Connect with us

Alternative News

Who Is Q? Mainstream Media Crashes The Party To Take Control Of The Narrative

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    According to mainstream media, Qanon is a 'pro-Trump, alt-right conspiracy theory.' An all-out mainstream media slurry shares this same perspective, regardless of its lack of truth.

  • Reflect On:

    How can the mainstream media accurately report on something it inherently doesn't understand? Does mainstream media coverage of this show their lack of knowledge and understand on the subject?

Who is Q?

advertisement - learn more

If you don’t have a clue, then you are one of the people that the mainstream media is targeting to make sure you get their narrative on the subject first.

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

But let’s be frank here. Our mainstream friends never wanted to cover the Q-Anon phenomena. Their idea was to not dignify the movement with any recognition, so as not to bring any more attention to it. But that was before Trump rallies across the country started showing a growing number of supporters sporting Q shirts and posters. The Deep State must have figured that not saying something would be more harmful to their grip on the steering wheel than saying something, clumsy as it may look for them to be suddenly weighing in on this matter en masse after being collectively silent for so long.

Nonetheless, they must have thought that if they blanket the airwaves and webwaves with the ‘alt-right Trump supporter conspiracy nut’ angle, they might be able to herd back a few sheep who might stray from the flock if they asked the question ‘Who is Q?’ to people who actually have done their research and had some informed opinions about it.

Mainstream Perception

Mainstream Media really glosses over the inception of Q-Anon and the reasons anyone paid any attention to it in the first place, but they usually do mention some of the most basic facts about the phenomena:

  • An anonymous user named ‘Q’ began posting in the 4chan internet forum entitled “Calm Before the Storm” last October 28th
  • Q claims to be a high-level government insider, or group of insiders, with Q clearance (a United States Department of Energy security clearance with access to classified information)
  • The messages Q posts consists mainly of short leading questions and bits of intel known as “bread crumbs”
  • Many Q followers identify themselves as “bakers” since they attempt to put together the “bread crumbs” into a coherent message
  • The main undercurrent of the messages is that Donald Trump is working with an alliance of political and military insiders to bring down the Deep State

Beyond these basic facts, mainstream media is holding a concerted front on this one point: we don’t know who Q is, but we think probably, likely, with 99.9% certainty, that it’s nonsense. It is ‘conspiracy theory,’ and we know all conspiracy theories are nonsense.

advertisement - learn more

In the mainstream articles I’ve read, it seems as though one mainstream source happily references opinion from other mainstream sources as though they were the golden truth. Here’s an interesting example where a CNN writer calls upon the Daily Beast’s Will Sommer who, the writer opines, ‘has been writing and thinking smartly about QAnon since its inception.’:

CNN:Why has this become such a, well, thing?
Sommer: Unlike something like birtherism or Pizzagate, QAnon is a kind of mega-conspiracy theory that sucks in just about every conspiracy theory you can think of. Pizzagate is part of it, birtherism is part of it — but so is the JFK assassination conspiracy theory, the idea that all these mass shootings have been deep-state false flags, and much more. The vague nature of the Q clues also means that you can sort of imprint whatever your personal issue is onto it.

In one fell swoop, it’s like mainstream media is trying to bring us back to a simpler time when the ridicule bestowed upon ‘conspiracy theory’ was at the height of its influence. One of the real disconnects here is that Sommer implies that most people still don’t believe there was a conspiracy (a plan made by more than one person) to assassinate John F. Kennedy, when we actually live in a time in which a majority of people believe this and other well-known ‘conspiracies’ to be fact. In fact a March poll by Politico reveals that belief in the Deep State is not the stuff of fringe groups, and is only growing:

Does the unelected group known as the Deep State exist?

  • Definitely: 27%
  • Probably: 47%
  • Probably Not: 16%
  • Definitely Not: 5%

But mainstream media really hasn’t got many other options, do they? Nobody knows this better than the Deep State themselves–the owners and puppetmasters of mainstream media, whose cloak of secrecy has all but been removed. Mainstream media is in a full-on quandary: many people who work within these organizations don’t understand how the world works and how information is controlled.

The fundamental assertions about the state of the world made by Q and popular analysts of his posts upsets the very nature of the mainstream media. Hence they cannot talk accurately about Q, even if some within those organizations want to, because to do so would be to admit that they worked for criminally-owned, truth-distorting news organizations. The only way the mainstream can report on Q is through the divisive polemic story filters like Right Wing/Left Wing, Trump Lovers/Trump Haters they have been indoctrinated into, which as we shall see cannot be employed to truly understand what Q is.

