Connect with us

Alternative News

Kevin Spacey’s ‘Let Me Be Frank’: Is This Madness Or Is There A Deeper Meaning?

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Kevin Spacey released a cryptic video on Christmas Eve right after news of his indictment for sexual assault was announced, inspiring several theories about his true motive behind it.

  • Reflect On:

    Do you think this video is genius or madness? Which interpretation makes the most sense to you, or do you agree that several theories must be combined in order to understand what Spacey was thinking?

As many of us already know, given it has now garnered 9.4 million views on Youtube, former House of Cards star Kevin Spacey posted a cryptic video on Christmas Eve. The video was published immediately following the announcement that he will face a charge of felony sexual assault in Massachusetts on accusations that he groped a young man in 2016.

advertisement - learn more

The allegations were first brought forward in November 2017, when former Boston TV anchor Heather Unruh told reporters that Spacey groped her teenage son in a crowded bar inside a Nantucket restaurant. Since the charge was announced, the 59-year-old Oscar-winning actor has argued that he should be excused from attending his Jan. 7 arraignment at the Nantucket District Court because his presence would “amplify the negative publicity already generated in connection with this case.” However, Judge Thomas Barrett denied Spacey’s request. For the record, Spacey has said he will plead not guilty to felony indecent assault and battery.

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

‘Let Me Be Frank’

Back to the video, titled ‘Let Me Be Frank,’ which is an ironic double-entendre between him offering to speak honestly (frankly) while in the character of Frank Underwood (his role as a ruthless and dishonest politician in House of Cards). And even a third meaning pops out from this title, where the plea to ‘Let me be Frank’ is a request to return to House of Cards as Frank Underwood, a role that was stripped away from him when the sexual assault allegations first surfaced.

With the multi-level meaning of this title as an indicator, I believe Kevin Spacey thought about and worked on the words and the delivery of this video for a very long time, carefully working a single narrative to move in and out of different levels, speaking to different audiences at different times, and sometimes several audiences at once. Rather than believing that there was one ultimate purpose for releasing this video, I sense that Spacey was dealing with a host of internal emotions and desires that he wanted to express, and felt the need to give birth to this idea that he may have become obsessed with.

As an actor, few would deny that Spacey was one of the best in Hollywood, and I believe he used those talents to create a mysterious narrative that would have a host of pundits weighing in with different theories. I am not saying this video is genius and will be studied by academia and media studies for years to come; however, I do think that it seems to be the result of a lot of thought and effort, and may even be clearly understood by his target audience. He probably had said the whole monologue hundreds of times over and over again before shooting it. There is a sense that he had a lot to say here. Whether or not it accomplished what he intended is a different matter, but I think it is worth a deeper investigation than what I’ve seen on social media and mainstream media. Let’s look at some of the different ‘takes’ people have had on it and see if the real ‘message’ can be found by analyzing them, regardless of your personal opinions of Kevin Spacey.

advertisement - learn more

Take One: Comeback Attempt

This first take is what I would consider the most literal interpretation of the video, in which the very title ‘Let Me Be Frank’ may be a plea to his fans to do what they can to lobby Netflix for Spacey’s character on House of Cards, Frank Underwood, to literally come back from the dead. Indeed, the way the video starts, with Spacey facing directly into the camera, he seems to be talking to fans, much in the same way his character Frank Underwood sometimes talks directly to the audience:

I know what you want. Oh sure they may have tried to separate us but what we have is too strong – is too powerful. I mean after all we shared everything, you and I. I told you my deepest darkest secrets. I showed you exactly what people are capable of.

Here, Spacey discusses his role as Frank Underwood and elevates it to the level of an extremely important disclosure of the true means and motives of the elite, of the people who have power in the world. Of course, one could say that about the show House of Cards in general, as it does indeed reveal the shadowy forces behind politics. But acting as the main character, not only with his lofty acting skills but also his firsthand knowledge of this dark world (more on that later), Spacey may really believe that he was doing a great service to humanity, bringing occult knowledge out of the darkness and into the public domain.

