Connect with us

Alternative News

A Coyote In Sheep’s Clothing: The Greenwashing Of The Sharing Economy

Published

on

A story trapped within a story trapped within a story. A few years ago, I successfully crowdfunded the start of a peer-to-peer staffing network that would allow freelance hospitality staff to solicit their expertise directly to clients without being hired by nefarious staffing agencies.

advertisement - learn more

The research into “new” and “sharing” and “peer-to-peer” economies was fascinating and undoubtedly evolutionary in scope. Although organizations such as Couchsurfing and WWOOF (WorldWide Opportunities on Organic Farms) kept the grassroots, relatively cost-free foundations of early sharing-economy principles in place, the inevitable was about to happen in the money economy. As the global economy receded in 2008 and subsequent industries collapsed, a global “sharing” economy was born out of its ashes.

The sharing economy, as it’s come to be known, has been around since before the word economy existed. The word economy literally means the “management” of the “household.” It preceded monetary economies. It preceded financial institutions and debt, as it has come to exist. It could also be said it was the basis for communal solidarity and resilience before monetized economies and scarcity began to empower the individual and disregard the community.

And so in the west we have come full circle, with many emerging companies whose foundations of disintermediation create or strengthen community and offer people an opportunity to make money where they otherwise couldn’t previously. None of these things are inherently bad, but when we don’t question how a new economy works, only that it works, we inevitably fall deeper into a story that we consider ourselves to be escaping.

A Different Business Model

The business model I created attempted to remedy the increasing disparity in the hospitality catering world between staffing agencies and staff. So I imagined a website that could do what the agencies did, independent of administrative personnel and “finders’ fees.” I realized at the same time that simply paying people more to work the same job does not necessarily remedy the acute vapidity or abuse of their work, it just makes it more palatable. As seems to be the case for a large majority of peer-to-peer networks that tend to stylize the sharing economy, the agency middlemen defend their role as facilitators by taking up to 70% of the staff’s wages charged to the client, at least in the case of hospitality staff in Toronto.

That being said, it’s no wonder alternatives are arising. Similar alternatives have popped up for other freelance workers as well, usually in tech and design. Although these models follow similar styles as AirBnB and Uber in creating safe networks and allowing peer reviews, none of the models implement safeguards to ensure safer work environments, higher pay rates, guaranteed pay rates, etc.

advertisement - learn more

In fact, the models do the opposite of the story of innovation and sharing and disintermediation that they are so quick to espouse. The online models replacing the traditional middlemen instead allow competition to such an extent that the price of one’s work is affected by a “race-to-the-bottom.” (“Because the competition is offering the same service for less, they will probably have more business, so then I should lower my prices too.”) Not to mention the considerable project revisions that can be demanded pro bono just so a user can retain a positive review. These consequences should come as no surprise when longterm, unpaid internships, which often don’t result in paid work, have become the norm in the corporate and non-corporate work world alike.

Today you can hire someone online to micro-manage your week for you, although most people require simple tasks completed. Fiverr is the big one, where people can sign up and hire designers for any variety of micro-projects, starting at $5. As if this outsourcing of work isn’t enough, there has to be Fourerr, which is a laughable, albeit sad declaration of the race to the bottom. And don’t forget, most of these peer-to-peer job networks take a 20% commission.

Larger project-based online job networks like Guru and UpWork so opaquely try to represent themselves as the cutting edge of next generation work (so says their pretentious names). But that’s just it. These platforms are exactly that — an evolution of the same system that came before it, just more efficient. But it does absolutely nothing for the world when a more efficient model is presented, especially when it’s based on grandfathered principles. What good does it do to make a runaway train more efficient? What it does do is dress the emperor in new clothes. But the ugly truth is that he’s still naked.

Of course, things are never so black and white. Share-washing is a term coined to describe the greenwashing of the sharing economy.

Somehow a person who decides to become a short-term landlord is suddenly helping the world by renting their spare room to complete strangers. It doesn’t mean they suddenly contribute something revolutionary to the world. What it does mean is that they are being convinced that is the case.

