- The Facts:
In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the authority of global warming. Why would they do this? Are these people really concerned about our planet or simply profiting and justifying heightened states of security for ulterior motives?
- Reflect On:
Why are there so many brilliant scientists publishing papers and making points but are never given any attention? Why are they ridiculed and character assassinated by the mainstream? What is going on here?
New Related Article: Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off it.
The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.
-->Free e-Guide - Your Body Electric: An Introduction to Bioenergetics: Dr. Christine Schaffner will help you learn the basic principles of energy, frequency and vibrational healing! Click here to learn more!
The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.
“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)
CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?
“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg
William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:
In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)
He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”
In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.
In 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.
The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen (source)
Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)
Another quote stressing this point:
Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)
The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change (the organization that’s pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).
A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.
According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:
The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)
In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:
Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:
- “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
- “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
- “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:
- “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:
How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)
Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science. It’s something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma. Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that, for some reason, get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.
The 97 Percent Claim
The mainstream media and people who support the idea that humans are warming the planet often quote the fact that ’97 percent of scientists agree with them.’ First of all, this is not true, and again, we don’t know if humans are warming the planet.
“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.
This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.
Below is a video from Lindzen that sums up the issue quite well.
The Other Side of The Coin
A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.
A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’
Why So Much Conflicting Information?
Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.
A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.
The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.
We Here At CE Care Deeply For The Planet
We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.
Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.
If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.
While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.
Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.
The Rockefeller Report
In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.
What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.
Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?
There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa
You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.
An Example of Other Factors Influencing The Climate – A Coming Ice Age?
Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states,
By about 2030-2040, the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics: the phasing of sunspot cycles, the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium, the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives, the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass, the planetary spin-orbit coupling, the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction. During the previous grand solar minima—i.e. the Spörer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.
The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth’s climate is extremely fishy and doesn’t make much sense when you go through the literature, but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia, and hardly studied. It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science, for example, put out a statement saying “The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity.” This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement. It’s also important that readers recognize there isn’t even any course to back up such a false claim.
Don’t believe what is written, research what is written. What’s worse is the ridicule factor, the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced. Something is very wrong with this picture, regardless of your stance on the ‘global warming’ phenomenon. There is more on this later in the article.
The paper by Morner goes on to make some very important points:
So as you can see, the comment from IFL science quoted above, again, is simply not true. I’ve provided one of many sources available here, and I encourage other writers to do the same.
The author goes on to conclude:
During the last three grand solar minima…global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions. Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal, and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions…The Arctic ice over expanded significantly…By 2030-2040, we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum, which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data…This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project, instead of this, we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age.
According to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS,
A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. (source)
A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.
Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.
Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.
Is There An Agenda At Play Here?
In a recent episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and CE team member Richard Enos dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme. What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public. All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, and that the science behind this is solid and well-established, even though it isn’t. If you haven’t signed up already for CETV, go here so you can get access to the full discussion.
CETV is a platform we created to combat internet censorship, which is another topic. Why are they silencing and ridiculing certain narratives? Why not just oppose them with information and evidence?
Many things in our world, including science, have become extremely corrupted. We see it with medical science and the influence from big pharma, and we see it with regards to federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA being compromised by corporations. Climate science is no different, which is why we see the mass ridicule of those who oppose the agenda by mainstream media.
Our Earth needs help, it needs to be cleaned up, and deforestation must halt as we are experiencing massive species extinction. None of this has anything, in my opinion, to do with human CO2 output.
Media Blackout: Italian Bars & Restaurants Disobey Rules & Open Together In Civil Disobedience
- The Facts:
Thousands of restaurants appear to have opened in Italy in defiance of the country’s strict coronavirus lockdown regulations.
- Reflect On:
Are governments doing the right thing? What does the data about lockdowns say? Is it causing more harm than good? Is it having any impact at all on the spread of COVID-19? What are and have been the consequences of lockdown?
What Happened: Despite no mainstream media coverage, people are starting to become aware of what seems to be a mass civil disobedience campaign in Italy against lockdown measures (#IoApro). An estimated 50,000 bars, restaurants and other businesses are defying government orders and are remaining open to the public, together. We cannot confirm the exact number. UK journalist Damian Wilson writes, “if the number of 50,000 establishments currently on board is to be believed, it’s a movement growing by the day.”
