Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not, we can all agree that the use of the term has exploded in media and in conversation. The question is, why? Are we now using the term “Conspiracy Theory” more indiscriminately and on more platforms than previously? Are we, as a society, simply becoming unhinged and absurd? Are seemingly nonsensical stories, for some unknown reason, starting to resonate with people? Or are some conventional narratives getting challenged because some of these “alternative” explanations are in fact accurate, despite the fact that conventional sources refuse to acknowledge them as even potentially valid? Notice that the last two possibilities are different sides of the same coin. If you think “conspiracy theorists” are unhinged, it is highly likely that they are suspicious of your sanity as well. Both sides insist that they are right and that the other has been hoodwinked. Note that if you choose to not pick a side, you are, by default, allowing the conventional narrative to perpetuate. That is how convention works.
Merriam-Webster defines the term conspiracy theory as “a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”. The key elements of this definition remain consistent across all authoritative lexicons: the group responsible for an event must be powerful and covert. However, if we refer to the Wikipedia definition as of 11/2018 a new element emerges: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.”
When an explanation is labeled a “Conspiracy Theory,” by today’s definition, it has no evidence to support it. An explanation with no supporting evidence is a hypothesis, not a “theory.” “Conspiracy Theory,” as it is used today, is thus an oxymoron. These “Conspiracy Theories” we seem to hear about everyday should really be called “Conspiracy Hypotheses.” More concerning is that the “Conspiracy Theory” label identifies an explanation as inherently baseless. Given this linguistic construct, where is there room for a conspiracy that is in fact true?
There is also something troubling about using the term “credible” in the definition of conspiracy theory. Legally, evidence that is credible is that which a reasonable person would consider to be true in light of the surrounding circumstances. If evidence suggests an explanation that seems at the surface to be unreasonable, how does a reasonable person avoid automatically labeling the evidence not credible? If we are not careful, the credibility of the explanation and resultant conclusions would then determine the credibility of the evidence that supports it. Is this really so important? Perhaps you are quick to see that with this approach, our understanding of what is true and real can never evolve. If any evidence arose that radically disproved our understanding or eroded our faith in trusted institutions we would automatically discard it as “not credible” and remain entrenched in our accepted paradigm. “Credible” evidence cannot be a necessary requirement of a theory that challenges what is credible to begin with.
To better illustrate this, let us consider an old but very real “conspiracy theory.” About 400 years ago, European civilization was emerging from centuries of scientific and philosophical stagnation known as the dark ages. What more befitting a place for such a renaissance to occur than the center of the universe? You see, the idea that the Earth was one of eight planets revolving around a star that is orbiting the center of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies would have been absurd in Europe in the sixteenth century. Any sane person could see that the Sun and the Moon and every celestial body rises in the East and sets in the West. At that time, if someone went about proposing the idea that everything rises and falls because the Earth was spinning, they would have been laughed out of the tavern. Would that person be a conspiracy theorist? They are not proposing that “powerful actors are carrying out a harmful act,” they are merely suggesting an alternative explanation for what is observed. However, the implication of their suggestion seems to incriminate the authority on such matters as ignorant of the truth or, possibly, the perpetrators of a lie. The possibility of a conspiracy has now been introduced.
Now, let us say that this person claims to have proof of their absurd theory. Would you have taken the time to examine the evidence or would you have been more likely to dismiss them without further consideration? The very idea that they could be right would have been not just silly or heretical, but inconceivable to many, if not all. How could the evidence be credible if it implied something inconceivable? Dismissing their idea would have seemingly been the most logical and, therefore, the smartest thing to do.
When Galileo Galilei appeared in 1610 armed with a rudimentary “telescope,” few would peer into it. He claimed that the refractive properties of the pair of “lenses” would allow you to see things at great distances very clearly. With it one could see Jupiter and its moons revolving around the giant planet just as our moon revolves around Earth. How enchanting! The difficulty would arise when you put the telescope down: your feet would no longer be planted on the previously immovable center of creation. Would you have looked into his telescope? What would have been the harm in taking a peek? Certainly the fear of being proven more gullible than most would have been on your mind. What about the fear that he might be right?
