Connect with us

Alternative News

Bill Gates Donation Turns Respected Independent Research Company Into HPV Vaccine Supporter

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Cochrane Collaboration recieved a $1.15 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and lo and behold, a little over a year later, Cochrane was busy putting out a review that sang the praises of the HPV vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    If we know that our healthcare industry is nothing more than a business that is only concerned about profit, can this knowledge be more that a source of frustration and actually contribute to our awakening?

Anyone who has looked into the inner workings of the Western healthcare system–especially with regards to the relentless promotion of vaccines–can see that it is primarily a ‘business’, where ‘health’ is secondary at best. Following the money shows that vaccine research is primarily funded (or pseudo-funded through shell companies) by the pharmaceutical industry.

advertisement - learn more

Such industry-funded research is demonstrably structured in ways that ensure that vaccines can be said to be safe and are not causally linked to serious conditions like autism. As this Health Impact News article points out,

ALL industry funded studies are designed to protect the company’s financial investment. That is THE overriding primary bias. In vaccine clinical trials in particular, there is a built-in bias; namely, the comparator arm. The so-called “placebo-controlled” comparative vaccine studies do not use a genuine placebo. They include an adjuvant such as aluminum or mercury in the so-called “placebo” comparators both of which generate serious adverse effects. They use these adjuvants precisely in order to mask the serious risks posed by vaccines.

CDC Complicity

But even this strategy is not fool-proof, and when things don’t work according to plan, more direct means are employed. As we saw in the case of CDC researcher William Thompson, deliberately deleting or fudging data is often in play if causal links with serious conditions like autism are indeed established in their studies. And the fraudulent behavior that we actually hear about is probably just the tip of the iceberg. For every brave whistleblower like Thompson who risks his livelihood, reputation, and possibly even his life to bring this information to the public, the vast majority of people privy to this knowledge have likely been kept silent by the carrot (continued employment and funding, promotions, outright bribes) or the stick (fear of loss of employment, damage to reputation, physical harm, or murder).

A supposedly neutral government agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry to give the official government stamp of approval on vaccine safety. Furthermore, the CDC is a business partner of the pharmaceutical industry, acting as a wholesaler and distributor of vaccines with an annual purchasing budget of $4 billion. Conflict of interest? Nothing to see here, right?

Probably the only hope for people who want the objective truth about vaccine safety is with independent research companies. Sadly, it looks like one of the biggest and most respected companies of this kind have fallen under the control of corporate big money.

advertisement - learn more

The Cochrane Collaboration

The Cochrane Collaboration, now known simply as Cochrane, is an international and independent non-profit organization established in 1993 aimed at providing up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare available worldwide. Cochrane produces and disseminates systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and diagnostic tests, and promotes the search for evidence in the form of clinical trials and other interventional studies.

Up until recently, the Cochrane Collaboration had been considered the “gold standard” in scientific integrity. That is, until it started making the move a few years ago from being a principled, proudly independent research company to one that started to come under the influence of certain sponsors based on ‘donations’ like this one proudly announced on their website:

Once again, we are starkly confronted with what seems to be the underlying reality of the world we live in. Do we see any conflict of interest in the Cochrane Collaboration accepting over a million dollars from HPV vaccine-pusher Bill Gates? Do we have any reason to believe that this donation is designed to ‘support the development of Cochrane’s next generational evidence system,’ or do we suspect that this is just a bribe to garner Cochrane’s support and seal of approval for the HPV vaccine?

Well, fortunately, we didn’t have to wait very long for the answer to that question. A Cochrane Systematic Review from May 2018 entitled ‘Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors‘ appears as the perfect payback for Gates’ ‘donation’ a mere year and a half earlier. In it, the reviewers came to conclusions that were sure to have pleased Gates:

There is high‐certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26…We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms.

Cochrane Regional Members Revolt

For some of the researchers affiliated with one of Cochrane’s regional member centers (the Nordic Cochrane Centre), Cochrane’s HPV review was so biased that they felt compelled to write an exhaustive critique of  it, entitled ‘The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias,’ published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. Their conclusions demonstrate that they have taken notice of the change of policy at Cochrane and saw evidence of undue influence and conflicts of interest:

Part of the Cochrane Collaboration’s motto is ‘Trusted evidence’. We do not find the Cochrane HPV vaccine review to be ‘Trusted evidence’, as it was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs. We believe that the Cochrane review does not meet the standards for Cochrane reviews or the needs of the citizens or healthcare providers that consult Cochrane reviews to make ‘Informed decisions’, which also is part of Cochrane’s motto.

