Connect with us

Alternative News

Gates Foundation Funded “Fact-Checker” (POLITIFACT) Censors GreenMedInfo on Facebook for Reposting Accurate Vaccine Meme

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Yet another independent media outlet is attacked for sharing content that questions vaccines. The means used to attack outlets like this are always unfounded in truth and emotionally driven.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is Greenmedinfo, and other media outlets being censored, demonetized, shut down and punished for sharing factual information? Why can't people decide what's real and what's not? Why do they have to let the government do it for them?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Because Politifact is in partnership with Facebook as a so-called “non-partisan,” 3rd party, fact-checker, they flagged our (Greenmedinfo) page as promoting “false news” and informed us, on April 22nd, that “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Since then, our page no longer comes up when you search for pages with the keyword “GreenMedInfo,” and we have noticed a steep decline in our reach which on an average week would exceed 1 million.

advertisement - learn more

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

Due to our long held commitment to publishing truthful, evidence-based information on the underreported, unintended adverse effects of conventional medical interventions like vaccination, we have been subject to a wide range of attempts to discredit, defame, and censor us, over the years. For instance, all the way back in 2013, UNICEF published a report titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,” where GreenMedInfo.com, along with other prominent natural health websites, was cited as spreading vaccine “misinformation,” despite the fact that we simply aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine

Lately, the censorship has been scaling up to disturbing levels. In December of last year, Pinterest deleted our account for posting information questioning vaccine safety and promoting research on evidence-based natural medicine. Ironically, they claimed we were endangering the health of their users by posting alternative information, even though Pinterest regularly allows minors to access pornographic and violent contentboth of which have well-established significant deleterious psycho-emotional and physical effects in adults, much less children.

So, how does Facebook determine who is of suitable integrity and impartiality to become a 3rd party fact-checker?

They use certification provided by the “non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false news.” Guess who created the organization that calls itself the International Fact-Checking Network? Poynter.  Check it out yourself here: https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/

advertisement - learn more

Yes, you read that correctly. Poynter, the owner of Politifact — the presumably impartial brand and judge of what is “false” or “true” news — certified itself as trustworthy and impartial.

It does not reflect well on Facebook that it allowed Poynter to certify itself as worthy to police the world’s news feeds in order to mete out algorithmic punishment to those whose views it does not agree with. Thanks to a Veritas exposé, we know how Facebook’s censorship strategy of”boiling works behind the scenes: 

How this machiavellian scheme has gone virtually unnoticed until now is hard to understand. But we hope that our example will help others understand the shadowy agendas at play between Poynter, Politifact, Facebook, and which are hidden in broad daylight for everyone to see.

But the red flags, and organizations involved, don’t stop there. Poytner’s fact-checking operation was funded by a $380,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — an organization notoriously dismissive of the downside of mass vaccination programs, which includes injuries and deaths the government has paid over $4 billion dollars in compensation towards through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund inaugurated by an act of Congress in 1986.

But are they correct about the meme we posted? Is it really “fake news”?

 

And does a mere posting of a meme, whose authorship is unknown but certainly was not produced by GreenMedInfo or its contributors, justify reducing the reach of our entire page, which over 525,000 people around the world have voluntarily and organically opted into receiving information from over the past decade?

Embarrassing as it is for the Politifact editorial team, whose entire premise is that they can be trusted to be fact-based, they didn’t report on our name correctly, calling us Greeninfo.com:

“Now, another anti-vaccine claim has surfaced on Facebook on a page called Greeninfo.com, which describes itself as an “alternative and holistic health service.”

They condemned the post as follows:

The post reads:

“Think combined doses of vaccines have been tested? They haven’t. Not once. EVER. Our children deserve better.”

The post, which provides no details or evidence, has been shared over 600 times since April 15 and was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Let’s cut to the chase:

The claim is false – all vaccines are tested for years before and after being made available to the public, including “combined doses.”

How did they prove this statement?

They reached out to a single individual, Daniel Salmon, who is the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who presumably can verify by his word alone the veracity of the claim. He simply countered in email: “This is not a true statement,” and pointed to a December 2008 documentfrom the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document nowhere references the existence of a true placebo-controlled vaccine safety study, where saline instead of another adjuvanted vaccine was used; nor does the document discuss the fact that the present-day vaccination schedule involves giving dozens of vaccine antigens to children by age 6, where none of the vaccines have been studied together for safety; much less in juxtaposition to a control group who received a true placebo (saline).

This glaring problem is discussed among mainstream medical sites and authorities as well. For instance, MEDPAGE TODAY’s KevinMD.com has an article written by Chad Hayes, MD, titled “The vaccine study you’ll never see,” wherein he admits:

“No, we don’t have a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing our vaccine schedule to placebo.”

Wouldn’t MEDPAGE and KevinMD also be labeled as false news according to the standard applied to our page, for again, simply reposting a meme?

When it comes to the CDC, presumably a trustworthy source because it is believed to be “evidence-based,” their page on Vaccine Safety Concerns for Multiple Vaccines provides little assurance because their statements have no scientific citations. This is a classical example of the CDC’s cult of authority, where they use “science by proclamation” or “eminence-based medicine” to promote their agenda, instead of referencing actual research like we do at GreenMedInfo.com:

Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.

Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually.  Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.

Disturbingly, the CDC acknowledges on the same page as the excerpt above:

“A child who receives all the recommended vaccines in the 2018 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2.”

This reminds us of the absurdly irresponsible statement of Dr. Paul Offit, who while admitting that vaccination is a violent act, considers it safe for an infant to receive 10,000 vaccines at once (revised from a previous statement where he said an infant could receive 100,000 vaccines at one time). Offit’s faith in the safety of vaccines represents a deep conflict of interest, considering he is the patent holder for a highly profitable rotavirus vaccine which has profound safety issues, in that it has potentially infected millions of children with serreptitious, disease-producing retroviruses.

The reality is that no study has ever been performed on the interaction and potential synergistic toxicity of the admnistration of 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2. This was conclusively affirmed by a presentation given by Del Bigtree, where at minute 58:40 he references a 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the safety of the entire immunization schedule, citing the following passage:

“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes … between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children … [Furthermore,] studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

Many other key safety concerns with vaccines emerged from that report, with a series of them summarized by NVIC here:

  • “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
  • “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
  • “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
  • “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
  • “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
  • “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
  • “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
  • “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional 2 subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
  • “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
  • “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
  • “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
  • “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee.
  • “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee; 3
  • “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
  • “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
  • “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
  • “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
  • “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
  • “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
  • “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for 4 which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
  • “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)

Given the IOM report’s findings that there has not been a single study conducted to prove the safety of the entire schedulethe meme we posted stands as factually true, and those who have used it as a justification for censorsing and defaming us are clearly acting from political motivations reflective of the interests of their primary funders, such as the Gates Foundation.

CALL TO ACTION 

It’s time to let us know you are listening, and reading this article. Our social media footprint has undergone massive censorship, and as we hope you have seen, this expose’ explains what’s behind it. Please share/like/comment on this article to help us compensate for what may be our soon-to-be exit from social media in general. Deplatforming is happening to the best of us. But there is a solution. Make sure you are signed up to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/2kjN4HH.

Support Independent Media – Join or Donate to GreenMedInfo

Join thousands of supporting newsletter fans who have become actively supporting members and take advantage of powerful features and upgraded content, including e-courses, e-books, and a research library of thousands of documents.

Learn More + Become A Member
or
Make A One Time Donation


Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.


Link to original article

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Ontario’s Municipal Police Departments Reject Doug Ford’s “Stop & Ask” COVID Order

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 3 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    According to an investigative report, the vast majority of Ontario police will not follow Doug Ford's COVID measure asking police to stop citizens in their cars to find out where they are going during the current stay at home order.

  • Reflect On:

    Might we see law enforcement stand up to other draconian orders the government attempts to lay down?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

On April 16th Ontario premier Doug Ford announced stricter lockdown measures, including that Ontario police, both provincial and municipal, will have the power to stop citizens and ask them where they are going in order to find out if their travel outside their home is essential or whether they may be attending a social gathering. If this sounds draconian to you, you’re certainly no alone. And the police seem to think so too.

As of the evening of April 17th, just one day later, 39 or 44 municipal police departments in Ontario have stated they will not comply with this measure and stop citizens to ask where they are going. However, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have remained onboard with the measures on social media. The tally came from investigative reporter Andrew Lawton who took it upon himself to hear from departments themselves.

Since the rejection, the Ontario government has begun changing it’s mind on the measure:

Why It Matters: This is a great example of how power is only enforced when people participate. In this case, if law enforcement went through with this, ‘the people’ wouldn’t have much of an obvious way to resist these measures, but when law enforcement denies draconian measures like this, the power the government has is restricted significantly.

Early this morning I was speaking to a fellow journalist here at CE talking about how for most people working on the police force, this measure would probably feel like one of the first times they very obviously had to ‘take things too far.’ To see only 12 hours later that the vast majority of police are standing up to this is a good sign that enforcers of rules are open to questioning their government. In my opinion, I hope this trend continues.