Imagine what must have been going through Galileo’s mind after his monumental discovery. He saw irrefutably that the entire model of the universe had been completely misconceived. One just has to look. Most did not. I can only imagine how hard he must have tried to convince anyone to simply stop, look and listen to what he had discovered. At the time, Galileo was the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua and had previously held the same post at the University of Pisa. Despite his bonafides and reputation as a solid contributor to the Italian renaissance, his discovery would likely have died in obscurity if it weren’t for the support of an influential family, the Medicis, who offered Galileo a platform from which he could spread his theory. It was only through allying himself with political power that he was able to slowly generate interest in his heliocentric model of the solar system. His proposition eventually caught the attention of the Catholic church, who initially warned him to desist. Eventually, he was brought to trial in the Roman Inquisition 23 years after his discovery. At the age of 70, the intrepid mathematician and astronomer was allowed to return home if he agreed to recant his story. Instead Galileo chose to spend the rest of his years in prison because he believed that that would be the only way to get people to open their eyes.
Did it work? It did not. Galileo died incarcerated while Europe continued to slumber under stars that moved around them. By today’s standards, Galileo would have been labeled a Conspiracy Theorist from the day he announced his findings until he was proven right fifty years after his death. When the Principle of Gravitational Attraction eventually became widely accepted as true, the church had to retract their position because the motions of the stars and planets could not be explained under Newton’s laws.
On the other hand, Galileo is credited with being the father of not only observational astronomy, but of the scientific method as well. The scientific method demands that one tests an explanation without bias towards an outcome. All data is considered before deductions are made. When all other explanations have been proven wrong, the only explanation remaining becomes a theory. The theory persists as long as all subsequent experiments continue to uphold it. This is how we ultimately know what we know and have an inkling of what we don’t. If I had to choose a posthumous title for myself, “The Father of the Scientific Method” is one I could die with. Galileo is credited with this honorific not only because he valued it more than his freedom, but because he had the discipline to regard evidence objectively despite how unimaginable the implications were. This is how a body of knowledge expands. By considering the validity of the evidence first, we then can accept what was previously unimaginable, otherwise what we know tomorrow will be no different than what we know today.
All conspiracy theorists are not Galileos. Neither are all conspiracy theories true. However, can we be certain that all of them are false? At their very core, all conspiracy theories directly or indirectly point at a central authority acting covertly and simultaneously at the media for either missing it or looking the other way. This, of course, is unimaginable, as we all know the government can make mistakes but would never do anything intentionally harmful to its citizens and then hide it. Even if they did, somebody would come forward and the media would let us know about it. This is why such a deception could never occur. The idea that your lover could be in bed with your best friend is inconceivable. Evidence of such a thing would not be credible. Dismissing all conspiracy theories seems logical and therefore seems like the smartest thing to do.
In “Sapiens”, Yuval Harari proposes an explanation for why our species, Sapiens, out fought, out thought and out survived all other Homo species on the planet. He suggests that it was our unique ability to describe and communicate situations and events that had no basis in reality which set us apart. In other words, we could tell stories and they could not. By uniting under a common idea, story or even myth, thousands (and now thousands of millions) of Sapiens could come together with a shared purpose, identity or belief system to disband our cousins who were as individuals more sturdy and just as cunning but not nearly as good at cooperating as we were. This advantage, Harari proposes, has not only led our species to eventual supremacy over all others, but has also allowed us to form communities, governments and global alliances.
