Connect with us

Alternative News

CDC Caught Spreading Misinformation About The Flu Shot: Here Are The Details

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC declares to the public that the flu vaccine greatly reduces the risk of elderly people dying of the flu as though it was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim has been thoroughly discredited.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we bombarded through mass marketing and media to support and get the flu shot every year, without no mention of all of the scientists and doctors that are creating awareness about why we shouldn't. What is going on here?

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone aged six months and up, including pregnant women, get an annual influenza vaccine. The two fundamental assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that vaccination reduces transmission of the virus and reduces the risk of potentially deadly complications. Yet multiple reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claims.

advertisement - learn more

Notwithstanding the science, to increase demand for the pharmaceutical companies’ influenza vaccine products, the CDC makes use of fear marketing, asserting as fact that tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, even though the CDC’s numbers actually estimate that are controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that appear to result in a great overestimation of the negative impact of influenza on societal health.

The primary justification for the CDC’s flu vaccine policy is the assumption that it significantly reduces the mortality rate among people aged 65 and older, the group at highest risk of potentially deadly complications from the flu. The CDC declares to the public that the vaccine does so as though this was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim that the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of death among the elderly has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.

… contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.

The Implausibility of the CDC’s Claims

Concerns about the CDC’s mortality claim were raised by researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a study published in April 2005 in Archives of Internal Medicine (now JAMA Internal Medicine). Their concern was prompted by the observation that, despite a considerable increase in vaccination coverage among people aged 65 or older—from at most 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001—pneumonia and influenza mortality rates had actually substantially risen.

That is to say, to quote a review published in Virology Journal in 2008, contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, “influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.” (Emphasis added.)

As the authors of the 2005 NIH study commented, this result was “surprising” since vaccination was supposed to be “highly effective at reducing influenza-related mortality”—an assumption underlying CDC policy that “has never been studied in clinical trials”.

advertisement - learn more

Relying instead on post-marketing observational studies of the general population, the CDC has claimed that vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-related deaths is as high as 80 percent. Furthermore, to support its claim of an enormous benefit, the CDC has relied on a meta-analysis of observational studies that concluded that vaccination reduces the number of flu-season deaths from any cause among the elderly “by an astonishing 50%.”

In their own study, however, the NIH researchers found that, over the course of thirty-three flu seasons, influenza-related deaths were on average only about 5 percent and “always less than 10% of the total number of winter deaths among the elderly.”

The obvious question was: How could it be possible for the influenza vaccine to reduce by halfdeaths during winter from any cause when no more than one-tenth of deaths in any given flu season could be attributed to influenza?

The most obvious answer was that it couldn’t, and so the researchers examined more closely the methodology of the observational studies that the CDC was relying upon. The conclusion they drew from doing so was that the CDC’s implausible numbers were due to a systemic bias in those studies. There was a “disparity among vaccination” in these studies between cohorts that received a flu vaccine and those that didn’t.

Specifically, it wasn’t that vaccinated individuals were less likely to die, but that sick elderly people whose frail condition made them more likely to die during the coming flu season were less likely to get a flu shot.

Faced with this identification of a systemic bias in their methodology and despite the obvious implausibility of its own claims, the CDC’s response was to question the methodology of the NIH researchers’ study while reiterating its unshaken faith in the studies it was relying upon to promote the flu vaccine.

Notwithstanding the lack of science to support the statement, and no doubt prompted by the need for government agencies to show solidarity on public vaccine policy, the CDC and NIH subsequently published a joint statement claiming that the seasonal flu shot was the best way to protect old people from dying.

The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses.

Ironically, and tellingly, while commenting on the lack of evidence that the vaccine was preventing deaths among the elderly and the observed increase in mortality, the NIH researchers in their 2005 study had also acknowledged the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity at reducing mortality (emphasis added):

“The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses. Because of this strong natural immunization effect, by 1980, relatively few deaths in this age group (about 5000 per year) were left to prevent. We found a similar pattern in influenza-related mortality rates among persons aged 45 to 64 years, an age group with substantially lower vaccine coverage. Together with the flat excess mortality rates after 1980, this suggests that influenza vaccination of persons aged 45 to 74 years provided little or no mortality benefit beyond natural immunization acquired during the first decade of emergence of the A(H3N2) virus.”

The way the NIH’s joint statement with the CDC contrasted with its own research findings is a remarkable illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to public vaccine policy.

The CDC’s Mortality Claims Further Debunked

Numerous additional studies have since been published highlighting the lack of credibility of the CDC’s claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness. A systematic review published in The Lancet in October 2005 found a “modest” effect of the vaccine on mortality, but its authors—which included lead author Tom Jefferson, a top researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration—cautioned that this finding must be interpreted in light of the apparent systemic bias of the observational studies. They likewise attributed the perceived effect of the vaccine to a difference in vaccination rates among the cohorts “and the resulting selection bias”.