I also found it interesting to note that holding government accountable used to be something mainstream media would do, but now they only seem complicit in going along with government. Independent media now is tasked with the job, all while they face funding challenges and claims from mainstream and social media that independent media is not trustworthy.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Ontario (Canada) Gives Police Authority To Pull Over Vehicles To Find Out Where They Are Going

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ontario government has just announced very strict lockdown and stay at home orders. They've also given police the power to pull people over to find out where they are going and where they live.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this really about the virus? Why are so many experts, and so much science that opposes what government is saying completely unacknowledged?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression. -Edward Snowden (source)

Ontario, Canada has just announced stronger lockdown measures after current lockdown measures and stay at home orders have not done anything to slow the spread of covid when taking cases into account. Under the new orders, most non-essential businesses, manufacturing and construction will be closed, this includes non-essential curb side pick ups as well for retail businesses. Outdoor recreational facilities like parks, basketball courts, tennis courts and golf courses will now be closed and essential businesses, like grocery stores, will be limited to a certain capacity.

For the first time, the Ontario government has given police officers the power to pull vehicles over without cause, demand their ID and home address as well as ask where they are going and why. This also applies to citizens who are outside. This is effective immediately for a period of 6 weeks.

I just came across this via the live press conference. Part of the changes in the recent announcement were to give police more authority to handle non-compliance, something that’s been a big part of this pandemic as many people, doctors and scientists continue to disagree with the actions being taken by governments, while others agree. The government has also put restrictions on travel between provinces.

We have made the deliberate decision to temporarily enhance police officers’ authority for the duration of the stay at home order. Moving forward, police will have the authority to require any individual who is not in a place of residence to first provide the purpose for not being at home and provide their home address. – Solicitor General Sylvia Jones said in the press conference.

The Ontario government continues to blame the citizenry for non-compliance when, in reality, there is a tremendous amount of science and data that’s been published in various medical and scientific journals from around the world showing that lockdowns have not been helpful in stopping the spread of COVID.

Furthermore, there is research showing lockdowns have killed more people than covid, and will have devastating results for years to come. Not only that, an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicates that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation.

The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence…came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)

This is quite confusing, if lockdowns and restrictions aren’t necessarily helping to curb the spread, why is government, especially the Ontario government, acting like they are effective and necessary tools? This is a discussion that has not been had within the mainstream. Renowned experts in the field who are presenting this data have been completely ignored, censored and in many cases ridiculed.

Another point that’s being used to justify restriction measures is the fact that hospitals in Ontario are at capacity, and ICUs are full. This has always been a concern in many countries, especially in Ontario, Canada. For example, in 2017 more than 50 percent of hospitals in Ontario were above 100 percent capacity. There are examples all over the world for the past decade. That being said, is covid adding to this, or is it simply something we’ve always seen in hospitals? Is the only difference big media coverage?

What about the fact that PCR testing may yield an enormous amount of false positives? Testing positive does not mean you have the virus, or that you can spread it, especially if you are asymptomatic, yet this entire lockdown is based on testing asymptomatic people and asymptomatic cases. What about the death count and the fact that Ontario Public Health has admitted to the fact that they are marking deaths as “covid” when it’s not even clear if covid caused or contributed to the death? What about the fact that the survival rate of the virus is 99.95 percent and above for people under the age of 70, or that prior infection can provide more immunity than the vaccine?

Again, the point is,there are many concerns that are being completely ignored and unacknowledged.

In the case of covid, it’s quite clear that people of all backgrounds and professions are split. You even have world renowned experts in the field split on these issues, with many opposing and supporting measures. As a result, this has many people confused, and it begs the question, should government really have the authority to put mandates into place that restrict our movement, rights and freedoms?

Is this really about the virus, or about the benefits that big tech, health and government will reap and have been reaping from this pandemic? When measures go against the will of so many people, should government not be allowed to mandate such measures and instead, present their science and make recommendations to people, leaving them the choice to act in ways they see fit?

Are we living in an age where government and big tech are doing the thinking for us, telling us what is and isn’t and trying to control our lives more and more every single year? How do we stop this if it’s true? Why do we continue to comply? One thing is certain, covid has been a great catalyst for more and more people to really question what type of world we are currently living in.

