Connect with us

Alternative News

What The World Continues To Ignore About The Recent Mass Shooting In Florida (And All Others)

Author, Anna Rodgers, interviews Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator, author and the founder of the PaRC parenting school, who has spent the last several decades studying and evaluating why people like, Nikolas Cruz, carry out such violent acts and what do we need to do to ensure that these acts don’t keep happening.

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 can expect more massacres. We can expect more prisoners. We can expect more premature deaths from overdosing. We can expect more selfish people without empathy. We can expect mental hospitals will become the order of the day, and some people will never leave, if they are being treated according to the medical model.

advertisement - learn more

We will see more domestic violence, and we will see the courts abused and more false complaints will be filed as well as real ones. More parents will lose their children because children’s protective services and the courts don’t know how to tell the difference between a false complaint and a real one.

--> Our latest podcast episode: Were humans created by extraterrestrials? Joe sits down with Bruce Fenton, multidisciplinary researcher and author to explore the fascinating evidence behind this question. Click here to listen!

– Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator

With another tragic recent mass shooting, this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Florida, we are seeing a flood of articles about what happened, and the controversial debate on gun laws.

However, these articles often are missing an angle that is incredibly important for us to start looking much deeper at, and that is, what might have happened to Nikolas Cruz in his life, for him to carry out these terrible atrocities.

His lawyer has publicly stated that he is a ‘sad and broken child’, and we know that he was adopted at birth, and we also know that at age 5, his adopted father died. Late last year, Nikolas also lost his adopted mother, Linda, who passed away from pneumonia.

advertisement - learn more

It is also reported that Nikolas’s younger brother Zachary, was committed involuntarily for mental observation, after his brother carried out the shootings. 

Clearly these boys have suffered greatly due to their past, from the broken attachment from their birth mother and from the subsequent loss of both of their adoptive parents.

What we do not know in detail is, what else has happened during Nikolas’s life that will help us to understand why he wanted to kill so many people. 

We know that many people also suffer similar pasts, and do not carry out acts like this. But in Nikolas’s case when did the cracks begin to show? Just in the last few years, or were they always there?

Neighbours are now coming forward and sharing bits of information, like that Nikolas was a ‘deeply troubled’ child who often displayed violence, sometimes even to animals.  How did his adoptive parents deal with this? How did they help him deal with problems and his emotions? 

We must also ask, why on earth did he have access to guns if people around him knew he had a fragile mind?  On his instagram he had selfies with knives and guns and left comments on youtube that he was going to be a ‘professional school shooter’. Why wasn’t this a clear warning sign for those around him to do something about this?

More is also coming to light about all of the complaints (some were even to the FBI) and police visits regarding Nikolas’s behaviour.  In a video by Stefan Molyneux called The Truth About The Florida School Shooting And Nikolas Cruz, Stefan shares some very alarming information that shows there were so many warning signs that were just blatantly ignored.

After Nikolas’s adopted father passed away, Linda his adoptive mother, asked a neighbours daughter if she would care for the children. Whether she meant for a short while or permanently we do not know, however was that a sign that things were not well in the Cruz’s home and support was desperately needed?

In Nikolas’s life, Linda would have been the only person that had remained for the longest time – even if things were not perfect at home – she was still there and so, for her to pass away also, may have been the final straw on what broke Nikolas and sent him on a downward spiral.

Are we are looking at someone here with a deeply broken heart which led to a deeply broken mind, where he wanted to take his pain out on others?

In this case, we may never know the answers to these questions. However, we cannot continue to just say someone like Nikolas is ‘evil’, and leave it at that, and blame other things, this will not help us stop these acts from happening again.  We must look at why and start talking about what broken attachments are doing to peoples minds.

I asked Dr. Faye Snyder, Child Forensic Evaluator, author and the founder of the PaRC parenting school, who has spent the last several decades studying and evaluating why people like Nikolas carry out such violent acts, what do we need to do to ensure that these acts don’t keep happening.  I also asked her what she thinks about the high rates of American children and teens who are on psychiatric medications.

Interview with Dr. Faye Snyder

Anna Rodgers: Dr. Faye, What causes the violence we are seeing in USA schools?

Dr. Faye Snyder: Do we really want to know? With so much focus on stopping the violence, it would be great if we really wanted to know what causes it.

Why do you think we don’t want to know what causes it?

We don’t want to know cause, especially if it is a problem of broken attachments. There are too many ramifications for asking mothers or fathers to maintain an empathic attachment to their babies for at least three years.

Can you explain what that means?

I don’t believe I recall any violent predator who has not suffered a broken attachment. In my book: The Predictor Scale: Predicting and Understanding Behavior, according to Critical Childhood Experiences, I have included about 25 vignettes on real people, and the formula holds in every case.  

This is the primary cause, far above abuse.

Not only that, but insecure attachments magnify all other emotional injuries, while secure attachments mitigate them. From broken attachments there stems separation anxiety, fears of abandonment (leading to a cold acceptance of isolation), mistrust, emptiness, expectations of rejection, feelings of worthlessness, jealousy, bitterness and a need to blame (pretty much in that order)… and from there becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if someone doesn’t read the cues and intervene in the family.