Siding with the majority has served us well–until it hasn’t. One only needs to revisit the history of Galileo and basic astronomy to understand this. In actuality, the first observant minds woke up to the fact that the Earth went around the sun and not the other way round nineteen centuries before Galileo did. The Greek mathematician, Aristarcus, is thought to be the first Western person to place the Sun in the middle of a “solar system” in 270 BC. A human being traveled to the moon just 360 years after Galileo “discovered” what Aristarcus had shown nearly two millennia before. How many centuries was this journey delayed because an alternative explanation in ancient Greece became a “conspiracy theory” against authority and convention?
This poses an intriguing question. Is there something hardwired in our behavioral patterns that push us towards conformist narratives and away from alternative ones at a precognitive level? Is it this tendency that gave rise to our enhanced ability to unite that keeps us in “group-think” more than we should be? How do we know we are looking at the world objectively and rejecting alternative belief systems from a purely rational basis? How does one know whether one is biased or not?
One way is to apply the scientific method. The scientific method demands that every possibility, no matter how outlandish, is tested for its veracity and dismissed only when it can be proven wrong. Without this objective pursuit of truth, misconceptions can persist indefinitely, just as the geocentric model of the universe did. Interestingly, Aristarcus was allowed to retain his theory because he lived at a time and place where philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were revered, protected and free to pursue their notions. The freedom ancient Greek society afforded its scientists only endured for a few centuries after Aristarcus lived. In Galileo’s day, the Roman Catholic church had been presiding over such things as facts for well over a thousand years. His incontrovertible proof was suppressed by the power that had the most to lose.
These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-centered universe, for a couple of thousand years.
Whether or not you are not a “conspiracy theorist” we can all agree that there is a possibility, however slight, that some conventional narratives could be wrong. How would we know? Is there a source that we can trust 100%? Must we rely on our own wits? A short inquiry into this question can be disquieting. Most of us must admit that our understanding of history, science and geopolitics are merely stories that we have been told by people, institutions or media that we trust explicitly or implicitly. Because most of us are not authorities on anything, it would be impossible to overturn any conventional narrative with an evidentiary argument. Challenging these paradigms is necessarily left to others. Generally speaking, there is no real reason to argue with convention if everything is seemingly unfolding acceptably. But what if you wanted to know for yourself ? Is there any way to ever really know the truth without having to have faith in someone or something else?
There may not be. However, it is also naive to believe that if someone, scientist or not, was in possession of evidence that challenged our deepest held beliefs that it would take root in the ethos on its own. Galileo enjoyed unsurpassed credibility as one of Italy’s foremost mathematicians. He also possessed irrefutable, verifiable and reproducible evidence for his revolutionary theory, yet the convention he was challenging did not crumble through his discoveries. History has shown us that it makes no difference how valid a point is; truth emerges only when someone is listening.
So, rather than seeking to independently validate or refute what we are being told, it becomes more productive to ask a different question: How biased is our society by historical standards? How does our society regard alternative theories? Do we let them co-exist with convention as the ancient Greeks did? Do we collectively invest resources to investigate them openly? Or do we dismiss, attack and vilify them as was done in the papal states in Galileo’s time? Which kind of society is more likely to get it right? Which runs the greater risk of being hoodwinked in the long run? Which is more free?
Confirmed: High-Dose Vitamin C Has Successfully Treated 50 Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients
- The Facts:
Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, published an article of early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. Intravenous vitamin C has helped moderate to severe covid-19 patients recover.
- Reflect On:
Why is something that's true been ridiculed within the mainstream, who claims there is no basis at all for vitamin C treatment for coronavirus?
An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus.” This is the narrative that’s been portrayed by multiple mainstream media outlets since the beginning of the new coronavirus outbreak. In fact, they’ve gone as far as labelling the suggestion that vitamin c could help, as ‘”fake news” in some cases. This is one of multiple examples of ‘fact checkers,’ who have been given tremendous amounts of power with the ability to severely limit the social media distribution of certain media organizations, abusing their power.
Here at Collective Evolution, we’ve been subjected to immoral and unethical ‘fact checking’ that has greatly reduced our ability to sustain ourselves. We are even fearful of our Facebook Page being deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list. This is very important if you want to continue to follow our work in case Facebook deletes our social media platform(s).