Somehow they are not a capitalist, not a slumlord, not exacerbating an economy in protracted collapse, but rather the angels and creators of a more beautiful world. Marketing also convinces them of this with redemptive, but equally vague catch phrases such as “open source,” “gift economics,” and my personal favourite, “collaborative consumption.” Still, things are not so black and white. Many organizations and networks have bred a more beautiful world without the necessity of monetized interactions. Let’s contrast the angels and demons.

Couchsurfing is a great example of a grassroots, community-building introduction to a peer-to-peer sharing economy. Essentially, it is a social network, much like Facebook, that allows users to register, build a profile, and engage with people from all over the world to either host travellers in their homes or to solicit hosts for a couch to sleep on. The organization charges a fee to register as a verified member, enhancing security, but other than that, it is not only free to use, but policies demand that no money is exchanged for the use of one’s couch. It is free, yes, but there is a sort of unspoken responsibility among couchsurfers that they at least offer to buy or cook the host dinner and share stories, skills, and ideas.

Those who might flip this around and see their responsibility as an obligation perhaps don’t understand the generosity and otherwise unnecessary need to offer a stranger a place to sleep for the night, because as you might be able to glimpse, it can be much more than that. I’ve been a member for a long time and it is an amazing way not only to meet new people, but new cultures, in a way that removes one from the cultural concept of strangers, and brings them together in an inter-cultural space that demands something of them, and not their wallets.

Often when I explained to my parents or friends that I would be staying on a stranger’s couch or hosting someone in the same way, their fears would be curled up around their curiosity, demanding that their worldviews on the dangers of strangers be somehow accommodated. They never were. But for their ilk a slightly similar website emerged that not only brought the idea out of alternative lifestyles, but monetized it. AirBnB has become a household name. The website allows people to rent out spare rooms and whole apartments to strangers. For those who can’t afford to stay in hotels, and those who desire income, AirBnB is a perfect match. While this new platform certainly undercuts the revenue of local hotels, AirBnB provides work and money for people who otherwise might not have any. Much in the vein of couchsurfing, AirBnB hosts and guests often have an opportunity to bridge cultural valleys, learning and interacting in ways that eclipse the capacities of museums, cultural centres, and day tours to educate.

The AirBnB model has had incredible success spreading wealth that was once consolidated in the hands of corporations and agencies and allowing it to funnel into the hands of the average citizen. While this, coupled with the capacity to create inter-cultural dialogues and bridges, is amazing, there is certainly a side to this coin that most people don’t want to acknowledge. In allowing people to utilize their homes and rental units, they don’t just allow them to increase their income, but by default turns them into landlords. It also encourages people to obtain more properties as a means for extra, and often easy, money. As if it wasn’t difficult enough to own property in 21st century North America without a lifelong mortgage, “innovation” sings the song that now everyone can become a landlord. This model has kept unemployed people from becoming homeless and employed people a little bit more financially secure, but only at the cost of their tenants. AirBnB hosts have become the proletariat Marriott, the friendly, average Joe version of Donald Trump. By monetizing the model that couchsurfing started, AirBnB has not solved the increasingly dangerous rent problem in North America, it has exacerbated it tenfold by saying “why risk permanent tenancy when you too could be a landlord?” It is simply an extension of the capitalist model in the face of its own collapse.

Uber is a similar example. Take a profession that requires multiple licenses, shady intermediaries, often negative public opinion, and offer a somewhat de-regulated, cheaper version of the same thing, and suddenly you have a brand new industry worth tens of billions of dollars. An industry which anyone can make money at, as long as they have a nice car and a driver’s license. It is likely that here too, many, many people who might have otherwise gone unemployed now have full-time jobs as drivers. But the reason Uber has become so popular is not because it offers people jobs, or that the public is discouraged with the conventional model of taxis, but because it offers a cheaper service. This alone is why most people use Uber, which is 20% cheaper than taxi cabs on average.

