Connect with us

Alternative News

Report Sheds Light On The Rockefeller Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

New Related Article: Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off it.

advertisement - learn more

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.

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. 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

advertisement - learn more

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 COinvolves 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:

  1. “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.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “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:

  1. “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?

The Takeaway

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.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

New Footage of “Transmedium” Sphere (UFO) Disappearing Into The Ocean From The U.S. Navy

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The US Navy photographed and filmed “spherical” shaped UFOs that seem to be capable of travelling not only in air, but underwater also. Footage of one of these objects has been leaked.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on government to give us an accurate depiction of what these objects may represent or what they actually know? Should this be a citizens initiative? Has government manipulated our perception of major global issues? Will this be different?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

Footage filmed (video below) in the CIC  (Combat Information Center) of the USS Omaha on July 15th 2019 off the coast of San Diego depicting an unidentified flying object (UFO) has made its way into the pubic domain. It’s one of several incidents when U.S. warships were what seems to be continuously observed by multiple objects of unknown origin. One video and multiple images have been released of these particular incidents, and the Pentagon confirmed these leaks that are apparently being investigated by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF).

The Pentagon has also confirmed this particular video to be authentic as well.

The Debrief reached out to the Pentagon about the newly leaked video asking whether it could be confirmed as authentic, and whether it was obtained by Navy personnel aboard the USS Omaha.  “I can confirm that the video was taken by Navy personnel, and that the UAPTF included it in their ongoing examinations,” said Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough in an email response.

This particular video is the second one that has been leaked, the first one mentioned above shows triangular or “pyramid” shaped UFOs flying near the military vessels, again, the footage was confirmed to originate from Navy personnel. They did not release anymore information about the incident.

In the new video below, we see a small spherical object hovering, changing direction, flying above the ocean and also capable of “flying” underwater it seems, hence the term “transmedium.” Navy submarines searched for the object but did not recover anything. This object was filmed using Night Vision and FLIR technologies, and was also tracked on military radar. It was released and published by investigative filmmaker Jeremy Corbell.

One thing that’s important to stress is the fact that military encounters with UFOs is not a new phenomenon, in fact it dates back decades.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), at the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely. -General Nathan Twining, U.S. Air Force, 1947. (source)

Common themes among these objects, based on our research here at Collective Evolution, seem to be evasive maneuvers as well as the capability to travel at speeds and perform maneuvers that no known man made piece of machinery can. It’s not uncommon for these “vehicles” to enter and exit our oceans, and what seems to be materializing and dematerializing, starting and stopping on a dime, splitting into multiple objects and much more. In one incident released by the U.S. Navy in 2016, the pilot described one of the objects descending from 60,000 feet and stopping right above the ocean surface, instantaneously.

Critical equipment failure, like radar and weapons systems going offline, also seems to be common in various instances of documented encounters with military aircraft. Here’s one example from Iran in 1976 when military jets attempted to fire on one of these objects. At that exact moment, their weapons and electronic systems were “paralyzed.” How could the occupants or “controllers” of these objects know the exact moment they would be fired upon?

As far as what these objects are, where they come from, why all of a sudden the mainstream is legitimizing this topic after years of secrecy and ridicule, it’s impact on human consciousness and more, we’ve had these discussions and speculations quite a bit. You can access our article archive on the topic here if interested. There are a lot of articles we’ve published that go more in depth than this one.

We’ve been covering this topic since our inception in 2009, and one thing we believe is that it’s OK to speculate and discuss possibilities. Relying on mainstream media as well as government to constantly tell us what something is doesn’t seem to be, in our opinion, the most intelligent thing to do. Years of lies, propaganda (perception manipulation) on various global issues make it clear that independent investigation into this issue is quite important. We must ask ourselves, why does information and evidence need to come from the government for it to be confirmed as real? What does this tell us about ourselves and the influence these “institutions” may have over human consciousness? That being said, it’s great to see more legitimacy pertaining to this topic emerge into the public domain. So far,what we’ve seen is great.

 

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Fully Vaccinated Individuals Are Testing Positive For The Coronavirus: More Examples Emerge

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reports around the globe are showing that fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe and effective are the vaccines?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

What Happened: News of fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID seem to be making headlines everywhere. For example, six people who tested positive in a Sydney hotel quarantine had already been fully vaccinated. According to data from NSW Health’s weekly COVID-19 surveillance report, between April 10 and May 1, six people in quarantine who reported being fully vaccinated were among the 150 overseas cases recorded. One had received a one-shot vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson, and the remaining cases had received both doses of a two-shot vaccine, such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Moderna. University of Sydney epidemiologist Dr. Fiona Stanaway said, given no COVID-19 vaccine is 100 percent effective, it was to be expected that some people who have been vaccinated test positive.