As far as Vitamin C treatment for Covid-19 goes, regardless of what some media outlets are claiming, Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The article was written by Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist, from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng served in the United States Army as a commissioned officer (Major) and an Army physician. While in the Army, Dr. Cheng served in various positions including Chief and Medical Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It’s safe to say that he’s probably a much more trusted source on the topic given his background and recent peer-reviewed publication about it than an article claiming that this is false information.
In his article, he states the following:
High-dose intravenous VC has also been successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions. The oxygenation index was improving in real time and all the patients eventually cured and were discharged. In fact, high-dose VC has been clinically used for several decades and a recent NIH expert panel document states clearly that this regimen (1.5 g/kg body weight) is safe and without major adverse events.
His article was published on the 26th of March, but prior to that, Dr. Cheng was providing updates with regards to multiple clinical trials that have been underway in China for treating covid-19 patients with intravenous vitamin C. The US National Library of Medicine posted the information about their clinical trials on their website. The title of one of the trials is “Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia.” The sponsor is ZhiYong Peng, and the responsible party is Zhongnan Hospital in Wuhan University (ZNWU).
Dr. Cheng has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of Chin prior to the publication of this article. We have been covering his updates as he is in direct contact with this treatment and isn’t simply an armchair scientist at the moment. We feel in this time this is a very important detail as he is seeing and hearing results first hand, not simply theoretically.
Cheng also had a message for the ‘fact checkers’ as posted in the description of his latest Youtube video.
I was made aware that FB Fact Check claims “Shanghai did not officially recommend high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19” (left on the above photo). Let me make it clear that not only Shanghai, but also Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, another major city in China, publicly endorsed high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19. Those who does Fact Check, please be more careful.
In one of his latest videos he also commends New York hospitals for becoming aware of the information regarding vitamin c, but claims they are not using high enough doses.
According to a recent article by the New York Post, who has also picked up on the topic,
Seriously sick coronavirus patients in New York state’s largest hospital system are being given massive doses of vitamin C — based on promising reports that it’s helped people in hard-hit China, The Post has learned. Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, said his intensive-care patients with the coronavirus immediately receive 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C. Identical amounts of the powerful antioxidant are then readministered three or four times a day, he said. Each dose is more than 16 times the National Institutes of Health’s daily recommended dietary allowance of vitamin C, which is just 90 milligrams for adult men and 75 milligrams for adult women. The regimen is based on experimental treatments administered to people with the coronavirus in Shanghai, China, Weber said.
How To Take Vitamin C For The Everyday Person
I have turned to the following credentialled individuals to make the statements in this article. They have also pointed to numerous studies which I will list below. These individuals are Damien Downing, who has a bachelor’s in medicine and surgery, Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Gert Schuitemaker, Ph.D., and Richard Z. Cheng, MD, Ph.D., International Vitamin C China Epidemic Medical Support Team Leader. – Joe Martino, Collective Evolution Founder
Read Joe’s article for more details: How To Take Vitamin C Orally. It May Help Protect Against Viruses
For anyone looking for a high-quality vitamin C, we have been using and recommending liposomal vitamin C. There are many brands out there. We are using this one from PuraThrive as it is very high quality and has an incredible clinically proven absorption rate.
It’s truly a heads scratcher as to win intravenous vitamin C treatment for sick patients isn’t really being explored, nor mentioned at all by mainstream media networks. Is this really a surprise?
Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (source)
Ultimately, when it comes to sickness, we must ask ourselves where government allegiance lies. It’s a for-profit model, first and foremost. That’s not to say there aren’t many great things about our health care system
Donald Trump Signs The “Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020″ Into Law
- The Facts:
President Donald Trump signed into law a pair of bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act.
- Reflect On:
Why has the president not addressed or even acknowledge the concerns being made by many scientists and doctors about the potential health hazards that may be associated with 5G technology?
