Before you begin...
When I came across this discussion triggered by Josh Jones, a writer and musician based in Durham, NC, from filmsforaction.org, I couldn’t help but ponder just how many people out there feel the same way about “work” and what we do in exchange for food on the table and a roof over our heads, among other things.
From the day we are born, we are put into school for a couple of decades and told, not taught, how the world works, what path to take, why to follow it, and how to fit in and become a “productive” member of society. This basically means we have to spend a large majority of our lives striving for a degree or a diploma in order to qualify to work long hours and subsequently earn the right to live. There are many other roots than that as-well, much more appealing but they also require us to put in our time.
--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.
This sentiment reminds me of a video published by The School of Life (click link to see), which brings to light the fact that no matter how little sleep we get or what problems we are having at home, mental blockages and other things that can arise during the human experience, we are and always have been told that we must be at work on time, ready to go without excuses.
This doesn’t seem normal or near natural, yet it’s something we are forced into.
Mental illness is on the rise, take depression for example, an issue that’s now affecting more than 15 million adults, and that’s just in America alone. Could the current human experience be one that’s contributing to this rise? Are there more miserable people now because we basically spend our lives doing what we can to survive while ignoring what our hearts want? Are we not giving enough time to our wants and desires beyond the material world, and do we even have time to do so?
Josh sums it up quite well in his first paragraph:
“Why must we all work long hours to earn the right to live? Why must only the wealthy have access to leisure, aesthetic pleasure, self-actualization…? Everyone seems to have an answer, according to their political or theological bent. One economic bogeyman, so-called ‘trickle-down’ economics, or ‘Reaganomics,’ actually pre-dates our 40th president by a few hundred years at least. The notion that we must better ourselves – or simply survive – by toiling to increase the wealth and property of already wealthy men was perhaps first comprehensively articulated in the 18th century doctrine of ‘improvement.’ In order to justify privatizing common land and forcing the peasantry into jobbing for them.”
My favourite part of that excerpt is the fact that he calls attention to the fact that all of us are simply working for a small group of elite people that, through the corporations they run, basically control almost all aspects of our lives. Their idea of “globalisation” or a “New World Order” is one that requires our participation, and our consent. This type of system, one in which basically all of us are economic slaves, is one that we’ve become accustomed to.
A great quote comes to mind here:
“Humans are so strange. We can climb mountains, explore the deepest oceans and travel to space. But for some reason we can’t move past this idea that we need political overlords who tell us what we can and can’t do with our own lives.” –Unknown
While we blindly continue to follow others, the world has experienced something it has never really experienced before. A massive paradigm shift is happening, a shift in the way we view, feel, and perceive our world and the current human experience. Not everybody is happy, and how could they be? When living on a planet where you die if you cannot pay for your life, our passions and heart’s desires slowly drift out of sight, unless we do something about it.
While we’ve remained complacent, and simply accepted the human experience for what it is, those that created our current economic model continue to destroy our planet and have absolutely no regard for preserving the integrity of the planet and all life on it. At the same time, large amounts of information are kept from us, all we know of our world is what’s given to us by the same people who designed this life for us: the corporate mainstream media.
Information alone is a threat to so many corporate interests.
This shift has come as a result of new information that’s now hitting the eyes and minds of millions, if not billions. This became evident when alternative media sites that cover global corporate corruption, as well as new discoveries in various fields that are ignored by the mainstream, like new energy, started to receive up to a billion views per year. Furthermore, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and organizations like Wikileaks have also helped out hugely.
That all stopped when some of these sites, like CE, were labelled as “fake news.” An ironic title from mainstream media, isn’t it? They even appointed who they felt just to determine what’s real and what isn’t, as well as started a massive campaign to censor information that does not come from mainstream media news networks.
There is a lot more to the world than what we are presented with. Being so busy with our 9-5 and trying to survive, many people still can’t be bothered about it. When presented with information that’s outside the box, it’s common for cognitive dissonance to sink in.
What’s most frustrating about the current human experience is that it doesn’t have to be this way. This is where Buckminister Fuller comes in. Fuller, one of the most creative and interesting minds in modern history once said that “One in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a wage.”
This is something we at CE are well aware of. We’ve personally come across technologies that can revolutionize the planet. Although it depends what consciousness is operating behind that technology, it exists. Our entire planet could be, in a modern way, completely off the grid. There are so many wonderful creations and ideas out there that make a utopian society possible, it’s so simple that most people have a hard time believing it. The idea that we don’t really have to work to live on this planet and live a good live is still impossible to imagine for most, and that’s because we’ve been indoctrinated to believe that the current world economic model and globalization are the only way for humanity to move forward, when it’s doing the exact opposite. In my opinion, food, clothing, shelter and more should not require little pieces of paper along with a bits of our soul to receive it, a human experience that utilizes all of our developments instead of concealing them, one in which our leaders look out for humanity and the best interests of our planet instead of following the orders of their financial masters is desperately needed. Michael Jackson’s famous line, “they don’t really care about us,” rings true, but it’s not true for everyone.
Along with this consciousness shift, this realization that the wool has been pulled over our eyes, is the fact that consciousness interacts with our physical material world in ways that are not yet understood, and that is an encouraging thought given humanity’s change in thinking with regard to concepts that might not have fit the frame approximately a decade ago.
