- The Facts:
A reader sent an email about our coverage of the Trump/Biden clash stating that she 'can't see being a neutral observer.' Her passionate email presented a unique opportunity for me to expand exactly what we mean when we talk about neutrality.
- Reflect On:
Does neutrality necessarily imply that we will sit on the sidelines and simply wait for things to happen?
Not long after my article ‘Ukraine Showdown: Why Trump And Biden Are Facing Off‘ was published a few weeks ago, a reader named Marie sent an email that was quite intriguing in nature. It made a reasonable argument, and I felt it was a great illustration of a subtle misconception about remaining neutral in Left/Right politics, and the role neutrality plays in being fully engaged in the process of our collective awakening.
I fundamentally agree with Marie that now is a time for passionate activism, but I wanted to make an important distinction between being passionate and being polarized. I thought that presenting Marie’s points and challenging them on the concept of neutrality would help us to go deeper into its meaning and distinguish it from some aspects that are easily associated with it, such as passivity and inaction. Please note that this is a single email that I have divided into sections to respond to the individual points, it was not a ‘chat’ I had back and forth with Marie.
--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.
I want to chime in on your article pertaining to the Ukraine story. I think it’s a little deeper than just the theater of the absurd. The reason it appears absurd is because THE truth is not being given to us. This story is just one of many where the actions and results taken affect the entire globe.
The side that must be taken is the one for truth and justice which is being denied to all the citizens as we are tossed and manipulated by the politicians of the world with stories (and so many more) like this Ukraine saga. I think the collective consciousness will rise immensely when truth and justice actually start to be served.
If I understand your point here, it is that in this particular right/left battle Trump is on the side of truth and justice.
Yes, the article fundamentally details an uncovering of the truth behind Joe Biden’s lies about his dealings in the Ukraine. And let’s go further and even say the article clearly demonstrates that Biden is guilty of corruption. The question here is, is it necessary to align ourselves with the Right (Trump) in order to find out the truth about the Left (Biden)?
My argument for neutrality is that truth has no ‘side’–I don’t believe any ‘side’ has the whole truth, nor is any side fully absent of truth. And it is not necessary to be partisan (choosing right over left, or making Trump the hero and Biden the villain) in order to arrive at the truth on this or any other matter. Truth is truth, it will evidence itself to the keen and careful observer, but neutrality is important if we are ever to get to the full and unbiased truth. If we side with any politician and their side of the polarity we are unlikely to ever glean the whole truth.
Secondly, I need to make a distinction between truth and justice. It just so happens that justice does not need to be served in order for us to extract the truth from a situation like this Trump/Biden face off. The notion that Joe Biden and other such criminals need to be indicted and convicted before collective consciousness can rise is dubious. There is nothing wrong with seeing criminals have their day in court, but the extent of their punishment should really be of no consequence to the rise of our collective consciousness. Only the greater revealing of truth, if indeed the formal judicial process provides it, is of value to us. And that value is highest if we are able to remain neutral.
I believe the American government system was divinely founded and set up as an example for the world to follow. Fast forward to today’s world and politicians have managed to find every way to compromise truth and justice; and, we, the people, are left miserable and forced to try to live by the laws that certain others continually thwart. So, I don’t think anyone can sit this out and just observe with neutrality. Now is when people need to demand that the whole truth and justice for all these stories be offered. How can any of us be satisfied until that happens? Otherwise, we keep settling for the absurd and become cynical.
I can go along with the notion that the American Republic was divinely inspired, or at minimum was conceived by profoundly wise and aware people. The belief that a full return to Constitutional rule in the United States is the path of our salvation is something that I am still on the fence on. What you go on to imply here is that we ‘need to demand the whole truth and justice’. What form would these ‘demands’ take? Is it really important that we extract the truth from the mouths of liars? Is the truth not already available to us? And if we actively seek out the truth with neutrality, and try to share it with others, can you really say that we are just sitting this one out?
If you bought an expensive ticket for a sports game and observed a game where the rules were changed haphazardly, you would be angry and want your money (taxes for example?) returned. Not to mention all the people fired for lying to you about how this game was going to be played.
I don’t necessarily agree with this analogy, that I would get angry and would want my money returned. In the grand scheme of things, I believe the rules that were set out when we chose this incarnation ARE being followed, and we agreed to abide by them. In that regard, I believe what is playing out now in the political arena, what I have called the theatre of the absurd, does indeed support our ultimate goal of collective evolution. But not because it is pushing us to anger and fighting and polarization, but indeed because it is pushing us to something higher, above the fray, in a neutral place–which is where conscious activism is waged from.
So, I can’t see being a neutral observer. This is actually the time to demand the absolute truth and justice that we want and that we continually pay for with our hard work and money only to watch it go to monstrous out of control governments. Yes, this is theater of the absurd but we should let it be known that our money and lives are paying for it and it’s not acceptable anymore.
Again, being neutral does not necessarily equate with being an observer. One can be neutral in the world and be active. Peaceful protests have this nature to them. (In fact Marie sent me a quick follow-up email noting an example of peaceful activism which I am inserting here):
Yesterday, 10/5, there was a march in Waikiki led by Native Hawaiian leaders to protest an ongoing dispute around building another telescope on top of Mauna Kea, a sacred mountain. Around 10,000 people were expected. I haven’t seen something this impassioned here for some time but it’s the kind of communicating that I think citizens will have to show in order to let government leaders know that people have reached their limits with just the absurdity you are talking about. This protest isn’t just about a telescope- it’s also the Hawaiian frustration with government bullying; and there hasn’t been any violence, just firm determination from the kupuna (elders).
I certainly support this activism. The conscious protester knows that the ultimate battle is not for whether or not a telescope is erected on top of a sacred mountain, but whether or not the hearts and minds of growing numbers of people on the planet are being won over to the cause as a consequence of the protest. The cause, ultimately, is human sovereignty.
Now back to the original email:
And like Pres. Trump or not, none of this was brought forward until he appeared on the scene. Let’s give him a chance.
I don’t have any problem with this, and I agree Trump appears to be looking into corruption and ‘draining the swamp’–and I’m coming from a neutral place. Which means I’m perfectly willing to let things play out as they are in the political arena. What I will not do, from a neutral place, is deem Trump the savior without whom we would be doomed. It is quite possible that Trump will make some positive changes and bringing hidden crimes to light, but that doesn’t mean that when all this is said done we will have ‘Heaven on Earth’ with Donald Trump at the helm. We still need to look beyond him, and, I believe, look beyond the currently constituted American Republic itself, to arrive at our destination.
Perhaps, the only way out of this swampy mess will be to offer pardons in exchange for admissions and start again from there.
Marie in Hawaii
This I would agree with, and it comes back to my point that we need the truth but we don’t necessarily need a particular form of ‘justice,’ if indeed we are looking to get to a place where all of humanity comes together as one.
Neutrality is not antithetical to activism. And if that activism is to be conscious, then neutrality is essential. Without it, we think in terms of polarities, right versus wrong, good guys and bad guys, left and right, and we pit ourselves against each other, which actually thwarts our collective efforts towards greater unity. The truth alone is what can set us free, and neutrality does not suppress our hunger for the truth but only heightens our discernment of it. Joe Martino and I get together week after week on the Collective Evolution Show and model what we feel Conscious Activism looks like: having open conversations, challenging established ideas and staying connected with our highest aspirations as humans. Below is the introductory clip of our discussion of the showdown between Trump and Biden, and to see the full episode and hundreds more videos you can start a 7-day trial on CETV.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
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…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
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 the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the 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 behaviors 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..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The 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.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Noam Chomsky Explains How Immoral & Unethical Extraditing Julian Assange Would Be
- The Facts:
Noam Chomsky explains that Julian Assange is locked up for spreading truth, and exposing information that the general public has the right to know.
- Reflect On:
Why do people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden face such a harsh backlash from Governments? If governments and elite corporations aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide? Why are the censoring so much information?
What Happened: Popular activist and academic Noam Chomsky recently sat down with RT for an interview regarding the attempted extradition of Julian Assange to the United States. He (Assange) is facing multiple life sentences for leaking classified information, but the reality is, as hundreds of academics, legal professionals, and what seems to be a staggering majority all over the world, feel what is happening to Julian Assange is a result of simply sharing information that that exposes immoral and unethical actions by various governments and big corporations. In fact, more than 150 politicians, lawyers, and legal academics, including 13 former presidents recently called on the UK to free Assange. You can access that letter here. For this, not only has he been imprisoned, but tortured as well. Chomsky mentions this as well.
Of course, the opposition would argue that the information Assange shared threatened “national security” but in my opinion, national security has simply become an umbrella term to cover up these immoral actions by governments and corporations.
According to Chomsky, ‘Julian Assange committed the crime of letting the general population know things that they have a right to know and that powerful states don’t want them to know.’ You can watch the interview clip here.
Why This Is Important: I’ve written about Assange quite a bit, and a quite I like to use often comes from – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.
Related CE Articles:
The Takeaway: In my opinion, politics has become a cesspool of corruption, and it’s now corporations and big banks that seem to dictate political policy. What we are presented with on our TV when it comes to geopolitical issues and war is far different from what’s happening in reality, and this is what Julian Assange made evident. Whether it’s the funding, arming and creation of terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda by our governments, creating problems so they can propose the solutions, or documents showing the influence Big Pharma has on global health policy, obtaining this information and using it to inform the public is not a “threat” to the people, it’s a threat to to the people in power. These people in power are using “national “security as they always due to justify the locking Assange up for the rest of his life.
Do we really live on a planet right now where those who expose truth, expose corporate corruption, and those who want what’s best for the world and want to change the world, are locked away, murdered, silenced, censored, and thrown in jail? Furthermore, what time of ‘machine’ is required to justify his jailing in the minds of the masses? What kind of propaganda tools are used and how powerful are they if they have the ability to completely control human consciousness and perception in a way that best fits their interests?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains
- The Facts:
A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has not been dowloaded more than 1 million times.
- Reflect On:
Why are federal health regulatory agencies ignoring the emerging science showing concerns with regards to injected aluminum? Why don't they address the concerns and conduct safety studies?
What Happened: In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. The photo below was posted recently via his Instagram account.
Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:
-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)
-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.
-Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.
-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).
-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).
-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)
-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.
Following up this paper, Exely recently published recently published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”
In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.
Why This Is Important: There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it doesn’t exit the body but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food or whatever however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.
When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr Christopher Shaw, University of British Columbia. (source)
Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.
It’s also important to note that A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.
If you want to access the science and studies about injected aluminum not exiting the body, and more information about aluminum in vaccines in general, you can refer to THIS article, and THIS article I recently published on the subject that goes into more detail and provides more sources, science and exampels.
The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
Conspireality: Is It Time For A Serious Conversation?
One thing I’m noticing now more than ever before in my experience as a journalist and researcher, and as a...
“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence...