What Happened:  A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 19.5 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

Sweden was one of the few countries that decided to keep schools open. The study points out that the number of deaths from any cause among the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age was 65 during the pre-Covid-19 period of November 2019 through February of 2020 was 65, and 69 during 4 months of exposure to Covid-19 between March and June of 2020. The data shows that there was no significant difference here.

When it comes to teachers, the study showed that  “fewer than 10 preschool teachers and 20 schoolteachers in Sweden received intensive care for Covid-19 up until June 30, 2020 (20 per 103,596 schoolteachers, which is equal to 19 per 100,000). As compared with other occupations (excluding health care workers), this corresponded to sex- and age-adjusted relative risks of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 2.49) among preschool teachers and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) among schoolteachers (see the Supplementary Appendix).

The point is, children are not being admitted to the ICU in Sweden for C0vid-19, and children are not dying from Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 among children seems to be rare, and also has a 100 percent recovery rate. Given the fact that many infections are also asymptomatic, it really has no impact on their life. So, while we continue to hear that cases are soaring, it’s important to ask if this is really a big deal? And why is it that other viruses prior to this one that infect hundreds of millions and kill tens of millions a year were not subjected to the same scrutiny?

This data also echoes what many doctors and scientists have been expressing regarding the severity of the virus, not just for children but for everybody. For example, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in California recently appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from COVID-19, based on approximately 50 studies that’ve been published providing seroprevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than COVID-19 for children, and that we’ve (America) had more flu deaths in children this year than Covid deaths.

Bhattacharya is one of the initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list of renowned scientists who have come on board as co-signers, and has now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists. It’s an initiative that strongly opposes lockdown measures.

Why This Is Important: This information is important because lockdown measures, according to many, aren’t really doing anything to stop the spread of the virus and may be delaying “herd immunity.” Furthermore we are taking all of these measures based on case counts, and a virus that has an extremely low mortality rate. Respiratory viruses prior to Covid already infected hundreds of millions and killed tens of millions a year. What’s even more concerning is the fact that medical professionals and scientists who share information that opposes the measures being taken by multiple governments are being subjected to extreme amounts of censorship. Scientific discussion is being shut down and we are seeing one opinion and side receive all of the attention.

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

Below is a tweet from Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard Professor of Medicine. I agree wit him.

Lockdowns are are also based on “cases” as PCR testing. That’s an entirely separate issue that many scientists and doctors are also raising concerns about. If one is asymptomatic and tests positive, or even slightly symptomatic and tests positive, this does not mean one has Covid. You can read more about that in an article I published last month titled “22 Scientists Publish Paper Claiming The PCR Test Is “Useless” For Detecting COVID-19 Cases,” the article goes into much more detail.

I also recently published an article titled “Ontario (Canada) Admits Labelling Deaths As COVID When They’re Not As A Result of COVID.” Deaths being attributed to Covid but not as a result of Covid have also raised many concerns. There are more details and examples provided within that specific article.

As far as lockdowns go,

The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, England, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again….Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID. – Dr. Bhattacharya

Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)  titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .

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

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

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

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

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

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

The risks, harms and consequences of lockdowns are well known, and above are simply a few of many examples. Is all of this really about the virus? Or is this, among many other events, simply being used to justify measures such as “The Great Reset?“

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, when we examine information we really need to keep our emotions in check. These days people are getting upset and mad at each other as we continue to see so many people polarized in their beliefs. What’s more important is to respect each other and everybody’s viewpoints, even if they disagree with your own. A good exercise, I find, is to take on the viewpoint of another who disagrees with you and try to understand why they feel the way they do.

Why do we fail to have conversations about controversial, or what are made out to be controversial viewpoints? Why can’t we get along with each other? Why can’t we have proper discussions about these controversial topics in the open and why does mainstream media always seem to be-little and call everything a “conspiracy theory” if it goes against the grain, no matter how much evidence there is behind it?