The New York Yankees recently announced that they had two coaches and one support staff member test positive for COVID despite all of them being fully vaccinated. In Seychelles, East Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that on Tuesday it was reviewing coronavirus data in the region after the health ministry said more than a third of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the past week had been fully vaccinated.

These are a few of many examples, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise as people have been warned throughout the pandemic that the full dosage of COVID vaccines will not be 100 percent effective. Canada’s Chief Public Health officer Teresa Tam, for example, recently reminded Canadians on Saturday that even those who are fully vaccinated are susceptible to COVID. She did say, however, that the risk of asymptomatic transmission is far lower for anyone who is fully vaccinated, but how much lower? What about asymptomatic individuals who are not vaccinated?

According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University’s School of Medicine,

The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.

Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household. (source)

Something to think about.

It’s hard to say. In the United States, for example, the CDC makes it quite clear that “there will be a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19” and that “symptomatic breakthrough cases will occur, even though the vaccines are working as expected. Asymptomatic infections among vaccinated people also will occur.”

But the concern here is the fact that the CDC recently announced the following,

As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021.

This means that people who get infected with COVID after being vaccinated will not be reported unless they are hospitalized or died. It begs the question, how can any appropriate data in the United States, for example, be collected regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine if those who test positive and have had the vaccine are not being reported?

It is a bit confusing, because the CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold. A common occurrence when using this test is a Ct value greater than 35, which makes the probability of “false positives” quite high. Why are they all of a sudden specifying a Ct value for vaccinated individuals? You can read more about that, in depth, here.

Why This Is Important: Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled “Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.

A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.

Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Brown’s paper also cites Doshi’s paper which makes the same point, “As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn’t it be reported? (source)

Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” – Brown

Furthermore, there are a variety of other factors that may be responsible for a drop in cases that we are likely to see in combination with the rollout of these vaccines. One of those factors is previous infection, as there is evidence suggesting that previous infection is more efficient than the vaccine when it comes to creating immunity.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. – Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States

Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that, “After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.”

There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”

With all of this said, there is also evidence suggesting that the vaccines are indeed working. 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.” It was pertaining to the United Kingdom. Many of these scientists have also been quite vocal about their belief that not everybody needs to be vaccinated, and the fact that this is indeed the message we are being bombarded with is suspicious given the fact that this messaging does not, as one of the Professors, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains, does not align with the science. All this is expressed by her, and others, while maintaining their belief that the vaccine can be used as a great tool for focused protection, on those who are vulnerable and who need it the most.

In the article, they explain,

It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.

Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.

The Takeaway: Regardless of how effective the vaccine is at preventing the spread of COVID, and more, there are a number of valid scientific reasons why freedom of choice and informed consent should always remain. A number of “pro-vaccine” scientists who believe and point to the idea that these vaccines are indeed working are also pointing out that they believe mandatory vaccines for travel, employment, and school are unscientific and unethical. If this vaccine was completely safe and effective, travel mandates, for example wouldn’t be needed, everybody would be rushing to get one. Do we really want to give governments the power to implement health mandates when it goes against the will of so many people, doctors, and scientists? Is it not enough to simply promote and recommend people receive the vaccine instead of using measures to coerce the entire population to do so? Why are certain viewpoints, opinions, research and evidence of so many experts in the field being completely ignored and in some cases ridiculed if they oppose the common narrative we receive from governments and mainstream media?

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A team of aluminum experts at Keele University has found that multiple childhood vaccines contain significantly more or less aluminum than what is listed on product labels. They have filed a petition with the FDA in an attempt to resolve this issue.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the consequences of misleading or incorrect product information, like vaccines, listed on the product label? Should these labels not be completely accurate?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

The aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year.

The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.

A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix.

This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it’s content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.

Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.

The petition states,

These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.

The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.

  Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.

If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here.

Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,

We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.

You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.

Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,

Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?

How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.

No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.

I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.

The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of  certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.

If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again,  it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model.

Isn’t human health and ‘doing no harm’ the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate it.

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!