Perhaps there is something in that, but he may have given himself over to self-aggrandizement. After all, he’s not the only one on this mission. This form of disclosure is now seeping out from all realms of human activity. His characterization of the desire on the part of fans to have him return to continue revealing the dark side is a bit over the top:

So we’re not done no matter what anyone says and besides, I know what you want. You want me back.

There may be some emotional entanglement between his character being killed off and his personal experience of being shunned by the allegations of sexual misconduct, to the extent that he questions the legitimacy of the death of Frank Underwood in the same vein as the legitimacy of the claims against him, so that the restoration of Frank Underwood somehow equates to the restoration of his innocence:

Anyway all this presumption made for such an unsatisfying ending, and to think, it could have been such a memorable send-off.

His Brother Weighs In

In an episode of Inside Edition on the very subject of ‘Let Me Be Frank’ (see video clip below), we see that this ‘comeback attempt’ is exactly the take of Spacey’s younger brother, Randy Fowler:

Fowler: The man has no shame. He’s begging for his job. This video was a rationalization to try and convince his fan base to convince Netflix to bring it back. He thinks that he’s gonna make a comeback.

Interviewer: You think he shouldn’t have done it.

Fowler: Of course he shouldn’t have done it, but it’s ‘Act 3’ of a desperate man. He got dethroned overnight, It’s over.

Kevin Spacey’s brother wrote a book in 2017 titled ‘A Moment In Time: Living In The Shadows,’ which details the sexual and physical abuse Randy endured from his father, whom Randy refers to as ‘The Creature,’ as well as his mother’s denial and indifference to his pain and her almost erotic favoritism toward Kevin. Going more deeply into this is not possible here, but it will serve us to know that Randy believes Kevin to be a man who has suppressed all emotions from their devastating childhood, and as a result of never coming to grips with his childhood, is probably capable of extreme brutality and sexual deviance like their father was. In the book,

Randy discusses in detail his practically non-existent relationship with his estranged younger brother, Kevin Spacey Fowler, whom Randy tried so hard to protect during their abusive childhoods. Randy asks the following questions: “Why is one brother brutally honest and the other dishonestly brutal? Why does one have character and the other plays characters? Why was one a plaything for their cruel, mentally ill, perverted pedophile father and the other embraced by a loving mother, who ignored Randy’s screams of pain and suffering?”

Take Two: A Denial Of Guilt To Victims

When we combine Randy’s testimony with the number of accusations of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse that have surfaced against Spacey over a number of years, as well as Spacey’s prominence in the industry, it’s presumable that Kevin Spacey has been deeply involved in Hollywood pedophilia for a number of years.

Is it possible that Spacey’s main aim for putting out the video was as a kind of offence against those that claim Spacey abused them, like the felony sexual assault charge in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the video in this Independent article? If so, that puts these words in a completely different context:

I know what you want. Oh sure they may have tried to separate us but what we have is too strong – is too powerful. I mean, after all, we shared everything, you and I. I told you my deepest darkest secrets.

And you trusted me even though you knew you shouldn’t. So we’re not done no matter what anyone says and besides, I know what you want. You want me back.

Oh well, of course they’re gonna say I’m being disrespectful not playing by the rules like I ever played by anyone’s rules before. I never did and you loved it.

The suggestion that, even in his own mind, Spacey believes that his victims were actually willing participants who made the choice to trust him and therefore have no right to accuse him of wrongdoing, is just too gruesome to even contemplate — especially since he is known to have been a guest on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island, as evidenced in the ‘Lolita Express’ flight log below and detailed in this Infowars article.

In truth, I do not think that the main purpose of this video is to speak to any of his past victims and try to justify his actions or absolve himself of what he did to those young boys. But it does seem like, in Spacey’s mind, there is a connection between his relationship with his audience, in which he deeply reveals/confesses his character’s desires and motives (and his own, in many ways), and his relationship with his victims, in which Spacey may imagine that he is making himself vulnerable to them and revealing his ‘deepest, darkest secrets.’