While it varies from city to city and country to country, Uber drivers can often make more money than taxi drivers, when they don’t have to pay for insurance or licensing fees. But while tons of people now have jobs they otherwise wouldn’t, the price of the service is going down, along with all drivers’ income — simply as a direct relation to the amount of competition that now exists. The peer-to-peer economy claims to remove the middlemen, previously agencies and government regulation, and to create new jobs. The flip side of the coin is that it postpones the shrinking of local and global economies because, simply, the prices of these services are cheaper. It is essentially the 21st century version of free trade — that rosy sounding economic style that promised to “develop” all countries to a rich, work-free standard of living, but instead has brought the global economy to its knees, making rich people in rich countries richer, and anyone else not already poor left with the promise of lifelong drudgery.

 The ethos of capitalism as it has come to exist in the modern world is to make more people, so they can buy more things, at cheaper prices, so that inevitably there will be money left over for the next transaction. The peer-to-peer economy is not a socially just revolution of microeconomics and disintermediation — it is the natural consequence of the global capitalist economy trying, in its death throws, to prop itself up and shy away, as efficiently as possible, from its last gasps. And look how it is championed by the liberal and progressive among us.

Leave your dog with a stranger. Rent a car or bicycle from a neighbour. Lend or borrow money (with interest) from a peer investor. Buy used clothing from a friend instead of a second-hand shop. Rent sporting goods from a peer instead of a store. Rent your parking space for the days you don’t use it. This kind of peer-to-peer economics certainly reduces waste and makes local economies much more efficient than they previously were, but what also seems inevitable, is that the praise and proponents of the new economics actually encourages people to monetize, at least potentially, every thing that they own and every service they can offer. A person’s objects no longer exist primarily in relation to ownership or want, but that everything has a resale price attached. The consequences are endless, and unnerving.

The “sharing” economy is so often offered up in quotations because it is obvious that sharing something does not and never did mean putting a price tag on sharing. The bright side is that there are social networks and organizations whose word is bond and offer up platforms and meeting spaces where things not only don’t have to be monetized — what a concept! — but aren’t monetized. Couchsurfing, online barter and “freecycling” networks, tool-lending libraries, seed libraries, book libraries, and carpooling are all great and sometimes timeless examples of how we can start to tell stories that might include money in some fashion, but not as the foundation through which the interaction unfolds.

The culture of innovation for entrepreneurs today has become a caricature, with very few stones left unturned in order to find a way to justify monetizing a new idea. Young people dressing up in their blazers and v-neck t-shirts, paying money to attend “salons” and “unconferences” and get certified as a life coach at 30 (the irony!), so they can then charge for their own salons and certification programs. Don’t get me wrong — everyone needs to make money, pay rent or a mortgage, and so on. But saying that is what everyone needs is also saying that it has always been this way, which is one of the hallmarks of the story of western civilization. If you convince someone that it has always been this way, then how could it ever be otherwise?

So in the face of western culture rotting from its core comes the rush to create new technologies and bandaids masquerading as solutions. Still, people need narrative. And so with the share-washing of business, otherwise known as business innovation, is it really any surprise that conferences and salons always begin with some organizer pitching a story — something relatable, something hopeful, something that hinges on a world much unlike their own? But the guests in the audience, even with their inspiration lit, conscious of it or not, are there to build something they can sell to others, and without even knowing they are being sold the same. old. story.

A story trapped within a story, that is ironically enough, trying to tell a different story.

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

Farmer Gives His Cows To A Sanctuary After Seeing Them “Terrified”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A Cattle farmer turned vegan and gave his whole £50,000 herd to an animal sanctuary because he could no longer bear seeing them 'terrified' on the way to the abattoir.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we subject other living beings to torture, pain, hurt and a terrible life? Why do we not value the life of an animal as much as we do a human?

Billions of animals are raised and killed for slaughter every single year, and that’s in America alone. There is nothing humane about our food industry. It’s quite clear that the majority of animals are tortured, live in extreme fear, anxiety and depression, and constantly have their kids and other family members ripped away from them. Take cows, for example. These majestic, compassionate, empathetic and brilliant beings are basically raped so we can drink their milk.

They are forcefully inseminated, which is odd given the fact that casein, the protein found within the milk of a cow, has been found to increase our risk of cancer and even accelerate the growth rate of cancer . Furthermore, the milk from a cow creates a condition within the body called metabolic acidosis, and as a result the body compensates by leeching calcium from the bones. How ironic is that?

