Connect with us

Alternative News

How Big Pharma Chooses Which Drugs To Develop

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.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are businesses, not healthcare companies. Their business is making profitable drugs that will be widely prescribed by doctors and used by as many consumers as possible. As business people, their primary loyalty is to their shareholders. All decisions on which compounds to develop into drugs and which to bring to market are driven by profit, the competitive landscape, and speed to market.

advertisement - learn more

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

There are several key therapeutic areas that are dependable money makers and have the potential to produce possible blockbusters: drugs to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and central nervous system disorders. Many of the diseases that these drugs treat are lifestyle related illnesses. If many of these symptom sufferers led a healthy lifestyle, they could reverse and/or prevent many of these diseases. But Pharma is not in the disease prevention business. They are in the disease treatment business. Doctors are not taught to promote wellness and prevent disease, they are taught to treat disease. So, prescriptions are dispensed as first line therapy for most symptoms.

When consumers feel they can control their symptoms and ultimately, their health, by just popping a pill, they mistakenly believe that they are also overcoming their disease. But by not changing their lifestyle, they are just masking the symptoms. For example, in the case of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, by not choosing a healthier diet and by retaining extra weight (especially abdominal body fat), patients remain prone to other diseases and will subsequently require more medications. Patients who take daily medication are also unknowingly taxing their organs incrementally. It is in Pharma’s best interest that you not make lifestyle changes, but instead choose to take their drugs to treat your symptoms. Your disease may stabilize, but it will not reverse. If you will not change your disease-causing lifestyle, you will become dependent on the drug to manage your symptoms. Any side effects of the drug will lead to more drugs to treat those symptoms. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps Big Pharma profitable.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

So how do pharmaceutical companies choose which drugs to develop? They look at what have been blockbusters (big sellers) in the past and make more of those. Hypertension is great example of a blockbuster gateway drug. The Framingham Heart Study, under the direction of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), began studying cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1948. After each study, they report their findings. In 1967, the Framingham Heart Study reported: “Physical activity found to reduce the risk of heart disease, and obesity to increase the risk of heart disease.”1 Yet physicians were not trained to recommend increased physical activity to their hypertensive patients. They were trained to prescribe drugs to treat hypertension (HT). Guidelines were set as to what constituted HT and at what number doctors should prescribe medication to reduce blood pressure.2

advertisement - learn more

In 2015, The New York Times reported that SPRINT, the study on 9,300 men and women who were at risk of heart disease, would be terminated early because the results were so compelling that the researchers wanted to publish as soon as possible. As a result of the published data, doctors and prescribing nurses were trained to prescribe HT medicines to people with lower diastolic and systolic numbers than they had prior to the published study. More patients on more meds. Nowhere are patients taught that hypertension can be lowered immediately with a 20 minute walk.3

Not only were the “favorable” data pushed down through the medical community, they were “pulled through” the patient community via major news publications such as The New York Times. Even more compelling, major media via magazine advertisements and promotional news spots on television called video news releases (VNRs) were used to reinforce the consumer messaging. All medical communications and consumer information is produced by Pharma’s ad agency. The SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was designed with the outcome in mind. As soon as they reached their desired conclusion, the study was stopped to deliver the “good news” to the public and to change the protocol for what determines HT. Now, doctors were prescribing HT meds earlier to patients who might not be at risk in the interest of protecting their vasculature from possible future heart disease.

As an aside, the SPRINT study was named by the advertising agency used to brand the clinical trial. Controlled brand building generates excitement and allows the marketing message dissemination to begin with a catchy name that connotes a positive forward-thinking movement. These names are not pulled out of the air. They are carefully crafted by expert marketers who know how to prep and sell the target market on the concept they endeavor to get adopted by program, protocol, and product advocates. The advocates are Thought Leaders in CVD who are already talking about the trial before it has even been completed, thus influencing lower-tier prescribers all the way down the chain to your own General Practitioner.

The protocol was written in advance of the study by the medical education agency, a subsidiary of the advertising agency, and the spin began long before the trial did. As a result, a soon-to-be launched new HT medication was not only embraced, but reached blockbuster status right out of the gate. The SPRINT trial was funded by the NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Those organizations received their grant money from the pharmaceutical industry, most notably from the company whose drug was planned to launch upon the release of the new data.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

In summary, I’ll quote J. Michael Pearson, CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, who flat out admitted on April 13, 2016 that his first responsibility is to the shareholders, not to the furthering of healthcare outcomes and the consumers of their drug products. Instead of investing in new breakthroughs, Valeant relies on lucrative drug acquisitions and price hikes. “If products are sort of mispriced and there’s an opportunity, we will act appropriately in terms of doing what I assume our shareholders would like us to do.”4

More and more, it is only the wealthy who can afford quality healthcare, not the average consumer with modest healthcare insurance plans. In 2016, 56 of Valeant’s drugs increased in price by 66 percent. Their latest drug acquisition prompted a 550 percent price increase. “My primary responsibility is to Valeant shareholders. We can do anything we want to do. We will continue to make acquisitions, we will continue to move forward.” Stock prices for Valeant rose 1,000 percent since Pearson became CEO.5 With that message coming from the top, it’s easy to see how patients are the ones who will suffer from Pharma’s greed. Pharmaceuticals continue to make choices based on how much money they will make, not on how many patients they can help.