EuroNews is one of the few outlets on the scene providing coverage.
One frustrated restaurateur said the move was as “a polite protest” and another“civil disobedience”, as they invited customers to dine on Friday night despite measures put in place to fight the spread of COVID-19. Armando Minotti, owner of Loste Ria restaurant in the south of the city, said “we cannot go on this way” – recent losses were making it impossible to provide for his children and he said government financial aid wasn’t enough. “Let’s call this a polite protest. If the guards come in, and they surely will, we will let them in, we will accept the fine but we are going to stay open and we won’t close any more. Because it is impossible to go on like this,” he added. Across the city, pizzas were churned out of the ovens at Fuoco & Farina where owner Max Vietri admitted to seeing the action as “civil disobedience”.
The Express in the UK also did, along with a few others.
People sit at a restaurant as bars and restaurants reopen in ‘yellow zones’ of Italy after the government relaxed some of the coronavirus disease curbs on weekdays following a strict lockdown over the holidays, in Rome, Italy January 7, 2021. © REUTERS/Yara Nardi
A popular hashtag is also providing information from various social media users who are uploading articles and videos. The hashtag is #IoApro. If you view this hashtag on twitter, you can see some pretty large protests. As the #IoApro (I am open) momentum builds, politicians like Vittorio Sgarbi are supporting the restaurants with a message against the rules in which he urges establishments, “Open up and don’t worry, in the end we will make them eat their fines.”
Why This Is Important: Whether you are a world renowned scientist, doctor, academic, journalist, politician, or anybody for that matter who opposes government lockdown measures as a way to combat COVID-19, you’re going to face the consequences. In Ontario, Canda, for example, a member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s caucus was fired for speaking out against his own government’s policies and calling for an end to the province-wide pandemic lockdown. “The lockdown isn’t working,” wrote York Centre Progressive Conservative MPP Roman Baber in a letter to Ford. “It’s causing an avalanche of suicides, overdoses, bankruptcies, divorces and takes an immense toll on our children. Dozens of leading doctors implored you to end the lockdowns.” (source)
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – source)(
If you’re a public figure in such a position as Barber was, you face losing your job. If you’re a scientist or a doctor, you risk losing your social media accounts for sharing your opinion, and if you’re an independent media outlet like Collective Evolution, you risk having your life’s work deleted from popular social media platforms. But that still hasn’t stopped information from spreading.
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. – Kamran Abbas, Executive Editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (soure)
Four professors from Stanford School of Medicine have published a paper showing that lockdowns, stay at home orders and business closures are not an effective tool for stopping the spread of COVID. There are many studies claiming the same. You can access that study here and read more about the harms of lockdown, its consequences and its supposed ability to stop the spread of COVID. There are dozens upon dozens of studies providing data that argue against lockdown measures.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist where the initiators of the The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media. It explains why they oppose lockdown measures. Follow their twitter account here.
The point is, one perspective is dominating the mainstream media and political circles, while the other is being censored, ignored, and ridiculed by these powerful platforms. This alone has been a catalyst for many people to question what exactly is going on here, and that’s always a positive thing.
The Takeaway: Do we really want to live in a world where questioning actions taken by our governments, and whether or not they are in our best interest, can be shut down and discouraged? Is this not the responsibility of all people? Do governments actually represent the will of the people these days? Or do they represent other agendas? Why are we all so polarized in our beliefs? Can we not see the perspective of another and try to understand why they feel the way they do? Does this mean freedom of choice should always remain, and that governments should simply make recommendations and allow people to do as they please? When measures become unacceptable in the eyes of many, is the only solution mass, peaceful civil disobedience? What else can be done in this situation for all those who are suffering the consequences of lockdown measures? Can the mainstream media make the majority seem like the minority, and the minority seem like the majority?
Encounters With Star People: “They Meant Us No Harm. Grandpa Called Them Our Ancestors”
- The Facts:
Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. This article shares one of many.
- Reflect On:
How many races are out there doing star travel? How many have visited our planet? How many are visiting our planet? What are the implications? Will our race ever traverse the stars in search of new worlds?
Introduction: Richard Wagamese, who was of Canada’ foremost authors and storytellers from the Wabaseemoong First Nation in Northwestern Ontario, once wrote, “My people tell of Star People who came to us many generations ago. The Star People brought spiritual teachings and stories and maps of the cosmos and they offered these freely. They were kind, loving and set a great example. When they left us, my people say there was a loneliness like no other.”
Another example from Canada comes from Stephane Wuttunee, who is a Plains Cree and French Canadian author and storyteller. He has explained that his perception and understanding of the ET phenomena as a Native person and its global implications comes from having been partially raised within the culture itself. He has made it a clear point to mention that they “give far greater attention to the seeking of the spiritual understanding of things.” He heard about “distant relations and Star People living amongst the stars many times, mainly around campfires and during traditional ceremonies. Far from being anything to be feared, Star People was just another term I grew up around.”(UFO Digest, 2008. Link no longer available)
Stories of the Star People are well documented in Native Canadian and Native American lore, and in this article I will share a story, as I’ve done so many times before, from the work of Dr. Ardy Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw. She has been researching the Star People and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. She also grew up being told about the Star People from her family and elders.
She’s written multiple books documenting her research. This particular one is taken from her book, “Encounters With Star People, Untold Stories of American Indians.”
The Story: In this particular story, Clarke spoke to a man connected through a mutual friend, on the Navajo Indian Reservation, named Darren. Clarke spoke to his aunt, who was the one who told her of his extraterrestrial experience.
I am not the first in my family to see the Sky Gods. My grandfather told me that one time a spacecraft landed over in New Mexico and some Indians hid an alien.”
He said it happened “Back in the 40s. It was about the same time as Roswell.”
My grandfather said that he and some of his friends came upon the alien wandering in the desert. They realized he was one of the Sky Gods and they hid him from the government soldiers. He died though and they buried him.
I saw an alien once. He came to my Grandfather’s hogan. When I saw him, I was frightened, but I didn’t know he was an alien at the time. He was a stranger. I was afraid of all strangers. So I ran inside and told my grandfather that there was a man outside. My grandfather turned off the burner on his hot plate and walked outside. I couldn’t hear, but I’m sure they were talking. Then my Grandfather came inside and told me to come with him. I walked outside and the alien was leaning against the wall and looked at a small metal object. I reached for my granddad’s hand, but he told me not to be afraid. He said everything was all right.
He was tall. He was dark. Dark skin and dark eyes. I never saw his hair. His clothes were brown and form fitting. He had a strange pair of boots. The pants were stuffed inside. The boots had pointed toes. They were the same color as the suit. I had never seen clothes like that. Gloves covered his hands and there was some kind of a covering over his head like a hood of some sort, but it was really tight like elastic.
He communicated with my grandfather. We walked off into the canyon with him. My grandfather stopped a few times and checked foot-prints. He was backtracking. They led to a large craft on the other side of the ridge.
Clarke asked, “Are you telling me the alien was lost?”
That’s what my grandfather told me. He was part of a small exploring party. They had separated and he had gone up one canyon and the others went in other directions. He had some equipment with him that was supposed to get him back to the craft, but it quit working. He came to our hogan looking for help. My grandfather and I took him back to his craft.
My grandfather and I talked about it often. After that, when my grandfather told stories he would begin with ‘it happened before the Star Man or after the Star Man.’ My grandfather said that when he was a boy there were many stories about Star People, but that this was only the second time he had ever seen one.
He mostly talked about how they were friendly and meant us no harm. Grandpa called them our ancestors. He said that they had visited Earth from the beginning of time. They come to remind us to keep everything in harmony. He called them seed layers.
By seed layers, Darren meant, “You know. They brought seeds to Earth to see if they would grow and then come back to check on them.” Darren believed his grandfather meant plants, animals and humans. He was told by his grandfather that “they brought animals.”
Clarke then asks, “Did you go near the spacecraft?” Darren replied. ” I wanted to, but my grandfather warned me away. He said I should not touch it.
