Connect with us

Alternative News

How Big Pharma Chooses Which Drugs To Develop

Published

on

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

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/

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

12 Reasons Why Even Low Levels of Glyphosate Are Unsafe

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Decades of research have shown how Glyphosate is toxic in any amount, both for human and and the environment. This is not debatable.

  • Reflect On:

    Glyphosate is illegal in several dozen countries around the world due to health and environmental concerns. How can this product be approved for use when it's abundantly clear it's extremely unsafe, just like DDT was?

By Zen Honeycutt, Founding Executive Director Mom’s Across AmericaChildren’s Heath Defense Coalition Partner

Proponents of GMOs and Glyphosate-based herbicides and staunch believers in the EPA have long argued that low levels of glyphosate exposure are safe for humans. Even our own EPA tells us that Americans can consume 17 times more glyphosate in our drinking water than European residents. The EWG asserts that 160 ppb of glyphosate found in breakfast cereal is safe for a child to consume due to their own safety assessments, and yet renowned scientists and health advocates have long stated that no level is safe.  Confusion amongst consumers and the media is rampant.

Glyphosate is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro, which are both manufactured by Monsanto, the original manufacturer of Agent Orange and DDT. There are 750 brands of glyphosate-based herbicides.Glyphosate based herbicides are the most widely used in the world and residues of glyphosate have been found in tap water, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested.

The detection of glyphosate in these foods has set off alarms of concern in households and food manufacturers’ offices around the world. Lawsuits have sprung up against companies that make food products that claim to be “100% Natural” and yet contain glyphosate residues. These lawsuits have been successful. Debates, using the argument that “the dose makes the poison,” have been pushed by media. Speculation is that these media outlets are funded by advertisers that make or sell these chemicals or have sister companies that do, and threatening their profits would be unwise for all involved – except the consumers.

It is time to set the record straight

Here are 12 reasons why there is no safe level of glyphosate herbicide residue in our food or beverages.

  1. Babies, toddlers, and young children have kidneys and livers which are underdeveloped and do not have the ability to detox toxins the way adults doTheir bodies are less capable of eliminating toxins and therefore are particularly susceptible. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has stated that children, especially, should avoid pesticides because, “prenatal and early childhood exposure to pesticides is associated with pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.”
  2. Glyphosate does not wash, dry or cook off, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in the bone marrow, tendons and muscle tissue. Bioaccumulation of low levels over time will result in levels which we cannot predict or determine; therefore there is no scientific basis to state that the low levels are not dangerous, as they can accumulate to high levels in an unforeseeable amount of time.
  3. “There is no current reliable way to determine the incidence of pesticide exposure and illness in US children.” -AAP  Children are exposed through food, air, contact with grass and pets. How much they are being exposed to daily from all these possibilities is simply not something that we have been able to determine. Therefore no one is capable of assessing what levels are safe from any one modality of exposure because an additional low level from other modalities could add up to a high level of exposure.
    1. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides have been proven to cause non-alcoholic liver disease in a long term animal study by Michael Antoniou, Giles Eric Seralini et al.  The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
    2. Ultra-low levels of glyphosate have been shown to be  endocrine and hormone disrupting.Changes to hormones can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, autoimmune disease, cancer, mental and chronic illness.
    3. The  EPA Allowable Daily Intake Levels (ADIs) of glyphosate exposure were set for a 175-pound man, not a pregnant mother, infant, or child.
    4. Glyphosate alone has been shown to be chronically toxic causing organ and cell damage. Glyphosate herbicides final formulations, have been shown to be acutely toxic, causing immediate damage at low levels.
    5. The detection of glyphosate at low levels could mean the presence of the other toxic ingredients in glyphosate herbicides on our food. Until studies are done, one must practice the Precautionary Principle. The label on glyphosate herbicides does not specify the pesticide class or “other”/“inert” ingredients that may have significant acute toxicity and can account for up to 54% of the product.
    6. Regarding the label and low-level exposure: “Chronic toxicity information is not included, and labels are predominantly available in English. There is significant use of illegal pesticides(especially in immigrant communities), off-label use, and overuse, underscoring the importance of education, monitoring, and enforcement.” – AAP. Exposure to low levels of glyphosate herbicides can occur through pregnant wives or children hugging the father who is a pesticide applicator.  The chronic health impacts such as rashes which can, years later, result in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are often ignored, especially by low income or non-English speaking users dependent on their pesticide application occupation for survival.
    7. The EPA has admitted to not having any long-term animal studies with blood analysis on the final formulation of any glyphosate herbicides.  The EPA cannot state that the final formulation is safe.
    8. For approval of pesticides and herbicides, the EPA only requires safety studies, by the manufacturer who benefits from the sales, on the one declared active chemical ingredient—in this case glyphosate. Glyphosate is never used alone.
    9. The main manufacturer, Monsanto, has been found to be guilty on all counts by a San Francisco Supreme Court Jury in the Johnson v Monsanto. This includes guilty of “malice and oppression” which means that the company executives knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

