“The pending credit cycle in Canada will be one for the ages.”
– Marc Cohodes, May 3rd, 2017
Lately, the word “bubble” has been used more often to describe the overheated housing markets in Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Even Bank of Montreal’s Chief Economist didn’t hold back when he wrote in a report, “Let’s drop the pretense. The Toronto housing market — and the many cities surrounding it — are in a housing bubble”(1).
In March, house prices in Toronto rose a record 33.2% year-over-year and the city was ranked number 1 in the world with the fastest-growing house prices; Vancouver came in third on the list after Sydney, Australia (2). It’s getting to be such a problem that Ontario’s premier has met with the mayors of Toronto and surrounding areas to discuss housing affordability, while the Prime Minister has admitted that the federal government is monitoring the housing market closely.
But what might have been the clearest sign yet that the housing market is in a bubble was the 2017 Real Estate Expo in Toronto where real estate agencies, developers, and banks paid celebrities like Tony Robins and Pitbull to encourage people to join in on the real estate buying frenzy. Real Estate agents on a stage told prospective buyers things like: “Toronto has become one of the last safe havens in the world,” “Fear will kill you,” and, “Just jump in!” (3)
Clearly, this message is getting around as statistics show an increasing portion of the population owning more than one residential home. This housing bubble, like all other financial bubbles, is the consequence of historically low interest rates, which is the beginning phase of a credit cycle that inflates the bubble. But eventually interest rates rise, and when they do the bubble pops, the cycle reverses, and prices fall.
The question is, what happens when the cycle turns? If we take a close look at the situation in Canada, we can see instability across the board whether it’s in the economy, in the banking system, or in government finances, and due to this instability, we can reasonably assume that when this cycle turns, it will be pretty ugly for Canadians.
Home Capital Group
Home Capital Group is Canada’s largest non-bank mortgage lender focused primarily on the subprime market — mortgage applicants rejected by the banks — through its subsidiary Home Trust Company. On April 26th, the stock of Home Capital plunged 65% when news came out that the company secured an emergency loan worth C$2 billion to provide liquidity for the company after an overwhelming number of depositors withdrew their money from the high interest savings accounts Home Trust offers — money Home Capital uses to provide mortgages at a higher interest rate, profiting from the spread.
From April 24th to May 1st, Home Capital saw its deposits shrink from C$1.4 billion to C$391 million (4). The problems for Home Capital began back in 2014 when the company cut ties with 45 brokers who were creating mortgages with fraudulent income information that amounted to 10% of Home Trust’s total mortgage originations. Fast forward three years and the Ontario Securities Commission has now submitted formal allegations against the company and the three former and current executives, alleging they knowingly misled investors when discussing the impact of the fraudulent mortgages.
Meanwhile, Home Capital has seen their CFO retire, its Chief Risk Officier leave unannounced, several board members resign, its founder Gerald Soloway step down as CEO and remove himself from the board, his replacement CEO fired, and a total of 33 employees leave in 2016 alone. Representing only 1% of the total mortgage market, it’s too early to know whether Home Capital’s problems will spread, but already investors are losing what matters most in a highly leveraged business: confidence.
On April 26th, the day Home Capital lost 65% of its value, Equitable Group, First National Financial, and Street Capital Group saw their stocks fall 32%, 11%, and 10%, respectively. In the week proceeding, Equitable Group, a mortgage lender that mirrors Home Capital, saw C$75 million worth of deposits withdrawn as their stock fell 39% (5). Canada’s finance minister Bill Morneau has said there is no link between Home Capital and risks in the housing market and Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz has said that Home Capital’s problems are “idiosyncratic,” believing they won’t trigger a contagion effect.
Are these statements akin to when the chairman of the United States’ central bank, Ben Bernanke, said in 2007 that “the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained”(6)? Already we’ve seen actions being taken to safeguard contagion from spreading. The C$2 billion emergency loan that kept the lights on at Home Capital was provided by the Health Care of Ontario Pension Plan with very stringent terms. The loans have an effective interest rate of 22.5% and are secured against two pools of mortgages from Home Capital’s loan book.
In pool A, Home Capital can borrow C$0.50 of every dollar pledged and in pool B C$0.26 for every dollar pledged. These terms tell us what the HOOPP thinks about the quality of these mortgages being put up for collateral and of Home Capital’s ability to repay the loan. Meanwhile, as investors were dumping Home Capital’s stock en masse, two asset managing companies provided a floor for the stock. CIBC Asset Management increased its position from 2.46 million shares to 9.69 million, while Turtle Creek Asset Management, Home Capital’s biggest investor, was also a buyer (7). It is important to note that these two asset managers were not investing their own money, but were making “investments” on behalf of other people.
Home Capital has also raised money by selling C$1.5 billion in mortgage renewals to MCAP Corp., one of Canada’s largest independent mortgage financing companies that originates, securitizes, trades and services residential and commercial mortgages (8). Equitable Group, Home Capital’s mirror image who suffered its own bout of eroding investor confidence, has been given a C$2 billion funding backstop by a syndicate made up of the 6 major Canadian banks to provide support in case the lender should need it (9). All in all, the fear of contagion is clearly evident and the question that needs to be answered is whether the fraudulent mortgages in Home Capital loan book are limited to 10% or is it a much higher number? And, how many of these mortgages are insured by the Canadian taxpayer through the CMHC?
The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a government institution that has been a leading contributor to the inflating of the Canadian housing bubble. The institution is the largest provider of mortgage-insurance for homeowners unable to make a 20% down-payment, protecting lenders from default thus enabling them to make more risky loans.
The CMHC is similar to America’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government institutions that were largely responsible for the collapse of the U.S. housing market. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CMHC also buys and sells mortgage-backed securities, mortgages that are pooled together into a bond that became the popular financial instrument that sank the global financial system in 2008. The CMHC buying mortgages leads to more lenient lending standards as banks know they can make loans that they can later sell to the CMHC and not have to keep on their books.
All of this is backed by the Canadian government and thus the Canadian taxpayer. What’s really egregious about the CMHC is that while they provide banks with full insurance against losses, it’s the homeowner who pays the insurance premium and that taxpayer who pays the deductible, the banks pay nothing. Currently, the CMHC has about 9% equity against its liabilities outstanding (10). If there is a housing correction, the CMHC would need a taxpayer bailout of epic proportions.
It wasn’t too long ago that the Canadian banking system was considered the darling of the financial world. Back in 2008, a survey by the World Economic Forum listed Canada’s banking system as the world’s safest (11), a title also given to the country by the rating agency Moody’s in 2012 (12). But today the sentiment is much different as Moody’s has recently cut the credit rating of the 6 Canadian chartered-banks stating: “Continued growth in Canadian consumer debt and elevated housing prices leaves consumers, and Canadian banks, more vulnerable to downside risks facing the Canadian economy than in the past“(13).
In March, the Bank of International Settlements (the Central Banks’ Central Bank) listed Canada as having the riskiest banking system of developed countries based on credit-to-GDP gap, property price gap, debt service ratio, and debt service ratio if interest rates rise (14). Residential mortgages make up about 52% of all Canadian bank loans so suffice it to say, the banking system is very vulnerable to a downturn in the housing market (15).
What makes matters worse are the leverage ratios of the Canadian banks. The leverage ratio is a capital adequacy figure that measures a bank’s ability to withstand negative shocks to its balance sheet. In a balance sheet, the difference between a company’s assets and liabilities is its equity so that if a company sells off its assets to pay its liabilities, the equity left over is returned to the owners. If a bank has $100 in assets and $90 in debt, then $10 is the difference and represents 10% equity or capital. The problem with assets is they can fall in value. If the capital ratio is at 10%, then that means assets can fall in value up to 10% before the bank is unable to pay its creditors. The leverage ratio is an international regulatory banking standard set up by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The leverage ratio measures the core capital of a bank against its total assets.
As per their 2016 annual reports, the major Canadian banks leverage ratios are: RBC – 4.4%, TD – 4%, BMO – 4.2%, Scotia – 4.4%, CIBC – 4%, National Bank – 3.7% (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). If the value of the assets of these banks fall in percentage more than these figures, then the banks become insolvent. And of course, in the banking industry, loans are considered assets and as stated earlier, 52% of the banks’ loan book is made up of residential mortgages. Compounding the situation is the report from credit agency Equifax that says they saw a 52% increase in suspicious mortgages between 2013 and 2016 (22).
This leads one to ask was Home Capital the only lender to partake in mortgage fraud? How secure are the uninsured mortgages on the banks’ loan book and what happens if these people lose their jobs and are unable to make mortgage payments? A recent survey suggests that over half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to meet their financial obligations (23).