When the cow gives birth, the babies do not get the milk because that’s reserved for humans and big profit. The babies are separated from their mothers and then are either immediately killed or raised for slaughter. This is extremely inhumane, and it represents one of the most heartbreaking genocides in human history. It makes no sense to drink the milk of a cow because it’s meant for cows.

In fact, humans are the only animal that drink the milk of another animal, and we are the only animal to drink milk after weaning. Furthermore, we previously didn’t have the ability to digest the milk of a cow, that’s an ability our bodies eventually developed, given the fact that the milk of a cow is so unnatural to the human body. It makes sense that 65 percent of the planet has some form of lactose intolerance. In some regions of the world it’s an astonishing 90 percent. It makes no sense at all, and it’s quite clear that the big food companies are behind this and have marketed milk as ‘healthy’ simply for the purposes of profit.

The main purpose of this article is to emphasize that all of this is happening because of us. Granted, things have drastically changed over the past decade, and are continuing to change. The profits of the dairy and meat industries are steadily declining, and this is as a result of people waking up to what’s really going on with regards to how these animals are treated as well as the health consequences of human beings over-consuming animal products.

One other thing that seems to be happening is an increase in global compassion. It’s always strange to ask how any human being can be involved in this process. We are talking about living, sentient, emotional, intelligent beings being subjected to extreme pain. How can anybody on the planet be okay with someone else going through such things? The reality is that there are individuals who oppose these industries, and there are those who deem the lives of other animals as insignificant.

advertisement - learn more

As I said, people are changing, but some people just don’t realize this. Jay and Katja Wilde are the latest examples of how change is spreading.

Pictured above, the 61-year-old farmers just couldn’t take the guilt anymore after spending many years as beef farmers. They recently decided to give their entire herd to an animal sanctuary. It’s interesting because he’s been a vegetarian for thirty years, yet at the same time this was his occupation, and through it he discovered that each individual cow had their own unique personality. They are loving, caring, intelligent and affectionate animals.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, he said:

“I’ve long felt there was a very strong conflict of interest between not eating meat and producing cattle for meat,” he says. “The problem is that when you inherit a farm, it feels like a duty to keep its life continuing into the future. That also means looking after animals, really getting to know them. But then I felt that sending them off was betraying them. I needed to do something differently. Whether they are stubborn, shy, friendly, they’re all different. These traits can pass down generations, too. You can match sons and daughters to their mothers.”

He emphasized how his profession made him much more “acutely aware of taking them to their place of death.” A death that Jay felt sure the cows were fully aware of. “It’s hard to know exactly what they know, but logic suggests everything about that final journey must be terrifying,” he said.

Jay and his wife Katja have now converted their beef farm into an organic vegan one, becoming the first farmers in the UK who are believed to have taken such action.

“The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as now they look upon the murder of humans.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

Below is great, heart-warming video.

The Takeaway

Eating meat isn’t healthy. It’s well-established in scientific literature that a meat-free diet, when done correctly, offers tremendous health benefits. Plant-based eating is not only nutritionally sufficient, but helps you avoid chronic illness as well. You can read more information regarding that in the articles linked below.

What we are doing today, raising and slaughtering billions of animals, is not only destroying our health, it’s destroying our environment as well. More importantly, compassion, care, empathy and love must return to our planet, and the food industry is where we need to start showing these qualities that have somehow been made to lay dormant within us. If one suffers, we all suffer.

Related Articles:

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat

Studies Show What Happens To Your Heart When You Go Vegan or Vegetarian

Disturbing Aerial Photos Show What Killing Billions of Animals for Meat is Doing To The Environment

Warning: Graphic Images That The Egg Industry Does Not Want You To See

New Study Shows What Vegan Diets Do For Heart Health, Endurance Athletes & Sports Performance

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

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

Multiple Investigations Reveal Secrets About Where US Tax Dollars Are Really Going

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple investigations and testimony from high ranking sources have discovered that trillions of dollars of our tax dollars are going towards programs that not even the highest ranking people within government know about.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we made to believe our taxes dollars are going towards necessary services that favour the population? Why do we so easily trust our government and take their word for it when evidence says otherwise.