    Clearly, it is time for food and beverage manufacturers to have a zero tolerance for glyphosate residue levels and for the US EPA and regulatory agencies everywhere to stop ignoring the science and to revoke the license of glyphosate immediately.

    advertisement - learn more

    Moms Across America is a 501c3 non profit organization whose motto is “Empowered Moms, Healthy Kids.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Anderson Cooper Caught Spreading Fake Information & Lying About Vaccines Live On CNN

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A clip of Anderson Cooper making very weak arguments in support of Mercury inside of vaccines. Each point he makes is not really correct and can be countered with actual science, which is outlined within the article. Mercury is clearly a big concern.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there no studies demonstrating that mercury is safe to inject into a child? Why has it simply been presumed safe? Why are there well over 100 studies showing that it's not safe to inject? What is going on here?

Most people probably aren’t surprised at the title of this headline. It’s become commonplace to hear about problems with pharmaceutical products, but when it comes to vaccines, many people are still unaware of the potential side effects. Much of the concern around vaccines has to do with the ingredients, many of which have been added to vaccines for multiple decades without any safety testing and have simply been presumed safe. This is easy for big pharma to do, given that they are often exempt from any responsibility or being held liable for someone who has a bad reaction to their product. They are protected, which allows them to be careless with their product.

This is why when I came across a clip of Anderson Cooper on CNN spreading false information, I thought it would be great to illustrate how false news, an anchor speaking about a topic without providing any sources, can easily be believed by the masses and taken as fact. The person he is interviewing is not really equipped to respond or reply appropriately.

Sure, it’s from 2015, but it’s still very relevant today.

It’s strange how anybody even has mainstream media ‘on’ these days. Relying on your T.V. for information is ironically why so many people become misinformed, as it’s best to do your own independent research. Given the amount of traffic alternative media sites have received over the past ten years, it’s quite clear that people are looking for other sources of information. Many eyes have veered away from mainstream media and into alternative media outlets, which shows we’ve come a long way.

If you want to look for alternative media and other sources of information,  it’s unfortunately becoming more and more difficult. The corporate/financial elite recognized the rise in alternative news, and as a result they’ve put in place a ‘ministry of truth’ (Orwell, 1984) to determine what information is fake and what information is real.  For example, News browser extension NewsGuard promises to help readers pick out fake news, and it’s funded and run by individuals tied to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Atlantic Council and other prominent elite groups. You can read more about that in detail here.

This is terrible. People should be allowed to decide for themselves what is real and what is not, and they should be allowed to examine the sources used and utilize their own brains.

advertisement - learn more

It seems that these people, whoever they are, want to do our thinking for us.

William Arkin, a well-known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, has gone public outing NBC/MSNBC as government run agencies. You can read more about that hereHere you can access declassified documents and read more about mainstream media’s connection to intelligence agencies and how they influence mainstream media and even academia. Here are 50 facts about the CIA and mainstream media, and here is a clip of an award winning mainstream media journalist telling us the same thing.

As James F. Tracy, a former professor of communications at Florida Atlantic University, emphasizes:

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

When it comes to Anderson Cooper, some have speculated he is working directly for US intelligence agencies. Even if a mainstream anchor is unaware of this, and is employed by the network, they are ‘loosely’ employed by intelligence agencies, outlined by the documents/articles linked above. It’s easy to see why many would think this of Anderson Cooper, especially since he was an  intern at the CIA while completing his undergrad at Yale University. Furthermore, his uncle, William Henry Vanderbilt III, was an Executive Officer of the Special Operations Branch of the OSS under the spy organization’s founder, William “Wild Bill” Donovan.  He also reached the rank of captain in the navy during WW2. (Source)

All of the information above is important to consider when you’re examining mainstream media. It makes it more understandable why they lie so much, and why they are fighting hard to shut down the voices of any opposition.

