If you told somebody 10 years ago that there existed some sort of secret group or “secret government” pulling the strings behind the scenes of government policy, international law, various global rules/regulations, and more, they would have called you a “conspiracy theorist.” Today things have changed, largely as a result of information leaked by Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and various other whistleblowers and activists in recent years.
All of this exists in what’s become known as the “black budget world” — a world so secretive that its operations, known as Special Access Programs, or Unacknowledged Special Access, remain hidden from Congress and are exempt from reporting to Congress. You can read more about the black budget in an article we published on the subject here.
--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.
The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, but its existence was hidden until the mid 1960s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely secret for 30 years. The United States was built on secrecy. According to John F. Kennedy:
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. (source)
Is this the world where the “Men In Black” (MIB) come from? Multiple presidents and politicians have alluded to the existence of a “secret government.” For example, the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, stated that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” The 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, stated that “some of the biggest men in the United States” are “afraid of something,” of a “power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Another great quote comes to mind here, from Edward Bernays’ book Propaganda 1928:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
President Einsenhower, too, coined the term “military industrial complex,” and referred to the dangerous potential for the rise of misplaced power it had created.
Today, within the mainstream, this subtle hand that influence the realms of politics, finance, and more is becoming known as the “Deep State.” To learn more about that, you can refer to these articles we’ve published on the topic:
The Men in Black
Just as the “Deep State” has now become almost mainstream rhetoric, “men in dark suits” is another one that’s creeping into the picture, thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
A couple of months ago in a live interview, Putin said: “So a person is elected, he comes with his ideas. Then people with briefcases come to visit him, well dressed, in dark suits, kind of like mine. Except instead of a red tie it’s black or navy. And then they explain what to do, and the whole rhetoric changes, you see? This happens from one administration to the next.”
Was Putin referring to representatives of the Deep State? It makes you wonder how many decisions over the years were actually made by presidents, and how many were dictated to them, their hands forced by other people. What is really going on within politics? Clearly, it’s not what we’ve been told.
One thing is for sure, Hillary was the favourite of this global group of elites, which is why they are doing everything they can to have Donald Trump removed. He has caused a lot of problems by dismantling the TPP, speaking out against big pharma, making comments about 9/11, and calling out his own government for creating and funding ISIS, among other things. That being said, he has made it very easy for mainstream media to vilify him, but regardless of your feelings about him, he clearly isn’t cooperating with the Deep State the way Bush, Obama, and Clinton did. Presidents have long been tools for the hand that really controls American policy, one that continues to push forth its agenda for a New World Order.
As for Medvedev, when asked about the UFO/ET issue after a television broadcast, possibly unaware that the camera was still rolling, he stated:
I tell you the first and last time. Together with nuclear suitcase the president bring folder — Top Secret. And it is entirely devoted to the strangers who visited our planet. The report is provided by the special service which handles the control of aliens in our country. After management term — two folders and a nuclear small suitcase are transferred to the new president. How many of them are among us I cannot say because panic might begin. (source)
Who Are They? Are There Any Pictures or Videos?
The best person to refer to when discussing this topic is Nick Redfern, an author, lecturer, and journalist who published a book titled The Real Men In Black, which provides evidence and anecdotal accounts of these mysterious men, with a specific focus on their connection to the UFO phenomenon.
Here’s a little excerpt from the introduction of his book:
For years—or perhaps even for centuries, as I will later—the Men in Black have been elusive, predatory, fear-inducing figures, hovering with disturbing regularity upon the enigmatic fringes of the UFO subject, nurturing their own unique brand of terror and intimidation. Like true specters from the outer edge, the MIB appear from the murky darkness, and roam the country-side provoking carnage, chaos, paranoia, and fear in their wake, before returning to that same shrouded realm from which they originally oozed.
Very often traveling in groups of three, the MIB are a trinity of evil that seemingly appears and vanishes at will. They are often seen (in the United States) driving 1950s-style black Cadillacs and (in the British Isles) 1960s-era black Jaguars, both of which are almost always described as looking curiously brand-new. The preferred mode of dress of these sinister characters is a black suit, black fedora- or Homburg-style hat, black sunglasses, black necktie, black socks, black shoes, and a crisp, shining, white shirt.
Below is a picture taken from Redferns’ book of a strange figure seen by a woman named Mary Robertson in 1968, a woman who became increasingly afraid of this figure, which ‘stalked’ her for three days. The photo was taken by her friend, Timothy Green Beckley.