5G wireless technology and the implementation of it is one of many examples of how we truly don’t live in a democracy, but rather, a ‘corporatocracy.’ We are living in a world where powerful corporations seem to dictate governmental policy, and heavily influence various politicians as well as the president of the United States. We’ve seen this for a number of years now, and some presidents have warned about the power that exists which seeks to control all. President Dwight Eisenhower referred to it as the “military industrial complex,” president Theodore Roosevelt referenced it by stating that, “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” Today, Donald Trump refers to it as the “deep state.”
Sadly, right now, we seem to be living in the illusion of democracy, we believe that the people direct most of what happens, but perceived unethical and immoral implementations and measures taken by governments today usually go against the will of the people, or they simply go through and get approved due to the fact that these measures receive little or no attention at all and many people are simply unaware of the concerns associated with them.
5G is no different in this sense, and it’s one of many great examples. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing and may shed some insight as to why the concerns of 5G are constantly ignored and not even acknowledged by our ‘leaders.’
In the case of 5G wireless technology, a number of scientists, journalists and activists have voiced their concern regarding the implementation of such technology. A few months ago, a number of doctors, scientists and activists have sent a National 5G Resolution letter to President Trump, requesting a moratorium on 5G technology until the potential hazards for human health have been appropriately investigated.
Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University wrote a report whose title says it all: “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them.” In his report he bluntly stated the following:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
And he’s clearly not alone in his opinion. The Environmental Health Trust Points out with regards to the letter sent to President Trump,
The 5G Resolution was developed during the first three-day US medical conference fully dedicated to this topic, Electromagnetic Fields Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment, which convened in Scotts Valley, California in September. (Watch videos from the conference here.)
Unfortunately, President Trump recently signed into law two bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act. The first requires the president to develop a strategy to secure and protect 5G technology, while the second is meant to improve the accuracy of maps detailing where broadband is and isn’t available in the US.
Under the 5G Act, the president must consult with Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other agencies and submit to Congress a plan for rolling out secure 5G, both within and outside the US, within 180 days.
The next generation of wireless technology, 5G brings increased networks speeds and network responsiveness and promises to help bring about real-time mobile applications for technologies like driverless cars and virtual reality. The nation’s biggest wireless companies, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, began rolling out 5G service last year.
The Broadband DATA Act, meanwhile, is expected to change how and what information the FCC collects about broadband access to ensure that the federal government has more granular information about where broadband can be found.
Where I live, in Ontario Canada, 5G infrastructure is set to begin in the Toronto to Montreal corridor. Without this implementation, daily human exposure to microwave radiation is already much higher than a trillion times higher than it was before cell phones.
Again, president Trump has not acknowledged the concerns being raised by the citizenry regarding 5G technology.
A Few Examples of Concern
Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus with the University of Toronto, and adviser to the International Agency for Research on Cancer said: “Many scientists worldwide now believe that radiofrequency radiation should be elevated to a Class One human carcinogen, on the same list as Cigarettes, X-Rays, and Asbestos.”
Doctors have advised the province that increased health care costs can be avoided if the government takes precautions to protect the public from exposure to wireless 5G technology. You can get a transcript of the event and more where Dr. Miller spoke at Canadians for Safe Technology.
“My clinic is already assessing patients from across Ontario who are sensitive to microwave radiation from their wireless devices including cell phones, Wi-Fi, and an increasing number of smart appliances,” said Dr. Riina Bray, Medical Director of the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. “We expect wireless 5G to add to this burden.” – Miler.
Frank Clegg Former President Of Microsoft Canada has released an insider’s view educational video regarding the health and safety concerns of 5G and wireless technologies. You can access that here.
This stuff is indeed hitting the mainstream, one recent example of mainstream awareness is an article published in the blog section of Scientific American titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe” written by Joel M. Moskowitz. It’s great to see such a publication at least mention the health concerns of this type of technology, it shows how awareness continues to be created.
