far back as 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
More data beyond the L.A. times article indicates widespread hesitancy.
Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles’ Karin Fielding School of Public Health surveyed healthcare personnel working in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As the Washington Post reported, they found that two thirds (66.5%) of healthcare workers “intend to delay vaccination,” meaning they do not intend to get the COVID vaccine when it becomes available. They plan instead on reviewing the data once it’s widely administered and proven safe.
A recent Gallup poll showed that only 58% of Americans plan on getting the COVID vaccine when it’s available. An October poll conducted by Zogby found that nearly 50% of Americans have concerns about the safety of the coming COVID vaccines.
Concerns about vaccines are not just rooted in a lack of trust, but sound science. You can read about one of many examples, aluminum, here if you’re interested. Vaccines are not a one size fits all product, in the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety.
The Takeaway: Doubts surrounding the COVID -19 vaccine have been largely unacknowledged. When they are acknowledged within the mainstream media they are usually played off as ridiculous, or not based in sanity. For the most part anybody who is concerned about vaccine safety is usually dubbed an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist.” Concerns that many scientists, doctors and people are bringing up with regards to vaccine safety are never really acknowledged or addressed, which brings me to my next point.
Why do we have such a hard time discussing controversial topics? Why are things always made out to seem so black and white? Why are we so polarized in our beliefs to the point where we can’t look at another viewpoint that challenges our own? Why can’t we understand why some people disagree with us and why they feel the way they do?
When it comes to vaccines, there is clearly an increased pressure for mandates in several different ways to the point where some of our rights and freedoms may be restricted if we don’t comply. Is all of this really justified? Is it really for the greater good or are we just made to believe it is? Should freedom of choice always remain? Why do we give so much power over to governments and private institutions to the point where they can lockdown the world against the will of many people? Should governments simply recommend measures and present the science on both ends of the coin in an open and transparent way and let people do as they please?
Are we seeing basic freedoms and enjoyable experiences within life become inaccessible for those that don’t wish to participate in extreme COVID measures? What is this fear driven approach saying about our general view of life at this time?
Dive Deeper
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
ALTERNATIVE NEWS
Medical Prof Explains Devastating Effects of Lockdown For A Virus With A “99.95%” Survival Rate
Published
3 days agoon
January 1, 2021By
Arjun Walia
IN BRIEF
- The Facts:
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine wrote an article for The Hill titled "Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic." In it, he outlines the detrimental impact of lockdown and why it's not necessary.
- Reflect On:
Why is there such a large divide between so many doctors and scientists with regards to the response to the pandemic? Why is one side constantly ridiculed and censored by Big Tech companies? Should governments have the authority to mandate lockdowns?
What Happened: It’s quite clear to see for anybody who is doing deep research into the COVID pandemic that there is a big split within the scientific/medical community as to whether or not the measures being taken by governments around the world, like lockdowns, masking and social distancing are appropriate, effective and necessary. If watching mainstream media and only obtaining information via the television screen, radio and newspaper is ones only exposure to news regarding the pandemic, this wouldn’t seem to be the case, and it would seem that these measures are indeed necessary and appropriate because it seems to be the dominant viewpoint that’s constantly presented and beamed out to the masses.
It’s quite a concern to many that doctors and scientists who oppose the views and perception being given to us by mainstream media about the pandemic are largely ignored and censored. Somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can receive instant virality yet thousands of scientists and experts in the field who disagree seem to be ignored, censored and never really given the light of day to share their research, data, and opinions.
The truth is, lockdown measures may not only be unnecessary and useless for combating COVID, but they are also having other detrimental consequences that could be worse than the virus itself. This was recently expressed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article written for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.”
In that article he expresses that the case fatality rate from the virus has dropped sharply since March, and that it’s now 99.95 percent for people under the age of 70 and 95 percent for people over the age of 70. He also recently expressed this fact on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles. Bhattacharya cited this study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, along with approximately 50 others as expressed in the video interview.
In the article he wrote for The Hill, he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.
The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, England, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.
By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months. The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.
The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.
The burden of these policies falls disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable. For example, isolation led to a 20 percent increase in dementia-related deaths among our elderly population. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the lockdown in the United States shows that patients skipped cancer screenings, childhood immunizations, diabetes management visits and even treatment for heart attacks.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.
Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .
A response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,
Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy. Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.
It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults. The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health. Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.
According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.
According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,
Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.
These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.
The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.
Scrolling through the twitter feed of The Great Barrington Declaration, I came across a post from the American Institute For Economic Research (AIER) titled “Lockdowns Do Not Control The Coronavirus: The Evidence.”
In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”
According to the AIER,
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below. The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”
You can access those studies posted by the AIER here.
Other concerns with regards to lockdowns are the fact that they are based on “positive” results from a PCR test. Just because a person, especially an asymptomatic person, tests positive does not mean they have COVID. We seem to be forgetting this. For example, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.
The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it. In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.
There are many examples, the list goes on and on and you can read more about that specifically here.
Although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “ases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid. Even Dr. Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that or CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive. – Eshani M King, Evidence Based Research in Immunology and Health, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, UK. (Source, BMJ)
Many concerns have also been raised about the death count, with various public health authorities admitting to counting deaths as COVID when they’re not actually a result of COVID. For example, Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can read more about that and see many more examples, here.
The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)
The Takeaway
Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
Why is there so much suppression of science and scientists who oppose the narrative and information being put out by the World Health Organization?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
Why is there a digital fact-checker going around the internet censoring information? Should people not have the right to examine information, publications and evidence transparently, openly and determine for themselves what they wish to believe? Why are government health authorities not consulting with independent scientific organizations to determine the right course of action during this pandemic? Why do tens of thousands of doctors and scientists oppose the measures being taken by our governments? Why have other treatments been ridiculed and not even considered? Why has a vaccine been made out to be the only solution here, and why did the World Health Organization recently change their definition of herd immunity?
Do we really want to give these entities so much power that they can basically do whatever they choose against the will of so many people? Do governments even represent the will of the people and have our best interests at heart or is something else going on here? Why do we as a society fail to have proper discussions about controversial topics? Why are controversial stances that go against the grain always labelled as a “conspiracy theory” and ridiculed by mainstream media no matter how strong the evidence is behind them?
Dive Deeper
These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.
Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.