It was round. Silver, but dull silver. There were no windows. Only a door and when it closed, you could not see where the door had been.
Clark asks, “When your grandfather led the star man back to the craft, did the other beings see you?
Yes. They came out and greeted their friend. I watched as he turned to my grandfather as though he were introducing him. The other Star Men bowed and for a moment they stood there and talked with him, but I could not hear. When they boarded the craft, my grandfather told me we must move to a safe distance. Then we watched as the craft moved upward. It did not even stir up the dust. That was the most amazing thing to me. When the wind blows there there is always dust, but when the craft lifted off the ground, there was no dust. For some reason, I understood that there was nothing normal about this situation. I was afraid of strangers anyway, but these strangers were not like the people I saw in town. They were different. I held my grandfather’s hand all the way home. Somehow it felt safer.
Darren goes on to describe that the Star Man appeared two more times when he was much older. The final time when his grandfather was in his 80s, sick and unwell in bed.
It was late at night when the Star Man appeared suddenly without warning. He walked over to my grandfather’s bed and kelt over him. After a moment or two, he walked out.
Clarke asked, “What did your grandfather say about the meeting?”
Darren replied, “Only that the Star Man came to say they were waiting for him. Three days later, my granddad died at the clinic in town. Just hours before he passed, he told me that they would be coming for him.
This was the last meeting, during the second meeting grandfather gave the Star Man a pouch with turquoise stones inside, a gift that pleased the Star Man.
Two years after his grandfather’s death, Clarke stopped off at Darren’s mother’s house. Darren invited her to go outside to his workshop.
I go out to Grandfather’s place and work in the summers. In the winter, I work here when I am not traveling with art shows.
Clarke interrupted, “Have you ever seen the Star Man again?”
No, but I know he still comes here,” he replied as he unlocked the work shed…I was hoping you would come see me again. I have something for you, but first, I have to tell you what happened.
Last summer, I spent about a month out at the home place. My sister was getting married and everything was chaotic around here. The first thing I noticed when I arrived at the hogan was a bag in the doorway of the little workshop I had set up for myself years ago. It was my grandfather’s pouch.
It was the one his grandfather gave to the Star Man.
I opened it and the turquoise stones fell out. They were the ones Grandfather had given the Star Man. For some reason, he returned them. I think it was my grandfather’s way of letting me know that everything was okay with him. I have no other explanation.
The Takeaway: When you dive deep into this topic, it leads to so many other topics and opens up so many more questions that are too many to explain here. As I always say, it truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and is and will transform human consciousness in a major way. There is still so much we have to discover about ourselves as well as the cosmos, and I imagine there are an unimaginable amount of worlds out there with an unimaginable amount of races that are doing star travel. Hopefully, like the one in this story, most of the ones who are and have been visiting our planet are benevolent, but I don’t know. At the end of the day, it’s my belief that this topic forces humanity to question itself and truly ponder why we live the way we do here. We are a race of extreme potential and have the means to create a human experience where all life, and the planet itself, can thrive. So ask yourself, what aren’t we doing it? What’s the problem? Why are we destroying our planet?
We’ve been writing about this topic since our inception in 2009, if you’d like to visit our article archive on the phenomenon, click here and enjoy.
Photo Credit: The image is a wonderful work of art that seems to have been shared around the internet quite a big. Still looking for the original source. If you find it, please do let me know. You can also email me at Arjun@collective-evolution.com
Another Lawsuit Against Merck Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Life-Changing Disability
- The Facts:
Another lawsuit has been filed alleging severe injury and disability as a result of the HPV vaccine. This time it's on behalf of teenager Michael Colbath alleging that his debilitating injuries were caused by the HPV Vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are those who raise concerns always considered "anti-vax conspiracy theorists" and ridiculed? Should freedom of choice always remain when it comes to vaccines?
Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.
