Connect with us

Alternative News

Reader Email: We Can’t Be “Neutral Observers” In Trump/Biden Political Battle

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe and Dr. Madhava Setty deliver a special report aimed at gaining clarity around the COVID-19 vaccine. Is it safe and effective? Can it actually change your DNA? Click here to listen!

Marie’s Email

Hi Richard,

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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

The Takeaway

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.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Norway has registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first Covid-19 vaccination shot, raising questions over which groups to target in national inoculation programs.

  • Reflect On:

    Should freedom of choice always remain here? Should governments and private institutions not be allowed to mandate this vaccine in order to have access to certain rights and freedoms?

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Older and sick people with co-morbidities were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

On the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, 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, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored.

In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Elizondo, Mellon & Justice Are Officially Leaving To The Stars Academy

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    UFO/UAP research organization To The Stars Academy officially announces the departure of COO Steve Justice, Director of Special Programs Luis Elizondo and Advisor Chris Mellon.

  • Reflect On:

    With so much mainstream attention on the UFO subject right now, many are wondering whether the public is being told the truth, or a sanitized version of it. Will we see new and groundbreaking material soon from these 3 key voices?

Since 2017, To The Stars Academy (TTSA) has been in the news in relation to groundbreaking events in mainstream UFO/UAP culture. You likely remember TTSA’s release of video footage showing UFOs making incredible maneuvers in the sky. The video was taken by a US Navy pilot while tracking and following the object for as long as possible. The story was heavily covered in mainstream and alternative media after the New York Times broke the story.

Since that day, TTSA has been in the limelight when it comes to the mainstream discussion of UFO disclosure. But with that success also came doubt and controversy. Why was the media suddenly interested in a topic it had ridiculed for so long? Credible evidence has been available for decades, so why is it only be acknowledged now? Why is TTSA getting so much attention when many other credible organizations, people, and whistleblowers were saying the same thing for years?

This skepticism amongst long time UFO researchers is fair, as these are good questions that don’t have clear or obvious answers. Further, TTSA was comprised of many former government and intelligence agency employees, former operations office at the CIA Jim Semivan, former CIA employee Dr. Nor Kahn, former Pentagon employee Lue Elizondo, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon. With a roster like that, those with skeptical minds in a space shrouded by secrecy and deception would naturally question whether these ex-government employees are now in favor of disclosing government secrets, or whether they are part of a decade long cover-up program. This is healthy skepticism, it no no way means that these people are part of some sort of agenda to shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, but it’s an important discussion to have.

All that said, how can one deny the value TTSA has brought to this discussion? They have created massive awareness around UFOs/UAPs within the masses with their work, and this has resulted in a greater audience willing to explore this important subject credibly. As I have often said, just because there may exist an agenda to manipulate public perception on a subject, it doesn’t mean it won’t backfire and instead create massive positive public awareness.

Years ago we wrote an open letter to comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan about UFOs, as during that time he was denying the legitimacy of the subject and it was clear he had not truly looked into it. That piece was viewed hundreds of thousands of times, perhaps it got on his radar, perhaps it didn’t. But look now, with TTSA’s work and a change in the mainstream conversation, Joe Rogan has significantly changed his tune about the UFO phenomenon and is sharing that open-mindedness with millions of his podcast listeners. All this said, it’s hard to say TTSA has done anything but good.

But I’ll add one more small piece to this, people have been encouraged others to keep an open mind about TTSA’s intentions as some believe their focus is on a potential “ET threat narrative,” and this is believed to be part of a greater governmental agenda – even if that means by focusing on a threat it will bring haste to political action. You can hear these perspectives from researchers like Dr. Steven Greer and US constitutional lawyer Daniel Sheehan, both of who I shared screen time with in Dr. Greer’s latest film Close Encounters of The 5th Kind.

Nonetheless, the roster and goals at TTSA are now changing.

In a statement, TTSA informs the public:

TTSA now enters its natural evolution as a company as we adapt to a new global landscape with new opportunities and priorities.  TTSA looks to build on the momentum of business initiatives where we are seeing success and which are increasingly likely to yield shareholder value.  Data collection, artificial intelligence and entertainment opportunities remain our mainstays as key opportunities going forward and we are excited to announce more soon.

As we enter this new phase, inevitable changes will come with it, including a change in personnel.

We are incredibly grateful for the founding team members who helped establish TTSA, including COO Steve Justice, Director of Special Programs Luis Elizondo and Advisor Chris Mellon, who are moving on to focus on other endeavors, as TTSA continues to develop the new chapter in its evolution.

“This change does not alter the relationship TTSA and I have established or our collective dedication to the mission,” said Luis Elizondo. “We will continue to collaborate and strengthen our partnerships as we face new priorities and opportunities in the wake of COVID-19.”

TTSA thanks Steve, Luis and Chris for their meaningful contribution to the establishment of TTSA and an extraordinary three years. We wish them all the best in their future undertakings.