Randomized controlled trials could minimize any such bias, they observed, but the evidence from such studies was “scant and badly reported.” Hence, placebo-controlled trials were needed to “clarify the effects of influenza vaccines in individuals”. The problem was that such studies were considered impossible “on ethical grounds” due to the fact that mass vaccination was already recommended as a matter of public policy.

In other words, the science wasn’t done before the CDC made its universal vaccination recommendation, and now they refuse to do the science on the grounds that government technocrats have already made up their minds that everyone aged six months and up should get an annual flu shot.

The lead author of the 2005 NIH study, Lone Simonsen, was also coauthor with W. Paul Glezen of a commentary in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2006 that reiterated the problems with the CDC’s claims. Although the vaccination rate for elderly people had increased by as much as 67 percent from 1989 to 1997, there was no evidence that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or deaths. On the contrary, “mortality and hospitalization rates continued to increase rather than decline”. The studies the CDC cited to support its claim of a dramatic reduction in mortality suffered from a selection bias that resulted in “substantial overestimation of vaccine benefits.”

study in the International Journal of Epidemiology also published in 2006 confirmed the systemic selection bias of the observational studies. Its authors concluded that not only had the results of those studies indicated “preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors”, but that the magnitude of this demonstrated bias “was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed”. (Emphasis added.)

Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.

Influenza vaccine researcher Peter Doshi followed up with a letter to the BMJ published in November 2006 under the headline “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence”. As he summed up the situation, “Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.”

Furthermore, “influenza vaccines impose their own particular burden—to the tune of billions of dollars annually.”

Indeed, the very high cost of yearly vaccination for large parts of the population was among the considerations of a 2014 Cochrane meta-analysis that concluded that the results of a systematic review of existing studies “provide no evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”

A randomized controlled trial studying the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination in healthy adults under aged 65 and published in JAMA in 2000 found that this practice “is unlikely to provide societal economic benefit in most years”—when, according to their data, it generated greater costs than to not vaccinate.

Peter Doshi followed up in 2013 with another BMJ commentary. After all those years, the CDC was still sticking to its claims. And yet, if the CDC’s claims were true, it would mean “that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.”

Despite scientists pointing out the “healthy user bias” inherent in the observational studies that the CDC relied on to support its bold claims, “CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms.”

“If the observational studies cannot be trusted,” Doshi asked, “what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none…. This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.” (Emphasis added.)

“Perhaps most perplexing,” Doshi added, “is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence.”

He further observed how government agencies promote the flu shot by claiming it’s been proven safe. He cited the example of a YouTube video produced by the NIH in which the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, declared that it was “very, very, very rare” for a serious adverse event to be associated with the influenza vaccine.

Yet, “Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55,000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.”

The NIH’s presenter in the video, Anthony Fauci, also happened to be among the opponents of conducting randomized, placebo-controlled studies to determine the safety of the influenza vaccine. “The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.”

“Drug companies”, Doshi continued, “have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease.” Only, in the case of the influenza vaccine, “the salesmen are public health officials”.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claim that the influenza vaccine reduces hospitalizations or deaths among the elderly. The types of studies the CDC has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited due to their systemic “healthy user” selection bias, and the mortality rate has observably increased along with the increase in vaccine uptake—which the CDC has encouraged with its unevidenced claims about the vaccine’s benefits, downplaying of its risks, and a marketing strategy of trying to frighten people into getting the flu shot for themselves and their family.

By Jeremy R. Hammond, Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

WHAT?! Marineland Is Officially Exempt From Canada’s Ban On Whale & Dolphin Captivity

Published

on

Image: 123RF

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Canada recently passed a bill that bans the capture and captivity of whales and dolphins. Marineland, a huge whale/dolphin entertainment park, has been exempted from the law that makes it illegal to do so.

  • Reflect On:

    What gives human beings the right to hold such majestic, innocent, benevolent and intelligent animals captive? What gives them the right to separate them from their families? Why do we treat other beings on Earth the way we do?

Animal captivity is extremely cruel and heartbreaking. Imagine what another intelligent, benevolent race would think if they came across our planet and observed what we do. My guess is that they’d be terrified to attempt to interact with us simply based on how we treat other sentient, benevolent beings on this planet.

Canada recently passed a legislation that completely bans keeping whales, dolphins and porpoises in captivity for entertainment, trade, possession, capture and breeding. The bill (S-203) is also known as the “Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act,” and it was approved by the House of Commons after they voted in favour of the bill, which was first introduced in 2015.

The only time capture is permitted in Canada is for rescue purposes or, unfortunately, for scientific purposes.

