Connect with us

Alternative News

The Harsh Truth About Facebook Will Be Heavily Revealed In 2018

Will Facebook begin to see a massive loss of users soon? Will we finally see what Facebook reflects to all of humanity in 2018? There is a lot we can learn from this.

Published

on

What is Facebook? What did it start out as, and what has it become?

advertisement - learn more

Everything evolves — we know that. Sometimes what we set out to do in our initial intentions changes and becomes something different. In business it’s called pivoting; in real life it’s called reflecting on whether there is any meaning, value, or purpose to what we’re doing, and whether this matches our initial intentions.

-->Facebook Just Shut Us Down: We need your help in taking our power back from big tech, to overcome censorship and the attack on free speech. Click here to help!

When Facebook began in 2004, it was a platform for people to stay connected in a meaningful way, specifically students enrolled in post-secondary school. By 2007, Facebook opened its platform up to the public and began on-boarding users like crazy. It quickly became the largest and most influential social media network in the world, now serving over 2 billion users.

I remember those days. The people you connected with, the pages you chose to follow —  you actually saw what they posted. Point blank, you saw what you cared about and wanted to see. Now though, it’s quite different. This is where Facebook faces its greatest challenges. I also feel this is where they are most heavily lying to the public.

To preface, this is not a Facebook smear piece. Facebook has been a valuable network to share information to millions and create some incredible change in the world. However, things have changed dramatically since Facebook went public and moved under the thumb of intelligence agencies.

Convenient Newsroom Information

Facebook has consistently told the world that users provide valuable feedback about what they want changed on Facebook, and then Facebook follows up. However, the changes also seem to align with greater profits and a poorer user experience. We  never actually see the results of this apparent feedback Facebook claims to be getting. We simply get statements like “Maintaining a relevant and interesting News Feed is important to satisfying users.”

advertisement - learn more

Now Facebook has a huge job on their hands. They must sort through the millions of posts posted every day and place the meaningful ones in front of the right people. But there is a problem with this. Facebook doesn’t have to sort through millions of posts for each user, they simply need to sort through the couple thousand or less that each user is technically subscribed to. Allow me to explain.

The average Facebook user has 155 friends. I could not find 2017 stats, but as of 2013 the average user Likes about 70 pages. Again, a stat I can’t find is how often a Facebook user posts on Facebook per day, but brands, on average, post about 10 times per day. So in any given day, if we assumed every brand a user liked posted 10 times and every friend posted twice, a user would have to sift through a little over 1,000 posts. Given the average user spends about 50 minutes per day on its platforms, a user would have about 2.5 – 3 seconds per post if they were fed all 1,000 posts.

Interestingly, Facebook sees value in a number that small, as video views are tallied when a user spends just three seconds watching. So if the newsfeed really only has to sift through about 1,000 posts per user, based on what a user ACTUALLY has chosen to connect with, why do they claim it has such a hard time showing users what they want? Think about it: Even if the newsfeed had a whopping 100% organic reach on every post from every person, brand, or page a user likes, the average user would only have to sift through about 1,000 posts per day.

Facebook took the path of pulling out users’ interests and replacing them with posts users may or may not like from who knows where. On the flip side, this has allowed them to charge brands to reach their audience; the same audience that asked Facebook to show them their posts in the first place.

Have You Noticed the Newsfeed Does Not Work as Advertised?

This is where things get interesting and where I feel Facebook is going to reach its demise in 2018 in a big way. But first let’s turn to a harsh reality.

Facebook is “ripping apart the social fabric.” Those are the words of Chamath Palihapitiya, the company’s former vice president of user growth. Why would this be said about a company whose mission is to apparently “build global community?”

Because Facebook’s actions do not align with their mission; they align with intelligence agencies, political pressure, and stock holders.

Once again, “It literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” says Sean Parker, Facebook’s former president.

But let’s reflect here. Is this not showing us on a global scale what happens when our initial intentions and passionate hearts are set aside in favour of appeasing the destructive nature of politics, financial greed, and big brother? This doesn’t happen only to a company like Facebook, this happens all over the place. We are willing to give up true connection, community, value, and overall societal health in the name of money, power, and control.

Facebook claims its algorithm is designed to show you relevant posts from the people and brands you want to see them from, but do you actually see that? I see posts from people I never engage with. I see ads. I see, for lack of a better term, meaningless drivel from brands that I don’t ‘Like’ on Facebook nor care about. Now, there is nothing wrong with ads, but why can’t a user see what they want?

How is a newsfeed, apparently designed for a user, filled with so many unwanted posts? Whereas, when a user not only likes a specific group or page, but also asks to see that FIRST in their newsfeed, it’s not seen. How is that possible? Simply put, the newsfeed does not work as advertised, nor is it designed to provide the user with what they want. Which goes along with the harsh reality that Facebook likely does not give users the truth about why it’s making changes.

But I can’t blame them. They have to appease stockholders, and so stripping brands from the newsfeed makes sense. But it detracts from their mission and value, as now, users don’t get what they want. People loved Facebook because they could be informed and get updates from things they care about, and brands were largely responsible for helping to build Facebook to begin with.

