Connect with us

General

Under-Ocean Military Bases: There Is More Than Just One Area 51…

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

“It is ironic that the U.S. would begin a devastating war, allegedly in search of weapons of mass destruction, when the most worrisome developments in this field are occurring in your own backyard. It is ironic that the U.S. should be fighting monstrously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allegedly to bring democracy to those countries, when it itself can no longer claim to be called a democracy, when trillions, and I mean thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects about which both the Congress and the Commander in Chief have been kept deliberately in the dark.” – Paul Hellyer (Former Canadian Defence Minister)

advertisement - learn more

It was only three years ago (2013) that the Central Intelligence Agency finally admitted to the existence of Area 51. Although it didn’t ‘officially’ exist before the CIA made this admission, it was pretty clear that something secretive was going on in the Nevada desert. That secretive something would be the testing of secret aircraft and technology that the public has absolutely no idea about. Take for example the U.S. air strike against Libya in 1996. An f-111 jet was used, which had been operational since 1983, but its existence was still kept secret for a number of years after.

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

These programs are referred to as Special Access Programs (SAP), and they are funded from what’s known as the ‘Black Budget.‘ From these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”

It’s also important to mention that the United States has a history of government agencies existing in secret. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952 but its existence was hidden until the mid 1960’s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely concealed for 30 years.

 Under-Ocean & In Bottom Military Bases

Research into and discussions of under-ocean and in-bottom military bases began decades ago. For example, in 1968 the Stanford Research Institute discussed the construction of dozens of undersea bases. The study was titled “Feasibility of Manned In-Botton Bases.” It’s important to show you the abstract here, because it clearly reveals what the military-industrial complex was considering, and what they could do within their technological reach at the time — more than four decades ago.

*I obtained this abstract from the source listed below, if you would like to see it yourself, you can find it HERE.

advertisement - learn more

Abstract:

The construction of thirty manned in-bottom bases within the ocean floors is technically and economically feasible. However, it will be necessary to establish some successive types of experimental facilities before a full construction program can be started. This could take 15 years. The major technology for a land-linked station in-bottom is established now; only adaptations are needed. The remaining experimental phases will require further development of equipment and techniques applicable to remote sea access. There are useful assignments for a succession of three experimental stations other than advancing in-bottom construction techniques. Science and engineering concerned with the oceans and their resources will be furthered and military tests of undersea base functions complimenting deeper operations can be accomplished. The costs of the experimental phase, called here a demonstration program, can be surprisingly modest: approximately one half-billion dollars, spent over 15 years. 

A distinction between in-bottom bases and on-bottom facilities is made in the numbers of men enclosed.  and the depth of water, wherein areas of one-atmosphere space can be created in-bottom, and on-bottom facilities is made in the numbers of men enclosed and the depth of water, wherein areas of one atmosphere space can be created in-bottom at such low costs the ingress system can be amortized if the space required is reasonably large. Economics thus can dictate choice between the two types; even so, some on-bottom facilities will be needed to aid the construction of remote in-bottom facilities.

Presently, establishing an in-bottom facility and building upon this will present fewer technical difficulties that do the submersibles which would support it and use it. Subsequent to the completion of the third phase of a demonstration program, which would be a remote, deep water station, and the evaluation of it, a multiple base program, could be implemented.  The cost of such a base program would be about $2.7 billion for construction of a number of bases (assumed at 30).

So, do these bases exist today without question? I think they do, just like Area 51 existed without question.

In 1987 Deputy Director of Engineering and Construction for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lloyd A. Duscha, gave a speech at an engineering conference titled “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons.” In the first paragraph of his speech he states the following:

After World War II, political and economic factors changed the underground construction picture and caused a renewed interest to “think underground.” As a result of this interest, the Corps of Engineers became involved in the design and construction of some very complex and interesting military projects. Although the conference program indicates the topic to be “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” I must deviate a little because several of the most interesting facilities that have been designed and constructed by the Corps are classified. (Lloyd A. Duscha, “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” in Tunneling and Underground Transport: Future Developments in Technology. Economics and Policy, ed. F.P. Davidson (New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., 1987, pp. 109-113.)

He then went into a discussion of the Corps’ involvement in the 1960’s in the construction of the large and elaborate NORAD base buried deep beneath Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. This is just a public statement, but you will not find a more significant public admission of secret, underground bases than this one. Such speeches are not the only evidence available, however. There also exist documents obtained by researchers through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that shed more light on the subject, and clearly outline plans for the contraction of underground facilities.

Another great example of in-bottom bases deep underneath the ocean floor comes from William B. McLean, who was the inventor of the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and former Technical Director of the China Lake Naval  Naval Ordnance Test Center (NOTS).  He was also the Technical Director of the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center in San Diego.  McLean made some comments to John Newbauer, who at the time was the Editor-in-Chief of Astronautics and Aeronautics, stating that these plants and projects were already in development. (“A Bedrock View of Ocean Engineering,” Interview of William B. Mclean by A/A Editor-in-Chief John Newbauer, Astronautics and Aeronautics (April 1969): 30-36.)