Yet there is a completely different side, one that claims 5g technology is completely safe and poses absolutely no risk to human health. That being said, wireless companies continue to warn shareholders, but not people, that EMFs are not insurable.
If you’re interested in learning more about the concerns being raised with 5g wireless technology and what you can do to protect yourself, this resources page via the Environmental Health Trust is a great place to start
Proof: Fact Checkers Are Misleading You
- The Facts:
We share multiple instances where Collective Evolution has been 'fact-checked' and yet the fact-checkers were wrong yet haven't admitted so.
- Reflect On:
Is it time we end the paradigm of "us vs them?" Are these instances happening to expand our mind to what is truly going on in our world and inspire the need for change?
Online censorship has a new disguise: fact-checking. But this article is also going to bring another reflection into view because it’s important we move away from the stories of “us vs them,” and this age-old paradigm of disconnection, and instead awaken a new awareness – connection and empathy. It’s in this that I believe we will truly find clarity and solutions to shift the type of thinking and consciousness we are being asked to shift at this time.
Are all of these ‘fact-checks’ cases of censorship? Or are we also seeing and coming to understand a state of thinking/consciousness that is coming to the surface for us to change? The religion and paradigm of modern science is on display, and we have a chance to see the importance of taking a step and questioning our beliefs, but will we?
A big part of this story is going to point at one company called Health Feedback. They are a division of Science Feedback, and believe they are activating real science and scientists to ‘fact-check’ false claims on the internet. But there is a real challenge with what they are doing, and I strongly feel they are misleading the public on many important issues.
Before I continue, I want to recognize that mistakes happen on the internet, and correcting them is important. I also recognize that there are many websites out there who knowingly create and post false stories to get traffic and make money. At CE, we do not fall into that category, and we have relied on solid research, science, whistleblowers, and experts to formulate our information for 11 years. It has been difficult to operate in the field we are in because simply covering some of the topics we do automatically makes people think they are untrue as there are hundreds of other sites out there covering the same topic poorly and with a sensationalist tone. We don’t and have never done that here.
Further, in the video below I will discuss one of the main editors at HealthFeedback, Flora Teoh. I do not believe she is a bad person, nor do I feel it is useful to attack her online or have anyone in our audience do that to her. It’s actually this sort of ‘us vs them’ approach that I believe gets us collectively into these messes and is also what drives so much fact-checking to be false.
The reality seems to be with this topic, and this is my observation, that either fact-checkers are purposefully rating some content false because they are told and pressured to do so, or that they truly have a narrow scope of information and research and thus have already settled in their beliefs even when evidence arises that should question these beliefs.
This is exactly the challenge we face today with the modern religion of ‘science.’ According to many modern scientists, no longer is the scientific method used to better understand our material and non-material world, but instead, we already KNOW so much and have arrived at consensus’ that are merely beliefs disguised as truths.
It’s this paradigm, mindset, and frame of consciousness that I feel could be the biggest contributing factor as to why, not just fact-checkers, but people in general have such a hard time expanding their minds – they identify with their beliefs and get stuck.
But it’s in that that we see the solution – a shift in consciousness. A conscious choice to question your beliefs, ideas, and what you think to be true. This is why I developed the CE Protocol, a series of concepts designed to help anyone shift their thinking, consciousness and way of being towards a new paradigm of openness, connection, love and authenticity.
Without further adieu, I share with you the major missteps taken by fact-checkers thus far that we have seen, and show you email threads and techniques they use that mislead the public – either purposefully or accidentally through ignorance.
It is my intention to allow people an inside look at what goes on with fact-checking, and encourage a new approach to how we look at information and how we relate to one another? Does this bring up anger in you? If so, why? How can you shift to stay present and peaceful, while taking effective action, when you observe this?
Confirmed: High-Dose Vitamin C Has Successfully Treated 50 Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients
An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the...
Donald Trump Signs The “Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020″ Into Law
5G wireless technology and the implementation of it is one of many examples of how we truly don’t live in...