Before you begin...
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to scrap the rules and regulations pertaining to net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers must treat all data on the internet equally, with no discrimination or charge based on the user, website, platform, content, or method of communication.
With net neutrality in effect, internet service providers legally cannot block, slow down, or charge money for specific websites and content posted online.
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
With today’s vote, the FCC has scrapped net neutrality regulations, giving internet providers the ability to legally block websites and content, among other things.
It’s funny how this issue, despite being in the public eye for a few years now, coincides with the era of fake news, which has been used by the government to push the blocking of certain content they themselves deem fake, instead of allowing people to decide for themselves. They do this with help of sites like Snopes and companies like the Disney Corporation, which apparently have become the ‘police of fake news.’
The fake news saga came after a number of articles, documents, and sensitive information was leaked and publicized via alternative news websites. This was information the mainstream media doesn’t often touch. It was exposing things like the existence of a global elite, political fraud, corruption in health, finance, and more.
It seems any information and evidence that counters the mainstream narrative these days is deemed as “fake news.” Many are speculating this is one main reason net neutrality changes are moving forward.
The recent decision by the FCC reverses the changes made in 2015 during the Obama administration. It hasn’t taken effect yet, but will so in a couple of weeks.
As with everything else, it’s become a highly political issue, and it’s now entering into legal realms, with multiple Democrats set to file a lawsuit to stop the change.
So, what happens now? According to NPR:
In undoing the regulations, the FCC has reasserted one of the net neutrality requirements: that Internet providers — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — disclose to their users what exactly they do to web traffic. This will essentially shift all enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, which polices violations rather than pre-empts them through regulations.
Broadband companies have been saying that they do not intend to block, slow down or prioritize any web traffic as a result of this repeal, arguing that it’s not in their interest to aggravate their users by messing with their Internet traffic.
Thus far, internet service providers claim they have no intent of blocking traffic, but that’s exactly what the changes allow them to do. Like with anything, internet service providers can be strong-armed and may receive political pressure from branches of government and intelligence agencies. This was made even more evident by Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks.
There is always a story behind these political decisions, especially when it seems to be a corporate battle. AT&T, Comcast Corp, and Verizon Communications INC now have the power in their hands and will determine what content consumers can access.
They now have unlimited power to how consumers access the internet, but the new rules also force them to be completely transparent and disclose any changes to the consumers. But who knows if that will even happen or if they will be held accountable for this.
According to Reuters, “Internet service providers say they will not block or throttle legal content but may engage in paid prioritization. They argue that the largely unregulated internet functioned well in the two decades before the 2015 order.”
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said in a written statement that the decision gives internet providers “extraordinary new power” from the FCC.
“They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic. . . . And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead,” she wrote.
Was the Internet Ever Really Free and Equal ?
Was the internet ever really free? To some extent sure it was. But it’s presented a massive problem for the global elite. Prior to the birth of the internet, most Westerners’ source of information came from approximately six corporations who controlled Western media. That’s it, that’s all. There were no other sources of information available to the public with regards to learning about what is happening in the world.
These corporations were exposed, as well as mainstream media. It’s now a disclosed fact that mainstream media was and is a branch of corporations and intelligence agencies. Perhaps this is why Anderson Cooper interned with the CIA?
Alternative, not corporate/government funded media started to generate more views than mainstream media. For example, a few years ago, Collective Evolution had reached over 1.5 billion site hits in only four heavy years of traffic.
We’re talking about multiple websites presenting credible sources and evidence which constantly opposed the Western mainstream media narrative on issues like health and politics.
Following the 2016 presidential election in the U.S., multiple sites were deemed as “fake news,” and web site traffic was heavily limited. We saw it ourselves here at Collective Evolution right after the election. The dramatic decrease in traffic for us and those we work with in the same field has been extreme.
This is why I believe the internet is changing so much. The global elite has a long history of silencing information that threatens their interests, as well as accessing information openly and freely, especially if it threatens their “national security interests.” Because of this fact, the Freedom of Information Act was created decades ago, but even that has lost its ability to allow the public to access information.
The sad part about that is, it’s not about national security to them; that’s now become an umbrella term to conceal massive amounts of information and fraudulent activity that would expose a corrupt government, which is the same thing a free and open internet would/did do.