According to Beckley:
I had my own experience with a Man in Black, when me and Jim Moseley photographed a strange individual one day back in 1968. . . . Marry told me and Jim he seemed to be oddly dressed, and kind of like a zombie—just standing there, very rigid. She had never engaged him in dialog but he seemed to be surveying those going in and out of the building.
You can refer to the book for that story, as it’s one of many. The most interesting thing, to me, is their connection to the UFO phenomenon. The book details UFO witnesses and contactees having these strange men show up out of nowhere after an experience. How did they know? What was going on there?
There is also a distinction made between Department of Defense type of intelligence officers, and the MIB. The MIB don’t seem to be part of any known agency. There is something very paranormal about these guys.
Other Strange Encounters
A few years ago, the Aerial Phenomenon investigations team in MD investigated a case captured on hotel CCTV following a UFO report. It made its way around the web and caused quite the stir, and multiple media outlets picked up on it, including Buzzfeed.
These are the types of strange encounters that seem to keep happening throughout history.
Another story we’ve covered regarding the MIB comes from the U.S. government’s Stargate Program, which lasted more than two decades. The program studied various topics within parapsychology such as telepathy, psychokensis, remote viewing, and more.
A man named Ingo Swann (seen in the picture below) was one of the main participants within the program who had ‘special abilities.’
Below is a picture of Ingo (right) with Paul Smith, PhD., another participant in the Stargate project, and now a retired US Army Major.
One day, a strange man entered into the secured facility at Stanford — not an easy thing to do. He found Swann and persuaded him to leave with him.
The man, named Mr. Axelrod, was accompanied by two twins, who were very tall and mysterious. They dressed in the typical ‘cloak and dagger’ intelligence agency outfit.
Swann described them as “two blond haired, blue eyed, military looking assistants.”
The four of them flew to what Swann believed to be the Alaskan wilderness, although he wasn’t certain and was told that it’s best he did not know.
Richard Dolan, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the topic of UFOs, describes the incident well in his book UFOs & The National Security State, The Cover-Up Exposed 1973-1991, so I will quote it from here on in, starting on page 154:
They came to a small lake, and Axelrod said that as dawn approached, Swann would be able to see “it” through the pines. “We now wait and hope we are lucky. Say nothing, do not make any noise…. they detect heat, noise, motion like mad.”
Dawn arrived, and Swann saw a fog developing over the lake. This went on for five minutes, until the fog developed a luminous neon-blue color. Then, according to Swann, the color changed to an “angry purple.” Axelrod and one of the twins each placed a hand firmly on Swann’s shoulders while “a network of purple, red, and yellow lightning bolts shot in all crazy directions through the ‘cloud’.” Swann said he would have jumped if the two had not held him down. He saw an object, almost transparent at first, but then “solidly visible over the lake.” It was triangular or diamond-shaped, growing in size. Swann, in terror and amazement, heard a strong wind moving past, rustling the pine trees so much that some cones and branches fell on them. The object then began to shoot out “ruby red laser-like beams” as it continued to grow even more in size while maintaining its position on the lake. Very quietly, one of the twins said, “Shit! They’re enveloping the area. They’re going to spot us.”
As Swann later recalled the event, some of the red laser beams from the object were “blasting” pine trees, and he could hear low frequency pulsations. Axelrod whispered to Swann that the beams were probably honing in on deer or other forest creatures, as they sense biological body heat. “They’re sure to hone in on us,” he told Swann. Just then, one of the twins literally lifted and dragged Swann away, but not before Swann noticed the water of the lake surging upward, “like a waterfall going upward, as if being sucked into the ‘machine.’ ” The four ran quickly and at great length, sustaining minor cuts and bruises. Eventually they stopped, breathing hard, and waited for more than thirty minutes, until one of the twins said all was clear.
Axelrod then asked Swann whether he could “sense” anything from the craft.
It’s clear why Swann was taken from his position and role at Stanford Research Institute and into this situation. It seems these ‘government’ agents believed Swann could provide some detail about what was happening here and help the government with their research and interest in UFOs.
