Connect with us

General

A Solution For Blindness: World’s First Bionic Eye Implant Helps Blind Woman See Shapes & Colours

Published

on

Can you imagine living in a world of darkness, a world you weren’t visually connected to? For many, this is the only reality they’ve ever known; for some, a new and terrifying experience. Fortunately, scientists are on the brink of discovering how to use technology to restore sight to the blind. In fact, a group of surgeons from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) recently implanted the world’s first visual stimulator chip into the brain of a 30-year-old blind woman. The patient, who wishes to remain anonymous, started losing her eyesight in 2008 as a result of a rare disease called Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome, which attacks the pigment in the eyes. After only a year, the disease took her eyesight from her; however, it did not take her hope. Eight years later, she can now see colours and shapes again thanks to a tiny stimulator laid on the back of her brain.

advertisement - learn more

How the “Technology to Beat Blindness” Works

The device implanted into the patient’s brain was developed as part of the Orion I program by Second Sight. It was inspired by a similar device called the Argus II, which was released at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital in 2015 and involves a similar camera that sends images to an implant behind the eye. However, in order for the Argus II to be successful, it requires the patient to have at least some working retinal cells. The technology behind Orion I was specifically designed for those who cannot benefit from the Argus II, as it takes this concept even further by making it compatible with those who have complete blindness as well. Since the system sends signals directly to the brain, it could theoretically work to restore sight to anyone, including those who lost an eye or were blinded by cancer (source).

In August 2016, Dr. Nader Pouratian implanted the stimulator, an array of tiny electrodes, behind this woman’s brain. The surgery took only four hours to complete and involved opening a small hole in the back of her skull and inserting the stimulator onto the surface of her brain. He then placed a tiny antenna receiver, which receives signals from a computer, into this hole. Following her procedure, the patient was tested for six weeks to determine the results of her new “bionic eye.” The results have been extremely positive so far, as the patient has seen the precise signals researchers sent to her visual cortex, the area of the brain that receives images from the optic nerve.

Dr. Pouratian explained, “The moment she saw colour for the first time was a very emotional experience. It touched us all very deeply as human beings. Based on these results, this system has the potential to restore sight to the blind.”

Check out this UCLA video that explains how the technology works:

advertisement - learn more

Next Steps Toward Restoring the Patient’s Eyesight 

The UCLA doctors are now awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, anticipated to be granted in early 2017, to continue their experiments using the entire Orion I program. The tests would involve the patient wearing a pair of high-tech glasses with a camera on the bridge. Using the images captured from the glasses’ camera, Orion I would send those video signals to the brain, allowing the patient to see what’s directly in front of them (source).

Here’s a diagram that illustrates how the program works:

39E4F4E600000578-0-image-a-1_1477866572764

Dr Robert Greenberg, chairman of Second Sight, hopes this technology will improve all manner of eye injuries: “It is rare that technological development offers such stirring possibilities. By bypassing the optic nerve and directly stimulating the visual cortex, the Orion I has the potential to restore vision to patients blinded due to virtually any reason, including glaucoma, cancer, diabetic retinopathy, or trauma.”

Final Thoughts

In a world where being able to see is sometimes crucial for survival, Orion I could help transform the lives of many people suffering from blindness. This technology could provide a glimmer of hope to millions of people all over the world who never thought they’d see again. This patient’s story serves as a beautiful reminder that you can always find hope in the darkest of times and that literally anything is possible.

“I find hope in the darkest of days and focus in the brightest.” – Dalai Lama

CE Related Articles

How to Improve Your Eyesight Naturally

This Doctor Restored the Eyesight of 100,000 + People and Helps Blind People See In 5 Minutes

Blind Woman Regains Her Sight After a Controversial Stem Cell Treatment

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

Wikileaks: Ecuador is Being Run By “Criminals & Liars.” Assange’s Entire Legal Defense Given To The United States

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange's belongings.

  • Reflect On:

    How do the global elite have the right and power to do what they do to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden? Do we really live in a democracy when small groups of people in power can basically make decisions that go against the majority?

