- The Facts:
The Carbon Tax (and its sinister partner the Cap-and-Trade market) is the only "solution" that our leaders are proposing for Climate Change.
- Reflect On:
Is it not time to question specific 'solutions' to global problems that seem to always benefit the elite, and consider what might be proposed if the health and prosperity of humanity was really the sole concern?
If you are a person who actively supports the implementation of a worldwide carbon tax, it is likely that you have humanity’s best interests at heart. If you have participated in climate marches in order to help speed up the implementation of the carbon tax within your country, you are walking your talk. At CE we certainly appreciate those who take the time and effort to act selflessly in the interests of humanity. Ultimately, we believe that this is an important aspect of how we will improve living conditions on the Earth and actually evolve as a collective.
But let’s get into specifics here. Not about whether or not the science is settled on the matter of carbon emissions being the main cause of global warming, or even if the planet is actually warming–I have extensively questioned the mainstream perception here, here, and here. But for this article, I will assume the science IS settled, and therefore presume your activism is rightly based on your belief that rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming of the planet in the coming years. Let’s get specific about one particular ‘solution’ to the problem, which is the carbon tax.
In supporting a carbon tax, your recommendation is that the citizens of each country should be willing to contribute some more of their own wealth to their government in order to enact their regional or national carbon tax scheme (I’m assuming you realize that all ‘taxes,’ regardless of who they are directly levied upon, eventually trickle down and affect everyday citizens). Another way of saying this is that you are advocating for citizens of the world to be willing to experience an overall decline in their current standard of living in order to implement the global carbon reduction targets of the Paris Accords. This is simple economic math.
How Does The Carbon Tax Work?
First, let’s define what a carbon tax is:
Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put — if you’re polluting to everyone else’s detriment, you should have to pay for it. (source)
And so, if you support a carbon tax, then you agree that ‘the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs.’ And the societal costs are, presumably, a monetary equivalent to the deleterious effects of global warming on humanity. But does the carbon tax actually fulfill your main objective, to save the planet and create a better future for our children? The next series of questions is designed to address this.
1. Are carbon emissions really “pollution”? I believe the above statement is misleading when it characterizes carbon tax as a form of ‘pollution tax,’ wherein CO2 emissions are naturally equated as ‘pollution.’ I feel ‘pollution’ refers to something that has a direct negative effect on life on the planet, that slowly poisons humans, animals and plants that breathe in these substances. Indeed, in the case of plants, CO2 is their oxygen, and CO2 has no harmful effects on living beings. If there is genuine concern for living beings, why has there been no concerted effort to stem the real air pollution factories put out, that cause a haze in some major cities that actually makes it hard to breathe?
2. Does a carbon tax guarantee a reduction of carbon emissions? Quite simply, no. At best, a carbon tax “encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency.” I think it would be more accurate to say that the carbon tax is financial punishment for people and businesses who want to maintain their current standard of living. In most cases, those who can afford the cost of maintaining their standard of living will simply pay the extra money to do so, and, as we have seen so far, CO2 emissions will continue to rise.
The notion that “carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels” is another red herring. Corporations and businesses are driven by profit, nothing else. There is no chance that the majority of businesses will adopt the currently available alternative energy sources unless they are proven to be more cost-effective. Does this mean that taxation will increase until companies are essentially forced to adopt alternatives? Likely, if those in charge really press for meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions. Please note, though, that this can bring many companies to the breaking point, where they will have to reduce wages and compromise on working conditions in order to stay in business and continue to make a profit. Does this sound like a solution for the benefit of humankind?
3. Is the carbon tax the only solution available? Certainly not. There are undoubtedly many alternative solutions, including the large-scale cultivation of hemp, a proven carbon-sequestering crop which I speak about here. We just never hear about these. They are never promoted by Big Money. If we pay close attention, we will see that any natural, truly communal solutions to global warming, actions that have a direct impact on human well-being, are not even considered by the authority, let alone studied. Only the carbon tax and it’s even more sinister partner, the cap and trade system, are promoted by the authority. And that’s because there is money to be made for the elite with these solutions.
4. Where does the tax money go? This is the crux of the matter. There is no promise that the tax money collected by governments will somehow find its way to directly benefit the people. And even if there is a promise, it is unlikely that the promise will be kept. Few would disagree that government taxation has been uncovered as a black hole that ultimately enriches the global elite and the corporatocracy and only scraps filter down to the general population. Powerful interests provide money to politicians, and in turn, the politicians give tax money back to those same powerful interests in the form of government contracts. When we support a carbon tax, we support the maintenance and enrichment of a corrupt system.