According to Green Party Leader MP Elizabeth May, “Canadians have been clear, they want the cruel practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity to end… With the passage of Bill S-203, we have ensured that this will happen.”

More than 20 marine scientists and stakeholder organizations endorsed the bill, which quite frankly should have happened long ago. These beings, or any beings for that matter, do not belong in tanks where they are constantly suffering. These are extremely emotional, social, empathetic and brilliant beings. What we’ve done to them and continue to do to them is beyond horrid, to be blunt.

This bill was supposed to phase out this type of captivity in Canada, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, as Marineland Canada’s whales will remain at the park following the page of S-203. Already captive whales will remain in captivity, which means approximately 60 animals will live out their entire lives at Marineland and at the Vancouver Aquarium.

advertisement - learn more

Canadian law now states that it’s a criminal offence, as it should be, to keep a cetacean in captivity, but it looks like Marineland Canada has been exempted from this. It does not seem, however, that they can bring more animals into the park, but they’ll more than likely begin breeding programs to keep their business going for as long as they can.

According to Marie Holer, a representative from Marineland Canada:

We’ve been working to evolve Marineland for over a year and have made many positive changes to the park, including the new educational presentation on marine mammals, the introduction of the Marineland Express and our Polar Splash pad that will open in July. Since opening day, we’ve seen our largest crowds in years and are thrilled that so many people support us in our work. We’re looking forward to enhancing our education, conservation and research focus in the short term to highlight our commitment to marine mammals.”

Is this truly a good step? As long as these animals are in captivity, there can be no care given to these animals. Why do we as human beings feel we can imprison animals like this is simply for entertainment? It feels heartbreaking, confusing, and makes deeply question the state of our connection to wildlife.

Have we really become that disconnected from life?

It’s not all bleak though! Things are obviously improving, and that’s become quite evident thanks to the vast amount of activism over the years that has finally resulted in the passing of the legislation mentioned in this article, but we still have a long way to go.

Remember, these animals have never really shown any type of aggression towards humans, except in captivity.

The Takeaway

Why do human beings go to the circus? Why do they go to places like Marineland? Is it because human beings are terrible? No. It’s simply because many of us have been desensitized and have not quite questioned this in many ways. Which is OK! That’s part of the process. When it comes to animal captivity, mass marketing and scientific justifications have allowed our minds to be manipulated. They’ve made us think that animal captivity is okay, when clearly we would not like to be confined against our will, so why do it to others?

I believe that we’re all born as extremely understanding beings, and that humans are a very empathetic race. I believe that our feelings and our ability to experience empathy are what makes us special. I also believe that these traits and characteristics left us for a while, but they are now returning and we are beginning to “think” from our hearts again.

This is why awareness regarding animal captivity has increased and will continue to increase around the globe until it is completely banned everywhere, or until people simply stop showing up to these places and providing them with profits.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Video: The Most Significant Leak About Extraterrestrial Craft Just Went Public

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently leaked document has exposed notes taken by legendary scientist Dr. Eric Davis during a meeting he had Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, regarding extraterrestrial space craft.

  • Reflect On:

    UFOs used to be a conspiracy, now they are quite mainstream and their existence is backed by tremendous amounts of evidence. The next question is, where are they from, and who made them? Will this information be suppressed too?

A quote I love to use in many of my articles comes from Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. He said, “yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” (source)

The thought that governments and/or rogue agencies around the world have been involved in taking down and even possibly revere engineering possible extraterrestrial craft is nothing new. Available to the public are statements from the highest ranking positions within government and the military, and there are also declassified documents that hint toward the same idea.

For example, former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer once told the public that the protocol with regards to UFOs was to “shoot first and ask questions after.” Dr. David Clarke, an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University in England who was also the curator for The National Archives UFO project from 2008–13 uncovered documents showing that the Royal Air Force was desperate to capture one of these UFOs and reverse engineer it. You can see those and read more about it here.

Most Significant Leak?

Check out our video segment on this new leak, or read more below.

More recently, what some are calling the most significant leak in UFO history has been made public – and it may be one of the strongest documents linking UFOs to extraterrestrials.

The document goes into detail about a meeting that was had between Dr. Eric Davis, and Vice Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson. Who is Eric Davis? He is a very well known scientist, and quite the legend. For many years he was a member of the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS)(Owned by Robert Bigelow), the Chief Science Officer of EarthTech Int’l, Inc. and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin in Austin, Texas; and he is the Owner/Chief Executive/Chief Scientist of Warp Drive Metrics who consults and contracts for the Department of Defense. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Early Universe, Cosmology and Strings Group at the Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research at Baylor University in Waco, TX.

advertisement - learn more

Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 1999 to July 2002, prior to that he was the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The document is in the form of notes that were written by Davis after their meeting that took place in 2002, regarding a series of events that took place during the spring of 1997, when Wilson was Deputy Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Since the leak of this document, there has been no denial publicly by Davis regarding the authenticity of these documents, and the focal point of the document is about a meeting (and what happened after that meeting) that took place in 1997 between UFO researcher Dr. Steven Greer, Admiral Wilson, Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut) and other high ranking individuals within the military. This meeting was spoken about by Dr. Greer and Dr. Mitchell nearly four years prior to the leak of these documents, so it’s all very interesting. In the episode, we actually play footage of Mitchell confirming and talking about this meeting as well as Greer.