What’s happening with Julian Assange is heart-breaking. He’s a hero, just like Edward Snowden. Government secrets are kept, not to protect ‘national security’ as commonly claimed, but rather to protect political and corporate interests. After all, the United States is evidently run by a small group of corporations. These corporations have a huge influence when it comes to dictating government policy, and they do not like those who disclose their secrets. For years, Wikileaks has been leaking documents that’ve exposed major corruption within multiple governments, including the United States and basically the entire western military alliance. They’ve exposed that our world operates very differently than how it’s been presented, and they’ve never had to retract a single story. They exposed the invisible government, or “the real menace of Republic,” a term coined by John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City. Hylan has said that the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.”  (source)

Transparency is what Julian Assange is all about, and the American empire and even the global empire have been desperately trying to keep their secrets and prosecute anyone or anything that threatens their secrecy. That’s what this is all about. And they proved that with Chelsea Manning.

It’s not just people like Assange who are being demonized and hunted, it’s alternative media as well. The war on ‘fake news’ that’s been happening for the last little while has resulted in alternative media outlets being labeled as ‘fake’, even if they’re presenting credible information and sources. Any media outlet who even questions a controversial issue has been labeled as ‘wrong’ or ‘fake.’

What is happening to Assange is extremely unjust, and should serve as a massive ‘wake up’ call for anyone who isn’t already ‘awake.’ Truth and free press threaten the ability of the global elite to continue their cycle of creating problems and then proposing solutions in order to achieve their desired outcome. Some of the biggest leaks WikiLeaks has made were when they revealed the connections between terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to the western military alliance, and more specifically to the US government. Current presidential candidate and Congresswoman at the time, Tulsi Gabbard, even introduced a bill to stop this from happening.

We saw arms deals and the funding/support of terrorist organizations that the US claimed to be fighting against. This is a great example of how the global elite funds and creates a problem in order to justify a desired outcome (in this case it was heightened national security measures back home to protect people from ‘the war on terror’ and justify their infiltration of another country for ulterior motives).

I could go deeper into this, but the bottom line is that the arrest of Julian Assange comes at the hands of the criminals around the globe he was exposing, and it’s ironic that they are using their power and influence over mainstream media to portray Assange as the one who needs to be put behind bars.

advertisement - learn more

The Latest Update On Assange

Below is the latest update from the Wikileaks team via a recent press release.

Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange’s belongings.

Neither Julian Assange nor U.N. officials have been permitted to be present when Ecuadorian officials arrive to Ecuador’s embassy in London on Monday morning.

The chain of custody has already been broken. Assange’s lawyers will not be present at the illegal seizure of his property, which has been “requested by the authorities of the United States of America.”

The material includes two of his manuscripts as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections.

The seizure is formally listed as “International Assistance in Criminal matters 376-2018-WTT requested by the authorities of the United States of America.” The reference number of the legal papers indicates that Ecuador’s formal cooperation with the United States was initiated in 2018.

Since the day of his arrest on April 11, 2019, Mr. Assange’s lawyers and the Australian consul made dozens of documented demands to the embassy of Ecuador for the release and return of his belongings, to which they received no response.

Earlier this week the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, who met with Mr. Assange in Belmarsh prison on April 25, asked to be present to monitor Ecuador’s seizure of Assange’s property. Ecuador inexplicably refused the request, despite the fact that since 2003, Ecuador has explicitly committed itself to granting unimpeded open invitations for UN special rapporteurs to investigate any aspect of their mandate in Ecuadorian jurisdiction.

The seizure and transfer of Mr. Assange’s property to the U.S. is the second phase of a bilateral cooperation that in January and February saw Ecuador arranging U.S. interrogations of past and present Ecuadorian diplomats posted to the embassy of Ecuador in London while Mr. Assange was receiving asylum. The questioning related to the U.S. grand jury investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks. As part of phase one of the cooperation, the United States also asked Ecuador to provide documents and audiovisual material of Assange and his guests, which had been gathered during an extensive spy operation against Assange inside the embassy.

On Friday, President Lenin Moreno initiated a state of emergency that suspends the rights of prisoners to “inviolability of correspondence, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of information” through Executive Decree 741.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks said:

“On Monday Ecuador will perform a puppet show at the Embassy of Ecuador in London for their masters in Washington, just in time to expand their extradition case before the U.K. deadline on 14 June. The Trump Administration is inducing its allies to behave like it’s the Wild West.”

Hrafnsson continued:

“Ecuador is run by criminals and liars. There is no doubt in my mind that Ecuador, either independently or at the behest of the US, has tampered with the belongings it will send to the United States.”