Swann burst out laughing. “You’re completely nuts, Axel! I have to be calm, cool, collected, and in good shape to sense anything.” But Swann offered the insight that the craft was “a drone of some kind, unmanned, controlled from somewhere else.” Axelrod asked him what it was doing there, to which Swann replied “Well, for chrissakes! It was thirsty! Taking on water, obviously. Someone, somewhere needs water … so I suppose they just come and get it. You don’t need to be a psychic to see that.” Essentially, said Swann, “they” treated Earth as the neighbourhood supermarket.
Before taking Swann back, Axelrod said, “I shouldn’t tell you, but our mission will be disbanded shortly and the work picked up by others, because of strategic security reasons involved …” “Others,” said Swann, “who will not mix in with psychics, I take it.” “You got it,” Axelrod replied. Swann last saw Axelrod at the San Jose Airport, and never heard from him again.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
British Foreign Secretary Says “False Positive Rate” For COVID-19 Is “Very High”
- The Facts:
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab recently stated that "The false positive rate rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus"
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? How can the general population be expected to arrive at any sort of truth when this is the case? This puts critical thinking at the utmost of importance in these times.
What Happened: British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab recently made an appearance on Sky News, and when asked about testing inside of airports he stated that, “The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…”
He went on to mention that we must rely on self-isolation at home, and have further testing there as well as an overall effort to ramp up testing, but my question is, are the tests used at home any more accurate? Does this mean the infection fatality rate is actually higher because not as many people are infected? Or does this mean, as multiple studies have pointed out, that the number of infected people greatly exceed our current numbers (thus greatly lowing the fatality rate) and that the tests simply aren’t capable or properly identifying these people?
A false positive test means that people who test positive for the virus may not actually have it.
This theme has been floating around quite a bit lately, radio show host Julia Hartley-Brewer was one of the latest to do so as you can see below.
In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled: “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that due to a bit of a fluke involving some slightly complicated statistics, the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could be as high as 50%.
Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr Mike Yeadon argued the proportion of positive tests that are false is actually “around 90%”.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic. This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source) So it’s understandable how many people would not agree with the stance of the association, and claim that it is indeed false, and that’s an understandable perception,
Are they right? According to a recent Huffington Post article, “Yes, but only in a statistical sense. Applied to the real-world, the conclusions don’t stand up and are wildly misleading.”
The article is titled, “N0, 90 % of Coronavirus Tests Are Not ‘False Positives’ And This Is Why: Experts explain why a theory doing the rounds about the number of people wrongly diagnosed with cOVID-19 is simply not true.”
According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal,”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”
These are just a few of many examples of conflicting information.
Why This Is Important: It’s not hard to see why there is so much conflicting information out there. Expert in the field are completely separated in their belief with regards to the false positive issue, and there is information on both sides of the coin that completely, 100 percent contradicts the other perspective. How is the general population, or those who are taking the time to look into this issue supposed to arrive at any conclusion? At this point it seems nearly impossible, and what we often see from mainstream media is simply sharing a perspective or pushing a viewpoint for political purposes rather than a general desire to get to any sort of concrete truth.
This discrepancy highlights why in today’s day and age it’s important to conduct your own research and be aware of multiple perspectives. We must share information that comes from ‘credible’ sources, or information that is backed up with reasoning, questioning, proof and evidence. What seems to be happening with covid I find is that many people are sharing a lot of unsubstantiated information which makes it harder for the ‘alternative’ thinking community to arrive at any kind of truth. There are multiple examples. It also delegitimizes the ‘truth’ movement in this time of deceit and misinformation, and it allows ‘fact-checkers’ as well as mainstream media to group all of us who are in pursuit of truth as “conspiracy theorists” and justify their campaign of censorship on information that opposes the mainstream narrative.
With covid, we’ve seen some of the world’s leading experts in the field experience censorship simply for sharing information, opinions and evidence that contradicts the World Health Organization. Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University is one of countless scientists to who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.
Another huge issue we are facing today is people not reading articles, simply reading headlines and drawing their own conclusions without examining the sources used in the article to see how legit it actually is. We’ve left our minds available to those who wish to mould them and shape our perception of major events for ulterior motives.