In an era where human consciousness is greatly shifting and changing, it’s only fitting that more restrictions be applied to the internet. People are changing, and the way they perceive our world is changing, which is in large part due to the fact that they can access new information and ideas that threaten the current human experience, and information and ideas which are never really presented on their television screens.
People started to actually think for themselves and question what they are told. Our ability and right to share information with each other is being threatened. It’s no different from the global elite cracking down on Edward Snowden or Julian Assange.
We are stepping out of the darkness and into the light, out of falsities and into truth and critical thinking. We are starting to wake up, and question the world around us and what’s really happening here. We never did that before, but thanks to a free and open internet we were able to do so.
A free and open internet makes it difficult for those who want to deceive us, and we’ve seen it time and time again.
Is this decision really to allow internet service providers to become more innovative and advanced? Or is there some sort of ulterior motive here? I am inclined to believe the latter, obviously, but what do you think? It’s not uncommon for ulterior motives to be linked with major political decisions like this one.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Autistic, Alzheimer’s & Multiple Sclerosis Brain Tissues Have Significant Amounts of Aluminum In Them
- The Facts:
A 2020 study found that the aluminum content in brain tissue of people with Alzheimer's disease, familial Alzheimer's disease, autism spectrum disorder and multiple sclerosis is significantly higher compared to tissues used in the study as controls.
- Reflect On:
Could aluminum be playing a role in these, as well as other diseases? How does it get into our brain?
Before you begin...
There is no shortage of studies demonstrating that aluminum is present in human brain tissue. This is a problem given the fact that aluminum is neurotoxic and wreaks nothing but havoc on biology. This is firmly established in scientific literature. There is no debate on whether or not aluminum exists within human brain tissue, the science is settled. The debate is now focused on how much aluminum is too much. How much aluminum does it take to impact the health of a human being in a negative way?
A study published in the journal Nature compared the aluminum content in human brain tissue of people with Alzheimer’s disease, familial Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder and multiple sclerosis with healthy controls. According to the authors, “detailed statistical analyses showed that aluminum was significantly increased in each of these disease groups compared to control tissues.” They go on to mention that,
We have confirmed previous conclusions that the aluminum content of brain tissue in Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder and multiple sclerosis is significantly elevated. Further research is required to understand the role played by high levels of aluminum in the aetiology of human neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disease.
The researchers used tissue from twenty control brains of healthy individuals to compare against the brain tissue of people who have had a diagnosis of the neurodegenerative conditions mentioned. The fact that all disease groups had significantly higher brain aluminum content than the control group is quite concerning. That being said, it’s not proof that aluminum actually plays a direct role in each of these diseases. The important takeaway from the study and what we know about aluminum toxicology is that there is absolutely no debate, at all, as to the neurotoxicity of aluminum in humans. It’s just not a good thing to have in your body.
The study emphasizes,
Animal models of aluminum intoxication reproduce the neuropathologies and neurodevelopmental effects of human neurodegenerative disease, if not the diseases per se. Cell models and in vitro studies demonstrate mechanisms of aluminum toxicity known to be involved in human neurodegenerative disease. Perhaps the information that is still missing from understanding of aluminum’s role in each of the diseases compared herein is how much aluminum is too much in human brain tissue. The comparison we have made herein between control brain tissue showing no signs of neurodegenerative disease and the disease groups…is beginning to answer this question. Only further measurements on more donor brains will enable a definitive conclusion to be reached on the role played by aluminum in human neurodegenerative disease.
The authors make it clear that aluminum and its presence in human brain tissue “cannot be without consequence” given everything that’s been discovered about aluminum toxicity. There is a great need for further study here and to determine how much aluminum the brain, and other organs for that matter, can tolerate before there are detrimental effects. These effects may be short term as well as long term, and they may play a role in neurodegenerative disease like the ones the study examine. It’s hard to think that the high aluminum content in the brain tissue of people with these diseases is simply a coincidence, especially given the fact that the aluminum content in “normal” brains is significantly less.
Once you start to see these sort of data together, once you start to see the levels of a known neurotoxic metal accumulate to these levels, it is absolutely inevitable that they will contribute to disease. – Professor Christopher Exley, lead author of the study, taken from the interview below.
Exley is a Professor at Keele University, and arguably the world’s leading expert in aluminum toxicology. Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,
We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.
You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.