It’s amazing how much money is scraped off of each paycheque, and how much money multiple small and big businesses pay. We are told that it’s necessary, that this is the money going towards various programs that are responsible for building our schools, employing people for necessary services and infrastructure, among many other things. It’s truly amazing how much money governments rake in from taxes.

It’s an astronomical amount that makes it hard to see how all of the money is allocated to services that are in the people’s favour, instead of the possibility of it going into the pockets of certain politicians and elitists, among other places. Yet we are heavily taxed, and reasons for taxation are constantly brought up and justified, almost as if to imply that there really is no other way of changing things and doing things differently here on planet Earth. Our potential is huge, yet we are convinced that money and taxation are our only ways to operate.

Sure, some of our taxes are going toward various needs and services we deem necessary, but how much off of our paycheques is really required for this? Judging by the amount of money that has been poured into black budget programs, it doesn’t seem like much is needed at all, and this is because trillions upon trillions of our tax dollars are actually going towards projects that the public has absolutely no idea about.

These projects are known as ‘black budget programs,’ which include Special Access Programs (SAPs). Within 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.”

Not many people have investigated the black budget world, but The Washington Post revealed that the “black-budget” documents indicate that a staggering 52.6 billion dollars was set aside for operations in fiscal year 2013.(source) More recent investigations, however, reveal a lot more than that.  The topic was discussed in 2010 by Washington Post journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin. Their investigation lasted approximately two years and concluded that America’s classified world has:

Become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. (source)

advertisement - learn more

Recently, Arkin quite NBC/MSNBC  and went public outing them as completely fake government run agencies. You can read more about that hereHere is another article we published that has links within it to documents showing the close relationship between mainstream media, academia, and the CIA.

The most recent investigation was conducted by economist and Michigan State professor Mark Skidmore, alongside some of his graduate students as well as Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They discovered trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from the Department of Housing & Urban Development as well as the Department of Defense. For their research, the team used several government websites and made inquiries to multiple U.S. agencies. Much of the time they received no response and the Office of the Inspector General even disabled links to all key documents that revealed unsupported spending, according to the team.

Given the Army’s $122 billion budget, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times spending authorized by Congress. Typically, such adjustments in public budgets are only a small fraction of authorized spending… Skidmore thought Fitts had made a mistake. “Maybe she meant $6.5 billion and not $6.5 trillion,” he said. “So I found the report myself and sure enough it was $6.5 trillion.” – Michigan State News.

They went on to find documents indicating a total of $20 trillion worth of undocumented adjustments made from 1998 t0 2015. Our tax dollars are going directly into these black budget programs, which often cost far more than our roads and services. If this information was made transparent and public for discovery and use, it would leap all of humanity into the stars and into new discovery and exploration. The implications would be huge, and it would force us to ask more questions.

Here’s a great quote from Paul Hellyer.

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  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 which both congress and the commander in chief know nothing about. (source)

What’s even more interesting is that Fitts has been quite outspoken about a secret space program and where this missing money is actually going. She explains how enormous amounts of resources were handed over to covert operations to develop a security system of finance. This then created the CIA and a select group of people who were in charge of UFO technology. “By the time JFK came into office ready to challenge this shadow government and make space program the centrepiece of his administration, the civil war between the Deep State and the public state was in full force.” (source)

Interesting to say the least.

Deeper Black Budget Discussion On CETV

CETV is a platform we created in order to combat censorship and demonetization we have been facing over the past few years. On episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail. Below is a clip exploring the validity behind missing money from the black budget and special access programs, explaining where the money is going and what exactly it’s being used to do.

You can become a member of CETV, get access to the full show and many others, and support conscious media here.

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to really question what’s going on with our tax dollars. Whose pockets is the majority of money going into, and for what purpose? What are we really paying for? Secret space programs? Deep underground and under ocean military bases?  Have we just been made to believe that the way we are taxed is absolutely necessary? What is really going on here and how come nobody is questioning it?

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

Investigation Shows The MMR Vaccine Was Approved Based On Small Studies Showing Disturbing Results

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to damaging respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses to many of the children.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we ready to collectively deal with the implications of ongoing revelations of industry malfeasance with regards to vaccines that for some may require a shift in long-held beliefs?