Baltasar Garzon, international legal coordinator for the defence of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, said:

“It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the agent of political persecution against him, the United States. It is an unprecedented attack on the rights of the defence, freedom of expression and access to information exposing massive human rights abuses and corruption. We call on international protection institutions to intervene to put a stop to this persecution.”

Lawyer for Mr. Assange, Aitor Martinez, whose confidential legal papers were photographed with a mobile phone by embassy workers as part of a spy operation against Mr. Assange in October 2018, said:

“Ecuador is committing a flagrant violation of the most basic norms of the institution of asylum by handing over all the asylee’s personal belongings indiscriminately to the country that he was being protected from–the United States. This is completely unprecedented in the history of asylum. The protecting country cannot cooperate with the agent of persecution against the person to whom it was providing protection.

Ecuador has now also refused a request by the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joe Cannataci, to  monitor and  inspect the cooperation measure. Ecuador’s refusal to cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur defies the entire international human rights protection system of the United Nations. Ecuador will from now on be seen as a country that operates outside of the system of safeguards of rights that defines democratic countries.”

Ecuadorian defence attorney for Mr. Assange, Carlos Poveda, said:

“In the face of countless abuses, and acting on provisions in domestic legislation and international human rights instruments, the defence has challenged the execution of this measure. All applications have been rejected. While the prosecution office proclaims its commitment to human rights protections, there has been no transparency and the investigation is conducted in secret. Without justification, and absent of all legal criteria, the measure shows the interest in obtaining information that the United States can use to proceed with its flagrant persecution. Meanwhile Ecuador has hinted that it too intends to proceed with investigations. Meanwhile, to date our criminal complaints of espionage against Julian Assange remain unprocessed, despite the gravity of the facts reported.”

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

Gates Foundation Funded “Fact-Checker” (POLITIFACT) Censors GreenMedInfo on Facebook for Reposting Accurate Vaccine Meme

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Yet another independent media outlet is attacked for sharing content that questions vaccines. The means used to attack outlets like this are always unfounded in truth and emotionally driven.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is Greenmedinfo, and other media outlets being censored, demonetized, shut down and punished for sharing factual information? Why can't people decide what's real and what's not? Why do they have to let the government do it for them?

Because Politifact is in partnership with Facebook as a so-called “non-partisan,” 3rd party, fact-checker, they flagged our (Greenmedinfo) page as promoting “false news” and informed us, on April 22nd, that “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Since then, our page no longer comes up when you search for pages with the keyword “GreenMedInfo,” and we have noticed a steep decline in our reach which on an average week would exceed 1 million.

Due to our long held commitment to publishing truthful, evidence-based information on the underreported, unintended adverse effects of conventional medical interventions like vaccination, we have been subject to a wide range of attempts to discredit, defame, and censor us, over the years. For instance, all the way back in 2013, UNICEF published a report titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,” where GreenMedInfo.com, along with other prominent natural health websites, was cited as spreading vaccine “misinformation,” despite the fact that we simply aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine

Lately, the censorship has been scaling up to disturbing levels. In December of last year, Pinterest deleted our account for posting information questioning vaccine safety and promoting research on evidence-based natural medicine. Ironically, they claimed we were endangering the health of their users by posting alternative information, even though Pinterest regularly allows minors to access pornographic and violent contentboth of which have well-established significant deleterious psycho-emotional and physical effects in adults, much less children.

So, how does Facebook determine who is of suitable integrity and impartiality to become a 3rd party fact-checker?

They use certification provided by the “non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false news.” Guess who created the organization that calls itself the International Fact-Checking Network? Poynter.  Check it out yourself here: https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/

advertisement - learn more

Yes, you read that correctly. Poynter, the owner of Politifact — the presumably impartial brand and judge of what is “false” or “true” news — certified itself as trustworthy and impartial.

It does not reflect well on Facebook that it allowed Poynter to certify itself as worthy to police the world’s news feeds in order to mete out algorithmic punishment to those whose views it does not agree with. Thanks to a Veritas exposé, we know how Facebook’s censorship strategy of”boiling works behind the scenes: 

How this machiavellian scheme has gone virtually unnoticed until now is hard to understand. But we hope that our example will help others understand the shadowy agendas at play between Poynter, Politifact, Facebook, and which are hidden in broad daylight for everyone to see.

