Connect with us

General

Be Aware: How Some Alternative News Outlets Are Hindering Truth

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

We sit at one of the most important times for media ever. With the mainstream media being called ‘Fake News’ by the POTUS and with alternative media outlets getting so much attention from people around the world, things are changing a lot.

advertisement - learn more

Furthermore, almost anyone can start a media outlet these days and begin sharing their thoughts and opinions about something all while gaining a great audience. This is extremely empowering and helps to get information out of the hands of those who have historically manipulated it.

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

But, this also means that it’s easy to jump online and start creating and distributing content without ever looking into the truth. In fact, that option has always been there, but the access is even easier.

This means as users we must be discerning with what we read and consume. We always needed to be this way to be honest, but now it goes much further. This also leads to an important fact about our time, it’s time for each of us to take full responsibility for ourselves, our lives, actions and move towards not being reliant on governance.

The challenge we face is some alternative outlets are producing fake stories that relate to very real topics which are true and need further reporting, but by producing fake viral headlines, they are making the subject look entirely false after a website like Snopes debunks it. While Snopes should also not be considered a credible source due to their alliance with mainstream thinking, it doesn’t mean everything they debunk is actually true. This whole process of producing false news narratives effectively makes people doubt subjects like ET’s, UFOs, government coverups, Wikileaks, the deep state etc.

The truth is, there are enough REAL alternative news stories out there to never have to make one up or produce fake stuff, so why do it? Hard work and time is all that comes to mind right now. It takes time and a team of people to produce factual content that is properly researched.

advertisement - learn more

On the other hand, there are topics that are not yet easy to prove, but are very much worth looking at. Like for example the ET reality. We cannot confirm with absolute certainty that a specific alien being exists for example, but a journalist can show pictures, provide quotes from eye witnesses, whistleblowers and so forth and write the story in a manner that asks the reader to question and see what resonates. This is how we would produce a story with not yet verifiable facts.

Here at CE , we do our best to stay factual and accurate via a lengthy editing process. This is what it looks like:

What is Truth?

Sometimes we say truth is subjective, but I don’t tend to agree with this. Events play out, and when they do we can color it in any way we choose. That doesn’t change what played out as an event however. You see, we have been making excuses for why our emotions, bias’ and so forth get in the way of seeing the world clearly. This is an ego tactic built into the human ego that keeps us from letting go of old ideas, patterns, habits and identifications.

For example, we often get stuck looking at everything from a particular political slant. We don’t want to go back on what we may have previously believed in the past. Then we turn around and say “that’s my truth” but we full well know we are coloring that with our political slant.

Given this understanding, we have built Collective Evolution’s media strategy to look at events for what they are. We examine as much evidence as possible and then release our stories. This doesn’t mean we’re perfect and never have bias, but you won’t get a political position because we don’t take them nor buy into them. You won’t get the mainstream controlled version of a story because it cuts out many aspects of what happened in order to paint a specific picture. From us, you will get a bigger picture perspective, what we can reflect on and how we can learn and grow from what is playing out in our world. It’s media that cares about truth and the viewer -conscious media.

We Need To Identify & Stop Sharing

Now back to content.

One of the challenges we face with the ease of making a living as a media outlet online is that sometimes websites will choose to copy and paste content from other sites or simply write content based on bogus facts because it will bring traffic, i.e. revenue. Not all do this in all cases, but it’s important to discern and fact check as a viewer, and of course, read the article, not just the headline.

A viewer may see a headline and it may sound fake. For example” The Mind Control Tactics Used By Facebook – They Know More About You Than You Thinkbut it’s not. We are often simply used to seeing certain topics in the mainstream and this would not be one of them, so it sounds more outlandish but it is very real.

The key again is, if something catches your eye as a headline, read, discern, use your intuition and do some more research if need be.  Many topics can usually be verified  in about 1 – 2 minutes.

Looking at this article by Neon Nettle, a site that often posts false stories amongst true ones, you have Putin: ‘Pope Francis Works for Satan’ The quote inside the article is backed by another website called Antonius Aquinas. This site then backs its quote to a website called YourNewsWire who does not source where the quote is from.

It’s easy to verify quite quickly that even if this story were somehow true, we have no way to verify it because there is no source on the quote at all. This doesn’t make something fake 100% of the time, but it begins to beg the purpose of even writing stories like this.

Let’s take this one for example. This headline is from YourNewsWire again: Clint Eastwood: Obama ‘Worst President In Our History; He Looted America’

The claim is that Clint Eastwood made this statement about Obama, yet a simple Google search tells you that this isn’t true. Despite the fact that it’s not true, many people sharing this content simply base its truth on headlines. This might be the most prominent trend emerging on the internet today, and one that is spreading so much false information.

Perhaps there is truth to the idea that Obama may have looted America or that the decisions of his administration spent so much on war, and killed many innocent people etc. But going about the topic in this manner, doesn’t bring credibility to it. It seems to encourage people to turn away from alternative news.

Another headline from YourNewsWire: Putin To Send 3,650 Pedophiles Into Space ‘For Life.’

Once again, clearly a subject that can be checked within moments via basic searching.

In a CE podcast episode on the topic of Fake News, I brought up examples like this from these two sites and it began a public conversation about fake news with one of the founders of YourNewsWire (YNW), Sean Adl-Tabatabai. It was never my intention to challenge or damage the reputation of YNW as the conversation on the podcast was very much neutral, it simply asked people to question. Instead, the intention was to encourage a cleaning up of the content, not just for the alternative media movement but for people in general. Why produce news and information without the proper due diligence?

During the conversation I asked the question:

ME: “Do you agree or not agree that your website sometimes posts fake news? If so, do you knowingly do it?”

The response I received was

YNW: “No. Fake news to me is something that the publisher/author knowingly puts out.”

Now I understand that during the course of the conversation it would be easy for Sean to become defensive or upset at what was occurring. In his eyes, he felt as though his site was being called a fake news site, which isn’t entirely true, and he wanted to defend the reputation. So let me be clear here. I don’t believe any of the sites I have mentioned produce 100% fake news. Perhaps that is the view Snopes intends to create for them, but it was not covered this way by us. Instead, I know this site produces some stories which are false. And people share them like crazy. Does YNW know they are producing false stories? Perhaps. They didn’t seem to think so. But the very answer I received above indicated that it’s easier for the organization to state that their stories are not fake news because the writer doesn’t take the time to research them.

Hence why my passion for news and information led me to want to say something to help improve the overall site. Which I made quite clear in the podcast and our conversation. “Sean I’m with you on this. This is why I intend on holding others accountable in the same way other people have held CE accountable years ago. Some of these subjects are true, but it is meaningless and harmful to the overall movement to post stuff that is so obviously fake. And perhaps you don’t have a final check system where someone can check things over, if not, add one in. Blacklist certain authors so that their content cant go straight out before being checked. If you post stories that are truthful and then a bunch that are fake, why post the fake ones?”

What We Can Do & Final Thoughts

Quite simply. Read content. Don’t simply share it or feel like you can determine a whole story from a headline. This is important. Check into the sources of quotes, facts or other things mentioned in an article. Just because you see a link doesn’t mean it’s even going to a a credible source.

As users, it’s time to take control of media by keeping them accountable. The mainstream media misleads people or covers up information as much as alternative new does sometimes. This can be a tough pill to swallow and it may not be a popular subject. In fact, I feel people may get upset at me for simply writing an article like this. But that’s not on me. This is an important subject for us all to reflect on and the time has come to do it.

Check out our podcast on The Rise of Fake News and what that actually all means. Why was the term created? How is the mainstream media using is? Is it backfiring on the MSM? Will it help to clean up alt news?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.

According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.

The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.

Australian UFO study.

According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

  • Reflect On:

    Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.

Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.

We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis

The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.

Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”

This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.

PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?

When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.

They point out the following:

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.

We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.

How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.

Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”

This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.

When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,

This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].

Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.

There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.

As the study points out,

A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26]…Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.

The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.

This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.

Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.

Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.

It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

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!