5. Does a carbon tax represent humanity coming together to create a better future for itself and the planet? The carbon tax is founded in the old-world notion that only fear tactics and the manipulation of individual self-interest can bring about positive change. We will never be able to ‘come together’ as a global community if what we are really supporting is a mechanism that works off of fear and self-interest. It is important to distinguish a true grass-roots movement that comes together spontaneously through individuals who want to create change for the betterment of the human community. Currently, these are movements that not only DON’T get support from Big Money (because there would be no return-on-investment), but are often actively THWARTED by Big Money. It is clear which movements these are, because participants are subtly condemned by the mainstream press. The Yellow Vest movement is an example. The Brexit movement. The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, at least before it got co-opted. Meanwhile, nothing but praise is heaped on climate activists, gun-control activists, or people raising money to help Western medicine find a cure for cancer. This is because these movements ultimately support the financial elite’s infrastructure and agenda.
I have spoken to several people I respect who take the attitude that the carbon tax is not ideal, but at least it’s something. That they know the carbon tax leads somewhat to the enrichment of powerful people, but there’s no way around it, as that’s the only way anything gets done in the world. I question that notion. I question people’s acceptance of a very limited, even cynical, view of what humanity is capable of. We are at a time in history where we are ripe for making a shift in what we do and how we see ourselves, where we start to believe that the majority of humanity can be motivated to act purely out of love for one another. This shift will be fueled by the desire to reach for our individual sovereignty and no longer have global elite ‘leaders’ that control our destiny. When we collectively put more of our time and energy into this new paradigm and less into the old control mechanism that has hung over us all our lives, true solutions to the world’s problems will be readily at hand.
Confirmed: High-Dose Vitamin C Has Successfully Treated 50 Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients
- The Facts:
Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, published an article of early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. Intravenous vitamin C has helped moderate to severe covid-19 patients recover.
- Reflect On:
Why is something that's true been ridiculed within the mainstream, who claims there is no basis at all for vitamin C treatment for coronavirus?
An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus.” This is the narrative that’s been portrayed by multiple mainstream media outlets since the beginning of the new coronavirus outbreak. In fact, they’ve gone as far as labelling the suggestion that vitamin c could help, as ‘”fake news” in some cases. This is one of multiple examples of ‘fact checkers,’ who have been given tremendous amounts of power with the ability to severely limit the social media distribution of certain media organizations, abusing their power.
Here at Collective Evolution, we’ve been subjected to immoral and unethical ‘fact checking’ that has greatly reduced our ability to sustain ourselves. We are even fearful of our Facebook Page being deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list. This is very important if you want to continue to follow our work in case Facebook deletes our social media platform(s).
As far as Vitamin C treatment for Covid-19 goes, regardless of what some media outlets are claiming, Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The article was written by Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist, from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng served in the United States Army as a commissioned officer (Major) and an Army physician. While in the Army, Dr. Cheng served in various positions including Chief and Medical Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It’s safe to say that he’s probably a much more trusted source on the topic given his background and recent peer-reviewed publication about it than an article claiming that this is false information.
In his article, he states the following:
High-dose intravenous VC has also been successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions. The oxygenation index was improving in real time and all the patients eventually cured and were discharged. In fact, high-dose VC has been clinically used for several decades and a recent NIH expert panel document states clearly that this regimen (1.5 g/kg body weight) is safe and without major adverse events.
His article was published on the 26th of March, but prior to that, Dr. Cheng was providing updates with regards to multiple clinical trials that have been underway in China for treating covid-19 patients with intravenous vitamin C. The US National Library of Medicine posted the information about their clinical trials on their website. The title of one of the trials is “Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia.” The sponsor is ZhiYong Peng, and the responsible party is Zhongnan Hospital in Wuhan University (ZNWU).
Dr. Cheng has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of Chin prior to the publication of this article. We have been covering his updates as he is in direct contact with this treatment and isn’t simply an armchair scientist at the moment. We feel in this time this is a very important detail as he is seeing and hearing results first hand, not simply theoretically.
Cheng also had a message for the ‘fact checkers’ as posted in the description of his latest Youtube video.
I was made aware that FB Fact Check claims “Shanghai did not officially recommend high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19” (left on the above photo). Let me make it clear that not only Shanghai, but also Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, another major city in China, publicly endorsed high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19. Those who does Fact Check, please be more careful.
In one of his latest videos he also commends New York hospitals for becoming aware of the information regarding vitamin c, but claims they are not using high enough doses.
According to a recent article by the New York Post, who has also picked up on the topic,
Seriously sick coronavirus patients in New York state’s largest hospital system are being given massive doses of vitamin C — based on promising reports that it’s helped people in hard-hit China, The Post has learned. Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, said his intensive-care patients with the coronavirus immediately receive 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C. Identical amounts of the powerful antioxidant are then readministered three or four times a day, he said. Each dose is more than 16 times the National Institutes of Health’s daily recommended dietary allowance of vitamin C, which is just 90 milligrams for adult men and 75 milligrams for adult women. The regimen is based on experimental treatments administered to people with the coronavirus in Shanghai, China, Weber said.
How To Take Vitamin C For The Everyday Person
I have turned to the following credentialled individuals to make the statements in this article. They have also pointed to numerous studies which I will list below. These individuals are Damien Downing, who has a bachelor’s in medicine and surgery, Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Gert Schuitemaker, Ph.D., and Richard Z. Cheng, MD, Ph.D., International Vitamin C China Epidemic Medical Support Team Leader. – Joe Martino, Collective Evolution Founder
Read Joe’s article for more details: How To Take Vitamin C Orally. It May Help Protect Against Viruses
For anyone looking for a high-quality vitamin C, we have been using and recommending liposomal vitamin C. There are many brands out there. We are using this one from PuraThrive as it is very high quality and has an incredible clinically proven absorption rate.
It’s truly a heads scratcher as to win intravenous vitamin C treatment for sick patients isn’t really being explored, nor mentioned at all by mainstream media networks. Is this really a surprise?
Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (source)
Ultimately, when it comes to sickness, we must ask ourselves where government allegiance lies. It’s a for-profit model, first and foremost. That’s not to say there aren’t many great things about our health care system
Donald Trump Signs The “Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020″ Into Law
- The Facts:
President Donald Trump signed into law a pair of bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act.
- Reflect On:
Why has the president not addressed or even acknowledge the concerns being made by many scientists and doctors about the potential health hazards that may be associated with 5G technology?
5G wireless technology and the implementation of it is one of many examples of how we truly don’t live in a democracy, but rather, a ‘corporatocracy.’ We are living in a world where powerful corporations seem to dictate governmental policy, and heavily influence various politicians as well as the president of the United States. We’ve seen this for a number of years now, and some presidents have warned about the power that exists which seeks to control all. President Dwight Eisenhower referred to it as the “military industrial complex,” president Theodore Roosevelt referenced it by stating that, “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” Today, Donald Trump refers to it as the “deep state.”
Sadly, right now, we seem to be living in the illusion of democracy, we believe that the people direct most of what happens, but perceived unethical and immoral implementations and measures taken by governments today usually go against the will of the people, or they simply go through and get approved due to the fact that these measures receive little or no attention at all and many people are simply unaware of the concerns associated with them.
5G is no different in this sense, and it’s one of many great examples. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing and may shed some insight as to why the concerns of 5G are constantly ignored and not even acknowledged by our ‘leaders.’
In the case of 5G wireless technology, a number of scientists, journalists and activists have voiced their concern regarding the implementation of such technology. A few months ago, a number of doctors, scientists and activists have sent a National 5G Resolution letter to President Trump, requesting a moratorium on 5G technology until the potential hazards for human health have been appropriately investigated.
Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University wrote a report whose title says it all: “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them.” In his report he bluntly stated the following:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
And he’s clearly not alone in his opinion. The Environmental Health Trust Points out with regards to the letter sent to President Trump,
The 5G Resolution was developed during the first three-day US medical conference fully dedicated to this topic, Electromagnetic Fields Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment, which convened in Scotts Valley, California in September. (Watch videos from the conference here.)
Unfortunately, President Trump recently signed into law two bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act. The first requires the president to develop a strategy to secure and protect 5G technology, while the second is meant to improve the accuracy of maps detailing where broadband is and isn’t available in the US.
Under the 5G Act, the president must consult with Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other agencies and submit to Congress a plan for rolling out secure 5G, both within and outside the US, within 180 days.
The next generation of wireless technology, 5G brings increased networks speeds and network responsiveness and promises to help bring about real-time mobile applications for technologies like driverless cars and virtual reality. The nation’s biggest wireless companies, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, began rolling out 5G service last year.
The Broadband DATA Act, meanwhile, is expected to change how and what information the FCC collects about broadband access to ensure that the federal government has more granular information about where broadband can be found.
Where I live, in Ontario Canada, 5G infrastructure is set to begin in the Toronto to Montreal corridor. Without this implementation, daily human exposure to microwave radiation is already much higher than a trillion times higher than it was before cell phones.
Again, president Trump has not acknowledged the concerns being raised by the citizenry regarding 5G technology.
A Few Examples of Concern
Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus with the University of Toronto, and adviser to the International Agency for Research on Cancer said: “Many scientists worldwide now believe that radiofrequency radiation should be elevated to a Class One human carcinogen, on the same list as Cigarettes, X-Rays, and Asbestos.”
Doctors have advised the province that increased health care costs can be avoided if the government takes precautions to protect the public from exposure to wireless 5G technology. You can get a transcript of the event and more where Dr. Miller spoke at Canadians for Safe Technology.