I have no idea what is going on in Spacey’s mind, but it is not inconceivable that, coming from the highly dysfunctional home life that he did, he might feel he is not to blame and in some twisted way is giving his victims something they wanted.

Take Three: A Warning To The Illuminati

For me, a more cogent reason for creating this video was to make a hidden threat to those above him in his elite ‘Illuminati’ pedophile circle who may have allowed allegations of sexual misconduct against him to be taken seriously by law enforcement and the mainstream media. The impression I hold from my research is that those who follow the rules and do what their higher-ups tell them to do are able to escape most or all crimes with impunity.

In a sense, Kevin Spacey may have done something to displease his masters to make them turn his world of high status, fame, wealth, and capacity into a world of being shunned, dismissed, hated, and even incarcerated. Spacey’s bitterness may very well be best explained by the engraving in the Royal Windsor cup he drinks from in the video, which reads ‘Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.’

My feeling is that Kevin Spacey enjoyed moving up the ranks of the Illuminati, and even surprised some of his higher-ups by his audacity and insubordination, perhaps to the extent that they were entertained and even enlightened by his participation in their activities. One of the ‘rules’ that must be followed by the Illuminati in accordance with their spiritual principles, as David Wilcock elaborates on in the video clip below, is that they must ‘make known’ all they do in the world in order to get humanity’s tacit ‘consent’ to their actions and their rule. But these public revealings are often cloaked in symbols, popular culture, comedy and drama, and other metaphorical forms.

Indeed, House of Cards could stand as one of the most prominent forms of revealing Illuminati means and tactics in the film industry, and perhaps the ‘game’ is to see how far they can go in revealing who they truly are and what they truly do without knocking down their ‘house of cards’ entirely. Perhaps Kevin Spacey liked to push the envelope in this regard.

Oh well of course they’re gonna say I’m being disrespectful not playing by the rules like I ever played by anyone’s rules before. I never did and you loved it.

Certainly this scene from the show, in which Frank Underwood is not only participating in a ceremony at Bohemian Grove but is also explaining what his purpose as a high-ranking American politician is for being there, pushes the envelope:

Perhaps Spacey was threatening to go even further, and was empowered by the fact that he was actually rewarded for his past insubordination. Perhaps there was a dispute about what season 6 would actually reveal. These are all suppositions, of course, but this message seems to fit best with some of the more powerful phrases from the video:

I mean, if you and I have learned nothing else these past years, it’s that in life and art nothing should be off the table. We weren’t afraid, not of what we said, not of what we did, and we’re still not afraid because I can promise you this. If I didn’t pay the price for the things we both know I did do, I’m certainly not gonna pay the price for the things I didn’t do.

If Kevin Spacey is guilty of unspeakable crimes, that would render the acts he is currently being accused of as ‘insignificant’ in the eyes of the Illuminati. The more serious acts were likely committed within the protected bowels of the Illuminati, and would not surface because they would implicate other members and may endanger the Illuminati itself. When they turn on one of their own, the tactic of the Illuminati tends to be to support accusations that are outside of ritualistic Illuminati practices. Hence, this is perhaps why Spacey acknowledges that he and other members don’t pay for the true crimes that are part of Illuminati ritual and that he’s ‘not gonna pay the price for things I didn’t do.’

But does Spacey’s threat that he’s ‘not gonna pay the price’ mean he’s threatening to tell all and bring down others if the higher-ups don’t use their power and influence to free him rather than convict him in court? Perhaps this line gives us the answer:

And my confidence grows each day that soon enough you will know the full truth.