The average user is left with mindless content they often don’t really care about, which is why we get the types of quotes we get from the executives above. It seems, for the large part, Facebook has chosen to feed users things they don’t want in exchange for making more money, and in turn users have to go out of their way to get content they want. Now, the average user should do that, but we don’t. Instead we just look at what we’re fed and thus this is why I feel we are seeing the types of mental and emotional challenges we’re seeing from Facebook use.

What if we were given posts we wanted, that helped us learn, stay informed, and explore what’s happening in our world in a more meaningful way rather than simply posts from our friends about what they ate today, where they are going, and other mindless posts that are said to be ‘feel good’ yet are not when read in excess. Might this produce a more exercised, informed, and engaged mind?

The Days of Getting Your News From Facebook Are Over

This seems to be the case because there simply isn’t any news in newsfeeds anymore, it’s just statuses, images, and posts that aren’t all that relevant to what’s happening in the world. Users will likely have to go back to visiting news sites directly to stay informed or utilizing emails lists from brands they like to stay updated with.

2018 Will Reveal This Truth More Clearly

You won’t hear it like this from your average news outlet, because their focus will be on business or general thinking. But the reality is, on a deeper level, Facebook has been a huge reflection of humanity. A way to see what happens when we focus so deeply on distracting content, comparing ourselves to others, choosing mindless entertainment over value and learning. It shows us what happens when companies choose to give up their mission for profit, control, and dominance.

We can all learn something from Facebook, and not just about our world, but about ourselves, too. How do you use Facebook? How do you feel when you use it? Does Facebook provide the information, connection, and value you would hope for out of a social media network?

2017 has revealed where things haven’t been in alignment in many areas of society and our lives. 2018 will continue that trend, but will also contain a great deal of new adoption and change. No longer will we be able to simply sit back; action will be on the menu, and this is why I see Facebook getting hit so hard in 2018. The truth is coming out, and I feel Facebook will be forced to shift the way it operates back to something that provides true and deeper value to humanity, or it will begin to shed its user base heavily.

We’re all feeling the shift.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Vancouver Council Votes Against Mandatory Mask Mandate: They’re Not Required

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Vancouver, Canada will not have a required mask policy in civic facilities, and instead will simply recommend that people wear them.

  • Reflect On:

    Should governments recommend what they feel we should do and present the science instead of forcing certain measures on the population that many people and health professionals clearly disagree with?

What Happened: The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada will not mandate masks inside city buildings and will “strongly encourage” people to wear them instead. This is a bold move as many cities across the globe have mandatory mask measures in place.

The proposal by Counc. Sarah Kirby-Yung, which would have required masks inside city buildings, was opposed by more than a dozen speakers who pleaded with the city council to vote against it.

“Please consider our forefathers fought for our freedom, and if we release that choice, it’s the first step towards a dictatorship,” said one speaker according to City News. “Masks are used as weapons and they have certainly been used as weapons against me and others to silence and marginalize us and it’s not fair.”

According to Coun. Christine Boyle, public health experts encourage wearing masks, but a mandatory policy is not needed.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Positive Association Found Amongst COVID Deaths & Flu Shot Rates Worldwide In Elderly

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently published paper has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why does vaccine hesitancy continue to grow worldwide? What's going on? What information/factors are contributing to this hesitancy?

What Happened: A recently published study in PeerJ  by Christian Wehenkel, a Professor at Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango in Mexico, has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

According to the study, “The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”

To determine this association, data sets from 39 countries with more than half a million people were analyzed.

The study was published on October 1st, and two weeks later a note from the publisher appeared atop the paper emphasizing that correlation does not equal causation, and that this paper “should not be taken to suggest that receiving the influenza vaccination results in an increased risk of death for an individual with COVID-19 as there may be confounding factors at play.”

The paper provides evidence from others which have recently been published that ponder if the flu shot could increase ones chance of contracting and dying from COVID-19.

For example, this study published in April of 2020, reported a negative correlation between influenza vaccination rates (IVRs) and COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity. Marín-Hernández, Schwartz & Nixon (2020) also showed epidemiological evidence of an association between higher influenza vaccine uptake by elderly people and lower percentage of COVID-19 deaths in Italy, which directly contradicts the author’s own findings and suggests that the flu shot may help prevent COVID-19 related deaths.

He goes on to mention another study:

In a study analyzing 92,664 clinically and molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases in Brazil, Fink et al. (2020) reported that patients who received a recent flu vaccine experienced on average 17% lower odds of death. Moreover, Pawlowski et al. (2020) analyzed the immunization records of 137,037 individuals who tested positive in a SARS-CoV-2 PCR. They found that polio, Hemophilus influenzae type-B, measles-mumps-rubella, varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), geriatric flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines, which had been administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years, were associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates.

So, its important to mention that correlations between the flu vaccine have also found that it may decrease ones chance of deaths from COVID-19.

But are there studies that have shown an increased chance of death or contracting other respiratory viruses as a result of getting the flu shot? Yes.