“My clinic is already assessing patients from across Ontario who are sensitive to microwave radiation from their wireless devices including cell phones, Wi-Fi, and an increasing number of smart appliances,” said Dr. Riina Bray, Medical Director of the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. “We expect wireless 5G to add to this burden.” – Miler.
Frank Clegg Former President Of Microsoft Canada has released an insider’s view educational video regarding the health and safety concerns of 5G and wireless technologies. You can access that here.
This stuff is indeed hitting the mainstream, one recent example of mainstream awareness is an article published in the blog section of Scientific American titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe” written by Joel M. Moskowitz. It’s great to see such a publication at least mention the health concerns of this type of technology, it shows how awareness continues to be created.
Yet there is a completely different side, one that claims 5g technology is completely safe and poses absolutely no risk to human health. That being said, wireless companies continue to warn shareholders, but not people, that EMFs are not insurable.
If you’re interested in learning more about the concerns being raised with 5g wireless technology and what you can do to protect yourself, this resources page via the Environmental Health Trust is a great place to start
Proof: Fact Checkers Are Misleading You
- The Facts:
We share multiple instances where Collective Evolution has been 'fact-checked' and yet the fact-checkers were wrong yet haven't admitted so.
- Reflect On:
Is it time we end the paradigm of "us vs them?" Are these instances happening to expand our mind to what is truly going on in our world and inspire the need for change?
Online censorship has a new disguise: fact-checking. But this article is also going to bring another reflection into view because it’s important we move away from the stories of “us vs them,” and this age-old paradigm of disconnection, and instead awaken a new awareness – connection and empathy. It’s in this that I believe we will truly find clarity and solutions to shift the type of thinking and consciousness we are being asked to shift at this time.
Are all of these ‘fact-checks’ cases of censorship? Or are we also seeing and coming to understand a state of thinking/consciousness that is coming to the surface for us to change? The religion and paradigm of modern science is on display, and we have a chance to see the importance of taking a step and questioning our beliefs, but will we?
A big part of this story is going to point at one company called Health Feedback. They are a division of Science Feedback, and believe they are activating real science and scientists to ‘fact-check’ false claims on the internet. But there is a real challenge with what they are doing, and I strongly feel they are misleading the public on many important issues.
Before I continue, I want to recognize that mistakes happen on the internet, and correcting them is important. I also recognize that there are many websites out there who knowingly create and post false stories to get traffic and make money. At CE, we do not fall into that category, and we have relied on solid research, science, whistleblowers, and experts to formulate our information for 11 years. It has been difficult to operate in the field we are in because simply covering some of the topics we do automatically makes people think they are untrue as there are hundreds of other sites out there covering the same topic poorly and with a sensationalist tone. We don’t and have never done that here.
Further, in the video below I will discuss one of the main editors at HealthFeedback, Flora Teoh. I do not believe she is a bad person, nor do I feel it is useful to attack her online or have anyone in our audience do that to her. It’s actually this sort of ‘us vs them’ approach that I believe gets us collectively into these messes and is also what drives so much fact-checking to be false.
The reality seems to be with this topic, and this is my observation, that either fact-checkers are purposefully rating some content false because they are told and pressured to do so, or that they truly have a narrow scope of information and research and thus have already settled in their beliefs even when evidence arises that should question these beliefs.
This is exactly the challenge we face today with the modern religion of ‘science.’ According to many modern scientists, no longer is the scientific method used to better understand our material and non-material world, but instead, we already KNOW so much and have arrived at consensus’ that are merely beliefs disguised as truths.
It’s this paradigm, mindset, and frame of consciousness that I feel could be the biggest contributing factor as to why, not just fact-checkers, but people in general have such a hard time expanding their minds – they identify with their beliefs and get stuck.
But it’s in that that we see the solution – a shift in consciousness. A conscious choice to question your beliefs, ideas, and what you think to be true. This is why I developed the CE Protocol, a series of concepts designed to help anyone shift their thinking, consciousness and way of being towards a new paradigm of openness, connection, love and authenticity.
Without further adieu, I share with you the major missteps taken by fact-checkers thus far that we have seen, and show you email threads and techniques they use that mislead the public – either purposefully or accidentally through ignorance.
It is my intention to allow people an inside look at what goes on with fact-checking, and encourage a new approach to how we look at information and how we relate to one another? Does this bring up anger in you? If so, why? How can you shift to stay present and peaceful, while taking effective action, when you observe this?
Confirmed: High-Dose Vitamin C Has Successfully Treated 50 Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients
An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the...
Donald Trump Signs The “Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020″ Into Law
5G wireless technology and the implementation of it is one of many examples of how we truly don’t live in...