You can watch the full clip below.

A proper response to Anderson’s comments

Can you tell me the name of any of these scientists who claim this because they go against, what, every study? I mean the CDC says this, Institutes of Health, all these studies say you’re just wrong.

This was Anderson’s response to the comment by former U.S. Congressman Dan Burton regarding mercury in vaccines.

What Anderson says is a complete lie, as his claim that mercury in vaccines is dangerous does not go against “every study.”

In fact, his logic is completely backwards, because there is actually not one study showing that it’s safe to inject mercury into people, let alone little infants whose organs haven’t fully developed yet.  Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, it shouldn’t be a debate, yet it’s presented as one on mainstream media. As a result of this kind of presentation, it becomes a debatable topic within the mainstream, inside of homes, etc. This is pure brainwashing that’s occurring by utilizing false statements that everybody seems to take at face value.

Modern-day scientists have been amassing evidence of mercury’s toxicity for decades, with a growing focus in recent years on the metal’s association with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A new review in the multidisciplinary journal Environmental Research pulls together a wide body of literature with the aim of summing up current research and emerging trends in mercury toxicology. Geir Bjørklund, the study’s lead author, is the founder of Norway’s non-profit Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and has published prolifically on topics related to heavy metals, autoimmune disorders and ASD. – Robert F Kennedy Jr.

A couple of years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Junior and Robert DiNero actually offered a $100,000 reward for any scientist, journalist or doctor who could present one paper or proof that mercury is safe to inject into children. At that conference, they brought more than 100 peer-reviewed studies showing how it isn’t.

A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International points out what all of these other studies did as well:

 “The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.” (source)

Anderson then comments:

Well, are you against breast-feeding?  But you are aware that Methylmercury is actually in breast milk that’s given to children. If a child is only breastfed, they get more methylmercury then they would have ever gotten in any of the vaccines.

Just because there are other sources of mercury due to environmental pollution, like breastmilk, does not justify having mercury inside of vaccines. Mercury exposure comes from multiple areas, not just vaccines, because it’s presence in our environment is abundant as a result of multiple industries, not jut pharmaceutical. Mercury and heavy metal contamination are huge problems that cause a variety of diseases, but if mercury was banned from our environment, a lot of big industries would lose billions of dollars. I believe that the same powers behind our medications are the same ones spraying our food and using other methods to keep us sick to drive their profits up.

Furthermore, injecting heavy metals is far different than taking them in via other sources, like our food for example. This has been shown by numerous studies regarding aluminum, which is also present in multiple vaccines. Scientists discovered using animal models that injected aluminum does not come into the same method of excretion as the aluminum we take into our bodies via food or deodorant. Injected aluminum is picked up by macrophages (white blood cells) and transported to distant organs and the brain, where it can still be detected years after injection.

You can access those studies regarding injectable aluminum in the article linked below:

Brain Imaging Shows Autistic Brains Contain High Amounts of Aluminum

The truth is that there hasn’t been an appropriate study that actually looks at the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients and where they go in our body, including mercury.

This interview was a joke, and it unfortunately featured two people who were both ill-equipped to discuss the topic of vaccines. There are thousands of scientists and publications they could have used or cited, yet all we get is a massive ridicule campaign combined with the heavy marketing of vaccines instead.

Anderson also mentions organizations like the CDC and FDA, or regulatory agencies that approve our medications. These are very corrupt organizations, with dozens of examples showing their ties to big pharma.

The idea that vaccines aren’t entirely safe gained a lot of attention when one of the lead authors of a 2004 study came forward. His name is Dr. William Thompson, a senior researcher at the CDC who co-authored one of the most widely cited studies to debunk any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study allegedly found:

“The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”(source)

10 years later, he countered the original study, arguing:

“The [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.” (source)

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize how mainstream media can easily influence us and perpetuate a completely false idea with absolutely no evidence to back it up. As a result, “monkey see monkey do” happens, as the rhetoric is then repeated and believed by those who watch it and it becomes the dominating opinion. This type of ‘fake news’ is also pushed hard by pharmaceutical companies, as they’ve completely taken over medical education. This is why you see so many doctors lacking knowledge in areas you’d assume they’d be experts in.

Think for yourselves.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

‘Russia Collusion’: The Only Real ‘Colluders’ Have Been Proven To Be The Accusers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    As more evidence comes out, it is looking like the only ones 'colluding' in the 'Russian Collusion' affair are those U. S. government officials who have been trying to make the case against Donald Trump.