The Takeaway

It’s important to note that just because your favorite UFO researcher might have an opinion about a key aspect of this discussion, it may not be accurate or true. In the 12 years our team has been researching the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomenon, it’s clear that there is not much of whole-hearted collaboration, and there is a great deal of infighting and differing opinions about what is going on. That said, it’s important to keep an open mind, follow the evidence, listen to multiple sources, and dig deep to uncover what is available. I truly believe true disclosure has happened in many ways already, after we now have full disclosure from governments that UFOs exist. The question now is who’s manning them? We know much more about that question already, and don’t need the government to tell us so. This is why I feel full disclosure will happen primarily through the people – not necessarily a slow, sanitized, drip from the government.

The information released by TTSA is merely the tip of a massive iceberg, an iceberg that we already know a lot more about than what has been disclosed to the public. Here’s to hoping that Elizondo, Mellon, and Justice plan to focus on bringing that information to the masses in a timely fashion – my hunch is they already know a lot more than they have shared over the last 3 years.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

New Stanford Study Claims Lockdowns Are Not Effective To Stop Spread of COVID

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    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.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is information, science and evidence that opposes recommendations that governments are making sometimes ridiculed, censored, and largely unacknowledged? Why is scientific debate being discouraged?

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. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

What Happened: A study published by four medical professors from Stanford University has failed to find evidence supporting the use of what they call “Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions” (NPIs) like lockdowns, social-distancing, business closures and stay at home orders. According to the study, these measures have not been sufficient and are not sufficient to stop the spread of COVID and therefore are not necessary to combat the spread of the virus. Although they do mention that “the data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits” they mention that “even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures.”

The authors used England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States for the study. They found “No clear, significant, beneficial” effects of the methods being implemented (lockdowns, business closures, stay at home orders etc) to combat COVID case growth in any country.

You can access the full study here for a deeper discussion/analysis.

This Isn’t The Only Study: The recently published study by the Stanford professors is not the first. There are many examples.

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”

Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”

Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”

 Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”

Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”

Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”

There are dozens upon dozens of examples of published research showing and claiming that lockdown and other non-pharmacological methods for combating COVID have no benefit whatsoever on reducing the spread of the virus, so why are we being forced into these measures?

Below is a video of 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 (also one of the authors of the study mentioned at the beginning of this article)  where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created 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.  Follow their twitter account here.

The declaration explains why these health professionals and scientists strongly oppose lockdown measures, and also brings up the topic of herd immunity. In the video below they explain their belief of why there should be a different response to the pandemic.

The Consequences of Lockdown: The consequences of lockdown are many. And we are doing so for a virus with a 99.95 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70, and a 95 percent survival rate for people over the age of 70.

In Ontario, Canada, a member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s caucus is speaking out against his own government’s policies and calling for an end to the province-wide pandemic lockdown.“The lockdown isn’t working,” writes 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)

A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

Many experts  who are opposing lockdowns are not advocating for no measures to be taken, instead many of them believe we don’t have to shut down businesses and keep people inside to protect the vulnerable. They advocate for a more focused type of protection, especially in light of all the harms that lockdown measures seem to be creating.

These harms were pondered early on in the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .

response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article  published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,

Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy. Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.

It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults. The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health. Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.

According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.

According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,

Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.

Bhattacharya, MD, PhD wrote an article  for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.” In that points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.

The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, EnglandFrance, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.

By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months. The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.

The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.

The burden of these policies falls disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable. For example, isolation led to a 20 percent increase in dementia-related deaths among our elderly population. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the lockdown in the United States shows that patients skipped cancer screenings, childhood immunizationsdiabetes management visits and even treatment for heart attacks.

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.

Other Strange Happenings: A lot of people are also raising concerns about COVID deaths being marked as COVID when they’re not really a result of COVID. You can read more about that, in detail here.

Concerns have also been raised with regards to PCR testing, you can read more about that in detail here.

Furthermore corruption and conflicts of interest also seem to be a big concern, you can read more about that in detail here.

The Takeaway: Never before have we seen actions taken by Western governments come under such scrutiny from so many people. COVID has really been a catalyst for more people to question what we are doing here on planet Earth, why we live the way we do and why we give so much power to governments that may not have the ability to make the best decisions for us due to a number of different factors.

The suppression and muzzling of scientists, journalists, doctors and people during this pandemic for simply providing information, evidence and opinions that oppose mainstream rhetoric has also forced many more people to question what’s happening here. The shutdown of open scientific debate is quite concerning, and social media platforms have completely banned the accounts of what seems to be thousands of health professionals, journalists and independent media outlets while someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci is given instant virality on television when expressing his views.

Why is it that we fail to have proper conversations about controversial topics and viewpoints? Why do we have to shut them down, ridicule them and ignore them? What’s going on here? Is there a battle to control the perception of the masses when it comes to not only this pandemic, but other topics as well? Why do we continue to listen to and rely on entities that don’t really have our best interests at hand? Is the political realm really a representation of truth? Can it provide us with the answers and advice we are looking for and ones that are actually good for us? Should we give governments such power where they can shut down the planet at will when so many people across the globe disagree? Should people have the freedom to do as they please? Should business closures, isolation, and stay at home orders simply be shifted to recommendations? Should people be able to choose what measures they wish to take and respect the decisions of others who oppose them? When everything is not so black and white as sometimes it is made out to be, I believe freedom of choice should always remain, what do you think? I don’t have the answers, but I do know that asking questions and having discussions is very important.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!