This review was co-written by one of the ‘old guards’ of the Cochrane Collaboration, Peter Gotzsche. Peter has published more than 70 papers in “the big five” (BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, Ann Intern Med and N Engl J Med) and his scientific works have been cited 30,000 times (source). With about 80 others, he helped start The Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 with the founder, Sir Iain Chalmers, and established The Nordic Cochrane Centre the same year.

Among other things, Peter has been an outspoken critic of the pharmaceutical industry, and saw his role in the Cochrane Collaboration as a counterbalance to their undue influence in the healthcare field. He is the author of the book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. The video below will give you a taste of his stance on the pharmaceutical industry:

Cochrane Dumps Peter Gotzsche

As if the agenda could not be more obvious, the newly centralized Governing Board of this formerly serious ‘collaboration’ of researchers and reviewers suddenly removed Peter Gotzsche from Cochrane without any clear justification. Notably, this was the first action taken against any member of the Cochrane Collaboration in its entire 25-year history. In a letter to members of the collaboration, Peter eloquently describes the unfortunate direction that Cochrane is taking, which exemplifies the capacity of big money and big business to run roughshod over anyone that gets in the way of their profits.

Nordic Cochrane Centre
Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7811
Blegdamsvej 9
2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

Tel: +45 35 45 71 12
E-mail:general@cochrane.dk
www.nordic.cochrane.org

14 September 2018

A moral governance crisis: the growing lack of democratic collaboration and scientific pluralism in  Cochrane.

I regret to inform you that I have been expelled from membership in the Cochrane Collaboration by the favourable vote of  6 of the 13 members of the Governing Board. No clear reasoned justification has been given for my expulsion aside from accusing me of causing “disrepute” for the organization. This is the first time in 25 years that a member has been excluded from membership of Cochrane.

This unprecedented action taken by a minority of the Governing Board is disproportionate and damaging to Cochrane, as well as to public health interests.  As a result of this decision, and a number of broader issues concerning the inadequate governance of Cochrane, in accordance with its principles and objectives, four other members of the Board have resigned.

As a result, the Cochrane Collaboration has entered an unchartered territory of crisis and lack of strategic direction. A recovery from this dire situation would call for the dissolution of the present board, new elections and a broad based participatory debate about the future strategy and governance of the organization.

 In just 24 hours the Cochrane Governing Board of thirteen members has lost five of its members, four of which are centre directors and key members of the organization in different countries. Recently the central executive team of Cochrane has failed to activate adequate safeguards, not only technical ones (which are usually very good) to assure sufficient policies in the fields of epistemology, ethics and morality. Transparency, open debate, criticism and expanded participation are tools that guarantee the reduction of uncertainty of reviews and improve the public perception of the democratic scientific process. These are conditions and tools that cannot be eliminated, as has happened recently, without placing into serious doubt the rigorous scientific undertaking of Cochrane and eroding public confidence in Cochrane’s work. My expulsion should be seen in this context.

There has also been a serious democratic deficit. The role of the Governing Board has been radically diminished under the intense guidance of the current central executive team and the Board has increasingly become a testimonial body that rubber-stamps highly finalized proposals with practically no ongoing in-put and exchange of views to formulate new policies. On dozens of issues the Board can only vote yes or no with very little opportunity to amend or modify the executive team ́s proposals.

This growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model that have been manifested within the Cochrane leadership over the past few years threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization. Many Cochrane centres have sustained negative pressure and a lack of productive dialogue with the CEO of the central office. Upon alerting the Cochrane leadership of these worrisome tendencies that negatively affect the operability and social perception of our scientific work, the Nordic Cochrane Centre has received a number of threats to its existence and financing. Many of the directors or other key staff of the oldest Cochrane centres in the world have conveyed their dissatisfaction with the senior central staff’s interactions with them. While the declared aims of interactions with the central office is to improve the quality of our work, the heavy-handed approach of some of the central staff has sometimes created a negative environment for new scientific initiatives, open collaboration and academic freedom.

