Before you begin...
Geo-engineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention into the Earth’s climatic system. It’s done through several different means, and one of them is spraying chemicals (which are toxic to humans and all life on the planet) into the atmosphere via balloons or aerial vehicles.
The CIA and other federal agencies control these programs, and under the guise of national security they remain classified. This means that if they are actually spraying things into the atmosphere, we would never hear about it. A 1996 report conducted by top military personnel in the U.S., titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025,” reveals the supposed urgency to implement these programs.
--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.
But, in more recent news, it wasn’t long ago when then CIA Director, John O. Brennan voiced his support for geo-engineering, you can watch that here.
On the other side of the pond, RH Princess Basmah Bint Saud, humanitarian and daughter of King Saud, compared geo-engineering science and programs to weapons of mass destruction, arguing that their implementation is like setting off a bomb without the nuclear explosion. You can watch that interview and read more about it here.
Harvard is one of many universities around the globe that is now engaged in geo-engineering research, as it states on their website,
“Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program will develop methods that might reduce the risks and improve the efficacy of solar geoengineering when compared to the injection of sulfates into the stratosphere, which has been the standard proposal since the 1970’s.”
A United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November of 1978 states:
“In addition to specific research programs sponsored by Federal agencies, there are other functions related to weather modification which are performed in several places in the executive branch. Various federal advisory panels and committees and their staffs – established to conduct in-depth studies and prepare comprehensive reports, to provide advice or recommendations, or to coordinate Federal weather modification programs – have been housed and supported within executive departments, agencies, or offices.”
So, as you can see, this information has been looked at for a long time, and by simple visual observation, it’s not hard to see that the testing faze of whatever has been going on, began long ago, but we’re not being told that. According to mainstream publications, these programs are not yet operational.
Harvard states that they want to develop new methods, the go-to substances to spray in the air are listed below. If we take a look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geo-engineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, this is what we get.
Some of the proposed particles to spray in the atmosphere include:
- Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
- Silicon Carbide
- Calcium Carbonate
- Zinc Oxide
Dr. Marvin Herndon, PhD., a nuclear chemist, geochemist, and cosmochemist – most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal – has published a groundbreaking paper in the peer-reviewed journal Current Science (Indian Academy of Sciences) titled “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India.”
The paper goes on to discuss and cite publications which have detected heavy metals like aluminum, barium, strontium, and more in rainwater, fly ash, and more. For example, during the period between July 2011 and November 2012, 73 rainwater samples were collected and analyzed for aluminum and barium; 71 were collected from 60 different locations in Germany, 1 from France, and 1 from Austria. Aluminum was detected in 77% of the rainwater samples, there was also a very high barium concentration and a very high Strontium concentration.
More recently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published a review stating that Harvard scientists are moving forward with plans for atmospheric geo-engineering experiments. The researchers intend to launch a high-altitude balloon that would spray a small quantity of reflective particles into the atmosphere in a proposed plan to combat global warming.
According to the MIT review, “They would be among the earliest official geo-engineering related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.”
This statement is false. This may be one of the first times an experiment like this has gone public, but it’s not the first of its kind. Perhaps the only other time this type of activity has been made public was in China for the 2008 Olympics, where they used weather manipulation via geo-engineering to create ideal weather for the games. To me, this seems like a grossly irresponsible use of technology. (source)
The general idea to combat global warming is basically to block out the sunlight via methods that reflect it back out into space.
Most recently, a forum on US Solar Geoengineering Research was held in Washington, DC. It was co-hosted by the Solar Geoengineering Research Program at Harvard University and funded through various grants from philanthropists, like Bill Gates.
Below is a screen shot with a general gist of the report, it discusses the pro’s and con’s, and a myriad of potential implications. On a personal level, I believe that this type of activity has already been happening for a long time, perhaps in the ‘Black Budget.’
This is also exemplified by the World Meteorological Association,
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” – World Meteorological Association (source)
The report is good at pointing out several different dangers involved, and the difficulties of implementing these programs on a global scale. But perhaps this is just the begging of influencing the masses perception to accept geoengineering, in the same way we accepted the war on terror, which was based on false premises.
It’s unfortunate to live in a time where so many people have completely lost any type of trust for government and government agencies.
David W. Keith is one of the scientists involved in this initiative, and has been for a long time. He’s a professor of Applied Physics for the Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS). He’s also a professor at Harvard university, and chairman of Carbon Engineering.
His research, which is also cited in the Harvard report above, includes a lot of work on climate-related technology assessment and policy. When asked about the spraying of these heavy metals into the atmosphere, of which millions of tonnes would have to be used, he said this:
“You may end up killing many ten’s of thousands of people a year as a direct results of that decision.”
Perhaps all of the heavy metals that have already been sprayed over the years are one of what seems to be a multitude of factors as to why sickness and human disease rates continue to rise exponentially. This is what a paper linked earlier in this article was also concerned about, and perhaps this is why they are not telling us that they’ve been conducting these experiments for a long time.
At the same time, we have to be aware of potential ulterior motives, and we should also take into account the politician of science.
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields of science today.
These days, it can be difficult to determine what’s really going on, our world has been drenched in corruption for a very long time, but it’s good to see just how much awareness has spread across the globe about it, especially within the past 6 years.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified
Before you begin...
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.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players
- 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...
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?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice
- 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...
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. . 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 . The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes . 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 …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.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Pfizer & Moderna Fail To Respond To British Medical Journal About COVID Vaccine Safety Concerns
An article published in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Peter Doshi titled “Covid-19 Vaccines: In The Rush for Regulatory...
New Study Finds Humans Can Access a Higher Level of Consciousness
New research has discovered verifiable evidence of a higher level of consciousness. Researchers used brain imaging equipment to analyze the small...