But the red flags, and organizations involved, don’t stop there. Poytner’s fact-checking operation was funded by a $380,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — an organization notoriously dismissive of the downside of mass vaccination programs, which includes injuries and deaths the government has paid over $4 billion dollars in compensation towards through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund inaugurated by an act of Congress in 1986.

But are they correct about the meme we posted? Is it really “fake news”?

 

And does a mere posting of a meme, whose authorship is unknown but certainly was not produced by GreenMedInfo or its contributors, justify reducing the reach of our entire page, which over 525,000 people around the world have voluntarily and organically opted into receiving information from over the past decade?

Embarrassing as it is for the Politifact editorial team, whose entire premise is that they can be trusted to be fact-based, they didn’t report on our name correctly, calling us Greeninfo.com:

“Now, another anti-vaccine claim has surfaced on Facebook on a page called Greeninfo.com, which describes itself as an “alternative and holistic health service.”

They condemned the post as follows:

The post reads:

“Think combined doses of vaccines have been tested? They haven’t. Not once. EVER. Our children deserve better.”

The post, which provides no details or evidence, has been shared over 600 times since April 15 and was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Let’s cut to the chase:

The claim is false – all vaccines are tested for years before and after being made available to the public, including “combined doses.”

How did they prove this statement?

They reached out to a single individual, Daniel Salmon, who is the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who presumably can verify by his word alone the veracity of the claim. He simply countered in email: “This is not a true statement,” and pointed to a December 2008 documentfrom the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document nowhere references the existence of a true placebo-controlled vaccine safety study, where saline instead of another adjuvanted vaccine was used; nor does the document discuss the fact that the present-day vaccination schedule involves giving dozens of vaccine antigens to children by age 6, where none of the vaccines have been studied together for safety; much less in juxtaposition to a control group who received a true placebo (saline).

This glaring problem is discussed among mainstream medical sites and authorities as well. For instance, MEDPAGE TODAY’s KevinMD.com has an article written by Chad Hayes, MD, titled “The vaccine study you’ll never see,” wherein he admits:

“No, we don’t have a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing our vaccine schedule to placebo.”

Wouldn’t MEDPAGE and KevinMD also be labeled as false news according to the standard applied to our page, for again, simply reposting a meme?

When it comes to the CDC, presumably a trustworthy source because it is believed to be “evidence-based,” their page on Vaccine Safety Concerns for Multiple Vaccines provides little assurance because their statements have no scientific citations. This is a classical example of the CDC’s cult of authority, where they use “science by proclamation” or “eminence-based medicine” to promote their agenda, instead of referencing actual research like we do at GreenMedInfo.com:

Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.

Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually.  Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.

Disturbingly, the CDC acknowledges on the same page as the excerpt above:

“A child who receives all the recommended vaccines in the 2018 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2.”

This reminds us of the absurdly irresponsible statement of Dr. Paul Offit, who while admitting that vaccination is a violent act, considers it safe for an infant to receive 10,000 vaccines at once (revised from a previous statement where he said an infant could receive 100,000 vaccines at one time). Offit’s faith in the safety of vaccines represents a deep conflict of interest, considering he is the patent holder for a highly profitable rotavirus vaccine which has profound safety issues, in that it has potentially infected millions of children with serreptitious, disease-producing retroviruses.

The reality is that no study has ever been performed on the interaction and potential synergistic toxicity of the admnistration of 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2. This was conclusively affirmed by a presentation given by Del Bigtree, where at minute 58:40 he references a 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the safety of the entire immunization schedule, citing the following passage:

“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes … between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children … [Furthermore,] studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

Many other key safety concerns with vaccines emerged from that report, with a series of them summarized by NVIC here:

  • “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
  • “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
  • “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
  • “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
  • “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
  • “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
  • “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
  • “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional 2 subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
  • “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
  • “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
  • “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
  • “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee.
  • “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee; 3
  • “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
  • “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
  • “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
  • “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
  • “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
  • “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for 4 which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)

Given the IOM report’s findings that there has not been a single study conducted to prove the safety of the entire schedulethe meme we posted stands as factually true, and those who have used it as a justification for censorsing and defaming us are clearly acting from political motivations reflective of the interests of their primary funders, such as the Gates Foundation.