There has also been criticism in Cochrane concerning the over-promotion of favourable reviews and conflicts of interest and the biased nature of some scientific expert commentary used by the knowledge translation department of Cochrane.

At the same time, Cochrane has been giving less and less priority and importance to its civic and political commitment to promoting open access, open data, scientific transparency, avoiding conflicts of interest and, in general, not promoting a public interest innovation model. I feel that these issues are intricately related to providing “better evidence” as the Cochrane motto professes. Recently the Cochrane executive leadership has even refused to comment publicly on new health technology policies, open access policies and other key advocacy opportunities despite the fact that an auditing of Cochrane fulfilment of objectives has shown a total failure to comply with Cochrane advocacy objectives. There is stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.

The excuse of lack of time and staff (around 50) is not credible.There has also been great resistance and stalling on the part of the central executive team to improving Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy. A year ago, I proposed that there should be no authors of Cochrane reviews to have financial conflicts of interests with companies related to the products considered in the reviews. This proposal was supported by other members of the Board, but the proposal has not progressed at all.

The Cochrane executive leadership almost always uses the commercial terms of “brand”, “products” and “business” but almost never describes what is really a collaborative network with the values of sharing, independence and openness. To the chagrin of many senior leaders in Cochrane, the word “Collaboration”, which is part of our registered charity name, was deleted from communications about Cochrane. Nevertheless, it is precisely “collaboration” that is the key to what distinguished Cochrane from other scientific organisations where competition is at the forefront. The collaborative aspect, social commitment, our independence from commercial interests and our mutual generosity are what people in Cochrane have always appreciated the most and have been our most cherished added-value.

Often it is forgotten that we are a scientific, grass-roots organisation whose survival depends entirely on unpaid contributions from tens of thousands of volunteers and substantial governmental support throughout the world. We make a substantial contribution to people’s understanding and interpretation of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of medical interventions, devices and procedures that impact the population.

Our work informs government legislation globally, it influences medical guidelines and drug approval agencies. Therefore, the integrity of the Cochrane Collaboration is paramount. We pride ourselves on being global providers of “trusted evidence” on a foundation of values such as openness, transparency and collaboration.

However, in recent years Cochrane has significantly shifted more to a business -a profit-driven approach. Even though it is a not-for-profit charity, our “brand” and “product” strategies are taking priority over getting out independent, ethical and socially responsible scientific results. Despite our clear policies to the contrary, my centre, and others, have been confronted with attempts at scientific censorship, rather than the promotion of pluralistic, open scientific debate about the merits of concrete Cochrane reviews of the benefits and harms of health care interventions.

Because of this moral governance crisis of the Cochrane Collaboration, I decided to run for a seat on the Governing Board and was elected in early 2017, with the most votes of all 11 candidates. It was considered an achievement, especially since I was the only one who had questioned aspects of our leadership. Regrettably today, I have been expelled because of my “behaviour”, while the hidden agenda of my expulsion is a clear strategy for a Cochrane that moves it further and further away from its original objectives and principles. This is not a personal question. It is a highly political, scientific and moral issue about the future of Cochrane. As most people know, much of my work is not very favourable to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Because of this Cochrane has faced pressure, criticism and complaints.

My expulsion is one of the results of these campaigns.

What is at stake is the ability of producing credible and trustworthy medical evidence that our society values and needs.

Peter C Gøtzsche,

Professor, Director, MD, DrMedSci, MSc, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept 7811

Peter has recently written a book about the whole affair entitled ‘Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse.’ He will be hosting an important symposium in Copenhagen on March 9th, 2019 where he will be announcing the opening of the ‘Institute for Scientific Freedom.’ He explains his reasons for the need to create such an institute here.

The Takeaway

As disheartening as this story is, it also contributes to our growing awareness of the world around us and the true levers of power in the healthcare field. The days are gone when we had a naive trust that the pledge to ‘do no harm’ was the backbone of Western healthcare. When we reach a critical mass of people who see our system for what it is, as revealed by stories like these, we will have the power to simply step away from it.

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