Below is a very informative interview with Exley if you’d like to learn more about aluminum and its accumulation within humans. On a side note, ask yourself, what products and substances may contain aluminum that could be contributing its accumulation in various human organs like the brain?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Texas Bans All Government Entities & Businesses From Requiring Proof of Vaccination
- The Facts:
Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, recently announced that it will be illegal for government entities and businesses within the state to require proof of vaccination in order to access their services.
- Reflect On:
Is the idea of "vaccine passports" just? Should governments have the authority to implement measures against the will of so many people? Do we give them too much power?
Before you begin...
“Texas is open 100%. Texans should have the freedom to go where they want without any limits, restrictions, or requirements. Today, I signed a law that prohibits any TX business or gov’t entity from requiring vaccine passports or any vaccine information,” tweeted Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas. He made the announcement on Monday and the news went viral across social media platforms and independent media outlets. It hasn’t really received much substantial coverage from mainstream media, in fact, debating or calling into question the idea of “vaccine passports” has not really been a welcomed conversation despite the fact many health experts have been condemning the idea since they were first introduced.
Texas will be the seventh state to sign such a measure into law. Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, and North Dakota have also banned businesses and government entities from requiring proof of vaccination, while Utah and Arkansas have barred just governments from requiring proof of vaccination.
As far as the United States as a whole, the Biden administration has said on multiple occasions that a national vaccine passport won’t happen. Instead the U.S. is working on a system that will allow Americans who travel internationally to show proof that they have been vaccinated. This will be required given the fact that multiple countries around the world will saying they will require it, like several European Union nations, and Canada.
Why ban vaccine passports? Well, there are multiple reasons, and I’ve covered these reasons in depth before. In an article I published in April titled “The top four reasons why some people, doctors & scientists refuse to take the COVID vaccine,” many of the points outlined indicate why freedom of choice and informed consent are paramount when it comes to COVID vaccines.
The fact that many of these points, as well as the doctors, scientists, and peer-reviewed papers that are raising concerns about the COVID vaccine, are being completely censored, and in some cases ridiculed and called a “conspiracy theory,” is also very unsettling and suspicious. You would think in a time of a global pandemic, all concerns that are being raised would be open to discussion, transparency and a healthy debate.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. – Paddy Rawlinson, Law Professor, Western Sydney University. (source)
Is the push for vaccinating the entire population actually justified and scientifically sound? If it’s not, then why is there such a hard push for it? Is it really about our health? Or are there other agendas and conflicts of interests at play here? Why can’t freedom of choice remain for people who want to travel, attend sporting events and more? Do mandatory vaccine measures separate and divide society even more? Should people who want to take the shot and those who do not want to take the shot all unite as one to push for the freedom of choice? If a large portion of the citizenry can be made to believe that vaccine passports are just, what else would they agree to in the future? Would they agree with the idea that unvaccinated people cannot work, that it is just to take away their ability to feed themselves and keep a roof over their head? Would they agree with the idea that the unvaccinated should simply be exterminated?
A lot of questions, and important ones.
We are in a time where humanity must question the power and authority they are given to governments who implement these measures against the will of so many people. We have to question the motives of governments and whether they have the best interests of the citizenry at heart, or whether allegiances exist elsewhere.
Perhaps it is time to look elsewhere for solutions instead of constantly relying on our political system for significant change.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Facebook Fact Checker ‘Lead Stories’ Can’t Answer Why My Report on Masks Is “Missing Context”
Before you begin...
Do masks work in stopping the spread of viruses? Do they work to stop the spread of COVID? Are they harmful to human health during prolonged use? These are all key questions that have been asked since the start of this pandemic, however, getting clear answers has been tough. Then came a meta analysis on mask wearing that I wrote about at the end of April 2021. This large meta analysis was published in the journal Environmental Research and Public Health and is titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” It looked at 65 studies pertaining to prolonged mask wearing to examine whether or not there may be any health consequences. In short, the study found that masks can lead to “relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields,” and also clearly outlined why the effectiveness of masks to stop the transmission of COVID is highly questionable.
Not long after we published our balanced reporting on the study, it was subjected to a “fact check” via third party Facebook fact-checker Lead Stories. When I clicked on the notification sent through our Facebook Page (Collective Evolution), it took me straight to an article published by Lead Stories claiming masks are effective at stopping the spread of COVID. They claimed that my article was “missing context” and were essentially saying the scientists who published the large meta analysis I reported on were wrong, and that they (Lead Stories) were right.