CALL TO ACTION 

It’s time to let us know you are listening, and reading this article. Our social media footprint has undergone massive censorship, and as we hope you have seen, this expose’ explains what’s behind it. Please share/like/comment on this article to help us compensate for what may be our soon-to-be exit from social media in general. Deplatforming is happening to the best of us. But there is a solution. Make sure you are signed up to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/2kjN4HH.

Support Independent Media – Join or Donate to GreenMedInfo

Join thousands of supporting newsletter fans who have become actively supporting members and take advantage of powerful features and upgraded content, including e-courses, e-books, and a research library of thousands of documents.

Learn More + Become A Member
or
Make A One Time Donation


Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.


Link to original article

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

Latest Facebook Strike Means CE Might No Longer Be Able To Pay Me To Write

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new online 'fact-checking' agency has wrongfully labeled one of our articles as 'false news,' impacting Facebook's distribution of our content and once again seriously reducing our advertising revenues.

  • Reflect On:

    Is there a way for us as a community to come together and get beyond the reach of censorship and demonetization brought upon us by the social media establishment?

This message goes out to those readers who have enjoyed one or more of the almost 200 articles I have written for Collective Evolution since April 2018, and more broadly to those who believe in CE’s mission and mandate to provide conscious fact-based  journalism: Now is the time for us to come together as a community.

It is a time when our ability to speak out against the fraud, corruption and manipulation of the social media giants and the powerful financial elite that support them is being severely impacted by these very forces. And unless those who believe in the value of our work and our mandate are willing to put a stake in the ground at this time and really support our efforts to overcome mainstream perception and its agenda to keep people distracted and asleep, our voices may be snuffed out.

The profound irony of the situation is not lost on me. Allow me to explain.

Facebook Reach

A basic explanation of how Facebook works and its impact on CE’s revenues is in order.

Up until a few years ago, the basic algorithm that Facebook used for delivering content into individuals’ daily news feeds was pretty simple: the more the individual actually clicks on the content provided by a source, the more consistently it would be delivered into their news feed. This algorithm was really in service of the people, give them more of what they are indicating that they want to see in their news feed.

Of course this was of great benefit to companies like CE, who were consistently creating content that people wanted to read. And so a few years ago it would not be unusual for a CE article to get over a million views, from some of the over five million people who had ‘liked’ the CE Facebook page that was launching the articles. This number of views in turn generated advertising revenue that more than supported CE’s operating expenses and initiatives that helped them really get their message out.

advertisement - learn more

Fast forward to today, where the Facebook algorithm is increasingly being used as a tool to limit the distribution of content that mainstream forces do not want proliferating amongst an awakening population. New organizations are cropping up in cyberspace that purport to have the authority, knowledge, and discernment to label certain content as inaccurate, misleading, or flat-out ‘fake news’ that is somehow a threat to the public. What’s worse, these organizations and their findings actually have an impact on the reach that media companies like CE get for their articles.

Is this a violation of freedom of speech? Not exactly–it’s even trickier than that. It’s as if you are running a newspaper business, and they tell you that they will not prevent you from writing what you want. Your newspaper sells out daily at all the newsstands. Slowly, they start pressuring the newsstands not to put out all the newspapers you sent them. Then they start buying up all the newsstands, and the newsstands now tell you that they are not sure your content is suitable for their customers–even though they are selling out. Then the newsstands just stop buying and selling your newspapers, and you’re out of business–all because your content is not what the powerful new owners want the public to see.

The Latest Hit Job

Many examples could be given of how this plays out in our modern social media infrastructure that is so crucial in terms of the information the average person gets to see. Let’s examine the latest hit job on CE in detail to get a really clear picture of what is going on and the hypocrisy that is inherent in it.

In early March of this year I wrote an article entitled “Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone, Says Harvard Immunologist“. It was an article revealing that immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych has substantial scientific insights that lead her to believe that unvaccinated children pose no greater health risk than vaccinated children. I would defy anyone to examine this article and find any place in it where I am promoting ‘false news’ or authoring ‘misleading content.’

The article centers around a 2015 ‘Open Letter To Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation’ she wrote where she argues to legislators, some of whom are poised to remove vaccine exemptions from their districts, that “discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted.”

Does making a factual statement and providing the details that a person said something or did something constitute false news or misleading content? Of course not. Nowhere in the article do I personally state that unvaccinated children pose no risk to anyone. I may as an individual believe that this assertion is possible, but I do not promote it as established fact. That’s journalism.