The documents point towards a program that involves the crash retrieval of extraterrestrial craft, that are “not made of this earth, not made by man.”

You can view the entire document here.

if you missed the video embed above of myself and Joe Martino having a discussion about these documents in detail, you can watch it here.

The Takeaway

“There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations.” – Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee

The fact that we are not alone has huge implications from science to technology, to history and possible metaphysical/spiritual implications as well. It really opens up Pandora’s Box, and it is one out of many examples that are allowing us to see how humanity has been conditioned to think a certain way, limit our reality, despite all of the evidence, that conflicts with long held belief systems.

At the end of the day, the idea that there are other highly advanced, intelligent lifeforms in the universe, or multiverse, and possibly other dimensions that are and have been visiting our planet, and others, for a very long time is most likely just the very tip of the ice-berg.

This is not a new discovery. We have had this type of knowledge of UFOs and ETs for a very long time, culture and elites have simply suppressed this knowing.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

British Home Secretary Has Signed Extradition Order To Send Julian Assange To US

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    British home secretary Sajid Javid has signed the extradition order to send Julian Assange to the US. This now leaves the final decision to the courts. It's likely that the extradition decision process will take many months to decide in court.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this another step in harming the freedom of press? The freedom of revealing truth to citizens? Is this government overreach whereby they feel it's OK to pretend to the public that their knowledge of truth is not important?

The British home secretary, Sajid Javid, has just signed a request for Julian Assange to be extradited to the US where he faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice, for charges linked to computer hacking and revealing government secrets in collaboration with Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning. The charges all fall under the Espionage Act.

“He’s rightly behind bars. There’s an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow.” – Sayid Javid

Officially, Assange is accused of soliciting and publishing classified information and conspiring to hack into a government computer. “It is a decision ultimately for the courts, but there is a very important part of it for the home secretary and I want to see justice done at all times and we’ve got a legitimate extradition request, so I’ve signed it, but the final decision is now with the courts,” said Javid.

If you were to look entirely at the law, you might say “yes, technically if he did these things, there is a case to be made.” However, was Assange involved enough in this process to prosecute him? Did he do something that was a disservice to the people? Or did he do something that was a disservice to the powerful elite?

That is something for you to decide, ideally without the manipulative rhetoric from the powerful elite and the mainstream media they own. Attempts to suggest he threatens the patriotism of the US and the national security of the US might be something to observe as a clear sign of bait and switch: get upset at this, instead of looking at what he revealed about the powerful elite in the totality of the leaks he has put out.

Swedish courts had just recently rejected an extradition request for Assange to be sent back to Sweden for an alleged rape case dating back to 2010. Assange denies the accusation and has since the beginning. The decision out of Upsalla to deny his request was fueled by the claim that Assange did not need to be detained.

advertisement - learn more

Assange is currently in jail for 50 weeks for skipping bail after he spent seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He was recently too ill to appear at a hearing at Westminster magistrates court in relation to the US request. The hearing has been rescheduled for Friday, June 14th, 2019.

Thomas Garner, an extradition lawyer at Gherson Solicitors, said Javid’s certification of the request was “an important though merely procedural step” to start the extradition process.

“I would expect the court to set a preliminary timetable for the extradition process tomorrow,” he said. “It is likely to be many months before any hearing at the magistrates court and of course either side may then seek to appeal that decision in due course. Despite this, the Swedish authorities will be monitoring the process carefully as the further down the line the US proceedings get the harder it might become for the home secretary to give precedence to any competing request.”

The Takeaway

From a systematic standpoint, this is a necessary procedural step in extraditing Assange to the US and it has been granted. It could have been blocked but Javid felt it was necessary for ‘justice to be served.’

As we can see, this is an example of a spot where someone could have stood up and said “no I don’t support this given what it does to protect the powerful elite and given what it does to journalism and the maintenance of secrecy.” Obviously, Javid would have faced much criticism if he had stood up, perhaps legal problems too, we were not able to confirm that, but we are seeing a system play entirely along with the power elite in this case.

In the video below, there is an important discussion on some of the ‘Qanon’ ideas in relation to Assange. My analysis on that is that it appears to be heavily misguided, but you decide for yourself.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod