During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed the suppression of not only science, but a number of prominent scientists and doctors from around the world. These doctors and scientists have shared their research, observations and opinions about COVID-19 that directly contradicts the information given to the citizenry by the World Health Organization (WHO) and government health authorities in dozens of countries.

Mainstream media is constantly giving attention to government affiliated scientists and is only sharing one perspective on this pandemic. Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter have all been actively censoring a number of scientists and doctors, but why? Why censor information if it’s not true? How can tens of thousands of doctors and scientists be sharing a perspective that’s constantly ridiculed by mainstream media?

I’m not talking about the more controversial films or messages like what has been touted by David Icke or the film Plandemic, we’re talking about real science from tens of thousands of respected and credentialed health professionals. Why are they not allowed to be heard? Why are there ‘fact-checkers’ going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

These scientists have not backed down, for example, Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.

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 created “The Great Barrington Declaration.” It now has approximately 45,000 signatures from doctors and scientists, the declaration strongly opposes COVID lockdown measures, stating that they do more harm than good and are not really effective.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, one of the most cited scientists in German history, who was chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz along with his wife Karina Reiss Ph.D  have published a book titled “Corona, False Alarm? Facts & Figures.“  They are part of more than 500 German doctors & scientists who have signed on as representatives of an organization called “Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss. The organization opposes measures taken by governments worldwide.

These are just a few of countless examples out there from so many different countries. COVID-19 has united prominent scientists and doctors from around the world in large numbers, yet their concerns go unheard. Sometimes it seems like the mainstream media can make the minority feel like the majority, and the majority feel like the minority.

The general theme among these groups is that COVID-19 is not as dangerous as it’s been made out to be, and that there is manipulation of science and data on several different levels, from the infection/fatality rate, the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, the number of cases that are actually out there, and the idea that the virus is being made out to be much more dangerous than it actually is.

What Happened: The latest example comes from Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open.

He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

In his article, he writes the following:

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency. The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report. Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19. The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests. It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office. Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir. Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

The Takeaway: What does it say about our world when so many voices are silenced? Why is this happening? How can so many doctors and scientists be wrong, ridiculed, completely ignored and censored to the point where not many people are even aware of the information they are sharing? Why do we only get one perspective from the mainstream media? Can we continue to rely on government, and government health agencies to provide us with real information and recommendations that have the best interests of the people at heart, or is everything we are seeing an attempt to not only control, but profit off the human race? Why have so many people lost faith in their government and the ability of it to deliver accurate and real information to the people?

Is it time to take matters into our own hands? Do we really live in a democracy when the voice and the will of so many people continue to go unheard and unacknowledged?

We’re in a time where these very questions are more important to answer than ever before. Action is needed, worldviews are shifting, practice is everything.

Exploring the 2020 election aftermath can be confusing. A slew of partisan perspectives, mainstream media holding to a lockstep narrative, and much of alt media sitting on the other end of the extreme. But where can we get election information we can trust? That’s a good question, and one we feel will be answered as a bit more time passes. We are preparing a report on what factual election fraud we’ve found, but for now, we’ll start here.

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. 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. – Theodore Roosevelt (source)

When Donald Trump won the U.S. Presidential election in 2016, accusations of Russian election interference began to surface and still persist to this day. Many would argue that there was absolutely no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, that it was a false claim built by various ‘powers that be’ which control the democratic party, to delegitimize Trump’s win. Others would argue that the evidence was quite clear, and that Russia did somehow influence the outcome of the 2016 election. While observing mainstream media, it wasn’t hard to see that they were strongly pushing the idea of Russian interference, while completely ridiculing the idea that there was no interference. This entire story was built off the existence of what was called the Steele dossier, now known to be a complete fabrication. So indeed ‘Russian interference’ was a mere political ploy, a lie, perpetuated for years. But since mainstream media has such a strong influence when it comes to controlling the perception of the masses, a large number of people were, and still are, completely divided on the issue and many simply just don’t know what to believe.

We are seeing the same issue happen again with the current presidential election, only the exact opposite. Now, the democratic party is ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, and mainstream media is constantly pushing the idea that this election contained no voter fraud, and that voter fraud rarely exists to begin with. A quick look at any mainstream outlet, including official statements from social media giants, will suggest there was no type of interference in any way, shape or form, while simultaneously ridiculing the idea that this year’s election could have been tampered with. This too, we know to be false. There is plenty of evidence for voter fraud, we simply don’t yet know the full scale. That’s what investigations are for.

It’s ironic how two sides can completely flip within a four year period, what was true regarding election integrity four years ago is not true today, but how can that be? Does this simply shine light on the idea that politics has simply become too corrupt a system to deal with and handle the problems our world faces today? Does it really work for the people, or is it a game in which the people are mere pawns? Should we keep giving our collective minds and turning our collective eye to one person who we think can solve, or have some sort of impact on world issues in an effective manner? Do global issues really change depending on who is the United States president? Do domestic problems ever change? Or does our perception of them simply change as a result of ‘leaders’ politicizing every single issue and trying to use them to gain more popularity?

What Happened: You are probably familiar with Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who blew the whistle and shared evidence showing that the U.S. Government not only illegally collects massive amounts of data via a variety of surveillance techniques on its own citizens, but also citizens of many other countries around the world. On July 27th, 2019, Snowden tweeted a video of J. Alex Halderman, a computer science and engineering professor at the University of Michigan who is an expert in the field of election security. In the video he emphasizes how easy it is to hack the voting machines used today during the presidential elections.

In a 2017 hearing, he states the following:

I know America’s voting machines are vulnerable, because my colleagues and I have hacked them repeatedly. As part of a decade of research, studying the technology that operates elections and learning how to make it stronger. We’ve created a tax that can spread from machine to machine like a computer virus, and silently changed election outcomes.  We’ve studied touch screen and optical scam systems and in every single case we found ways for attackers to sabotage machines and to steal votes.  – Halderman

In the video tweeted by Snowden, he states that “these machines have got to go.” Snowden has also shared in 2016 how easy it is to HACK into a US voting machine with a £24 memory card.

Watch the voting machine used in US swing states get hacked to rig an election. @Jhalderm, @UMich, and @nytimes demonstrate why every voting district needs an auditable paper ballot. Voting machines are *known* to be insecure. https://t.co/juvU7K3Qdl pic.twitter.com/prsrOGK17z

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 27, 2019

Now corroborate this with the claims coming from one of Trump’s lawyers Sidney Katherine Powell, who is an American attorney from North Carolina. She claims that she knows for certain that voter fraud can be found on voting machines around the country during the 2020 election, and the scale is large enough to overturn the election results.

She claims they will have presentable evidence by the end of the week. There are other supposed examples of fraud that have come to light being heavily denied. The machines in question are made by a company called Dominion and right now, claims by President Trump and supposed evidence of fraud is running rampant from his campaign.

These claims have been heavily denied by Dominion and Smartmatic, and ‘fact-checkers’ are all over these claims heavily denying them and labelling them as false conspiracies.

Why This Is Important: The fact that according to mainstream conjecture, election machines could have so easily been hacked in 2016, but not in 2020 just doesn’t make sense, especially given the fact that the same type of machines were used in both elections.

As mentioned we will produce a more lengthy report on fraud in this election, however, that is not entirely the point here. The point is simply to demonstrate how easily fraud can occur, yet there has been such a denial of possibility from one side.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves how we really feel about the game being played before our eyes. Are ‘the people’ truly cared about and represented? If not, what is our course of action? Is it time to organize a new vision, one where elected (or unelected) officials can’t simply do what they want?

How much longer do we want to hand over our own consciousness and attention to the political system? And how much longer do we want to rely on the political system as a means to represent the collective desire? How much does the political system really represent the voice and the will of the people? Does our political system do more harm than good? Is it even capable of facilitating any real type of change that can actually better the human experience? Are we giving our attention to something completely useless and incapable of looking at important issues, and asking the necessary questions we need to ask ourselves?

As long as our collective eye and our collective mind are turned outward to one person every four years, it will never be turned inward at ourselves, and we will never really recognize the ability we have as a collective to change our society from the story of today to a new one. Humanity needs a change in worldview, holding onto the old is being challenged right before us.

The Great Reset is an initiative created by the World Economic Forum. The House of Windsor (Royal Family) and the United Nations (UN) are prime executive co-producers of the plan, and top sponsors include BP, Mastercard and Microsoft. According to them:

There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset Initiative.

They go on to explain all of the disruptions we are facing in our current COVID climate are:

“changing the traditional context for decision making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems – from health and financial to energy, environment and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet.”

This ‘Great Reset’ plan has come under fire by many, seeing it as an initiative under the guise of good will to maintain and empower, as Dr. Vandana Shiva calls it, “a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life.”

What Happened: The former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Carlo Maria Viganò previously served as Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City State has also raised concerns.

A few months ago he wrote a letter to President Donald Trump bringing up what he called the “deep state,” as well as the idea that the COVID pandemic has been one giant “social engineering experiment.”

He recently penned another letter to Trump, this time it was about The Great Reset:

A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

You can access and read the entire letter here.

According to Ellen Brown, an attorney and chair of the Public Banking Institute:

“No country will be allowed to opt out because it would be endangering the rest…Who is behind the Great Reset and what it really entails are major questions that need their own article, but suffice it to say here that to escape the trap of the globalist agenda, we need a mass awakening to what is really going on and collective resistance to it while there is still time. There are hopeful signs that this is happening, including massive protests against economic shutdowns and restrictions, particularly in Europe; a rash of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the lockdowns and of police power overreach; and a flood of alternative media exposés despite widespread censorship.

Life as we know it will change. We need to ensure that it changes in ways that serve the people and the productive economy, while preserving our national sovereignty and hard-won personal freedoms.”

Why This Matters: Perspectives like this are often deemed as “conspiracy theories” by the mainstream, and many onlookers follow suit to this cultural explanation. But is this not worth discussing on a larger level? I recently wrote an article diving deep as to why such thoughts regarding The Great Rest and a “New World Order” are far from a conspiracy theory and are worthy of legitimate discussion: “COVID-19: A Precursor To A ‘New World Order?’ aka “The Great Reset.“

It feels as though it is time we must pull ourselves out of this adolescnt, dismissive culture when it comes to these ideas, and begin looking at what they truly are.

My invitation here is, why are these topics not more widely discussed and critiqued? Why are they always deemed a conspiracy theory and constantly ridiculed? Sure, there may be aspects of the population that will agree with The Great Reset the way it is being presented, and it’s important to empathize with these individuals because we need to understand where they are coming from, and why they feel that way. But, it’s just as important for these people to empathize with the thoughts shared in this article, and the one linked above, to understand where another huge aspect of this population is coming from and why they feel more authoritarian control is not necessarily the incredible future humanity is capable of.

Only then can we start understanding one another and start having real discussions. This is far better than constantly being divided all the time. One thing is for certain, if we are constantly arguing with each other and believing those with opposing viewpoints are incapable of reasoning and examining evidence, we are not going to get anywhere. Nobody is stupid.

It doesn’t matter so much whether or not we agree that something like The Great Reset is planned conspiracy, it’s more important to deeply ask: is this the world we truly want to create? Is this what we are limited to creating, and if not, what holds us back? What power would we have if as a collective to come together and do something?

If we don’t want people who don’t truly represent us to have tremendous amounts of power, then we have to wake up and realize that it’s not them who has to change, it’s us.

If you’re feeling called to become a more effective change-maker in this critical time, consider becoming a member of CETV where this is the main focus of our conversations, original shows, and courses.