However look at what the ‘fact-checking’ effort pictured above really is. This newly-formed online watchdog is taking a fully UNPROVEN ASSERTION, that ‘Choosing not to vaccinate increases risk of potentially serious illness to self and others,’ and utilizing it as ESTABLISHED FACT without providing evidence. It is this ‘fact-checking’ group that is promoting misleading content and doing what they are accusing us of doing. All that I am doing is sharing the opinion and actions of an Immunologist who would like healthy debate and dialogue to be going on, challenging assumptions that are passed off as fact and providing fact-based testimony to substantiate her opinion. And she does so in the interest of the health and well-being of our children.

But here’s the kicker in all this. How does this company afford to operate? Who butters their bread? As Joe Martino reveals in a rare rant below (not to be missed) they are funded by groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, probably the most powerful advocacy group for mass vaccination in the world, working in lock step with the pharmaceutical industry. Do we see perhaps a slight conflict of interests between a group supposedly going on the internet doing objective fact-checking of content, and a massive financial supporter that is deeply invested in the mass proliferation of vaccines across the globe?

They contributed a staggering $382,997 to these ‘fact-checkers’. Do you think that these fact-checkers are not fully compromised by the agenda of the rich and powerful? Can you imagine what CE would be able to accomplish with that kind of money?

Full Disclosure And Transparency

I would like to offer full transparency as to how this ‘strike’ against CE affects the company and impacts me personally.

When I started off with CE in April 2018, I was offered a 3-month contract that would pay me $3400/month, and I was grateful for it. Living in Toronto, this amount is considered just above a living wage. When my contract was over, and because dwindling advertising revenues due to Facebook algorithm changes had already negatively impacted CE, I was told that the company would love to retain me, but that at this time they could only afford to offer me $2040/month, allowing for reduced hours. This affected not only me, but all employees of the company.

I understood, and accepted it with gratitude. This has been the best company I’ve ever worked for. I love and respect Joe Martino as a man of great integrity, courage and wisdom, and I share this feeling with all the great people who work here. In fact I consider CE to be a model for how evolved companies should operate in the future. There is no hierarchy, we are all treated with great respect, our input is always welcomed, and self-responsibility is engendered in a way that makes each of us want to go above and beyond to make things work.

However, as Joe reveals in the video above, these strikes against CE (all of which have reeked of censorship and the growing establishment control over content) has seen a reduction in our reach to the public that results in a monthly loss of about $10,000 in advertising revenues. This is equivalent to three times my previous full-time salary. We are at the stage where any more shortfall in advertising revenues will affect the company’s ability to pay its employees, including me.

In truth, if I could afford it, I would work for this company for free. I feel we have an important mission and I feel like I am a big part of it. However the reality is, with a 5-year old at home, I have to eventually get back to earning a living wage. And I certainly hope that I can do it as a member of Collective Evolution.

The Takeaway

The irony is, all this chaos and uncertainty may actually be the catalyst for something very positive. The efforts by Facebook and other social media players to drastically reduced our advertising revenues has forced us to look at a different revenue model, which involves community funding. In truth, getting off of the conventional advertising model and being directly supported instead by those who believe in what we are doing is more aligned with our values.

Now, rather than passively clicking on whatever content comes to them from their Facebook news feed, our supporters will have to make conscious choices as to what content they will access and give their attention to, if they want to see anything other than a monotonous litany of mainstream propaganda. And in taking the important step to directly support companies that are trying to make our world a better place, our community will begin moving off the mainstream grid and increasingly gain power to effect change in the world.

The support we have already gotten as a result of people joining CETV is one of the main reasons we are still in a position to fight for our existence. If you don’t know about it, CETV is our online video platform that features the news broadcast ‘the Collective Evolution show’ and other great weekly shows. Consider joining here.

We have many other great ideas that we are dying to implement that will truly bring our community together, but we are still working our way out of survival mode. If everyone pitches it, we could probably exit survival mode overnight and really get things into gear. So I’d like to offer a slogan I came up with for our CMM (Conscious Media Movement) Campaign, which you can donate to here: Help us survive, then together let’s thrive!

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

UPDATE: YouTube has demonetized our channel for no apparent reason.

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to helping CE thrive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.