The Takeaway

As interesting as it may be to speculate on what Kevin Spacey’s true intent was with this video, his actions were unjustifiable, and no video could argue against that. However, I believe this video also reflects the significant power the Illuminati holds. Gone are the days when the Illuminati ruled over a public that was oblivious to the fact that they were being subjected to a slow process of mind control and subjugation. Today, thanks to the Internet, camera phones, and growing public knowledge, the Illuminati is in a precarious position in which they’re no longer capable of completely controlling the narrative and are in danger of being brought out of the shadows. If disgruntled members like Kevin Spacey have their way, that may happen sooner rather than later.

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Portuguese Court Rules That The PCR Test “Is Unable To Determine” A COVID-19 Infection

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A Portuguese court has determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus determined that the detainment of four individuals was unlawful and illegal.

  • Reflect On:

    With no clear cut answer, and many doctors and scientists contradicting each other, should governments be allowed to take measures that restrict our freedoms? Instead of force, should they provide the science and simply make recommendations?

What Happened: The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal. (source)

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals is unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus.

The court found that, based on the currently available scientific evidence, the PCR test is unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that a positive test actually corresponds to a COVID-19 infection for several reasons, two of the main reasons were that the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used, and the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.

This was also brought up recently by tech mogul Elon Musk who recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day. Using the same test and the same nurse, he received two positive results and two negative results, causing him to state his belief that “something bogus” is going on here. He then asked his Twitter following

“In your opinion, at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive? If I’m asking the wrong question, what is a better question?”

In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, stating that “if someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is  <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”  The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

They also cited Surkova et al. (2020), stating that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.”

The court also made the point that a medical diagnosis is a medical act, thus only a physician can determine if a person is ill, no other person or institution has a right to do that.

The court concluded that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so, i.e., by someone who is not a certified physician [to practice medicine in Portugal a degree is not enough, you need to be accepted as qualified to practice medicine by undergoing examination with the Ordem dos Médicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK’s Royal College of Physicians].”

In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them….From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test. (source)

According to Vasco Barreto, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Chronic Diseases (Cedoc) of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa,  it was irresponsible the way two magistrates dealt with the case. “PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes covid-19,” he said. This is indicated in a scientific article that is cited in the judgment, but that is read “completely wrong” by the magistrates, according to Germano de Sousa, former President of the Ordem dos Médicos and owner of a network of laboratories.

You can read more on why this judgement was “unscientific” according to them, here.

Why This Is Important: When it comes to the testing used to detect a COVID-19 infection, there is a wealth of information making it quite clear that the  (PCR)  tests are inadequate and unreliable for determining who is infected and who isn’t. As a result, there seems to be a strong possibility, according to many experts, that the number of cases recorded around the globe probably include a great number of false positives, meaning people who tested and do test positive for the virus don’t actually have it.

But is this true?

There is also a great deal of information making it quite clear that the PCR tests being used are indeed accurate, and very accurate. So, ask yourself this, how can there be “clear” information on both sides? What’s the correct information? How do we know what to believe? Are you open to consider another perspective about this pandemic, one that opposes what you believe? Can you see from the perspective of another person even though they may disagree with you?

There are many examples to choose from that reflect the idea that PCR tests are not accurate, and that they are. For example, the Bulgarian Pathology Association claimed that they are “scientifically meaningless.”  They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points.

It’s been a common theme. Well after this, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stated that:

“The false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus.”

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled: “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon argued the proportion of positive tests that are false is actually “around 90%”.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

On the other side of the coin, According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

It also seems to be accepted by many scientists in the field that the number of infected persons is much higher than what we’ve been made to believe from testing, thus driving the infection/fatality rate even lower than what we are seeing. Estimates of infection fatality rate are on par with seasonal flu from this perspective according to many scientists and health professionals.

For example, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist created The Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown. Approximately 45,000 doctors and scientists have now signed it. The compares COVID -19 to the seasonal flu.

The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.”  John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.

These are a few of multiple examples.

Is There Conflicting Info Due To The Politicization of Science? 

Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has recently published an article about COVID-19 in the BMJ, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine.

In it, he offers some food for thought,

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

Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas…The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

The Takeaway: Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandize and enrich those in power.”