Canada’s Dependence on Housing
Since the decline of energy prices, Canada’s economy has become more reliant on the housing industry. In fact, without the growth in housing, Canada’s economy would be contracting. It is estimated that housing makes up 20% of Canada’s GDP with industries like real estate, construction, and financial services.
The number is significantly higher when you consider the indirect impact of a booming housing market. Lawyer fees, government revenues, and increased retail purchases due to the wealth effect of rising home equity values enabling households to spend more (24). Consumer spending as a share of GDP is around the highest since the 1960s (25).
Debt-to-disposable income was at a record high 167% in March (26), and while this ratio has little impact day-to-day as Canadians aren’t expected to pay off their debts tomorrow, it does highlight the vulnerability of Canadians to economic shocks. Another indicator, the debt-to-service ratio, which is the cost to carry debt relative to income, is at 14% and has remained there since 2008, but that’s because interest rates have been at historic lows since 2008. What happens if interest rates rise? A survey by Manulife Bank found that out of 2,098 people polled, 72% said they would have difficulty paying their mortgage if their payments rose by 10%. An increase of 10% in mortgage payments could take as little as a single percentage point increase in interest rates (27).
HELOCs = Home Equity Loans of Canadians
Moving on to the problems in the public sector, we’ve already seen the harm government can do with the CMHC distorting the housing market by guaranteeing mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and blame should also be put on the central bank’s historic interest rate policy. But looking specifically at government finances, the debt held by provincial governments is alarming. Ontario has the largest debt held by any sub-sovereign in the world at over C$300 billion.
Quebec is at over C$180 billion in debt. Other provinces are currently running deficits with no end in sight. At the federal level, debt isn’t too bad at just over C$700 billion when you compare it to America’s $20 trillion, but that could change by the time the Trudeau administration is voted out of office. It is estimated that Canada could run deficits until 2050 (28) with the policies enacted by Prime Minister Trudeau and he’s on pace to break the all-time record for federal government spending per Canadian despite Canada not being in a recession or at war (29).
Excessive debt is future consumption denied while higher taxation ensured, both outcomes are destructive to an economy, as more of the country’s capital and resources are directed towards paying the interest on the debt rather than being used in the real economy. Moreover, as a country becomes addicted to government spending, it becomes more reliant on it and thus harder to cut. If the government is forced to cut spending, it will have negative ramifications throughout the country for many Canadians dependent on it.
A development that was largely ignored by the corporate media, but should concern Canadians, is that the Canadian government has almost no gold left in its reserves (30). Unlike America, Germany, Russia and China, countries with vast gold reserves, practically all of Canada’s reserves are pieces of paper. This is foolish and short-sighted as gold has proved to be the ultimate form of money that will retain its value during a crisis, while paper assets can easily evaporate in value during a crisis of confidence and a deterioration in confidence is exactly what could ignite a financial crisis in Canada.
The Canadian loonie has been under pressure in the wake of the Home Capital debacle, dipping below 0.73 to the U.S. dollar. In 5 years, the loonie has gone from being at par with the U.S. dollar to falling under 0.70 at the end of 2015, when oil prices were at its lowest. This weakness in the loonie creates price inflation for Canadians as prices are a reflection of the value of money. I believe this 0.70 mark is an important psychological level for the Bank of Canada because when the loonie falls below this level people start to feel it more at the grocery store and financial commentators start to make noise about it.
The bank has two means of supporting the loonie: raising interest rates or using their reserves to buy it in the currency markets. If we explore scenario one it’s not a pretty picture. The current rate at the Bank of Canada is 0.5% and people have been calling for them to begin raising it for a while, especially now that the U.S. central bank has begun raising its rates putting further pressure on the loonie/dollar exchange. A rise in interest rates will in all likelihood pop the housing bubble as debt becomes more expensive, decreasing demand for mortgages.
When house prices fall, reflecting the decrease in demand, that’s when delinquency rates rise as homeowners, especially in the subprime market, go underwater as their mortgages become more expensive than the value of the home. As delinquencies rise, houses are foreclosed and put on the market increasing supply, putting more downward pressure on prices. The CMHC (taxpayer) then needs to cover all the mortgages and securities it insured, while at the same time the value of their assets are falling. With only 9% equity, the CMHC would need a massive government bailout. If the banks’ assets fall below their leverage ratios, then they too become insolvent, needing either a bail-in or bailout. At this point, a full-blown crisis emerges, leading to further erosion of confidence in Canada and the loonie. Rising inflation is countered with higher interest rates, and the higher cost of debt cripples the economy as highly indebted individuals, businesses and governments all have to cut back on their spending leading to higher unemployment.
It’s clear why the Bank of Canada has been so reluctant to raise interest rates. Scenario two, using reserves to prop up the loonie, will likely be futile as the market is more powerful than governments. It may work at the beginning and buy time, but as the Bank of Canada bleeds through its reserves, this in itself will erode confidence leaving them in the same position they found themselves in at the beginning, only this time without any bullets left in the barrel. A third scenario is to just let the loonie crater and let price inflation run rampant. This might be feasible to start, but as consumer prices explode Canadians will be squeezed as their cost of living outpaces their income leading to lower living standards and social unrest.
Using the 2008 financial crisis in America as a model, it wasn’t until September 2008 when the government nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which backed $6.2 trillion worth of mortgages – making it clear to everyone that a major crisis was unfolding, but there were many signs leading up to that moment that indicated something bad was brewing in the housing market, including in April 2007 when America’s largest subprime lender, New Century Financial, declared bankruptcy.
In Canada, already the Toronto developer Urbancorp has filed for bankruptcy and Home Capital would have done the same if not for the rescue loan and it’s still highly probable that Home Capital will file for bankruptcy in the weeks or months to come. Are we in the early innings of a financial crisis in Canada? What will happen to the loonie if the markets and its speculators lose confidence in Canada? And how will the Bank of Canada respond to a falling loonie? So far in 2017, the loonie has been the worst-performing major currency in the world. I’m not predicting that a major storm is a certainty, but there’s no denying that there are dark clouds forming above Canada.
Wikileaks: Ecuador is Being Run By “Criminals & Liars.” Assange’s Entire Legal Defense Given To The United States
- 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.
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.”
“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.”
Are There Actually UFO’s Hidden Under Antarctica’s Ice?
- The Facts:
In a 1 hour interview with longtime researcher Brad Olsen, I explore whether or not there is much evidence for UFOs under the Antarctic ice. Brad took a trip to Antarctica to answer this question for himself and the community seeking truth.
- Reflect On:
Does exploring subjects like the hidden history of Antarctica serve to expand our consciousness and what we know to be possible in our world? What implications does this have on how we view our reality as we uncover truths?
I will start this off by saying that you will not find definitive proof about this subject in this article, but we are going to have a conversation about it and explore many of the claims that have come up over recent years.
To some, that may seem boring, but to us, bringing quality journalism to the space of disclosure and mystery is exactly what is needed to achieve a wider openness to these subjects, which will effectively help humanity expand what we think is truly possible in our reality. All of that is part of the CE Protocol and why we do what we do here at CE.
For years, I have seen images like the one you see below. Landscapes that look photoshopped, showing what appear to be huge advanced technology or space crafts hidden under the ice. The claims are that these images are of UFOs from Antarctica. Aside from those images, we have testimonies from various individuals who share what they state to be inside knowledge and first-hand experience regarding information about Antarctica, what goes on there and what is being hidden.
One such individual is the highly controversial Corey Goode, a man I personally respect and know fairly well. I say that because too often as viewers we forget to humanize those around us, those who bring grounded claims or even ‘out there’ claims. We forget to ask, who is this person? What are they like? Are they authentic? What are they like on a day-to-day basis? How can I relate to them? Are they truly seeking attention, like many claim? Or are they trying to assist humanity?
I have had the pleasure of being able to connect with many individuals on this level and spend enough time with them to get a clear picture of who they are in their hearts vs. what people say about them online. Furthermore, there is an intuition that we all have, which can also be a tool to go alongside examining evidence to get closer to the truth.
That being said, Corey’s claims are some of what, in more recent times, garnered so much interest about Antarctica. Bases under the ice, evidence of Preadamites, a crashed craft from a species that was doing various forms of genetic experiments here. I had some of these conversations with Corey and even recorded one interview about Antarctica which we have on CETV here. I’ve always felt something odd is going on with Antarctica, and any good journalist knows that to get to the truth you have to explore from many sides and also take into consideration the people who take the time to spend their own hard earned money and energy to see what’s going on first hand.
That’s what lead me to Brad Olsen.
Exploring The Claims
A friend of mine was on a trip to Peru with Nassim Heramein, exploring sacred sites and learning fascinating information along the way. On one of the days, long time researcher Brad Olsen joined the group. This gave my friend a chance to connect with Brad, and she later messaged me saying, “This guy is awesome, he has so much knowledge, you should consider chatting with him!”
So I began looking more deeply into what Brad does, and some of what he was recently saying about Antarctica caught my eye. Brad had taken a trip down to Antarctica that he planned for many months. His goal was to find out whatever he could about the incredible claims that had been made about Antarctica, UFOs, secret bases, lost civilizations and so forth.
I had read enough, it was time to interview him! He told me in the interview that when it came to these big claims, he was very excited to find something incredible and bring it, or a story, back as this huge exposure! It was nice to see his excitement and passion for this work!
But what did he find while there? Well, it was not quite what he thought. As you will learn in the video below, there were many interesting and cool findings along the way, and his story at times had me captivated as to what was going to happen next, but confirmation of any crafts beneath the ice was not found.
Does This Mean It’s Not There?
You might say, “well ya, of course not, it’s all hidden and highly guarded!” And this would likely be true! Except that no one in the area or anyone he spoke to, including those who have been there working for many years, could even point to any directions as to where these anomalies could actually be.
That is important to note because as you’ll know from exploring this research, even the most intense of claims have accredited whistleblowers, some with clear knowledge of what’s going on and where it’s happening. We may not have all the info, but there is enough to continue the exploration.
It’s sort of like the flat Earth conspiracy. The claims are wild and that’s OK, but there is not one single whistleblower, not one solid piece of evidence that suggests there is something to go off of… this is why this claim is not picking up more steam than it already has.
Antarctica, on the other hand, does have a lot more, but perhaps not as much as we’d like yet. Where did this leave me on the question of are there UFOs in Antarctica? I still feel like something is going on. I feel the true history of Antarctica has been hidden from humanity. This is what my intuition and exploration tells me. In no way do I, nor Brad, feel that the mystery is solved or that nothing is truly there, but more so that it’s not at all easy to find nor bring solid knowledge to from a verifiable point of view.
This does not mean people who speak in more detail about it are wrong, or that someone like Corey is misleading people, it simply means we need to continue exploring and trying to uncover this in greater detail should we want further tangible proof.
Below is the full 1 hour interview I did with Brad on CETV. We released it on YouTube as we wanted everyone to get a chance to explore this subject and think more deeply about the need for further investigative journalism in this space.
As you know, with censorship the way it is, and how bad demonetization has become for us here at CE, we need your support in staying alive. Becoming a member of CETV is one of the only options we have left to keep bringing the world conscious media that truly has the power to change ourselves and our world. Please consider joining us and supporting our work. We have tons more interviews like this on CETV including weekly episodes of 3 different original shows. Learn more here.
Humanity is highly curious, and it’s this facet of ourselves that leads us to great evolutions in both our physical infrastructures as well as our consciousness.
This curiosity has led us to explore many incredible things, things that people often do not believe at first. The reality though is that we also live with this interesting thing called culture. Often times, culture, whatever it may be at the time, can shape the way we think, what we believe and how we choose to process information.
Furthermore, we live in a time where humanity very much believes we individually are a mind living in a human body and that’s it. This means that the rigidity of our thinking can often be very intense, as we choose to shut out that which steps outside the known material reality around us. Thus, the need for good information that not only helps to suffice the rigidity of the mind before it becomes more open, but that also pushes the boundaries of what we believe to be possible is hugely important.
In the UFOlogy space, often times huge claims about certain subjects are made and passed around the internet as if they are facts, making people feel stupid for not believing them when in reality we are only at the beginning stages of truly uncovering the topic.
The need for more high-quality investigative journalism in this space is huge. We know the mainstream won’t touch it, so it’s up to the people, but it must be done with care, openness and quality.
If you’re inspired, you can help us do that here.
Gates Foundation Funded “Fact-Checker” (POLITIFACT) Censors GreenMedInfo on Facebook for Reposting Accurate Vaccine Meme
- 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 content, both 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/
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 schedule, the 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.
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.
New Study Reveals Many Cancer Patients Are Killed By Chemotherapy & Not The Cancer
Up until recently, chemotherapy and radiation have been the only two approved treatment methods for treating cancer by mainstream medicine,...
Everything You Think You Know About Herpes Is Wrong
Let’s be honest: There’s a huge stigma surrounding herpes. It ends up being a make or break for tons of...