Meanwhile, the Lead Storied fact check article did not address any of the points I made in my article, nor did they reference it. It felt clear to me that the people at Lead Stories didn’t even read my article, although I can’t know that for sure. My article contained science suggesting masks are not effective, as did the meta analysis, but it also contained a discussion around the science showing that masks may actually be effective in stopping the spread of COVID. It was a well balanced piece, and as a result it was clearly, inarguably, not “missing context” at all. It seems any article or scientific publications that even suggests may be dangerous as well as ineffective is just not allowed to be shared without consequences. This is censorship at its finest.
Furthermore, the bulk of my article, as well as the meta analysis, focused primarily on the health consequences that can occur from extended periods of mask wearing. The Lead Stories article that Facebook was leading our readers to instead of mine didn’t even touch upon that topic at all. This made me wonder, how on earth could a fairly recent, large meta-analysis published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal be considered to be “missing context”? And who exactly at Lead Stories is responsible? How could such a punishment and label be handed down on an article that wasn’t even read? Keep in mind, when a Facebook page receives some sort of ‘fact check’ multiple things happen: the brand’s content reach can be cut, and thus their revenue is cut. The brand has the notion of ‘false information’ associated with its name, defaming and hurting the credibility of the brand. And of course, Facebook users don’t see the content the brand posted as easily, and instead are pressured towards reading the ‘fact check’.
I decided to contact Lead Stories to find out what happened. The contact information on their website provides information for a man named Alan, and another named Maarten. I sent an email to them explaining my concerns, suggesting it felt quite obvious that they did not even read my article before labelling it “missing context”. Perhaps the title and what it implied set them off? But there was nothing misleading about it, I was simply reporting on the study. “Large Meta Analysis: Mask Wearing May Lead To Health “Consequences In Many Medical Fields.”
In an email to Alan I wrote on April 29th, 2021,
Although the article is more so about the physiological and psychological changes that can occur as a result of mask wearing according to the meta-analysis cited, we do not believe our article was read by you. The article clearly outlines many studies that show masks can protect against the spread of coronavirus…So we are quite confused.
Furthermore, this article wasn’t posted on Facebook yet our reach/distribution etc. seem to have been severely punished, and we got the notification via our Facebook Page. I’m not sure if you have put any restrictions on our page as a result?
Please let me know if this is sufficient enough to remote the rating.
This was flagged with a Missing Context label. There is NO punishment imposed by Facebook for that rating.
We are not directly involved in that aspect, but we are assured by Facebook it is only the label.
I have my staff reviewing the merits of the appeal and we will reply soon.
I’m not sure I agree that “NO punishment is imposed by Facebook.” Our business metrics stem greatly off of data, we watch data everyday. It’s always strikingly clear when a Facebook ‘fact check’ has dramatically reduced our traffic. Perhaps Facebook is not being forthcoming about its censorship of pages?
It took over a month and multiple requests to Lead Stories to finally hear back from Alan. And when we did he said:
“Your article is missing context, which is what we rated it. Let us know when you have added the context.”
Once again, Alan has made it clear he has not read the article, nor can explain what the problem with our piece is. As journalists who work incredibly hard, Facebook fact checking has become a joke where ‘fact checkers’ do not respect the hard work of journalists and have the power to hold their stories hostage with little respect given to properly stand by their strong handed claims.
The “missing context” label has yet to be removed, and thus we are unable to post this article on our Facebook Page, because if we do that message will come up for our readers – further harming out brand and potentially adding more ‘instances’ where we ‘repeatedly publish false information’ which is something Facebook has said can lead to permanent page deletion.
Alan has failed to explain how this article is missing context.
I stand by my feeling that there is nothing that Alan and his team can say about this article to claim it is missing context. I still assume they didn’t even read my article before putting a rating on it, and I am still awaiting an appropriate reply Why won’t they simply remove the rating, email me back, and apologize? You can find his contact information at the bottom of this page if you’d like to ask him the same question.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Ex-Porn Star Jenna Jameson Says Jeffrey Epstein Is An “Amateur” & Children Are “Hunted” At “Parties”
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will...
Declassified CIA Document Shows “Remote Viewing” Attempt of a “Galactic Federation” Headquarters
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be...