I won’t go into any specific examples. I’ll let you ponder how a utopian society would work, or how all of our needs could easily be provided for. Scarcity is something that doesn’t have to exist, neither does supply and demand. These were all creations by what’s known today as “the 1 percent.” The system was designed to benefit them, not us. Something new needs to be created, a new way of life that requires the complete shut down and change of our current economic model. Just as Fuller said:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Fuller did not believe that we need to have wage earning jobs to live, and that if we do, we are not able to pursue our passions and interests unless they are for monetary gain. That’s an interesting thought, since when we grow up there are several “careers” to choose from. Is this simply the illusion of free will? We already have set paths chosen, there are only so many options, and our entire purpose of being “educated” or, as I like to call it, indoctrinated, is to make money. Do we really love what we do? Or do we just tell ourselves that? Can we even determine or identify our passions, wants, and needs in this world? Or are all of our wants, needs, desires, and passions given to us from the corporate world in the form of mass media, advertising, and marketing? Why is it that so many of us are all into the same material things, acquiring the same material things, yet never questioning the human experience? Have we become too comfortable? Change is never easy, and always greeted by ridicule. This is exactly what the human race is going through: we are recognizing the need to change currently on that path.
In a New York Times column on Russell’s 1932 essay “In Praise of Idleness,” Gary Gutting writes, “For most of us, a paying job is still utterly essential — as masses of unemployed people know all too well. But in our economic system, most of us inevitably see our work as a means to something else: it makes a living, but it doesn’t make a life.” Bertrand Russell, a prominent British philosopher, mathematician, historian, writer and political activist agreed, stating that “Immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous.”
Jones puts it well:
“In far too many cases in fact, the work we must do to survive robs us of the ability to live by ruining our health, consuming all our previous time, and degrading our environment. In his essay, Russell argues that “there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous, and that what needs to be preached in modern industrial countries is quite different from what has always been preached.”
I agree. We do tend to glorify the idea of “hard work” as something to be proud of, without ever really taking a step back and looking at this human experience through an observer’s lens.
Russell referred to this type of an existence as a “slave state” operated by “those who give orders.” He calls it politics, which he elaborates on as having no real “knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but only to manipulate: the art of persuasive speaking and writing.” This reminds me of the Sophists in ancient Greece, who used their intelligence and their ways with words to make life difficult for people.
“What is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid…in a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and capacity.” (source)
His stuff has been talked about for decades:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” – Edward Bernays (“the father of public relations”), Propaganda, 1928
So, you see? Our lack of questioning and/or complacency has led to an interesting experience, one in which many are desiring change.
Can We Really Do What We Love In This Type of Human Experience?
So, is it possible to do what we love? Well, it might be a task to even figure that out when we are given our choices and paths in life. Furthermore, we have to pay rent, put food in our stomachs, and provide ourselves with the basic necessities. Even individuals with full time jobs are struggling to do this. These jobs take up to 8-10 hours of our lives every single day, so if you come from the belief that you cannot pursue your passions, you are in the company of many, including the two brilliant minds listed in this title.
To pursue something you love in this world, and are extremely passionate about it, it won’t be for monetary gain all the time. But we still have time to pursue the things we love as opposed to spending that time going to bars, or partying with friends. No matter how many excuses you have, if you love something there is always time to pursue it, but tell that to someone who just came home from a hard day’s work and has no mental/physical energy.
I am a big believer in the power of manifestation, meaning that one can manifest experiences into their lives with a shift in consciousness. Sure, the current human experience is a very hard one. It’s not easy, and for a soul to thrive here means they are very strong, especially if they will not quit in their pursuit to follow the call of their heart. That being said, what happens if you let the fear go and just start doing what you love, as much as you can? What if you take that road, and if you do so without worry, things workout for you? I believe if we want something badly enough, through the power of consciousness, we can manifest our own human experience, especially if it is something that’s rooted in the desire to do good for all. Based on all the science, history, philosophy and most of all, my intuition, this is something I firmly believe.
I’ve been able to be part of the CE team for several years now, and prior to it, it’s what I dreamed about. Being part of a team and having a platform to share information that we’ll never see in the mainstream media and to be in a position to bring new ideas and information to the world is all I wanted to do. I wanted it so bad that it’s what I did during school and when I had to work another job. I was always engaged in my passions, yet always heartbroken that I could not go through life solely pursuing what my heart beats for. But look at me now – I’m doing it.
I had a tough experience waking up to facts I was once unaware of, and on top of that was the normal human experience that just wasn’t resonating with me. What helped me manifest my experience?
The first thing was changing my perspective of the human experience. Instead of seeing it as a slave-like system, and labelling it as that, I chose to view it as an experience. I believe that this short lifetime is not our only one, and that this is my opportunity to “play” within the human experience. I looked at it as a challenge, and an opportunity to overcome many obstacles.
This helped my outlook on life big time, and instead of taking on a victim role where I felt hopeless and unable to change anything, the very perception of me looking at life as an opportunity is what helped me.
Life is too short to not put forth the effort into pursuing what your heart beats for. Yeah, it’s not easy I know, and it’s not hard to see why so many people believe it’s downright impossible when we have so many other duties to tend to.
Personally, I never perceived it as impossible. I was willing to die, go homeless, or whatever. There was no fear in me. We even have modern day science conforming that factors associated with consciousness, like thoughts, feelings and emotions, can actually affect our physical material world.
If you believe it’s possible, it is. If you don’t, it isn’t. The last thing I would say to you is that it’s not going to be easy, and will provide your life with a number of challenges/opportunities for growth. The joy lies within the journey itself, not within the ends.
Just imagine, if human beings created an experience where all of our needs were provided for. As mentioned above, we have more than enough potential to do so…What would we do with our time? It’s simple, we would explore, contemplate and discover. After all, that’s our natural state from birth, until we are told how the world works and what we are to do in it.
We’ve been brainwashed for so long and taken out of our natural state that it’s really time to create a human experience that resonates with all of us, and what we and all life are meat to do, and that’s thrive.
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!
Full Moon In Aquarius: Rationality & Seriousness
We are having a Full Moon in Aquarius on July 23rd/24th. It will appear the brightest on the night of...
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...