This was in 1969, but keep in mind that the abstract above is from 1968, meaning that these constructions could have been  under development before, or shortly after this publication.

In episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail, if you’re interested in that. CETV is a platform we created to combat the censorship we are currently experiencing, as our revenue streams have been taken away and are now extremely limited.

I’ll leave you with that, but if you’d like to learn more and listen to our discussion, you can do so in Episode #11 of the Collective Evolution show on CETV. Below is a little tidbit of that discussion:

You can listen to this entire segment of episode 11 on our podcast here.

What Do These Facilities Look Like?

Walter Koerschner, who was an illustrator for the United States Navy’s Rock-site team during the 1960’s, contacted Richard Sauder, Ph.D, who has researched this topic extensively. This was at the time when the Navy had plans for technically complex and very large buried manned bases beneath the ocean floor.

His background is verified, documents like this, or a simple google search of Waters name along side “US Navy” or “US Navy Illustrator” would suffice.

He contacted Dr. Sauder to provide him with some of the original illustrations he had done for this project, and they are very telling. Dr. Sauder, in his book Hidden In Plain Sight, provides these illustrations and goes into detailing regarding the science and engineering behind these projects. It is quite fascinating and I recommend you check him out if you are interested in learning more.

Here is an excerpt and picture from the book:

This ‘racetrack’ facility – also called the ‘Nautilus Concept’ – that can dock three submarines at a time, with an adjoining sister facility that also can handle multiple submarines. The picture is virtually self-explanatory. Large submarines are hundreds of feet long, so the dimensions of a facility such as shown here would have to be very large. The central docking area might be more than a thousand feet long and easily more than a hundred feet in diameter. The living quarters would obviously have to accommodate hundreds of crew members in some degree of creature comfort.

sauder

The book has many other illustrations from Koerschner, but unfortunately I cannot seem to find any more online.

It Doesn’t End With Area 51 

There are also known underground facilities in existence. Take for example the Swedish underground military facility at Musko. It’s a large naval base built underneath a mountain. The hospital alone within this facility holds over 1,000 beds. Musko engineers blasted out 1,500,000 cubic meters of stone in order to build it

The world’s most prominent researcher on Underground Military Facilities (in my opinion), Richard Sauder, Ph.D, told of an interesting story in his book Hidden In Plain Sight that I’d like to share with you:

As it happens, after giving a public talk a couple of years ago, I was approached by a man who had been a uniformed member of the United States Navy. We chatted for a while and when he mentioned that he had spent some time at China Lake my ears perked up. I asked him if there was an underground facility at China Lake. He said that indeed there is, and that it is impressively large and deep. I asked him if he had ever been in it, and he said that he had, though not to the deepest levels. I asked him how deep the deepest part extended. He looked at me soberly and said very quietly, “It goes one mile deep.” I then asked him what the underground base contains. He replied, ‘Weapons.’ I responded, “What sort of weaponry?” And he answered without pausing, “Weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons.”

There are documents available which expose a deep underground command center that was to be built far below regions such as Washington, D.C. and China Lake, California during the Cold War. Documents show that in 1964 the military was considering building a huge underground cavity 4,000 feet deep beneath China Lake, and it’s well known that the United States and the Soviet Union created a vast infrastructure to support a complex of offensive and defensive weapons during the Cold War. This infrastructure included sites and facilities for developing, testing, storing, and manufacturing weapons. There was also a host of communication and command centres.

The very first TOP SECRET memo on the subject was issued by Robert McNamara on November 7th, 1963 from the office of the Secretary of Defense. A second memo was issued on the same day concerning a proposed Deep Underground National Command Center that would be approximately 3,500 feet beneath Washington. The memo also mentioned elevator shafts below the State Department and White House that would descend to 3,500 feet, with high speed, horizontal tunnel transport to the main facility. And this was way back in the 60’s. Imagine what technological feats we are capable of now.

A World Of Transparency is required if our race is to evolve out of our infancy. Maybe one day, everything will come to light.

Related CE Article: Snowden Reveals First Ever Public Disclosure of Secret Black Budget Programs

Source:

Sauder, Richard. Hidden In Plain Sight, Beyond the X-Files. Keyhole Publishing Company. March 2010.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.

According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.

The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.

Australian UFO study.

According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

  • Reflect On:

    Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.

Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.

We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis

The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.

Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”

This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.

PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?

When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.

They point out the following:

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.

We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.

How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.

Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”

This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.

When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,

This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].

Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.

There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.

As the study points out,

A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26]…Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.

The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.

This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.

Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.

Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.

It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!