Connect with us

Alternative News

New Study Explains Why It’s “Uncertain” If The HPV Vaccine Even Prevents Cervical Cancer

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study raises concerns and questions about the effectiveness of the HPV and if it really plays any role at all in preventing cervical cancer.

  • Reflect On:

    Are vaccines as effective as they're marketed to be?

A new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The 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.

advertisement - learn more

A part of the problem, as the study points out, is that it’s unknown as to whether certain infections would clear, or would persist and lead to cervical changes. This is a big point. Every year around the world, approximately 13.1/100,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, so the rate of incidence is quite low. Furthermore, the vaccination is offered to girls aged 9-13, as the study points out, “before sexual debut and naive to HPV infection.”

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

The study reviewed 35 published papers relating to 12 randomized blinded non-HPV vaccine-controlled Phase 2 and 3 trials of Gardasil and Cervarix conducted from 2001 to 2016 assessing efficacy against cervical cancer and its precursors. Researchers also examined  39 meta-analyses and systematic reviews of HPV vaccine efficacy.

No Evidence HPV Vaccine Prevents Cervical Cancer

They emphasized after their examination that that none of the trials they examined were actually designed to determine efficacy or effectiveness of the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. In fact, there were no reported cases of cervical cancer in any of the trials.

The time between first exposure to HPV and peak development of CIN3 is 7–10 years. It takes a further 10 years or so for cervical cancer to develop according to natural history studies. All trials had a mean length of follow-up of six or fewer years, apart from the HPV-023 extension with a mean follow-up of 8.9 years.

The authors point out that it was even questionable whether or not the vaccine prevents pre-cancerous lesions.

advertisement - learn more

HPV Infections Often Clear On Their Own

One issue is that cervical cancer takes many years to develop. Out of all the women who get an HPV infection, approximately 70 percent of those are going to clear that infection all by themselves. The body will take care of it, and you don’t even have to detect it, within two years of the infection, approximately 90 percent of women will have cleared that HPV infection with no help. By three years, half of the remaining 10 percent will have progressed into a CIN 2 3 lesion, a pre-cancerous legion. So, approximately 5 percent of of the original 100 percent of women with an HPV infection will develop into a pre-cancerous lesion.

So now, you have that small group of women who now have pre-cancerous lesions, so now lets look at those moving into actual cancer. What we know is that amongst women with CIN 3 lesions, which is a little bit more severe than CIN 2 lesions, it takes five years for approximately 20 percent of those to develop into cancer, if they do. Furthermore, it takes about 30 years for 40 percent of them to become cancer.

The information above is why multiple studies have questioned the administration of the HPV vaccine. In a study published in Autoimmunity Reviews, the authors note that “The decision to vaccinate with 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.

So, one must ask themselves, What are the chances of a 9-13 year old girl getting an HPV infection? And what are the chances of that infection clearing itself? Furthermore, the vaccine only provides 5-10 years immunity, so when that 9 year old reaches the age of 19, or perhaps sooner, the immunity they’ve received from a few, out of many types of HPV infections, is no longer there. There are more than 100 HPV infections, and only 12 of them are carcinogenic to humans.

Furthermore, the idea that the HPV vaccine helps prevent cervical cancer, according to this recent study, is not a correct assumption, so one must ask themselves why is it marketed in that manner?

Corroboration From Other Studies

Again the main study of discussion in this article is complemented by many others that emphasize the same thing. For example, 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.

Is The HPV Vaccine 100% Safe?

Given the information above, I would personally have a hard time justifying giving my daughter the HPV vaccine. The risk is very low for a young girl to develop cervical cancer, as you can see from the information provided above. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is not completely safe for everybody. For example, after the HPV vaccine, a disabling syndrome of chronic neuropathic pain, fatigue, and autonomic dysfunction may manifest. In questionnaires from 45 individuals who experienced issues after HPV vaccination,

Twenty-nine percent of the cases had immediate (within 24 h) post-vaccination illness onset. The most common presenting complaints were musculoskeletal pain (66%), fatigue (57%), headache (57%), dizziness/vertigo (43%), and paresthesias/allodynia (36%). Fifty-three percent of affected individuals fulfill the fibromyalgia criteria…After a mean period of 4.2 ± 2.5 years post-vaccination, 93% of patients continue to have incapacitating symptoms and remain unable to attend school or work. 