Do we really want to live in a world where we give such a small group of people and governments the authority to drastically change our lives, at will, even if these decisions do not represent the will of a large chunk of people? Is it time to re-examine the way we live here, why we live the way we do, and why we simply listen to those who appear to not have our best interests at heart?

Should people not be free to live how they live? Especially when things are not so black and white as they are made out to be? Something to think about.

What Happened: Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, recently known for their development of a COVID-19 vaccine, has been caught multiple times engaging in unethical and immoral behaviour. This is no secret, yet over the years this fact continues to be brushed under the rug and remain mostly unacknowledged by mainstream media. Since mainstream media has such a large influence over the perception of the masses, it’s no wonder why so many people respond to the word “big pharma” with “conspiracy theory.” If one takes a closer look it’s not hard to see why there is actually great cause for concern.

There are many examples to choose from when bringing about awareness to unethical behaviour by big pharmaceutical companies, one comes from a paper published in 2010 by Robert G. Evans, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC.  The paper, titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR”  is accessible through the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and it outlines how Pfizer has been a “habitual offender” constantly engaging in illegal and criminal activities. This particular paper points out that from 2002 to 2010, Pfizer has been “assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards” and has set records for both criminal fines and total penalties. Keep in mind we are now in 2021.

Evans provides a number of examples, one coming from September of 2009 when the company settled a number of charges for a total of $2.3 billion (O’Reilly and Capaccio 2009). This particular settlement set a new record for a criminal fine as they pleaded guilty to one count of a felony and misbranding of a pharmaceutical. This means that multiple fraudulent marketing practices were used to promote various drugs. In this case, the criminal charges focused on the “illegal promotion” of several Pfizer brands – Bextra (valdecoxib, a pain medication), Geodon (an atypical antipsychotic), Zyvox (linezolid, an antibiotic) and Lyrica (a seizure medication). These were promoted for uses that were not approved by the FDA and there were also kickbacks to physicians (meaning they got paid for prescribing these drugs).

This was by no means Pfizer’s first offence. In 2007, Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn paid $34 million and pleaded guilty to paying kickbacks for formulary placement of its drugs and entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for off label distribution of Genotropin, its brand for the human growth hormone somatropin. In 2004  Pfizer subsidiary Warner–Lambert pleaded guilty and paid more than $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liability arising from its fraudulent marketing practices with respect to Neurontin, its brand for the drug gabapentin. Originally developed for the treatment of epilepsy, Neurontin was illegally promoted off-label for the treatment of various forms of neurological pain, and in particular for migraine. -Evans (Full paper)

Evans goes on to explain how in 2010 Pfizer was ordered to pay $142 million US in damages for fraudulently marketing an anti-seizure drug called gabapentin, which was marketed under the name Neurontin. Pfizer was caught “fraudulently” marketing the drug “and promoted it for unapproved use.” It was discovered that the drug was promoted by the drug company as a treatment for pain, migraines and bipolar disorder, even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic.

The trials forced the company to release all of its studies on the drug, including the ones it kept hidden. A new analysis of those unpublished trials by the Therapeutics Initiative suggests that gabapentin works for one out of every six or eight people who use it, at best. The review also concluded that one in eight people had an adverse reaction to the drug.

It’s quite obvious why the company never wants to go to trial and always ends up paying large sums to settle. Apart from bribing and paying physicians and other medical professionals, the paper points out that they dished out millions of dollars to more than 200 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials. A great quote comes to mind here from Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of medicine and former Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal.

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 gents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”(source)

Evans outlines another interesting point which shows why “justice” is never really done and these companies always seem free to engage in this type of criminal behaviour.

A corporation may treat both criminal and civil penalties as simply business expenses, to be weighed against the revenues earned from illegal behaviour. But human beings can be put in jail, and that is a whole other matter. Conceivably, convicting corporate executives of criminal behaviour and sentencing them to terms of imprisonment might be a more effective deterrent to the “repeat offender” behaviour demonstrated by Pfizer.