The mainstream and traditional media seem to be failing to have important conversations that are controversial, while at the same time perhaps there isn’t enough rigour and critical thinking in alternative media communities. Given we are deeply feeling the need to make sense of our world, is it time we begin to look at developing the inner faculties necessary to move beyond ideology, limited thinking patterns and truly begin looking at what evidence around us says?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Infection Fatality “Estimates” For Covid-19 Via CDC: .00003%, .0002%, .005% & .054%
- The Facts:
The CDC has released "scenarios" based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The emphasize they are are not predictions of estimated impact.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there when it coms to COVID-19? Does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: The CDC has a page on their website titled “Covid-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.” According to them, “Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These values—called parameter values—can be used in models to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19 in U.S. states and localities. This document was first posted on May 20, 2020, with the understanding that the parameter values in each scenario would be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. The September 10 update is based on data received by CDC through August 8, 2020.”
The Pandemic Planning Scenarios according to the CDC, are “designed to help inform decisions by public health officials who use mathematical modeling, and by mathematical modelers throughout the federal government. Models developed using the data provided in the planning scenario tables can help evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing). The planning scenarios may also be useful to hospital administrators in assessing resource needs…”
In their latest update, age-specific estimates of Infection Fatality Ratios have been updated, one parameter measuring healthcare usage has been replaced with the median number of days from symptom onset to positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and a new parameter has been included: Ratio of Estimated Infections to Reported Case Counts, which is based on recent serological data from a commercial laboratory survey in the U.S.
Scenarios 1 through 4 are based on parameter values that represent the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility (moderate to very high severity and transmissibility). The parameter values used in these scenarios are likely to change as we obtain additional data about the upper and lower bounds of disease severity and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Scenario 5 represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: the parameter values will change as more data become available.
The CDC emphasizes the following:
The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).
For complete information regarding COVID-19 planning scenarios from the CDC, you can click here.
More Info on COVID-19 Infection/Fatality: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “An important characteristic of an infectious disease, particularly one caused by a novel pathogen like SARS-CoV-2, is its severity, the ultimate measure of which is its ability to cause death. Fatality rates help us understand the severity of a disease, identify at-risk populations, and evaluate quality of healthcare.”
In early August, they provided a scientific brief explaining how it’s calculated, and how difficult it is to calculate and list all of the variables involved. You can read that here.
The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” In their article, they stated the following:
The public has been made aware of the number of COVID-19 deaths and reported cases that have occurred since the beginning of the current pandemic; however, the number of unreported cases has not been widely known or publicized. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than one-third of SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that can lead to COVID-19) infections are asymptomatic, meaning that initial estimations of its severity were grossly overestimated. Now, for the first time, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) has collated data from U.S. antibody studies and produced an educational document outlining how an accurate case-fatality rate (CFR) requires antibody studies in order to guide and measure medical care and public health policies.
Similar to CDC estimations, PIC’s analysis results in a COVID-19 CFR of 0.26%, which is comparable to the CFRs of previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods. “Knowing the CFR of COVID-19 allows for an objective standard by which to compare both non-pharmaceutical interventions and medical countermeasures,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president. “For example, safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection.
“Regardless of proof of safety, however, a potential COVID-19 vaccine should only be voluntary, in order to safeguard a patient’s human right to determine what will happen with his or her body,” said Dr. Miller.
You can view the PIC’s educational document assessing COVID-19 severity and how they came to their conclusion, here. Obviously the data is always delayed and things are constantly changing with regards to COVID-19 numbers.
Another variable is the fact that deaths being attributed to COVID-19 may not even be a result of COVID-19. You can read more about that and see some examples here.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.
Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, is one of many who have criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus. He has shared his experience thus far:
Almost all of the science we were hearing, for example like organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) was wrong…This has been a disgraceful situation for science..Reports were released openly, shared by email, and all I got back was abuse. And you got to see that everything I said in that first six weeks was actually true and for political reasons, we as scientists let our views be corrupted. The data had very clear things to say. Nobody said to be “let me check your numbers” they all just said “stop talking like that.”
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19. They are also confused at what’s going on. You can read more about that here.
A common theme during this pandemic has been many of the world’s leading scientists in the field criticizing the measures taken by governments for something that may not be as severe as it’s been made out to be.
An article published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can access that and read more about it here
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.
The Takeaway: We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are we being made to believe that there is no solution for this except for a vaccine? Why is it so hard to find out what’s going on these days, and why is there so much conflicting information out there? Does the politicization of science play a role?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Lawsuit Filed Against Merck For Lying To Doctors & Moms About The HPV Gardasil Vaccine
What Happened: The national law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed a lawsuit on August 19th against pharmaceutical giant,...
“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence...