Connect with us

Alternative News

Professor Explains Why He Believes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Make Sense

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?

Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.

advertisement - learn more

Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with journalist Derrick Broze about the need for journalistic standards, Qanon, and agorism. Click here to listen!

Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.

The Theory Of Evolution

The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.

One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.

He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”

advertisement - learn more

From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.

The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)

The Genesis Of New Life Forms

His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.

The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Intelligent Design

More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Diving Into Proteins

Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues

Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.

Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.

The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution

Not long ago I wrote about a  recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.

“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)

There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:

With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.

The response?

Near silence.

The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.

Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.

This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’

I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.

The Takeaway

The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.

Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’

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

Another Lawsuit Against Merck Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Life-Changing Disability

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Another lawsuit has been filed alleging severe injury and disability as a result of the HPV vaccine. This time it's on behalf of teenager Michael Colbath alleging that his debilitating injuries were caused by the HPV Vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are those who raise concerns always considered "anti-vax conspiracy theorists" and ridiculed? Should freedom of choice always remain when it comes to vaccines?

Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

What Happened: Another lawsuit has been filed against Merck for allegedly causing another life-changing disability. As lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains, “Before he got the Gardasil (human papillomavirus) vaccine, our client Michael Colbath was a superlative athlete and scholar. A happy, healthy and active boy. In the months following his first injection, exhaustion and extreme fatigue forced Michael away from the sports and hobbies that had been centerpieces of his life. He had trouble staying awake during the school day. After his second Gardasil injection, Michael developed severe foot pain in both feet, so severe that he needed crutches to attend school. He had trouble waking up in the morning and getting out of bed.”

He goes on to explain:

As his symptoms worsened, multiple physicians and specialists treated him for migraine headaches; body pains and muscle aches; chronic fatigue; hypersomnolence (sleeping 15-22 hours in a 24-hour period), sleep drunkenness, unrefreshing sleep; excessive sweating, lightheadedness, and tachycardia; tunnel vision on standing; difficulty with concentration and memory; confusion and brain fog; intermittent or episodic paralysis, numbness; and stomach pains.

Michael’s post-Gardasil injuries and diagnoses, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)idiopathic hypersomnia (IH)myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME / CFS)complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and gastroparesis, kept him from his passions, sports and hobbies. He missed most of high school and only his formidable self-discipline allowed him to complete his school work at home — he could not walk or move unassisted, he earned his Eagle Scout award using a knee scooter.

If Mrs. Colbath had known that Gardasil could create these health issues, she never would have allowed him to receive it.

This is the fifth Gardasil lawsuit Baum Hedlund and I have filed against Merck challenging the company’s dangerous and defective HPV vaccine for causing severe and life changing injuries. In addition to Mike’s case filed this week, we have filed cases on behalf of Sahara Walker of WisconsinZach Otto of Colorado and Julia Balasco of Rhode Island. While each case is unique, they share common threads: All of our clients were happy, healthy, bright, active kids with unlimited potential until they received the Gardasil HPV vaccine. We look forward to getting these cases in front of a jury as soon as possible.

Kennedy and his team are currently engaged in five lawsuits regarding injury as a result of the HPV vaccine. I recently wrote about Sahara Walker, a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries after receiving the vaccine. You can read more about that here.

How Necessary Is The Gardasil Vaccine? The HPV vaccine is heavily marketed as a preventer of cervical cancer, but many studies have called this assumption into question. For example, in a recent study published in The Royal Society of Medicine, researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”  The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.

Another interesting thing to note about HPV infections is when it comes to women in particular, approximately 70 percent of those who get an infection will clear it all by themselves within the first year, you don’t even have to detect it. Keep in mind that only a handful of HPV infections can actually lead to cancer. Within two years, approximately 90 percent of these infections will clear all by themselves. By three years, 10 percent of that original group will still have an HPV infection, and 5 percent of this 10 percent will have progressed into what are known as a precancerous lesion. There are three types of precancerous lesions, CIN1, which requires no treatment, C1N2 and the most severe, CIN3.

So now you have that small group (the remaining 5 percent)…who have precancerous lesions and now let’s look at that moving into invasive carcinoma. What we know then is that amongst women with CIN3 lesions, it takes five years for about twenty percent of them to become invasive carcinomas. That’s a pretty slow process. It takes about thirty years for forty percent of them to become invasive cervical carcinomas. – Dr. Diane Harper, one of a select few specialists in OB/GYN (in the world) who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved.

In a study published in Autoimmunity Reviews, the authors note that “The decision to vaccinate with the HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease, in 95 percent of the infections; and the other 5 percent are detectable and treatable in the precancerous state.”

This is why cervical cancer is usually diagnosed among the elderly, because it takes a long time to develop. This means that one has a very long time to treat pre-cancerous lesions that have the potential to develop into full blown cancer.

Not only is the efficacy of the vaccine called into question by many researchers, the supposed protection it provides, if any, only lasts a few years. Ask yourself, how likely is it for your 11 year old daughter/son to develop an HPV infection that will lead to cancer in a few decades, before she’s/he’s even done high school? The main cause of HPV infections is sexual intercourse.

Harper told CBS a few years ago that “the benefits (of the vaccine) to public health is noting, there is no reduction in cervical cancer.” She also emphasized that parents “must know that deaths occured” and that not all deaths have been reported. This information is accurate, we know this in the United States, for example, because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It stems from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act, which protects pharmaceutical companies from liability and uses tax-dollars to pay for vaccine injuries. Multiple countries have a program like this in place, and the United States has now paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. The main takeaway is that the FDA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is estimated to capture only 1 percent of vaccine injuries.

 A study published in 2013 in Current Pharmaceutical Design carried out a review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that,

HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.

Not long ago researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology looked at 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three HPV vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines.

Mary Holland, a former a professor on the faculties of Columbia Law School and the New York University School of Law for the past eighteen years who taught courses on human rights, recently retired as the Director of the NYU Graduate Lawyering Program. She co-authored a book titled “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed.”

The HPV Vaccine on Trial is a shocking tale, chronicling the global efforts to sell and compel this alleged miracle. The book opens with the vaccine’s invention, winds through its regulatory labyrinths, details the crushing denial and dismissal of reported harms and deaths, and uncovers the enormous profits pharma and inventors have reaped. Authors Holland, Mack Rosenberg, and Iorio drill down into the clinical trial data, government approvals, advertising, and personal accounts of egregious injuries that have followed in countries as far-flung as Japan, Australia, Colombia, India, Ireland, the U.K. and Denmark. The authors have written an unprecedented exposé about this vaunted vaccine.

Written in plain language, the book is for everyone concerned – parents, patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, healthcare organizations, government officials, and schools. Ultimately, this book is not just about the HPV vaccine, but about how industry, government, and medical authorities may be putting the world’s children in harm’s way.

A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. Since then it’s now known that vaccine hesitancy is rising among many doctors, scientists, academics and people of all backgrounds and professions. The question to ask is, why?

At a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction,

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

A Typical Response From Merck For A Supposed Vaccine Injury? A 14-year-old boy named Christopher Bunch passed away more than a year ago, and the mother and father claimed that it was as a result of the HPV vaccine. His mother started a petition over a year ago claiming that her son “died as a direct result of the HPV vaccine.”

The father of the boy, Elijah Eugene Mendoza-Bunch, wrote this via his Facebook page, in January of 2020.

So back on December 11th 2019 I sent an email to CEO Ken Frazier of Merck song to speak with him about the HPV VACCINE and how it killed my son and how it is destroying lives. Well here we are January 25th (the day I got it in the mail) and this is the response from Merck….

As you can see, the letter states that,

“The safety and efficacy of our HPV vaccines have been established in a clinical development program that started more than 20 years ago and involved more than 49,000 individuals. Safety has continued to be evaluated after approval in multiple studies in several million people, in long-term follow up studies and through our extensive ongoing pharmacovigilance monitoring program in place throughout the world. Multiple independent scientific organizations and major regulatory and public health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly evaluated the safety of HPV vaccines. The results of these evaluations continue to be reassuring

Is Aluminum a Concern? The HPV vaccine does use an aluminum adjuvant, something that’s come under fire over the past few years. You can read and learn more about that here.

The Takeaway: This isn’t even the tip of the iceberg, there are many papers published in various journals over the past decade pointing out the same thing. There are also many published studies and papers that claim the vaccine is completely safe and very effective. This is why it can be a confusing topic to look into and why we believe that informed consent in place of an HPV vaccine mandate for children should be in place.

What do you think? One thing is for certain, people should be free to engage in conversations about controversial topics. This is one thing the mainstream fails to do, and always seems to deem the type of information presented in this article as a result of “anti vax conspiracy theorists.” Instead of using ridicule, it would be great if the concerns being raised about vaccine safety were actually spoken about openly and transparently, and most importantly, actually acknowledged and addressed.

Do we really want to live in a world where we can’t talk to each other? Why do we have such a hard time seeing from the perspective of another and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do? Do we really want to create a world where we are forced into certain actions by our government at the threat of losing certain rights and privileges?A world where we are so polarized? Should people not be free to do what they want with their body, especially if the evidence to suggest that they are harming others if they don’t is weak and unsubstantiated?

When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

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

Telegram Passes 500 Million Users As People Seek Facebook & Twitter (Big Tech) Alternatives

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Messaging app Telegram has now surpassed 500 million users after more big names/pages flock to the platform due to censorship by Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter.

  • Reflect On:

    Do we really want to live in a world where freedom of speech is limited even if it's not causing any harm? Should we not have the freedom to access information and decide for ourselves what it is we choose to believe?

Telegram is a social media platform, currently known as a messaging app, that now has more than 500 million users worldwide. Telegram founder Pavel Durov recently confirmed the fact on his personal Telegram channel (@Durov).

Here at Collective Evolution we’ve experienced a tremendous amount of censorship from Big Tech platforms like Facebook, for example. We’ve been working in the field of “alternative media” since 2009. We have since grown our Facebook page to well over 5 million followers, and for years we’ve been subjected to algorithm changes, Facebook “fake news” strikes that are clearly unwarranted, and much more. Most recently, Founder Joe Martino and Myself had our own personal Facebook pages completely deleted with no explanation.

We have been dealing with and coming to terms with the fact that we just don’t know how much longer our Collective Evolution Facebook page will be around or how much longer will have access to it, and this is why we are transitioning our followers over to our recently made Telegram account.

All of this censorship has also resulted in a very significant demonetization. What we do here at Collective Evolution is being threatened, and has been threatened for quite some time. We want to keep doing what we do but sometimes worry that we cannot produce the means necessary to do what we do. This is why we started CETV.

CETV is our own platform and our attempt to move away from dependance on Big Tech. If you’re interested in helping us continuing our work, you can support us by joining there. It’s what is now barely helping us to continue to do what we do, conduct interviews, create personal development courses, write articles, attempt to expand human consciousness, inspire change from within and more. CETV is in its beginning stages, it’s still growing and we are still trying to improve it. We hope you join us there.

Last but not least, and perhaps one of the most important ways  you can keep up to date with what we are doing, apart from CETV, is by joining our email list

It’s not only Collective Evolution that has been subjected to extreme censorship. Doctors, scientists, various academics, peer reviewed science, journalists and more have and all are experiencing the same thing. There is a digital authoritarian “‘Orwellian” fact-checker going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Any information, opinion, or piece of evidence that seems to go against the grain or threaten the status quo seems to be subjected to this nowadays.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernays, Propaganda 1928

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

Encounters With Star People: Three Native Indians Describe An Encounter Of The “First Kind”

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People, and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. This article shares one of many.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we alone? If not, what are the implications when the public becomes fully aware of this? How will it change the way we look at the nature of reality and how we live here, and why we live the way we do?

Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. In her book, “Encounters With Star People, Untold Stories of American Indians” she details many of these stories, and explains how her fascination with Star People came from stories told to her by her older relatives, like her grandmother, when she was a child. Be sure to visit her website to find out more about her work.

I’ve been reading the book for quite some time now and I find myself having a great deal of trouble actually finishing it because everytime I come across a new story, I want to share it with our readers. I’ve written multiple articles that take excerpts from her book. So far I’ve written about a story she shared regarding an elder who told her about a ship that crashed on his reservation. You can read that story here. I wrote about another elder who shared a story of a petrified alien heart, which he claimed belonged to the Star People, and you can read that one here. I’ve written one about an elder who claimed to have been told that humans were one of four violent species in the universe, you can read that here. I wrote about a fascinating story  regarding a man who had an encounter  during an Alaskan blizzard, you can read that here, and another one where a gentlemen was told “not to be afraid.” You can read that here.

This particular story comes from three American Indians who are military veterans. All three of them were stationed together at an Air Force base when this event occurred. An encounter of the “first kind” refers to a UFO sighting in close proximity.

Arlan:

Clarke knew Arlan 15 years before he told her his story. She describes how they first met while he served on the interview committee established by her school (Montana State University) in the hiring of a new faculty position that would recruit American Indian students and teach in the College of Education. Arlan was on the hiring committee, and after Clarke was hired she stayed in contact with him and became part of his extended family,

He frequently stopped by my office at the University on his monthly trip to Helena to meet with the governor’s liaison on Indian Affairs. On one such visit, we sat in my office discussing tribal politics, when I noticed he was staring at the poster hanging on the wall. It pictured a UFO with words underneath it that read, “I believe.” “Do you believe?” he asked, pointing to the poster. “I do,” I replied. “I believe too,” he began.”

“When I was in the service, I was in the Air Force, most indians join the army, but I joined the Air Force. One night the whole base was on alert. An unidentified object appeared on radar. It was headed straight for the base. Several jet fighters scrambled in pursuit. They returned but the base remained on alert. That meant we were all in full combat uniform and dispersed around the perimeters.”

This story corroborates with information that has now been declassified by multiple governments and intelligence agencies around the world. It’s a well known fact than when a UFO, or as they are termed within the mainstream now, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon” (UAP) is tracked on radar, the military scrambles jets to take a closer look. One (out of thousands of similar cases) great example comes from a case I’ve shared a number of times. This incident occurred on the night of September 18th, 1976. A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA report describes the encounter in detail. Furthermore, both of the pilots involved discussed the event years later.

Residents of the city  (Tehran, Iran) noticed a big bright object in the sky. The airport traffic controller also noticed, “it was an intensely bright object that was not supposed to be there.” The Iranian Air Force was contacted and they dispatched two F-4 fighter jets to check out the object.

Both of the F-4 interceptor pilots reported seeing the object visually, it was also tracked on their airborne radar. Both planes experienced critical instrumentation and electronics go offline at a distance of twenty-five miles from the object. Here is an excerpt from the report:

“As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nautical miles it lost all instrumentation and communications. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. Another brightly lighted object came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F4. ”

Back to the story. I just wanted to provide a brief example.

Arlan continues:

Around 2 a.m., a spacecraft appeared. It hovered over the base for a good 30 minutes. There were windows where you could see shadows moving, like someone walking around. We all stood there, our rifles ready to fire. The order never came. The UFO just hovered there, not moving, not making a sound. One foolish airman broke rank and ran in the direction of the craft, shouting and waving his rifle in the air. A beam of light shot out of the craft. He was frozen on the spot. When the light retracted, he fell on his face. A few seconds later, the craft flew away. Two hours later, we were called together and told it was a test and ordered not to talk about the event. I never did. I kept it a secret until this moment.”

“Why now” Clarke asked.

It’s that poster. That craft looked identical to the one we saw that night. “After the incident, did you ever talk to your buddies about it?” I asked. I never did. Within hours of the sighting, I was transferred to a different base. My friends were transferred out the same day. We were given 12 hours to prepare for our transfers. There was a lot of paperwork. We didn’t have much time to talk about the transfers or about the UFO. Some of us exchanged home addresses, but you know how it is when you’re 18. You think you’ll write, but you never do. I never saw or heard from any of those guys again.

Arlan did however know the names and addresses of the men when they were enlisted, and through that Clarke was able to track them down for a chat. Keep in mind this incident occurred decades ago.

Max:

Clarke asked Max about the UFO incident.

Yes, I remember. The brass told us never to talk about it. In fact, they said if we did talk, they would come after us. They told us we had witnessed a top-secret test to determine how we would react under unusual and stressful situations. I never believed them. It was a barefaced lie, and they thought we were so inexperienced and dumb that we would buy into anything…They said it was an experimental craft. It was all lies. Not even the big boys knew what that craft was or where it originated. They were shaking in their boots and the last thing they wanted was for the word to get out.

The idea that this could be some sort of experimental craft/technology that the military possesses is not so far fetched. There are documents, for example, that show the U.K. was “desperate” to get their hands on UFO technology. There are interesting statements from interesting people, like Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell who once said that “yes, there have been crashed craft and bodies recovered.” Even an article in the New York Times from last year covered the story about retrievals of “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth” in a serious manner. (You can read more about “mainstream UFO disclosure” here.) In his book, “Forbidden Science 4,” Dr. Jacques Vallee explains how he came in possession documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. I obtained a document from the CIA’s electronic reading room that details a story about a famous German Engineer, George Klein, describing his experience with “Flying Saucer” technology in Germany, claiming that it’s been operational since 1941.

The point is there is a lot of information out there suggesting that governments, or even more powerful institutions have had and do have this type of capability.

But for some reason, I do believe Max in this case. Despite all of the evidence that we have suggesting some of this technology is in our possession, UFO lore is littered with stories like this from military bases and nuclear weapons facilities.

Max continues:

Arlan, Hank and me – we were sent to protect the entrance to the base. We took our positions and waited for an unknown enemy. We must have been there for over an hour. I was cold and my teeth were chattering. That’s when it happened. The craft came out of nowhere. Not a sound. Suddenly it just appeared hovering silently over the base. We didn’t know what to do. We are all nervous as hell. Our commanding officer told us not to fire, but to be ready to respond if something happened. This one guy, I don’t know if he lost his mind or what, went running toward the craft shooting. A light came out of the craft and he was stopped in his tracks for just a moment as though he was paralyzed, and then he dropped to the ground unconscious. A few moments later, the craft moved silently upward and disappeared into the night.”

A couple of years later, after I re-enlisted, I ran into one of the medics who was on-duty at the hospital that night when the UFO appeared. He told me that the guy was burned all over this face and body. He said he heard a doctor say it was radiation. He said they kept him in a sleep-induced coma for a while, and then they just let nature take its course. He died within a month of the incident.”

This is interesting and it also corroborates with other incidents out there. Stefan Michalak, for example, was involved in a UFO incident in Manitoba, Canada. It’s known the “Falcon Lake Incident” and is quite famous among Canadian UFO researchers. Stefan also suffered severe burns from the crafts he encountered.

According to Stefan’s son, Stan Michalak, who co-authored a book detailing his father’s encounter titled When They Appeared: “I recalled seeing him in bed. He didn’t look good at all. He looked pale, haggard. . . .When I walked into the bedroom there was a huge stink in the room, like a real horrible aroma of sulphur and burnt motor. It was all around and it was coming out of his pores. It was bad.”

Below. you can see the burn marks left from the encounter. Stefan is of many who have had this type of ‘evidence’ left on their body after an alleged encounter. Below is a sketch done by Stefan of the craft he encountered. You can read more about this story here.

Max continues:

Clarke asks Max to describe the craft.

It was huge. Bigger than anything I had ever seen. It just hung there in the sky. Like it was suspended on strings. It made no sound. I would say it was probably about 50 or 60 feet around. Maybe 25-to-35 feet tall. There were windows but you couldn’t see through them. Very small windows but only a dull light emitted from them. The craft was gray metal, perfectly smooth. No angles. Just a perfect circle. It was dark but all the lights at the base were on so we had a good view. I couldn’t see any seams on the craft. That was unusual. It was like it was one piece or there was a skin stretched over it to make it look that way. I saw blue and white lights when it hovered over the base. There were reddish-orange flashing lights that came on as it moved away. It flew upward at first and then disappeared into the night sky within seconds.”

We saw them in Vietnam sometimes. Frequently we would see several at a time, but they never came close. They just flew over, sometimes, in formation. It was like they were observing the war. The pilots talked among themselves. Those of us who worked on the planes heard their conversations. The pilots were concerned about the UFOs. At first they thought they were some kind of communist aircraft sent to scare us out of Vietnam. There were stories of jets that crashed when they pursued them, but most pilots knew what we all knew: these craft were not from this planet. We were no match for them.

Clake goes on to find the third man, Hank, and he tells the exact same story as Max and Arlan. If you want to read more stories like this, make sure you check out the book. The link is at the top of this article.

The Takeaway: I’ve said it many before, so I apologize if this is a repeat for you but I’ll say it again, the ET phenomenon truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and greatly expands human consciousness and the way we perceive ourselves, the cosmos, and the nature of reality. Just think of all that would change when we consider not only the existence of off-world civilizations but also the technology they use to get here. Perhaps other races use their technology for discovery, advancement, service to others and more instead of simply using it to profit in some way, or use it to make weaponry like we do? I don’t know. At the end of the day what we need more on our planet is to question the way we live here, what we are doing here and why we live the way we do when we have so much potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive. The question of “are we alone” is a big one, but thousands of other questions will come forth when we realize, for sure, that we’re not and that we are being visited and have been visited for quite some time.

Cover Photo Credit: Billy Meier. Supposed authentic picture of a UFO he captured. 

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

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!