That’s also discussed in the paper. For example, he mentions a paper published in 2018:

In a study with 6,120 subjects, Wolff (2020) reported that influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a higher risk of some other respiratory diseases, due to virus interference. In a specific examination of non-influenza viruses, the odds of coronavirus infection (but not the COVID-19 virus) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher, when compared to unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio = 1.36).

The study above found the flu shot to increase the risk of other coronaviruses among those who had been vaccinated for influenza by 36 percent. The study was conducted prior to COVID-19, so it’s not included and only applies to pre-existing coronaviruses. The study also found an even higher chance of contracting human metapneumovirus amongst those who had received the flu shot.

Below are some more studies regarding the flu shot and viral infections that hint to the same idea.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Why This Is Important: We live in an age where vaccinations are heavily marketed. We’ve seen this with the flu shot time and time again and we are also living in an age where a push for more mandated vaccines seems to be growing.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

This is a touchy subject that dives into medical ethics and the connections that big pharmaceutical companies have with our federal health regulatory agencies and health associations. Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry.

At a recent World Health Organization conference on vaccine safety, it was expressed that vaccine hesitancy is growing at quite a fast pace, especially among doctors who are now becoming hesitant to recommend certain vaccines on the schedule. You can read more about that and find links to the conference here.

We have to ask ourselves, why is this happening? Is it because people and professionals are becoming aware of certain information that warrants the freedom of choice? Should freedom of choice with regards to what we put in our body always remain? Are we really protecting the “herd” by taking these actions?

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.

When it comes to the flu shot, I put more information and science as to why so many people seem to refuse it, in this article if interested.

The University of California is currently being sued for mandating the flu shot for all staff, faculty and students. A judge has prevented them from doing so as a result until a decision has been made. You can read more about that here.

In South Korea, 48 people have now died after receiving the flu shot this season causing a lot of controversy. You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway: There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Should these statistics alone warrant the freedom of choice? Should the government have the ability to force us into measures, or would it simply be better for them to present the science, make recommendations and urge people to follow them? When the citizenry is forced and coerced into certain actions, sometimes under the guise of good-will, there always seems to be a tremendous amount of uproar and people who disagree. Why are these people silenced? Why are they censored? Why are they ridiculed? Why don’t independent health organizations receive the same voice and reach that government and state “owned” or organizations do? What’s going on here? Do we really live in a free, open and transparent world or are we simply subjected to massive amounts of perception manipulation?

When it come to the flu shot there is plenty of information on both sides of the coin that point to its effectiveness, and on the other hand there is information that points to the complete opposite. When something is not 100 percent clear, freedom of choice in all places should always remain, in my opinion.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The number of South Koreans who have died after getting flu shots has risen to 48, but health authorities in South Korea have found no link between the vaccine and the deaths.

  • Reflect On:

    Is the flu shot as safe as it's marketed to be?

What Happened: It’s that time of year and flu shot programs are rolling out across the globe. The number of South Koreans who have died after getting the flu shot has now risen to 48 and some South Korean doctors and politicians have called to stop flu shots as a result, according to Reuters. The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) has decided not to stop the program, and that flu vaccines would continue to be given and will reduce the chance of having simultaneous epidemics in the era of COVID-19.

Health authorities in South Korea have explained that they’ve found no direct link between these deaths and the shots. KDCA Director Jeong Eun-kyung said, “After reviewing death cases so far, it is not the time to suspend a flu vaccination programme since vaccination is very crucial this year, considering…the COVID-19 outbreaks.”

According to Reuters, “Some initial autopsy results from the police and the National Forensic Service showed that 13 people died of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and other disorders not caused by the vaccination.”

The South Korean government is hopeful to vaccinate approximately 30 million of the country’s 54 million people.

Concerns Some People Have With The Flu Shot: One concern many people seem to have is the worry of a severe adverse reaction.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot.

Moss is one of many who believe that the flu vaccine is not as effective as it’s been marketed to be. For example,  A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:

Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal)  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

These are just a few examples out of many claiming that the flu shot has not really been effective, opposing others that claim it is.  Mercury that’s still present in some flu shots also seems to be a concern.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that more doctors are starting to be hesitant when it comes to recommending vaccines.

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…

This is no secret, and actions against mandates are being taken. The University of California was recently sued for making the flu shot mandatory. That trial will begin soon, and you can read more about it here, and find information regarding the claim that the flu shot can help in the times of COVID-19.

The Takeaway: We are living in an age of extreme censorship of information, no matter how credible or how much evidence is provided, information that goes against the grain always seems to receive a harsh backlash from mainstream media as well as social media outlets. Why is there a digital fact checker patrolling the internet? Should people not have the right to examine information openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

As far as vaccines are concerned, despite the fact that there are many safety issues the scientific community  is bringing up, a push for vaccine mandates continues and the idea that we are protecting other people is usually the narrative that’s pushed hard. Vaccine skepticism is growing at a fast pace among people of all professions, and people aren’t stupid. There’s a reason why more and more people are starting to question what we’ve been told for years, and those reasons should be acknowledged and openly discussed amongst people on both sides of the coin.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!