In all of this, there is no development of empathy—only rage and hatred. One must experience empathy to give it. That’s the way it is with mirror neurons. We treat others as we have been treated.

Below is an interview with Dr. Faye and Stefan Molleneux, about what loneliness, broken attachments and traumatic childhoods do to people. 

Why don’t our ‘experts’ identify these children before it’s too late? 

I don’t believe forensic evaluators understand the essential causes of violence. There is too much focus on genetic explanations and too much assumption of inborn behaviours with very little understanding of attachment trauma and the role of mirror neurons in our development.

Unfortunately, the harm done by male privilege and the backlash of the women’s movement has depended upon genetic assumptions. It is rather conflicting logic and difficult to follow. We believe that there is no difference in capabilities for women and men, but we believe mothers can put their babies in daycare, and the negative results are from genes, rather than daycare.

We ignore the science of evolution and how babies were evolved over millions of years to spend the first three years with their mothers followed by an individuation process facilitated by fathers. We blind ourselves to the results of rotating caregivers and of behaviours imprinted in the home via mirror neurons.

We miss what is right in front of us to see. The damage done by rotating caregivers is exploited by the pharmaceutical industry as evidence of ‘fragile genes’. The imitation by one generation of another is assumed to be evidence of genetic instruction rather than evidence of imprinting by mirror neurons.

Schools offer more funding for children who have a medical diagnosis, and they prefer medicated students, because they are easier to manage. HMOs prefer the medical model, because they can get them in and out faster and save money.

Employers like women in the work force, because we lower the wages by flooding the market. We don’t want this information from our experts.

Do you have a simple formula we could follow for looking for signs? 

Actually, I have spent the last thirty years trying to develop a clear formula, based upon my observations. I have put together this:

40% failed attachment – whether lack of attunement or lack of continuity, as in having rotating caregivers

30% child abuse – whether physical, sexual or emotional

15% being raised in a family that blames  the child (leading to bitterness, revenge and retaliation)

15% from requiring members of the family to keep their complaints and emotions to themselves (which forbids self-reflection and ultimately healing). 

It sounds like we could use this formula to help with prevention?

If we really do want to prevent violence, our attempts to assess children should include school counselor’s notes on their attachment history (quality and continuity); the family’s method of modifying behaviour (abuse, shame, or exploitation versus safe affection, coaching and encouragement); the family’s inclination to judge, blame and retaliate, versus self-reflect and self-correct; and the family’s inclination to repress the authentic personality, creating a child who is withdrawn and who lives “underground”, telling adults what they want to hear, instead of learning respectful ways of expressing their thoughts and feelings, something some parents don’t want to hear, all the while building up more anger and bitterness inside.

Would the schools be willing to give parents the option of coming in to learn better parenting techniques as well as giving the child a consequence? If the parents decline, maybe then the child’s name goes on a registry.

Are we ready for that kind of renewal? By the time they enter school, they will be highly symptomatic with the above developing traits. Are we ready to ask questions? Are we ready to intervene in families because their children exhibit these traits?

Below: Constitutional Attorney Jonathan Emord speaking on the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings and why there should be a federal investigation.

So many children and teens in the USA are on psychiatric medications more than ever – do you think this is going to help?

Bear with me for taking a detour here. When I was in school, we all sat nicely in class, went home and did our homework. We didn’t have domestic violence, guns, drugs, rapes, suicides, shootings and a lot of mental illness at school. There was some, but nothing like today. Children are not what they used to be. Today’s children are more symptomatic than in evolutionary history because evolution designed small children to be with their mothers continuously until at least three years of age, if not until age five.

These disturbed children are perfect tools for the medical model to convince us that some of us are born defective. We have been told that research exists to prove these children were born with fragile genes. The research has been modified to sell more drugs and to make us believe the problems are inborn, not from our parenting. Thus, we conclude that these children who threaten us also victimize their poor parents. The cause is disguised by the belief that our children were born that way, at least in part. So, instead of offering the parents parenting classes, we give drugs to their children.

Thus, the solution to medicate is often an absolute disaster. Almost all the children and young adults who have become mass shooters were on psychotropic drugs, which put these disturbed individuals over the edge. Some say that it’s the drugs alone that put the individual in a homicidal or suicidal state. These medications interfere with learning. They neutralize the evidence of neglect and abuse. They create addiction. They create symptoms of lower intelligence. They create psychosis rather than insight. They alter reality and a child’s capacity to adapt to it. They are chemical lobotomies to make these acting-out, symptomatic children more manageable.

Instead of getting that they suffer and need our help, we attempt to neutralize them, but the side affects are psychosis and intolerance. In some cases, they were not even that disturbed, but the medication caused them to become psychotic.

Nearly all the shooters have been on psychotropic medications and got reportedly worse under the medication. That is, their thinking about their plight in life becomes more disturbed, and their solutions become more psychotic. Did you know that we are giving psychotropic drugs to infants and toddlers now? This is getting out of control with terrible consequences.

Do you think parenting is getting better or worse?

Yes, it’s better and no, it’s worse. What is better is our understanding of the harm of corporal punishment. Sex abuse is out of the closet. Intolerance of gay children has diminished. Today, agents from children’s protective services take children away from parents who hit their children or they require parenting classes to parents who spank, which present alternative and more effective ways to discipline than teaching children violent ways to respond to disagreements.

So, fewer children are punished with whippings or spankings these days, but other parents have become so sympathetic with their children’s lives that many of them have become ‘rescuers’. They protect their children from learning, growing and discovering cause and effect. They fail to learn to solve problems or to become resilient. They often raise childlike adults who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. These children act entitled. They often believe they should not have to bear a negative feeling or a difficult task. They are wimps. The results are epidemic.

Some mothers actually believe they ‘need’ their children. They don’t help them grow up and individuate. Often, because mothers want to compensate their children for not being there or because they have inferred that discipline is traumatic, we have seen them rescue their children from negative consequences. Every time they do for their child what the child could be learning to do, they weaken their child for life.

Some fathers may even think bullying behavior by a toddler is a cute display of high self-esteem. Some parents rescue children from bad grades by doing their homework for them. They rescue them from consequences in school, by fighting the authorities on behalf of their children or by ignoring the negative reports, as if they are just phases that will be outgrown.

I apologize for beating a dead horse, but the worst parenting is sometimes done with regret. Putting babies and toddlers in daycare (especially for full days 5 days a week, although some infants won’t do well being separated, even for small periods at all) causes the greatest harm, because abandonment trauma predisposes us to all other trauma, as if we have those “fragile genes” that researchers infer when they interpret their results.

The usual response I get is that, “I have to work. Some mothers just have to work. What are we supposed to do?” Sometimes it’s said in hopelessness. Sometimes it’s said in anger. I usually respond, “I am a feminist, myself, and I understand. I’m so sorry, but I didn’t create the human design. I’m just the messenger. Maybe we can brainstorm about what else you can do.”

If something isn’t done to help children and teens deal with their trauma’s what do you think will happen in the future?

You know, I watched the town hall meeting after the massacre. I was very impressed with the character of those older children. I do believe there is good parenting going on out there, but maybe it’s in more affluent neighborhoods, where mothers or father can commit to being the stay-at-home parent. The parents who have the healthiest children have the children who will be the wisest and make the best leaders. They will excel.

Still, we are all watching children go down hill. We can expect more massacres. We can expect more prisoners. We can expect more premature deaths from overdosing. We can expect more selfish people without empathy. We can expect mental hospitals will become the order of the day, and some people will never leave, if they are being treated according to the medical model. We will see more domestic violence, and we will see the courts abused and more false complaints will be filed as well as real ones. More parents will lose their children to the lesser parent, because children’s protective services and the courts don’t know how to tell the difference between a false complaint and a real one.

What do you think may have tipped Nikolas over the edge?

If I knew what I would need to know, I could answer you, but I don’t have enough information. After every mass shooting I am struck by the lack of coverage over the shooters early childhood. Nothing told yet explains his actions.

The other real question is why don’t reporters seek to find out what happened in the first five years. They assume, as does the public, that those years are irrelevant. We will remain in the Dark Ages until we appreciate the critical importance of those first years and learn to ask those questions. That, in it self is evidence of what happens when we don’t believe parenting and childhood cause these behaviors. We like to think the behaviors were inevitable and inborn.

I can somewhat answer your question about what caused this killer to kill. First there are people on psychotropic medications that have committed violent acts and murders who would not have otherwise done so and who did not have childhoods sufficiently horrible to otherwise account for their behaviors. So, simply bad childhoods, as well as terrible childhoods, can end in violence if you add psychotropic medications to the mix.

I know one researcher, who says that those who can’t handle the meds can be identified for intolerance via lab testing before taking them, but it would cost us a few hundred dollars to do the advanced assessment, and most people don’t want to spend the extra money.

Otherwise, I have to speculate. In order for Nicholas to turn out this violent, he would have to have suffered a failed attachment. Nothing in the news indicates a failed attachment, but he suffered several experiences before his rampage that would trigger a failed attachment. Adoption at birth would not create a failed attachment. That’s not to say that some infants don’t suffer being taken from their biological mother, but they can recover if the adoptive mother is sufficiently attentive. It’s hard to imagine a couple that wanted to adopt so very much not creating a sufficient attachment, but we really do not know as his adoptive parents are no longer here to ask.

We know Nickolas’ father died when he was younger. He probably experienced some bullying and social rejection after he had no father to lean on. We can’t know whether the attachments with his parents created social skills and a sense of lightheartedness. I wonder if he had that.

Cruz does have the slight look of fetal alcohol syndrome, which could explain why he was adopted at birth. He might have been taken from his birth mother, because she was an alcoholic. You might see the same sort of look in Adam Lanza and some other shooters. If he had FAS, he would have had more difficulty attaching and more difficulty adopting social skills.

He could therefore end up on the autism spectrum, which only means that he would have had difficulty forming social relationships. Between the lack of social skills and the odd appearance, the child would possibly attract social ostracism and bullying. In that situation, you could say that students at the school could have contributed to the rejection, isolation and rage that Cruz seemed to suffer, something that perhaps his adoptive mother was able to mitigate. (A similar phenomenon took place at Columbine, despite the inept assessment by the FBI.)

He did seem to react to triggers of a failed attachment like social rejection. Another trigger was a breakup with his girlfriend followed by seeing her with another guy. After that, or perhaps before that, he experienced the death of his mother and expulsion from school. For someone who felt so much rejection and loss, the medication could have put him over the top.

What issues can adopted teens have? 

Adopted children don’t have major attachment or abandonment issues if they are adopted at birth. However, “adopted at birth” often does not mean adopted at birth. I have known of multiple situations where adopted at birth mean that there was no mother until the legal system allowed for the adoption. Sometimes the newborn is motherless for weeks or even months. That would create major insecurity in a personality for life.

Children who are adopted at an older age, but still during the attachment years of zero to three or four, have often undergone a trauma or two before they lost a parent and experienced abandonment (even by the death of a parent). The younger they were, the worse the impact on the child when the attachment failed. Children with attachment failures, whether adopted or having suffered a failed attachment in the home (i.e. post partum depression, parents leaving the infant for a vacation, putting the baby in daycare or a cold, non-empathic mother) will have major behavioral issues as teens.

If they fall in love and everything goes well, there is some healing. If they fall in love and they are rejected, their internal scars are re-opened. If they have not learned impulse control as a child, they are in big trouble and their acting out will be commiserate with their level of rejection and rage.

Nikolas was recently expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Would this have also triggered abandonment issues?

Rejection inflames abandonment issues. Children in schools should be taught this, for their own safety’s sake. They should all care about a child who is being bullied for their own safety’s sake. Bullies put all the children at risk. Oh, and bullies have been bullied.

The media don’t seem to report much on the childhoods of perpetrators.  What would you like to see the media start to do? 

I would like the media, school counsellors, therapists, judges, police, social workers and FBI to ask and answer the following questions:

  • What happened in the child’s first three to five years?
  • Who took care of him as an infant?
  • What kind of care was it?
  • Was he enjoyed as an infant?
  • Were there attachment breaks?

This is critical. Dig, and they will find it. Guaranteed (about 40% of cause).

Find out what kind of interaction the child had with his parents. Was his father critical and rejecting, as is often the case of shooters, or was he a supportive coach about how to navigate the world? Did he hold a high bar and encourage growth? Was the child’s mother critical and rejecting or nurturing? How was he disciplined? Was there abuse (sexual, emotional or physical)? (About 30% of cause)

Did the family have a blame ethic where they just blame the child for everything, or were they modeling self-reflection and self-correction? Reporters will probably find that the families are critical of others if not of the child. They will be prone to blame and may have a drive for punishment (15% of cause).

Was the child driven “underground” or did they encourage him to express his thoughts and feelings, even if critical of them? The parents may have innocently been oblivious to the child’s feelings and thoughts and are simply not good at recognizing suffering and enfolding a sufferer, because their own parents didn’t. The child may have learned to keep his tormented thoughts to himself, leaking outside of the home if not in it. A child who cannot share his suffering with a caring adult will not be able to heal and may become a time bomb.

Hopefully, that caring adult would be the parents.

I believe reporters are afraid to walk on this ground, even if they know about it. It is forbidden. As long as it is forbidden to identify parenting as the cause, we will have shooters and other disturbing grown children amongst us. If reporters would gather this information, we could begin to keep the data on causation and begin to prove to the public what they must know for things to improve.

Otherwise, reporters indirectly telegraph the notion that these behaviors were inborn. That we look at the problem with so much concern but don’t see parenting as a cause is evidence of our deliberate blindness, as consumers of the media.

Should we be angry with Nikolas Cruz? Where do we lay the blame? Guns?

Time bombs are created in the home. They are not born. They are created with a specific formula, which even the FBI does not understand. Forensic evaluators often do not understand this formula.

If reporters would begin to cover this news, we could turn this around. Since this news is taboo, and there is only one institution that gets to oversee childhood treatment, we need child protective services to release information to the press about these factors. They should not be confidential. This information should belong to the public. Bad parenting should not be protected as confidential information. That’s us sending suffering underground.

We are entitled to privacy, but not secrecy when our choices harm others. I’d like to add that these social workers should be trained much better in assessment, as well. (I wish I could do it. I almost became a trainer for “front end” responders with child protective services, but they became suddenly very private and the arrangement was off.)

Nickolas Cruz was a child who had to grow up. Given the events of his life, it was not going to end any other way. It’s up to us. Do we really want to know why people behave this way? Are we prepared to make changes?

Faye Snyder, PsyD, aka Dr. Faye, has written seven books on understanding behavior. She is an expert on parenting, attachment, relationship skills, anger management, domestic violence, child custody, trauma, healing, sexual trauma, sex offending and assessment. 

Dr. Faye also is the founder of  PaRC The Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation is a non-profit agency dedicated to educating the world on the critical importance of parenting and relationship skills via the Snyder Causal Theory and Treatment, while raising mental health to new levels, one person and one family at a time.

www.thecausaltheory.com

www.Drfayesnyder.com

You might like to watch a video called Blaming Parents – is this what Dr. Faye thinks we should do?

Further ReadingWhat the Florida school shooting reveals about the gaps in our mental health system

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Leading Academic Quits After Showing No Children Died From First Wave of Pandemic In Sweden

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on covid-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he discovered.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are scientists, journalists and doctors who present information that opposes what we hear in the mainstream censored, ridiculed, harassed and never given any air time?

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.

What Happened: letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

It was published by  Jonas F Ludvigsson a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute.

The study also showed that  “fewer than 10 preschool teachers and 20 schoolteachers in Sweden received intensive care for Covid-19 up until June 30, 2020 (20 per 103,596 school teachers, which is equal to 19 per 100,000). As compared with other occupations (excluding health care workers), this corresponded to sex- and age-adjusted relative risks of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 2.49) among preschool teachers and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) among schoolteachers.

In a Karolinska Institute press release,  Ludvigsson indicated he was hopeful about the results. “It is very gratifying that serious COVID-19, defined here as needing treatment in an intensive care unit, is so rare among children despite schools being open during the pandemic,” he said. “The next step will be to follow up the children who were treated in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 to see if they have recovered fully. My gut feeling is that children who have been seriously ill because of MIS-C seem to recover fully eventually.”

After he published this piece, an article published in the British Medical Journal on the 18th of February by Ingrid Torjesen states the following,

The Swedish government has said that it will strengthen laws on academic freedom after a leading Swedish academic announced that he was quitting his work on covid-19 because of an onslaught of intimidating comments from people who disagreed or disliked his research findings….After the letter’s publication he was bombarded with angry messages through social media and email criticising the study and inferring that it and Ludvigsson were representative of the country’s covid-19 containment strategy.

The experience has taken its toll on Ludvigsson. He told the journal of the Swedish Medical Association (Lakartidningen) that for a week he woke up at 3 am every night and could not get back to sleep and that he had now lost his appetite for covid-19—both when it comes to speaking out and researching. He has decided to quit researching and debating covid-19.

He is trying to put the experience behind him and has said that he will not talk to the media about what happened. However, he told The BMJ that, although the findings were published in a research letter, this was “an actual study” that underwent formal external peer review, including statistical peer review, and the manuscript was revised four times before it was published.

Intimidation and threats against academics have risen with the growth of social media, and uncertainties and diverse opinions about covid-19 have added to the situation. In response, Sweden is planning to provide increased support for academic freedom through an amendment to its Higher Education Act.

Matilda Ernkrans, Sweden’s minister for higher education and research, told The BMJ, “It is deeply concerning when academics are threatened to the extent that they don’t have the courage to keep on doing their job. This is not a new phenomenon, but we have seen an increase of threats against academics related to research on the coronavirus. When people are silenced, it’s a threat against the freedom of speech and our democracy.  “To strengthen academic freedom, the Swedish government has proposed a new amendment that points out that education and research must be protected to enable people to freely discover, research, and share knowledge.”

Ole Petter Ottersen, president of the Karolinska Institute, told The BMJ that he found the increase in threats and harassment towards researchers very worrying.

“A tough debate and a diversity of opinions based on facts and evidence are necessary elements of science and public discourse, but hateful and scornful accusations and personal attacks cannot be tolerated. We already see that researchers retreat from the public debate after being threatened or harassed, and in my own institution a leading researcher just decided to give up his covid-19 research for the same reason,” he added, referring to Ludvigsson.

Given that the Karolinska Institute seems to be the focus here as well, I thought I’d mention that professor Anna-Mia Elkström, an epidemiologist from the Institute and professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID directly. You can read more about that story here.

Why This Is Important: Censorship of opinions, evidence, data, science and information is a big problem today, this is no secret. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden once said that “The Problem with fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee. But rather because we, as participants, as citizens, as users of these services, (need to) help each other…We point out what is fake, we point out what is true – the answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.”

Snowden, like many others, especially those of us in the field of alternative media are quite aware of the fact that censorship and the close relationship big tech companies have with governments is due to their goal “to dominate the conversation and information…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.” (source) We’ve talked about this here at CE since our inception in 2009, that the job of mainstream media, and “fact-checkers” these days, in our opinion, seems to be perception control. This is especially true when it comes to major global events, ones that seem to benefit the rich and powerful. The world’s ten richest men have seen their combined wealth increase by half a trillion dollars since the covid pandemic began, for example.

As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? -Edward Snowden (source)

The Polish Government recently announced that it will be taking steps to make censorship by big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter completely illegal, comparing it to their experience during the communist era. The Prime Minister said that “Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently.”

The point is, it’s perfectly fine to disagree with one another, that’s healthy, and open debate is healthy especially during the times we are living in. What seems to be so off-putting to many is that debate is being discouraged. People are being urged not to do their own research, and any evidence or opinion that goes against what we hear from mainstream media is being completely ignored, censored or ridiculed to the point where people whose only source of information is mainstream news seem to be completely in the dark regarding important information and research.

The Takeaway: Why does mainstream media fail to have proper and appropriate conversations about “controversial” information that threatens the accepted framework of what we know, or at least what we are told is known? Why can’t we understand the viewpoints, opinions and perception of those who disagree with us, and try to empathize with and understand why somebody feels the way that they do? It seems today that information and perception control are at an all time high due to the fact that information that threatens certain government and corporate agendas is a threat to powerful people, but again, if you share this opinion and information/evidence as to why you feel this way you may be labelled as a “conspiracy theorist.”

All this being said, like 9/11, covid has served as a catalyst for even more people to question the official narrative, and whether or not our governments and the corporations above them actually have our best interests at hand, or if they’re simply serving other interests and rolling out measures under the guise of good will when they are not in humanity’s best interests.

Anyone who disagrees with the way COVID is being handled is not allowed to have a platform to speak. What does that tell us? You decide.

Last but not least, do we really want to go back to “normal”? A bird kept in a cage who is given a bigger cage will think it’s free and has attained a new level of freedom. Something to think about. You can read more about that discussion here.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

World’s Ten Richest People See Wealth Increase By Half A Trillion Dollars Since Beginning of COVID

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent report by Oxfam is one of many to explain how the world's wealthiest people have seen their wealth grow substantially since the beginning of the pandemic, while most others have suffered greatly as a result of the pandemic.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is money always presented as a problem or a solution? Does humanity have the potential to move beyond such a system and thrive? Do we have solutions to our issues? Is the problem that many solutions threaten government/corporate greed/control?

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 recent report by Oxfam shows that “the world’s ten richest men have seen their combined wealth increase by half a trillion dollars since the pandemic began.” On the other hand, the majority of people have been ushered into “the worst jobs crisis in over 90 years with hundreds of millions of people now underemployed or out of work.” The report was titled “The Inequality Virus” and was published on the opening day of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) ‘Davos Agenda.’

The WEF has been both praised and criticized by many academics, politicians and journalists for their “Great Reset” initiative. An initiative that intends to rollout,and currently is rolling out, a number of large changes here on planet Earth as a response to various, according to them, crisis’ we face such as climate change, terrorism, and of course the covid pandemic. The criticism comes from the idea that ‘the powers that be’ are using, and have used global crises’ to put more money, power and control over the human race into hands of the very few, all under the guise of good will and necessity. Measures being proposed include many things like the implementation of 5G, digital ID’s, digital currency, universal income, the abolishment of privately owned property, mandatory vaccination, increased surveillance  measures like tracking,  facial recognition and much more. This comes along with a ‘ministry of truth’ that seems to be “fact-checking” information that pertains to these topics. The censorship of alternative media and scientists who share information that counters what we hear in the mainstream during this pandemic has been unprecedented.

The idea that these are some sort of ‘nefarious’ measures being taken is usually presented as a “conspiracy theory” within the mainstream media. Unfortunately, big media continues to fail at having appropriate conversations around controversial topics. Furthermore, these implementations continue to rollout against the will of many people. That in itself has many people quite disturbed and asking the question, do we really live in a democracy, or is an authoritarian oligarchy type of government operating under the guise of a democracy?

According to Oxfam,

The report shows that COVID-19 has the potential to increase economic inequality in almost every country at once, the first time this has happened since records began over a century ago. Rising inequality means it could take at least 14 times longer for the number of people living in poverty to return to pre-pandemic levels than it took for the fortunes of the top 1,000, mostly White male, billionaires to bounce back. 

A new global survey of 295 economists from 79 countries, commissioned by Oxfam, reveals that 87 percent of respondents, including Jeffrey Sachs, Jayati Ghosh and Gabriel Zucman, expect an ‘increase’ or a ‘major increase’ in income inequality in their country as a result of the pandemic.

Oxfam’s report shows how the rigged economic system is enabling a super-rich elite to amass wealth in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression while billions of people are struggling to make ends meet. It reveals how the pandemic is deepening long-standing economic, racial and gender divides.

A lot of these issues come as a result of the measures taken to combat covid, which have come under fire by many scientists, academics, doctors and journalists. Again,  information, evidence, data and opinions of these people has been completely silenced. Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, for example, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and came to the conclusion that at least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight covid as have died of covid. A group of doctors and scientists published an essay for the American Institute for Economic Research explaining and presenting the data as to why they believe lockdowns are not only harmful, but useless to combat COVID. These are two of many examples.

Lack of access to health care,  economic implications and more have experts suggesting that lockdown measures will kill well over one hundred million people and push even more to the brink of starvation. According to Oxfam, the pandemic has ushered in the worst job crisis in over 90 years with hundreds of millions of people now underemployed or unemployed.

Billionaires fortunes rebounded as stock markets recovered despite continued recession in the real economy. Their total wealth hit $11.95 trillion in December 2020, equivalent to G20 governments’ total COVID-19 recovery spending. The road to recovery will be much longer for people who were already struggling pre-COVID-19. When the virus struck over half of workers in poor countries were living in poverty, and three-quarters of workers globally had no access to social protections like sick pay or unemployment benefits.