So what’s the solution to this? Is it mass/collective organized peaceful non-compliance? A Belgian court has ruled that the current COVID-19 measures being deployed don’t have a sound legal basis. The State has 30 days to lift restrictions or face fines. Can something like this happen in this situation? We will wait and see what happens as, no doubt, many people are going to be upset and showing it.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Florida Education Minister Urges Schools To Drop Mask Mandates

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran said schools should make mask-wearing voluntary in the 2021-2022 school year, stating that they should simply be optional.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is one narrative being pushed hard, while the other is being heavily ridiculed and labelled as "dangerous" by mainstream media and government?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: Earlier this week, Florida’s education commissioner directed all schools to drop mask mandates for the next school year because, according to him, they are not necessary and can simply be an optional measure for students and parents. According to him, mask policies “do not impact the spread of the virus” and they “may impede instruction” for some students. The decision is not up to him, however, as each individual district will ultimately decide whether or not they want to impose mask mandes for next school year.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently convened a round table on public health. At that discussion, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated that “masks have not only been not effective but have been harmful.”

The video of this discussion was removed from YouTube, and then ridiculed by mainstream media. This has been a big problem throughout this pandemic. We have big tech “fact-checkers” censoring and removing any kind of narrative that does not fit within the framework or narrative that government health authorities are telling us. If things were so obvious, why would they need to censor world renowned experts?  It’s been a common theme, and Bhattacharya is one of many who have been subjected to this type of treatment.

He’s one of the three initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The other two are  Dr. Sunetra Gupta, PhD Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist. You can watch an interesting discussion with all three of them here if interested.

Bhattacharya responded to the criticism in a recent piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stating the following:

I attended a public-policy roundtable hosted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last month. The point was to discuss the state’s Covid policies in the months ahead. That 600,000 Americans have died with Covid-19 is evidence that the lockdowns over the past year, including significant restrictions on the lives of children, haven’t worked. Florida reopened in May and declined to shut down again. Yet age-adjusted mortality is lower in Florida than in locked-down California, and Florida’s public schools are almost all open, while California’s aren’t.

My fellow panelists—Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scott Atlas of Stanford—and I discussed a variety of topics. One was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks. The press asked questions, and a video of the event was posted on YouTube by local media, including Tampa’s WTSP.

But last week YouTube removed a recording of this routine policy discussion from its website. The company claimed my fellow panel members and I were trafficking in misinformation. The company said it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Yet the panelists are all experts, and all spoke against requiring children to wear masks. I can’t speak for my counterparts, but my reasoning was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of masking children are small to none; the costs are much higher.

The scientific evidence is clear.

He then goes on to cite site some science.

Kari Stefansson, senior author of a study  study from Iceland conducted early in the epidemic when masking was uncommon showing that incidents of covid in children is far less than adults, stated that children are.

“less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults.”

According to Bhattacharya, “many studies in the scientific literature reach a similar conclusion: Even unmasked children pose less of a risk for disease spread than adults.”

For example, Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute wrote letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that:

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

You can read more about this specific story here, as he has quit his research due to the harassment he received for simply presenting data.

Why This Is Important: There are the points made above, and then there are papers outlining the supposed dangers and ineffectiveness of masks. Many have been published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals prior to covid, and during covid.

For example, one paper titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” concludes:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

I’ve written about a study published in the New England Medical Journal by Harvard doctors that outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection in a public setting. According to them,

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The papers cited above are a few of many, there are a plethora of them available within the scientific literature.

Yes, there are also studies that claim and explain why they believe masks are an effective tool to mitigate the virus, and we know that organizations like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) deem them to be extremely effective and necessary.  The point is, why are those who point out, explain, and provide evidence and reason for the idea that masks are not effective being heavily censored, vilified, and ridiculed? What’s going on here? Why is proper critique and discussion being completely shut down and why are those who are creating awareness about these issues labelled as “dangerous anti-maskers.” This, in my opinion is quite frankly unscientific.

Perhaps I can explore one possible explanation. Perhaps any type of information, data or evidence, no matter how credible, that opposes the measures and narrative of government and big media threatens various business/agendas in these powerful circles. It begs the question, does government and government affiliated health/business really look out for what’s best for its citizens? The COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to ask that question who wouldn’t have prior to the pandemic.

This is just my opinion, but in presenting it I put our platform, Collective Evolution, at risk being punished in various ways for simply sharing it. We’ve not only been falsely smeared by fact checkers but have also been hurt financially on social media simply for bringing forth facts that the mainstream doesn’t wish to address.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, it’s very difficult to determine who is right or wrong, which is why we need open dialogue. The fact that simple discussion and pieces of evidence that change the narrative, or threaten it, is being shut down, censored and completely ridiculed is quite concerning. The mainstream media continues to fail to have appropriate conversations surrounding all things COVID while forcing their narrative on the public. This in turn has created a great divide among the citizenry when really, we should all be coming together and respecting everybody’s decision to act as they please.

When things are not so cut and dry, it’s questionable whether or not we should really give governments the ability to control our lives in the manner they have done with this pandemic.

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. –

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

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!