These companies are also protected from any harm that comes as a result of their vaccines. For example, the Canadian government has announced that it’s implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines. This means that pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable for any vaccine injuries, and compensation from injuries do not come from the company, but from taxpayer money instead. It’s similar to programs many countries already have in place, in the United States it’s called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. These measures shield and protect pharmaceutical companies and make many of their products, including vaccines, a liability free product. In the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety.

In all of these cases mentioned by Evans, the corporation itself, ie., its shareholders – incurred the financial penalties and the executives involved were presumed innocent. Evans states, “In the absence of such personal liability, both criminal and civil penalties appear to be, to Pfizer at least, a business expense worth incurring. You have to spend money to make money.”

Fraud, misconduct, and illegal activity are well-known aspects of pharmaceutical companies’ business practices. Unlike other large industries, while business practices may be potentially unethical, but not illegal, those in the pharmaceutical industry routinely and flagrantly engage in illegal activity without facing any deterrent consequences. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the False Claims Act (FCA) deem pharmaceutical companies criminally and civilly liable for engaging in conduct including, but not limited to, misbranding and mislabeling products, promoting products for off-label or non-FDA approved uses, misrepresenting or adulterating data and clinical trial results, and failing to disclose or adequately warn consumers of potential risks and side effects. Violations of these laws and regulations are so widespread and regular, that it is difficult to argue that they are not purposeful. – Annastasia Morairty, Journal of Health and Biomedical Law

Keep in mind that this paper was published in 2010 and only deals with criminal actions of Pfizer from 2002-2010. We are now in 2021, and the problem has become so widespread that even scientists from within organizations like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC), for example, are blowing the whistle. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen senior scientists from within the agency put out a letter stating the following:

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. We would like to see high ethical standards and thoughtful, responsible management restored at CDC.

If you’d like to read about how all this relates to the COVID-19 vaccine, you can do so in an article I recently published here which documents the concerns many doctors, scientists and people are having when it comes to the vaccine.

There are many examples, too many to write about. Monsanto, for instance, now a branch of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, colluded with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stifle cancer research and any connections to their products. The European Union approved the use of glyphosate and their approval was found to be based on plagiarized “science” from Monsanto. Monsanto has been in and out of court, dealing with numerous cancer cases linked to their products, mainly glyphosate. Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to end thousands of lawsuits filed over its Roundup weedkiller. (source)

A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2016 by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. You can read more about that story here

Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made vaccines or toxic chemicals in our food or in our water know the power of these industries and how they’ve undermined every institution in our democracy that is supposed to protect little children from powerful, greedy corporations. 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.

Concealing evidence that calls into question various products put out by these companies is quite commonplace.

The Takeaway: The amount of power and control big companies, like Pfizer for example, seem to exercise over government, federal health regulatory agencies and big media is a huge concern. Why aren’t there independent bodies working separately from government to insure that all products released by these entities are truly safe and effective? Why have we given so much power over to government, which in itself seems to have become a corporation tasked to maximize profit and control rather than actually execute the will of the people.

Why do we have such a hard time discussing controversial topics? Why are things always made out to seem so black and white? Why are we so polarized in our beliefs to the point where we can’t look at another viewpoint that challenges our own? Why can’t we understand why some people disagree with us and why they feel the way they do?

It’s hard to know what the solution to tackle these problems is given the fact that these entities have amassed so much power that they are free to do what they want. At the end of the day, awareness and sharing information is no doubt key, but something bigger needs to happen at this point to stop this kind of activity and behaviour. Ultimately, we need to stop looking towards these companies and institutions with trust, we need to stop relying on them to tell us how to help us with our problems, in this case, health problems and we need to take these issues into our own hands and receive help from those who actually have our best interests at heart Have we become to complacent and reliant? Why do so many people simply trust these companies and believe everything they say? Is it time to start seeing our world in a different light and look at the “negative” parts of it from a neutral perspective so we can begin to transform it?

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.