SOURCES

1 https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/about-fhs/research-milestones.php

2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904478/

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/health/blood-pressure-study.html?_r=0

4 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/valeant-senate-deposition-1.3533698

5 http://usuncut.com/class-war/valeant-ceo-shareholder-profit/

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

Alternative News

Renowned Scientist Petitions FDA About Improper Amounts of Aluminum In Childhood Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A team of aluminum experts at Keele University has found that multiple childhood vaccines contain either more or less aluminum than what is listed on the product label. They have filed a petition with the FDA in an attempt to resolve this issue.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the consequences of misleading or incorrect product information, like vaccines, listed on the product label? Should these labels not be completely accurate?

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 aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May sixth of this year. The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.

A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Dr. Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum made this discovery. Six products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta and the while four childhood vaccines contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than is provided for on the labeling for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix).

This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where they point to the fact that, “Since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, its content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety. Another paper of interest for the reader might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.

The petition states that,

These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.

The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.

  Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.

If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here.

Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,

We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.

You can read all about what’s going on with regards to this and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley and the academics who support his work, here.

Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,

Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?

How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.

No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.

I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.

The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of  certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.

Why does the mainstream continue to struggle at having appropriate conversations around “controversial topics.” If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly  and collectively? What is going on here? You would think that everybody would support research like the kind Exley is doing. Although it may not be in the best interest of the pharmaceutical companies and their business model, it is definitely in the best interests to our collective human health. This should be the primary focus of modern day healthcare and science. The implications of science should not impede its progression, but rather accelerate 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

Alternative News

Melinda Gates Was Concerned About Her Husband’s Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein, WSJ Reveals

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Wall Street Journal is reporting that one possible reason for the divorce of Bill and Melinda gates may be due to his supposed relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

  • Reflect On:

    Did you know that elite child sex trafficking may be a real issue among certain circles? We are bringing attention to this recent story to bring awareness to this fact.

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.

Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

What Happened: Bill and Melinda Gates recently announced that they will be divorcing. They haven’t revealed the specific reason for their divorce, but the Wall Street Journal has reported that one source of concern for Ms. Gates “was her husband’s dealing with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the people and a former employee of their charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Gate’s concern about the relationship dated as far back as 2013, the former employee said.”

Business Insider explains:

Sources told The Daily Beast last week that Bill Gates’ willingness to meet as early as 2011 with Epstein — who by then had already pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage girl in 2008 — “still haunts” Melinda Gates. According to the outlet, the couple met with Epstein in New York City at his Upper East Side mansion in September 2013. Sources told The Daily Beast that soon after the meeting, Melinda Gates told friends of her discomfort during the encounter. Several people close to the couple reportedly said she was “furious” over her husband’s relationship with Epstein. Bill Gates told The Journal in 2019 that he was not friends with Epstein. Documents reviewed by The Journal say that after The New York Times first reported in October 2019 that Bill Gates had met more than once with Epstein, Melinda Gates called her advisors multiple times.

According to the National Post, days before Epstein died in a New York Prison he named venture capitalist Boris Nikolic as a backup executor of his will. Nikolic had worked as a science advisor to Bill Gates. The Post goes on to mention that in an emailed statement at the time, “Nikolic told Bloomberg that Epstein had not consulted him about the will and that he had no intention to fulfill the duties.”

Nikolic is seen in the picture above on the left side of Gates. The others, from the left are, at the time, a senior JP Morgan executive James E. Staley, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Mr. Epstein and of course Bill Gates.

This is the only other connection between Gates and Epstein that seems to exist. Gates met with Epstein in 2011, 2013 and 2018 it appears although no information as to why is available. Rumours related to philanthropy seem to be the reason but again, these meetings had occurred after Epstein was a convicted sex offender.

In 2014, multiple media outlets reported that police arrested  a Seattle man at the Gates’ mansion for allegedly collecting more than 6,000 child rape photos. Rick Allen Jones, reportedly employed as an engineer at the Gates’ home, is also accused of trading pornography images via Gmail. None of the activity Jones was involved in occurred at the Gates’ residence except for his arrest.

Why This Is Important: It’s no doubt odd that Bill Gates would meet with Epstein multiple times, especially after he was convicted as a sex offender. Perhaps these meetings were the only ones made public and there were more we don’t know about? Who really knows, we will probably never get the truth as to why they had this kind of relationship, if you can even call it that. We’ve seen the same thing with Prince Andrew, except Bill Gates doesn’t have any sexual offence accusations against him like Andrew does.

 Last year the former CEO of Reddit, Ellen K. Pao, tweeted that Ghislaine Maxwell “was at the Kleiner holiday party in 2011” but she “had no desire to meet her much less have a photo taken with her. We knew about her supplying underage girls for sex, but I guess that was fine with the “cool” people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” After the tweet, Pao removed it and then made her profile private.

Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate is now on trial facing multiple sex offences and child sex trafficking charges, just like Epstein. It’s concerning that many people  seemed to be well aware of Epstein’s activities yet nobody really went public.

The Epstein saga, and all of the strange connections that go along with it are important because it highlights a very real problem that doesn’t seem to receive enough attention within the mainstream, and that’s the issue of supposed elite level child sex trafficking.

These kinds of rumours are quite prevalent among high ranking people, as a paper published in European Psychiatry details:

Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.

It’s a very deep issue, with countless examples of accusations and convictions involving high ranking people which include Vatican officials, Royal Family members, Prime Ministers, Presidents, politicians, Hollywood elite, financial elite and many more. You can read about more examples here if interested.

Sonia Poulton, a British journalist, social commentator, and filmmaker, has been investigating the dark web of pedophilia for years. Some of her research has been compiled into a documentary called “Pedophiles In Parliament.” You can access that here if interested.

We have conducted an interview with a survivor of elite child sex trafficking/slavery. You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

The Takeaway: Much has come to light over the past few years regarding this issue, but if it is prevalent at the highest levels, how can it be stopped? If those with the power to stop this issue and the ones we approach to deal with this issue are involved, what steps can we take? Take Cardinal George Pell, for example, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse. His charges were dropped and he was set free. It’s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, after all, he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996.

Perhaps some of those whom we view as idols, or gods and saviours are actually not what they seem? Perhaps it’s time for humanity to turn to itself instead of continually relying on big politics and powerful people to solve our issues. Perhaps that’s why they never get solved? Politics has become a cesspool of corruption and a system that does not seem to be adequate at dealing with many of the issues we face today, yet we continually turn to it for answers and permission. Given the amount of corruption within the system, the idea that sex trafficking is prevalent in some of these circles should come as no surprise.

The mainstream has failed to have appropriate conversations around elite level child sex trafficking and pedophilia, many people would consider it to be a “conspiracy theory” if you brought it up to them. It really goes to show how media sources have become a hub for disinformation and perception manipulation in many areas. It’s important to start having these discussions if we are going to make any progress with regards to solving it, regardless of how unbelievable it may seem.

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

Alternative News

Why Can’t We Question COVID’s Origins?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 3 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.

Recall back to the beginning of the COVID pandemic and discussion were had about the origins of the virus. Was it naturally occurring, coming from an infected bat sold in a wet-market in China, or was it created in a lab and leaked whether on purpose or accidentally? At the time, the ladder was sharply considered a conspiracy theory, and if you ask most people today, inevitably including fact checkers, they will tell you this is true – COVID coming from a lab is a mere conspiracy theory.

But still today, many don’t agree with this hypothesis.

On May 3rd, journalist Nicholas Wade, a science writer who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science and, for many years, on the New York Times, penned an extremely lengthy piece on Medium called: Origin of Covid — Following the Clues.

In it he explores how the ‘debunking’ of the lab origins story came to be, and the stark conflict of interest associated with the letter published by the Lancet claiming the virus was naturally occurring. The letter was written by Dr. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. His organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This means Dr. Daszak would at least partly responsible for COVID leaking from that lab if it in was made there and in fact had leaked. Yet this stark conflict of interest was never claimed in the Lancet letter that became the political piece that encouraged the world not to consider lab origins.

As time has gone on, as Wade suggests, the evidence that COVID indeed originated in a lab continues to mount:

After all, the more months pass without the natural emergence theory gaining a shred of supporting evidence, the less plausible it may seem. Perhaps the international community of virologists will come to be seen as a false and self-interested guide. The common sense perception that a pandemic breaking out in Wuhan might have something to do with a Wuhan lab cooking up novel viruses of maximal danger in unsafe conditions could eventually displace the ideological insistence that whatever Trump said can’t be true.

Make no mistake, and I have to write this in or else we risk further demonetization and de-platforming, mainstream media and fact checkers will assure you COVID did not originate in a lab.

As I read through Wade’s extensive research into the origins of COVID, I began to see a possible pattern: the same ridicule and shutting down of scientific conversation regarding the origins of COVID that occurred throughout 2020 appears to be occurring right now when scientists and virologists question current vaccinations and roll out methods.

Multiple scientists have drawn questions about COVID vaccines, and they are only met with censorship and the label of “anti-vaxxer”, even when they are themselves pro-vaccine.

We had a discussion about this, and we also gave an inside look at how internet fact checking and Big Tech are being sure vaccine  story doesn’t get out. We wanted to give people an inside look at how our narratives, and financial well being as a company, is held hostage until we agree with change them at the behest of internet fact checkers.

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!