A Study published in Clinical Rheumatology entitled “Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized and post-marketing case series” also brings up concerns:

HPV vaccine randomized trials were identified in PubMed. Safety data were extracted. Post-marketing case series describing HPV immunization adverse events were reviewed. Most HPV vaccine randomized trials did not use inert placebo in the control group. Two of the largest randomized trials found significantly more severe adverse events in the tested HPV vaccine arm of the study.Is The Aluminum In HPV Vaccines The Issue?

A study published in Current Medical Chemistry states,

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)

Many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

An interesting point that caught my attention was made by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization. He brought up the topic of vaccine adjuvants like aluminum. In certain vaccines, without these adjuvants the vaccine simply doesn’t work. Dr. Friede mentioned that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. He mentioned aluminum specifically.

He showed concern given the fact that “without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.” He also stated that,

When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so, but when we add them it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on ‘how do you develop vaccines’ and ‘how do you make vaccines’ and the first lesson is, while you are making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety, and lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.

You can read more about that, and find links to the conference and it’s full coverage in this article I published about it a few weeks ago.

In 2018, a paper published in The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found that almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen, where it accumulated and was retained  post-vaccination. The researchers also found massive damage to motor neurons and behaviour abnormalities after injection. This study complimented and earlier study published in  in 2015 that found the following:

Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.

When it comes to the HPV vaccine, there are multiple examples of injury. Here is one specific examples out of many you can read about more in depth.

The Takeaway

It’s no secret that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, it’s clearly not a ‘one size fits all’ product, and that’s evident by the fact that nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

If the numbers from VAERS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported. Furthermore, vaccines are a liability-free product, that’s part of the NCVIA. There is no incentive to make a safe product.

Ask yourself, with all of this information out there, is it right to make vaccines mandatory? It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is on the rise, not because people are lacking education, but the complete opposite. It’s on the rise because more and more people are coming across information that does not resonate with them, and they are looking for answers.

The community at large should not use terms like ‘anti-vax’ or ‘pro-vax.’ Neither should the word ‘conspiracy’ be tossed around. This simply separates people when, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing and that’s healthy children. Accordingly. the concerns of vaccine safety advocates should be addressed, acknowledged, and not ignored.

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

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

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

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

  • Reflect On:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a statement, TTSA informs the public:

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

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

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

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

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

The Takeaway

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

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

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

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Four professors from Stanford School of Medicine have published a paper showing that lockdowns, stay at home orders and business closures are not an effective tool for stopping the spread of COVID. There are many studies claiming the same.

  • Reflect On:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is a video of Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist (also one of the authors of the study mentioned at the beginning of this article)  where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media.  Follow their twitter account here.

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

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

In Ontario, Canada, a member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s caucus is speaking out against his own government’s policies and calling for an end to the province-wide pandemic lockdown.“The lockdown isn’t working,” writes York Centre Progressive Conservative MPP Roman Baber in a letter to Ford.  “It’s causing an avalanche of suicides, overdoses, bankruptcies, divorces and takes an immense toll on our children. Dozens of leading doctors implored you to end the lockdowns.” (source)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Polish Government has announced that it will be taking steps to make censorship by big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter completely illegal.

  • Reflect On:

    Do these companies really have an interest in removing harmful content, or does their interest lie in removing information, no matter how true, that threatens their interests?

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

What Happened: The deactivation of Donald Trump’s social media accounts has sparked both praise and outrage across the globe. One fact, however, that remains unacknowledged on such a large scale is the deactivation of thousands of social media accounts which includes many doctors, scientists, journalists and people for sharing information, evidence, science and opinions that go against the grain, so to speak.

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)

The Polish government has responded as officials have denounced the deactivation of Trump’s social media accounts and has said that a draft law is now being prepared, in Poland. This law will make it illegal for tech companies to take similar actions there and regulate what information people are able to see and access.

According to Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, “Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.” He said that there can be “no consent to censorship”, comparing social media companies regulation of information to Poland’s experience during the communist era. He said that “Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently.”

Below are his words taken from a recent Facebook Post.

I was born and raised among people from whom freedom was the most valuable value. In Poland we are so attached to freedom because we know what it’s like when someone tried to limit it. For nearly 50 years we lived in a country where censorship was in force; in a country where Big Brother told us how to live, what think and feel – and what to think, say and write…That’s why we look at all attempts to restrict freedom with such anxiety.