What Happened: One of the most interesting UFO witness cases that exists within the lore of the phenomenon comes from Ruwa, Zimbabwe in September of 1994. The encounter took place at Ariel Primary School and involved more than 60 school children who were out playing at recess. All of the children, who were in elementary school at the time, describe seeing multiple hovering objects that one would describe as “spaceships” or “UFOs” as well as multiple beings exiting the craft.

What’s fascinating about this story is that all of the children, who were interviewed by many, including Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack, told the exact same story. They did so in such a precise manner and appeared to be completely sincere about their experience, something that’s not hard for children to do. Another remarkable fact about this case is that the children’s drawings of the objets and the beings were extremely consistent with one another. They were, according to Mack, clearly telling a story as if it had actually happened, they believed what they were saying and there was no evidence of psychosis or delusion among the children.

Below are some remarks from the teachers, taken from some interesting and old footage that’s been uploaded to Youtube. You can also see a few interviews with the children with John Mack and others at that time as well. What’s interesting is that many of these children are still speaking about the incident today. There’s an example of that at the end of the article.

I was able to find a few videos with the children from 1994 on Youtube here, here, and here.

They came running up here in such a panic, and even if we staged it they could have not all run together like that. They came up here like a living snake, we were in a staff meeting and we just heard them screaming and screaming…A child cannot make that up. – Teacher (From Youtube videos linked above)

I was very skeptical in the beginning as well, I believed that they had seen something, but I wasn’t prepared to accept that it was anything supernatural, but I think the consistency of what’s been going on indicates that it was more than I was prepared to admit at the beginning.” – Teacher (From Youtube videos linked above)

Some of the children were asked what they got from the experience. One of them answered that they were here to tell us that “we don’t look after the planet properly.” This is interesting, having been a researcher in the field more than 15 years I can tell you that this type of theme and communication among those who have claimed to have had contact with beings from other worlds is quite common. The children were quite shaken and left with some horrible feelings and visions that our planet may be destroyed because of our actions. One of the children in the videos linked above stated that “all the trees would go down and nobody would be able to breath.”

As mentioned above, many of the children still speak about the incident today, many of them will be featured in an upcoming  documentary currently in the works, but it has yet to be released. The film is supposed to cover  the story of everyone involved — the students, teachers, investigators, BBC Bureau Chief Tim Leach, Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack — and includes never-before-seen interviews of the children shortly after the encounter, as well as interviews with them more than two decades later.

Below is a brief video of one of the children, Emily Trim years later speaking about the encounter. Here’s’ a video with Salma Siddick in 2018, another one of the children (at the time) from the 1994 encounter.  You can find a few more clips with some of the students as they’ve aged, here. We will have to wait for the documentary to release for more.

The Takeaway: Extraterrestrial contact experiences among children, adults, and people from all walks of life and various professions is and has been a common theme for a very long time. For years this has been attributed to some type of “psychosis”, which is interesting because even if one of these experiences is true it has tremendous implications. We’ve come a long way since 1994, and now the existence of UFOs has been verified and confirmed, with many people with “credible” backgrounds alluding to the idea that some of these objects are most likely extraterrestrial in origin. The topic is receiving mainstream attention from establishment media mouthpieces like CNN and the New York Times.

All of this mainstream media disclosure seems to be quite rapid and it comes after many decades of what seems to have been a ridicule campaign that tossed this topic in the “conspiracy theory” bucket. I am concerned about mainstream media and “official” government disclosure of this phenomenon. This topic is quite large and vast and has tremendous implications, what we will receive from governments and mainstream media will most likely be a heavily sanitized version of disclosure as well as an attempt to control the masses perception of the phenomenon.

In my opinion, you are better off doing some independent research, and investigating cases like this one among the thousands of others. If you do, you will find astonishing corroboration and consistency among those who have claimed to have some sort of experience with beings from other worlds.

This topic has the potential to expand human consciousness and initiate a major paradigm shift for humanity. That being said, we have a lot of things we need to do here on planet Earth so we can change the human experience and make it a better one for all life that resides here, and mother Earth herself.

We’ve been writing about this topic in depth for more than 10 years. If you want to sift through our articles on the subject, you can do so here.