What Happened: Another lawsuit has been filed against Merck for allegedly causing another life-changing disability. As lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains, “Before he got the Gardasil (human papillomavirus) vaccine, our client Michael Colbath was a superlative athlete and scholar. A happy, healthy and active boy. In the months following his first injection, exhaustion and extreme fatigue forced Michael away from the sports and hobbies that had been centerpieces of his life. He had trouble staying awake during the school day. After his second Gardasil injection, Michael developed severe foot pain in both feet, so severe that he needed crutches to attend school. He had trouble waking up in the morning and getting out of bed.”
He goes on to explain:
As his symptoms worsened, multiple physicians and specialists treated him for migraine headaches; body pains and muscle aches; chronic fatigue; hypersomnolence (sleeping 15-22 hours in a 24-hour period), sleep drunkenness, unrefreshing sleep; excessive sweating, lightheadedness, and tachycardia; tunnel vision on standing; difficulty with concentration and memory; confusion and brain fog; intermittent or episodic paralysis, numbness; and stomach pains.
Michael’s post-Gardasil injuries and diagnoses, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), idiopathic hypersomnia (IH), myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME / CFS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and gastroparesis, kept him from his passions, sports and hobbies. He missed most of high school and only his formidable self-discipline allowed him to complete his school work at home — he could not walk or move unassisted, he earned his Eagle Scout award using a knee scooter.
If Mrs. Colbath had known that Gardasil could create these health issues, she never would have allowed him to receive it.
This is the fifth Gardasil lawsuit Baum Hedlund and I have filed against Merck challenging the company’s dangerous and defective HPV vaccine for causing severe and life changing injuries. In addition to Mike’s case filed this week, we have filed cases on behalf of Sahara Walker of Wisconsin, Zach Otto of Colorado and Julia Balasco of Rhode Island. While each case is unique, they share common threads: All of our clients were happy, healthy, bright, active kids with unlimited potential until they received the Gardasil HPV vaccine. We look forward to getting these cases in front of a jury as soon as possible.
Kennedy and his team are currently engaged in five lawsuits regarding injury as a result of the HPV vaccine. I recently wrote about Sahara Walker, a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries after receiving the vaccine. You can read more about that here.
How Necessary Is The Gardasil Vaccine? The HPV vaccine is heavily marketed as a preventer of cervical cancer, but many studies have called this assumption into question. For example, in a recent study published in The Royal Society of Medicine, researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
Another interesting thing to note about HPV infections is when it comes to women in particular, approximately 70 percent of those who get an infection will clear it all by themselves within the first year, you don’t even have to detect it. Keep in mind that only a handful of HPV infections can actually lead to cancer. Within two years, approximately 90 percent of these infections will clear all by themselves. By three years, 10 percent of that original group will still have an HPV infection, and 5 percent of this 10 percent will have progressed into what are known as a precancerous lesion. There are three types of precancerous lesions, CIN1, which requires no treatment, C1N2 and the most severe, CIN3.
So now you have that small group (the remaining 5 percent)…who have precancerous lesions and now let’s look at that moving into invasive carcinoma. What we know then is that amongst women with CIN3 lesions, it takes five years for about twenty percent of them to become invasive carcinomas. That’s a pretty slow process. It takes about thirty years for forty percent of them to become invasive cervical carcinomas. – Dr. Diane Harper, one of a select few specialists in OB/GYN (in the world) who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved.
In a study published in Autoimmunity Reviews, the authors note that “The decision to vaccinate with the HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease, in 95 percent of the infections; and the other 5 percent are detectable and treatable in the precancerous state.”
This is why cervical cancer is usually diagnosed among the elderly, because it takes a long time to develop. This means that one has a very long time to treat pre-cancerous lesions that have the potential to develop into full blown cancer.
Not only is the efficacy of the vaccine called into question by many researchers, the supposed protection it provides, if any, only lasts a few years. Ask yourself, how likely is it for your 11 year old daughter/son to develop an HPV infection that will lead to cancer in a few decades, before she’s/he’s even done high school? The main cause of HPV infections is sexual intercourse.
Harper told CBS a few years ago that “the benefits (of the vaccine) to public health is noting, there is no reduction in cervical cancer.” She also emphasized that parents “must know that deaths occured” and that not all deaths have been reported. This information is accurate, we know this in the United States, for example, because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It stems from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act, which protects pharmaceutical companies from liability and uses tax-dollars to pay for vaccine injuries. Multiple countries have a program like this in place, and the United States has now paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. The main takeaway is that the FDA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is estimated to capture only 1 percent of vaccine injuries.