Are we really going to get anywhere if we are constantly polarized with regards to what we believe about this pandemic? More important than information and facts is our ability to empathize with another person who does not share our own beliefs and try to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do. It’s also important for them to empathize with you, and at the end of the day we all must do this with each-other if we want to move forward. Polarization and separation, constantly arguing and fighting with one another will never get us anywhere at all, and simply leaves us open as a collective to harmful responses by governments.

Why is so much information being censored? Why is everything that’s controversial these days deemed a “conspiracy theory” and not really explored by a large majority of people? Given we are deeply feeling the need to make sense of our world, is it time we begin to look at developing the inner faculties necessary to move beyond ideology, limited thinking patterns and truly begin looking at what evidence around us says?

If there’s anything this pandemic has taught us, it’s that we need to change the way we think and how we relate with one another. Obviously, the measures being forced upon us are difficult, and may be causing a lot more harm than good, if any good at all.

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

British Medical Journal Editor Argues “Medical-Political Complex” is Corrupt & Suppressing Science

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on government and government health agencies to provide the citizenry with accurate information on COVID-19? Why are different perspectives from health professionals completely ignored by mainstream media?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed the suppression of not only science, but a number of prominent scientists and doctors from around the world. These doctors and scientists have shared their research, observations and opinions about COVID-19 that directly contradicts the information given to the citizenry by the World Health Organization (WHO) and government health authorities in dozens of countries.

Mainstream media is constantly giving attention to government affiliated scientists and is only sharing one perspective on this pandemic. Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter have all been actively censoring a number of scientists and doctors, but why? Why censor information if it’s not true? How can tens of thousands of doctors and scientists be sharing a perspective that’s constantly ridiculed by mainstream media?

I’m not talking about the more controversial films or messages like what has been touted by David Icke or the film Plandemic, we’re talking about real science from tens of thousands of respected and credentialed health professionals. Why are they not allowed to be heard? Why are there ‘fact-checkers’ going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

These scientists have not backed down, for example, Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School created “The Great Barrington Declaration.” It now has approximately 45,000 signatures from doctors and scientists, the declaration strongly opposes COVID lockdown measures, stating that they do more harm than good and are not really effective.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, one of the most cited scientists in German history, who was chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz along with his wife Karina Reiss Ph.D  have published a book titled “Corona, False Alarm? Facts & Figures.“  They are part of more than 500 German doctors & scientists who have signed on as representatives of an organization called Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss. The organization opposes measures taken by governments worldwide.

These are just a few of countless examples out there from so many different countries. COVID-19 has united prominent scientists and doctors from around the world in large numbers, yet their concerns go unheard. Sometimes it seems like the mainstream media can make the minority feel like the majority, and the majority feel like the minority.

The general theme among these groups is that COVID-19 is not as dangerous as it’s been made out to be, and that there is manipulation of science and data on several different levels, from the infection/fatality rate, the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, the number of cases that are actually out there, and the idea that the virus is being made out to be much more dangerous than it actually is.

What Happened: The latest example comes from Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open.

He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

In his article, he writes the following:

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

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

The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency. The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report. Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19. The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests. It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office. Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir. Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

The Takeaway: What does it say about our world when so many voices are silenced? Why is this happening? How can so many doctors and scientists be wrong, ridiculed, completely ignored and censored to the point where not many people are even aware of the information they are sharing? Why do we only get one perspective from the mainstream media? Can we continue to rely on government, and government health agencies to provide us with real information and recommendations that have the best interests of the people at heart, or is everything we are seeing an attempt to not only control, but profit off the human race? Why have so many people lost faith in their government and the ability of it to deliver accurate and real information to the people?

Is it time to take matters into our own hands? Do we really live in a democracy when the voice and the will of so many people continue to go unheard and unacknowledged?

We’re in a time where these very questions are more important to answer than ever before. Action is needed, worldviews are shifting, practice is everything.

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!