The report does mention the benefits of vaccines, and that the covid vaccines are not being fairly distributed. It speaks of the vaccine as a life saving intervention, but does not mention that fact that this is a virus with a 99.95 percent survival rate in people under the age of 70, and that other interventions like vitamin C, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have shown great success and efficacy. Vaccine hesitancy, especially with regards to the covid vaccines, is on a sharp rise among people, doctors and scientists. Again, the mainstream doesn’t seem to do an adequate job of covering information like this. Big Tech fact checkers censor any type of information that doesn’t paint vaccines in a positive light, and all those who raise concerns, no matter how legitimate, seem to be labelled as “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” and are constantly ridiculed. It would be great if the mainstream actually brought these concerns to light and addressed them in a civil manner.

Early on in the pandemic a report from the Institute for Policy Studies found that, while tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs during the coronavirus pandemic, America’s ultra-wealthy elite have seen their net worth surge by $282 billion in just 23 days. This is despite the fact that the economy is expected to contract by 40 percent this quarter. In turns they were correct.

The Institute for Policy Studies’ report shows something nothing short of a modern day oligarchy, where the super-rich have captured so much power and control, including controlling what laws are passed. These are the “decision-makers” of our world while we all are glued to to the T.V. see what they “command” next, not realizing that we the people have the most “power.” “Their” power comes from our compliance, and our compliance comes from their ability to shape our perception of this issue. The report discusses what it labels a new “wealth defense industry” – where “billionaires are paying millions to dodge billions in taxes,” with teams of accountants, lawyers, lobbyists and asset managers helping them conceal their vast fortunes in tax havens and so-called charitable trusts. The result has been crippled social programs and a decrease in living standards and even sustained drop in life expectancy – something rarely seen in history outside of major wars or famines.

The Takeaway: It can be frustrating observing the human experience knowing that we are nothing but infinite potentiality. The human race has huge potential and we have more than enough solutions and technological developments to start co-existing with mother Earth in a more harmonious way, one that provides abundance to all people. Many of these technologies and solutions “never see the light of day” (Dr. Brian O’Leary, NASA astronaut ex-Princeton physics professor). Why was electric car technology invented decades ago but not put into mass production? My point is, again, that solutions exist, that’s not the problem, the issue seems to be the prevention of solutions from making their way into the public due to corporate and government interests being threatened. Is this really the kind of world we want to live in? Despite all this, we continue to operate under the assumption that “this is the way it is” and the idea of a “utopian” society is unachievable.

This goes to shows that it’s not really the “solutions” that will change our world, it’s the consciousness that humanity operates from. It’s the consciousness behind these “solutions” that determine what direction humanity takes.

When it comes to mandating certain health measures, and other things, do we really want to live in a world where we give so much power to governments to the point where they can dictate our actions, and control our thoughts and perceptions regarding certain global events? Do we want to allow them to restrict access to certain rights and freedoms simply for non-compliance of certain measures, like getting vaccinated, for example? Should freedom of choice not always remain? Should governments and private institutions simply be making recommendations?

What about the “new normal”?

This is an important question at the moment, and we are seeing it in everything from alternative media to mainstream media. As we saw with Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, even politicians are warning their citizens that what you see happening now will be the ‘new normal’ to some extent. What do they mean by this? Should we want things to go back to how they were prior to this pandemic? Do we have a future of even more restrictions in sight?

From my perspective, I don’t want things to go back to ‘normal’. Why do I say this? Because I ask myself the question: was life prior to, and even during this pandemic, truly allowing humanity to thrive? Was it anywhere even close to what humanity is capable of? Or is it a society and world designed out of programming that has convinced us to accept basic survival as being how we should live… as normal?

This can be a question for everyone no matter where you live on this planet. Whether the weekly rat race is reality or whether having to worry about whether you will get your next meal is your reality, is this truly how we want to live and what humanity is capable of?

If not, then how can we shift the conversation to begin exploring how we might change the way we live in our society?

Read more here.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

New Lancet Article Suggests 50-75% of “Positive” PCR Tests Are Not Infectious People

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 12 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal explains that PCR tests can be "positive" for up to five times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are certain viewpoints, opinions, studies, scientists and doctors being censored and/or ignored for presenting data that completely contradicts what we are receiving from government health authorities.

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.

PCR testing (polymerase chain reaction testing) has come under fire from numerous doctors, scientists, politicians and journalists since the beginning of this pandemic. Not everyone would know this if their only source of information was mainstream media however, as they’ve chosen not to cover the controversy surrounding it. This is not to say that PCR testing hasn’t been praised as a useful tool to determine a covid infection, but again, there are great causes for concern that aren’t really being addressed.

As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York Times about how declaring pandemics based on PCR testing can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.  In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, an 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 the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it. Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon,  argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.

Furthermore, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases, and that as a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives. You can read more about that here.

These are simply a few of many examples from the recent past, and it’s concerning because lockdown measures and more are based on supposed positive “cases.”

Another concern recently raised comes from an article  published in The Lancet medical journal titled “Clarifying the evidence of SARS-CoC-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19.”

In it, the authors explain that most people infected with COVID are contagious for approximately one week, and that “specimens are generally not found to contain culture-positive (potentially contagious) virus beyond day 9 after the onset of symptoms, with most transmission occurring before day 5.” They go on to explain:

This timing fits with the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.

Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.

They explain:

However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

An article published in the British Medical Journal explains:

It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood. In a recent systematic review, no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. However, cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.

Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling. Mass testing risks the harmful diversion of scarce resources. A further concern is the use of inadequately evaluated tests as screening tools in healthy populations.

The UK’s testing strategy needs to be reset in line with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ recommendation that “Prioritizing rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area.”

The academics who published this paper are one of many explaining how another approach is needed, given the fact that PCR tests are the basis of lockdowns that might have already, and will kill more people than COVID itself, all for a virus with a 99.95% recovery rate for people under the age of 70. Many are in fact calling for the end of testing for asymptomatic people.

Michael Levitt, a medical professor at Stanford University and a Nobel Laureate for chemistry is one of many who has been emphasizing this:

“Getting tested right to avoid making more mistakes going forward [is crucial].” He writes, “very disturbing that PCR test can be positive for up to FIVE times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious. Many implications.”

Rosamond A K Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician, and part of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART) in Slough, UK, writes with regards to testing in UK schools:

If testing 5 million secondary school pupils twice a week, those 10 million tests would be expected to generate 30,000 false positives. These children would presumably all be sent home from school, with their 30 classmates, leading to almost a million children incorrectly out of school each week.

According to an article written by Robert Hagen MD, who recently retired from Lafayette Orthopaedic Clinic in Indiana:

By base rate fallacy/false positive paradox, if the specificity of a test is 95%, when used in a population with a 2% incidence of disease — such as healthy college students and staff — there will be 5 false positives for every 2 true positives. (The actual incidence of active COVID-19 in college age students is not known but estimated to be less than 0.6% by Indiana University/Fairbanks data. Even using a test with 99% specificity with a 1% population incidence generates 10 false positives for every 9 true positives.

Using the same test on patients with COVID-19 symptoms, because their incidence of disease is 50% or greater, the test does not have to be perfect. Even using a test with only 90% specificity, the number of false positives will be much less significant.

Another issue is with PCR testing is the cycle threshold. PCR seeks the genetic code of the virus from nose or throat swabs and amplifies it over 30–40 cycles, doubling each cycle, enabling even minuscule, potentially single, copies to be detected. I first learned about this when Elon Musk revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something “bogus” is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.

He also mentioned he was “doing tests from several different labs, same time of day, administered by RN & am requesting N1 gene PCR cycle threshold. There is no official standard for PCR testing. Not sure people realize this.”

And therein lies the problem, something that the World Health Organization finally addressed recently. On January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated. This followed up their previous memo, instructing labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds (CT values) for PCR tests. The higher the cycle threshold the greater the chance for false positive rates.

Is this why case rates around the world have started to decline? It seems plausible since the same time cases dropped the WHO told labs to monitor the cycle thresholds which means false positives would reduce.

A Portuguese court has determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus determined that the detainment of four individuals was unlawful and illegal. In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, explaining how a high CT is correlated with low viral loads.

“If someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is  <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” (source)

The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown. You can read more about that story here.

“Cases” Are The Basis of Lockdowns 

The information above is indeed telling, because PCR tests are being used to justify lockdown measures and yet there is a huge amount of controversy and inaccuracy with them.

Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and came to the conclusion that at least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight covid as have died of covid.

study published by four medical professors from Stanford University has failed to find evidence supporting the use of what they call “Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions” (NPIs) like lockdowns, social-distancing, business closures and stay at home orders. According to the study, these measures have not been sufficient and are not sufficient to stop the spread of COVID and therefore are not necessary to combat the spread of the virus.

A group of doctors and scientists published an essay for the American Institute for Economic Research explaining and presenting the data as to why they believe lockdowns are not only harmful, but useless to combat COVID. In the essay they present a multitude of studies supporting the same conclusions found in the Stanford study cited above. You can read that here.

Lockdown harms were pondered early on in the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  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 months of April and May .

Bhattacharya, MD, PhD wrote an article  for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.” In it he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures, which also include that fact that:

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.

Is a Great Reset Really required? Or should we just go back to normal?  Even if we weren’t in a lockdown, should we still be questioning how we feel about our “normal.” You can dive into a deeper discussion about that here.

The Takeaway 

The one thing that has many more people questioning their government with regards to COVID seems to be the fact that countless amounts of scientists, doctors, journalists and more are being heavily censored for sharing their information, data, research and opinions about COVID when they don’t fit within the accepted framework of mainstream culture.

For example, the Swedish government has said that it will strengthen laws on academic freedom after a leading Swedish academic announced that he was quitting his work on COVID-19 because of an onslaught of intimidating comments from people who disagreed or disliked his research findings. (source)  This is one of many examples, you can see more here.

 Dr. Kamran Abbasi, former (recent) executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.” I reference this quite a bit in many of my articles so I apologize if you’ve come across it already.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. –

I say it in almost every article I write about COVID, should we not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t? Why is it that someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci gets to make an appearance on television with instant virality anytime he desires, while other experts presenting opposing viewpoints are completely ignored? Can the mainstream media make the “consensus” or the majority seem like the minority and the minority seem like the majority?

How are we going to make sense of what is going on and make effective decisions about it all if we are not allowed to talk about certain ideas?

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

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!