Amidst a rash of efforts to bring forward mandatory vaccination in pockets of the United States is the recent move in New York City to declare a public health emergency Tuesday over a measles outbreak and order mandatory vaccinations in one neighborhood for people who may have been exposed to the virus.

Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the unusual order to address what he said was a measles “crisis” in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg section, where more than 250 people have gotten measles since September. The order applies to anyone living, working or going to school in four zip codes in the neighborhood. The declaration requires all unvaccinated people who may have been exposed to the virus to get the vaccine, including children over 6 months old. People who ignore the order could be fined $1,000.

Challenging Assumptions

This kind of invasive move gives rise to several serious questions, including challenging many of the assumptions that are necessarily made to justify such a move.

Assumption #1: People who may have been infected with the measles should get vaccinated immediately. De Blasio wants people who may have been infected with the measles to get vaccinated. The assumption here is that the vaccine would actually help someone who has the virus by preventing them from getting the measles or preventing them from spreading it to others. But this just doesn’t stand to reason. If someone is already infected, getting a measles vaccine will not prevent the outbreak. That’s not what a vaccine is designed for. And while the person is going through the 2-week period it takes for the vaccine to take hold, it’s quite possible that this will weaken the immune response to the actual measles infection the person has. Quarantining people suspected of being infected would be the sensible response, not vaccinating. If they happen to have the measles, no problem. Once they recover they will then be immune for life.

Assumption #2: The MMR Vaccine Can Create Herd Immunity. There is an article in the Huffington post entitled ‘I’m No Anti-Vaxxer, But the Measles Vaccine Can’t Prevent Outbreaks,’ in which Dr. Gregory Poland, who strongly advocates for vaccines, notes that outbreaks are often initiated and spread by people who have been fully vaccinated against the measles–over 50% in the case of a 2011 outbreak in Quebec. How is this possible? While this Quebec outbreak happened within a community that supposedly had achieved herd-immunity status of over 95% vaccinated, the facts are, as the article notes, that “9 per cent of children having two doses of the vaccine, as public health authorities now recommend, will have lost their immunity after just seven and a half years. As more time passes, more lose their immunity.” Therefore, herd immunity for measles is simply impossible to achieve with this vaccine.

advertisement - learn more

Assumption #3: The MMR Vaccine, in de Blasio’s words, is ‘safe, effective, and life-saving.’ The claim that the MMR vaccine is ‘life-saving’ does not stand up to simple statistics, as we detail in our article ‘Statistics Show The MMR Vaccine Kills More People Than The Measles Does.’ Whether it is effective, we have already seen that it is incapable of creating herd immunity, wanes over time, does not work at all for some people, and in some of the latest outbreaks the majority of people infected were fully vaccinated. Is it safe? This is the important question we cover in the next section.

The Studies That Stand Behind The Approval Of the MMR Vaccine

The pharmaceutical industry, as well as governmental regulatory bodies like the CDC and the FDA, assure the public that they take the safety of vaccines seriously, and that there is irrefutable science behind the notion that vaccines are safe in terms of the studies that their approval is based on.

However, a Freedom of Information Act request by Del Bigtree has revealed absolutely startling information about the studies that supported the approval of the MMR vaccines that have been injected into our children. To begin with, only 8 studies were conducted and the total combined number of children participating in the studies was only a little over 800! Furthermore, the studies only recorded symptoms for the first 6 weeks after the vaccines were given, unlike many other drug studies that follow symptoms for 5 years or more. And finally, the study revealed serious side-effects in those receiving the vaccine, including a highly significant number of participants who suffered upper respiratory illness and gastrointestinal illness, which has been linked to autism.

In our latest episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Arjun and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma not only does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines, but they also want to try to prevent other researchers like Dr. Christopher Exley from doing so as well.

You can watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show where we talk about this subject in more detail here.

You can go here to see the full episode of ‘The Highwire’ where Del Bigtree breaks down the MMR studies in question.

The Takeaway

The veils of illusion that have been masking the truth are lifting as our consciousness awakens. Transparency is coming, though how long it takes will depend on our continued efforts to dig for and spread the truth far and wide.

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

Pod