A study published in 2013 in Current Pharmaceutical Design carried out a review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that,
HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.
For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).
We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.
Not long ago researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology looked at 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three HPV vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines.
Mary Holland, a former a professor on the faculties of Columbia Law School and the New York University School of Law for the past eighteen years who taught courses on human rights, recently retired as the Director of the NYU Graduate Lawyering Program. She co-authored a book titled “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed.”
The HPV Vaccine on Trial is a shocking tale, chronicling the global efforts to sell and compel this alleged miracle. The book opens with the vaccine’s invention, winds through its regulatory labyrinths, details the crushing denial and dismissal of reported harms and deaths, and uncovers the enormous profits pharma and inventors have reaped. Authors Holland, Mack Rosenberg, and Iorio drill down into the clinical trial data, government approvals, advertising, and personal accounts of egregious injuries that have followed in countries as far-flung as Japan, Australia, Colombia, India, Ireland, the U.K. and Denmark. The authors have written an unprecedented exposé about this vaunted vaccine.
Written in plain language, the book is for everyone concerned – parents, patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, healthcare organizations, government officials, and schools. Ultimately, this book is not just about the HPV vaccine, but about how industry, government, and medical authorities may be putting the world’s children in harm’s way.
A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. Since then it’s now known that vaccine hesitancy is rising among many doctors, scientists, academics and people of all backgrounds and professions. The question to ask is, why?
At a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having stated,
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.
A study published in the journal EbioMedicine as far back as 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
A Typical Response From Merck For A Supposed Vaccine Injury? A 14-year-old boy named Christopher Bunch passed away more than a year ago, and the mother and father claimed that it was as a result of the HPV vaccine. His mother started a petition over a year ago claiming that her son “died as a direct result of the HPV vaccine.”
The father of the boy, Elijah Eugene Mendoza-Bunch, wrote this via his Facebook page, in January of 2020.
So back on December 11th 2019 I sent an email to CEO Ken Frazier of Merck song to speak with him about the HPV VACCINE and how it killed my son and how it is destroying lives. Well here we are January 25th (the day I got it in the mail) and this is the response from Merck….
As you can see, the letter states that,
“The safety and efficacy of our HPV vaccines have been established in a clinical development program that started more than 20 years ago and involved more than 49,000 individuals. Safety has continued to be evaluated after approval in multiple studies in several million people, in long-term follow up studies and through our extensive ongoing pharmacovigilance monitoring program in place throughout the world. Multiple independent scientific organizations and major regulatory and public health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly evaluated the safety of HPV vaccines. The results of these evaluations continue to be reassuring
Is Aluminum a Concern? The HPV vaccine does use an aluminum adjuvant, something that’s come under fire over the past few years. You can read and learn more about that here.
The Takeaway: This isn’t even the tip of the iceberg, there are many papers published in various journals over the past decade pointing out the same thing. There are also many published studies and papers that claim the vaccine is completely safe and very effective. This is why it can be a confusing topic to look into and why we believe that informed consent in place of an HPV vaccine mandate for children should be in place.
What do you think? One thing is for certain, people should be free to engage in conversations about controversial topics. This is one thing the mainstream fails to do, and always seems to deem the type of information presented in this article as a result of “anti vax conspiracy theorists.” Instead of using ridicule, it would be great if the concerns being raised about vaccine safety were actually spoken about openly and transparently, and most importantly, actually acknowledged and addressed.
Do we really want to live in a world where we can’t talk to each other? Why do we have such a hard time seeing from the perspective of another and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do? Do we really want to create a world where we are forced into certain actions by our government at the threat of losing certain rights and privileges?A world where we are so polarized? Should people not be free to do what they want with their body, especially if the evidence to suggest that they are harming others if they don’t is weak and unsubstantiated?
When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.
Famous German Engineer: “Flying Saucers” Were In The “Planning Stage As Early As 1941”
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be...