Connect with us

General

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

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

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

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

Australian UFO study.

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

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

General

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

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

General

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

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

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

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

They point out the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the study points out,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!