  • Reflect On:

    Is there anyone out there that still believes claims that Donald Trump somehow 'colluded' with Russia, given that no evidence to that effect has come out after all this time?

What do John Brennan (ex-CIA), James Clapper (ex-DNI), James Comey (ex-FBI), Andrew McCabe (ex-FBI), Peter Strzok (ex-FBI), Lisa Page (ex-FBI), Rod Rosenstein (DOJ), Bruce Ohr (ex-DOJ), Hillary Clinton (ex-DOS) and a whole host of lesser-known players have in common? They’ve all been revealed as co-conspirators (“colluders”) in an attempt first to prevent and then to terminate the Trump presidency by whatever means possible.

Their strategy was to accuse the Trump campaign of “collusion” with Russia, not based on any credible evidence, but on the basis of the idea that this would be the easiest and most powerful story to fabricate. Most powerful because Russia remains the most feared enemy and biggest threat to U. S. sovereignty in mainstream perception, and easiest because these accusations are actually a projection of their own activities, including Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One dealings with Russian entities.

FISA Warrant ‘DECLAS’

At this point, anyone who still believes that there is any possibility that Donald Trump somehow “colluded” with Russia, which isn’t even illegal, has simply fallen victim to mainstream propaganda. If you take a look at any of the actual evidence, it seems like this was all a ‘witch hunt,’ as Trump would say.

We are still awaiting the ‘DECLAS,’ Q-Anon’s catchword referring to the declassification of various documents and texts including the full and unredacted FISA Warrant used against Trump Administration official Carter Page. This particular FISA Warrant is what allowed the colluders to first spy on the Trump campaign prior to the election. While this warrant was technically already released in July 2018, it was highly redacted. The unredacted version, which Donald Trump threatened to release in late September, was set to lay bare many of the conspirators’ means and motives behind this charade and prove that Robert Mueller’s special council was knowingly built upon pure fabrication.

However, Donald Trump pulled back his push for declassification, and he explained this decision on Twitter:

It’s unclear as to why he didn’t go ahead with the DECLAS in September. However, between the documents, emails and text messages that have already been made public as well as the testimonies of some of these co-conspirators, it’s not difficult to piece together what’s really going on here.

A Simple Breakdown

This Epoch Times article, which provides a comprehensive infographic and a detailed analysis of all the players involved in what they call ‘Spygate,’ is a great place to start for those of you who want to dig deeper. The following is a direct quote from the article, providing a simple breakdown of what happened:

1. CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.

2. The FBI became the handler of Brennan’s intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.

3. The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of nondisclosure.

4. The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.

5. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.

6. Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.

7. The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.

The first point is worth examining further, and everything else cascades down from there. It seems as though Deep State operatives Brennan and Clapper got together to find ways to prevent Trump from becoming President, since Hillary Clinton was the Deep State’s preferred choice and Brennan and Clapper would fare very well under her presidency. They decided, in concert with other conspirators, to use their favorite boogeyman Russia, and felt that if they could find enough information to make a little smoke, they would be able to cry ‘Fire!’ and everyone would stop, drop and roll on their command.

But times are changing, and schemes like this are not as effective for the Deep State as they used to be, especially since Donald Trump took office and is now being supported by an alliance that is against the Deep State. This matter has been under investigation, and in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Brennan admitted that his ‘intelligence findings’ were the main basis for the FBI investigation:

“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”

It is public record that the dossier that forms the bulk of Brennan’s ‘intelligence’ was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, that this fact was not disclosed when the FISA Warrant was applied for, and that James Comey ultimately conceded that the information in this dossier was ‘salacious and unverified.’ The fact that no official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation is quite unusual–stunning, in fact–and gives way to the idea that the FBI investigation was nothing more than part of the conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump from taking office.

The Takeaway

Unlike in the past, when matters of corruption, conspiracy, and even treason at high levels seemed to end with a single individual taking the blame and higher powers getting off scot-free, it looks like the truth on this matter may actually be revealed to the public and the elite may be held accountable. It is our own interest in and awareness of these matters that help push them further toward full disclosure. The fact that detailed, public information clearly identifies a conspiracy of many of the highest-ranking people from top government agencies suggests that it’s only a matter of time before the DECLAS is dropped. Perhaps this will be the act that finally brings the existence and activities of the Deep State into mainstream consciousness.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.