One of the synonyms of freedom has always been the Internet for us. The most democratic medium in history, a forum where anyone can speak without embarrassment. A tool that allows every person to really influence reality, to an extent unknown several years ago. Freedom related to the lack of internet regulation has many positive effects. But they are also negative: big, transnational corporations, richer and more powerful than many countries, have gradually begun to dominate it. These corporations have only begun to treat our online activity as a source of profit and strengthening global domination. And also to ensure political correctness the way they like it. And fight those who oppose them.

Recently, we are increasingly dealing with practices that would seem to have gone on in the past. Censoring free speech, the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, returns today in the form of a new commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently

The discussion is about exchanging views, not gagging your mouth. We don’t have to agree with what our opponents write, but we can’t deny anyone from spreading views that are legal.

There is no, and cannot be, consent to censorship….Freedom of speech is the salt of democracy – that’s why we must defend it. Which views are right and which are not, cannot be decided by algorithms or owners of corporate giants.

Poland will always stand guard for democratic values, including freedom of speech. Social media owners cannot operate above the law. That’s why we’ll do everything to determine how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other similar platforms operate. In Poland, we regulate this with appropriate and national regulations. We will also propose that similar regulations apply throughout the European Union.

Social media must serve us – the public, not the interests of its powerful owners. All people have the right to freedom of speech. Poland will defend this right.

This does not mean Poland has not succumb to the corruption that plagues multiple governments, it seems these days no government is free the burdens of many unethical and immoral actions and measures they take and may impose on the population. This article however, is focusing specifically on censorship. Perhaps this is simply a PR move to “look good.” I don’t know.

It’s great to see censorship on the minds of many and with all of the controversy that has crept into the mainstream, more people are definitely aware of the problem. I would, however, like to emphasize again that it’s not just Donald Trump that’s been subjected to it, it’s thousands of doctors, scientists, journalist and media organizations, like Collective Evolution as well.

We are living in an age where there is a digital authoritarian Orwellian type of “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

All of this censorship obviously requires a mass amount of surveillance. It’s no secret that tech companies like Facebook and Amazon, for example, have strong connections to intelligence. If you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees for example, there are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defense.

Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama. NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out in a recent interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald,

He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional…When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way.

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour…

Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

I would argue, however, that big tech may not just be censoring “minority” opinions. When it comes to the coronavirus for example, there seems to be, in my opinion, a large majority of doctors, scientists and journalists who are presenting information, science, evidence and opinion that strongly oppose certain measures taken by governments to combat Covid, like lockdowns, for example.  Yet somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci can go on television anytime he wants and is given the gift of instant virality while other experts in the field with opposing views seem to be completely ignored.

I would argue that the mainstream can make the majority feel like the minority, and the minority feel like the majority.

Final Thoughts: Censorship of information, thoughts, opinions and more can be a tricky subject to debate. At the end of the day, information that should not be censored seems to be censored simply because it threatens various corporate and government initiatives, or because it opposes a narrative that we see within the mainstream media. This is exactly why people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, among many, face difficulty. What does it say about our world when we silence and jail those who expose unethical and immoral actions by those we give the most power to?

This, in my opinion, is just wrong and not something humanity should stand for. Already we’ve seen a massive growth of other social media platforms that don’t work with and engage in big tech censorship, like Telegram, for example, and this doesn’t really come as a surprise. Many people are under the opinion that Facebook or Twitter can do whatever they like because these are private companies, and we the users, choose to use them. That may be true, but at the same time why censor so much information that is clearly not false, but simply because you don’t want people to think that way? What we are seeing today is not censorship of harmful information but rather the continued and concerted effort to control the way people think. The information that is censored is constantly labelled as “misinformation” and “fake news” when again, that’s clearly debatable and in many cases simply not true.

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 Bernay’s, Propaganda 1928

The good news is that censorship measures have exploded and have also acted as a catalyst for more people to question what’s happening on our planet, why, and ask themselves what can we do about it. The number of people asking questions today is more so than ever before, and although sometimes it presents itself and seems like chaos, perhaps we are simply experiencing birthing pains as humanity transitions into a new experience. The more this kind of activity happens, the more our collective eye begins to see our planet in another light. The veil is being lifted.

Right now all of this is simply a reflection of human consciousness, the need to control, the need for power, control and more. Once human consciousness shifts and as it continues to shift, perhaps one day we will have more “conscious corporations.”

Dive Deeper

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

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

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!