Perception of Q Followers

To their followers, Q is essentially what Q purports to be: the voice of political, military and intelligence insiders who are allied against the control of the Deep State. There is much speculation about who Q is but general agreement that the Q posts are informed by a group of insiders. The whole phenomena of the Q posts is considered part of an intelligence operation that is coming from white hats within intelligence communities. Some believe public figures such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, William Binney and other prominent whistleblowers, who have been on the inside and know what is going on, may have a hand in the information behind this operation.

There is some talk that the Q operation began as a way for insiders to communicate with each other on various phases of their intelligence operation, and it has inadvertently become a full-blown drip by drip revelation of truth to a growing community of researchers and supporters who are ready for it and willing to invest time and effort making sense of the clues. Regardless of the initial intentions, it seems now that Q has embraced its role as a purveyor of updates to the public of the progress being made behind the scenes, in recognition of the fact that an informed and engaged public can only help matters in disclosing the truth and defeating the Deep State. In this way, it dovetails nicely with those who believe a mass awakening to the truth is needed in order for us to remove the need and withdraw our consent for a controlling authority like the Deep State to operate at all.

Q Did Not Invent Anything

One of the aspects of Q that mainstream media cannot intelligently discuss is how the movement ever got off the ground. They will try to hem and haw about how people on the far right are desperate to believe something good is happening through their hero Donald Trump since we are living in such tumultuous times. But that is completely inaccurate, if one examines who was paying attention to Q posts on 4chan early on and what they were saying about it.

First off, most of the people commenting on the posts were people who already had a strong understanding of the existence of the Deep State, the power of the Corporatocracy, the fraudulent activities of Central Banks, the rampant illegal surveillance of intelligence agencies, and the deception of mainstream media. They were versed in the revelations of Julian Assange and Edward Snowdon, revelations which the mainstream media has given up directly calling ‘conspiracy theories’ because they are commonly accepted as fact. They were not Donald Trump supporters per se except in regards to the idea that he was not a member of the Deep State (like Hillary Clinton is known to be). Most were a bit skeptical of Donald Trump’s promise to ‘Drain the Swamp,’ although they certainly knew by then that there was a swamp that needed draining.

No, the main reason the Q-Anon phenomena took off as it did was because many people saw truth in what they were reading, ideas that cohered with the rest of what they had been researching and coming to understand about how our world works and who has held the real power for so long. The reason that the mainstream media is floundering so much these days is that they are trying to discredit as ‘conspiracy theory’ many things that to the diligent researcher are only one degree of separation from things that are commonly accepted to be true, such as the revelations of Assange, Snowdon and others.

Trump Supporters Jump On The Bandwagon

Of course now the Q phenomenon is growing among Trump supporters, because a certain narrative positions Trump as a superhero who is truly taking on all comers in dismantling a system that many presidents had warned people about since the 1950’s and even before that, a system that showed its force with the assassination of JFK in 1963. But for most serious researchers, Trump is a figurehead for an alliance group that probably has its roots in the time of JFK and really became galvanized after the 9/11 massacre.

Trump may have been asked to run for president by one or more military men that were part of the alliance, as some people say, but what seems more clear is that he is getting much of his confidence and swagger from knowing that he is backed by a very powerful alliance that now has control of the majority of the military, and he need only follow instructions at the appropriate time in order to fulfill his mission.

For certain, Trump has been strictly forbidden from publicly commenting on Q, even to the extent of directly acknowledged its existence. An untethered Donald Trump would surely be making direct references to the flattering advances of Q posts if left to his own devices. Instead, questions about Q are answered in very indirect and circumspect ways, such as this recent response from such a question by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

Reporter: “Does the President encourage the support of people who showed up last night in these QAnon and Blacks for Trump fringe groups?”

Sanders: “The President condemns and denounces any group that would incite violence against another individual and certainly doesn’t support groups that would promote that type of behavior. We’ve been clear about that a number of times since the beginning of the administration.”

For many researchers, however, Trump and the White House have dropped hints, Q-style, that he not only acknowledges the movement but is intimately connected to it. The best way to explore these examples is by looking at this link. You will notice pictures, Q posts, time stamps and so forth as they relate to posts Trump or the White House made AFTER the Q posts.

Conclusion

The precise identity of Q, indeed the validity that Q is who he is made out to be by his supporters, is not yet a matter of certainty. As with many things in our world today, our personal discernment is needed in order for us to draw our own conclusions. What seems obvious, however, is that even the scantest research done a little below the surface will reveal that the mainstream media characterization of Q has little resemblance to reality.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

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

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

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

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

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

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

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

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

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He goes on to mention another study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

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

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

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

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

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

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!