- The Facts:
Chelsea Manning was released from prison on March 12th, to very little fanfare.
- Reflect On:
When we actually are able to fathom what Chelsea Manning has been willing to go through as a result of her unwavering principles, can we help but consider her one of the great heroes of modern times?
Before you begin...
When a federal judge ordered the release of Chelsea Manning from prison on March 12th, the news was met with relatively little fanfare. There was a kind of muted, matter-of-factness about it in the mainstream press, with much of the print devoted to procedural aspects of the release, or the fact that Ms. Manning allegedly tried to kill herself the day before, based on her lawyers’ testimony.
The most important discussion, which seems to only be taking place in the remotest fringes of cyberspace, is acknowledging the incredible courage, conscience, and resilience that Chelsea Manning has displayed during the entire harrowing ordeal. Her principled efforts, as we will discuss further, serve as a model for the rest of us who are truly seeking to liberate the planet from tyranny and enslavement.
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
What Manning Actually Did
In 2010, then-Pfc. Bradley Manning, a 22-year old Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, sent hundreds of thousands of classified files to WikiLeaks. These files consisted of documents such as State Department cables, and videos, among them the famous “Collateral Murder” video which showed the US army killing a dozen unarmed civilians, including two Reuters employees.
In an online chat attributed to Manning, she wrote the following regarding her decision to release the files:
If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?
God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public. (source)
Manning witnessed multiple actions that were inhumane on the part of her own military and government. Manning sacrificed her own safety and well-being so that people could know the truth, and hoped the revelations would spark public outcry and lead the public to challenge the government and the U. S. military in terms of the kind of reprehensible activity that is usually hidden under the fog of war.
What Manning saw was a disregard for civilians and for human life in general. Although these releases seemed to significantly impact U. S. involvement in Iraq, this is not what Manning was after. What she was after was an awakening of the general public to the reality of war. In fact what Manning was doing was bringing more evidence to the notion, popularized by former Major General Smedley Butler, that modern ‘war’ is generally not engaged in to defend a nation and create greater security for its citizens, but rather serves the economic interests of a small elite group:
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.–Major General Smedley Butler
Enshrined in the U.S. Army Subject Schedule No. 27-1 is “the obligation to report all violations of the law of war.” Manning went to her chain of command and asked them to investigate the Collateral Murder video and other evidence of unacceptable conduct but her superiors refused. She ultimately made the principled decision to expose this information through Wikileaks, with the knowledge of how much the American public was being deceived about the true nature of the war that the U. S. Military was waging.
The Court Martial
Now if the U. S. government was sincere in their rhetoric that they fight wars overseas in order to promote and secure human rights and democracy around the world, then these files published by Wikileaks would have sparked a tremendous amount of contrition and self-reflection on their part, and Chelsea Manning would have been hailed as a hero from the beginning for helping the U. S. military recognize and repair obvious inconsistencies and outright hypocrisy within their operations. None of this happened.
We celebrate the Remembrance Day holiday to commemorate the bravery of soldiers. While there is no doubt that many soldiers deserve regard for showing the courage to enter a war zone, should we not awaken more to the evidence that many if not most soldiers are simply unwittingly accomplices in highly immoral operations? What ‘commemoration’ was given to Chelsea Manning, whose actions, unlike those of most soldiers, are obviously of great benefit to U. S. citizens and the human population as a whole? Of course. A court-martial.
In her court-martial trial Chelsea Manning admitted sending the files to WikiLeaks. She also confessed to interacting online with someone who was probably Mr. Assange, but she said she had acted on principle and was not working for WikiLeaks. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison — the longest sentence by far in an American leak case. It was obviously commensurate with the level of embarrassment suffered by those who control military action. The initial conditions of her confinement were egregious. She somehow managed to survive.
President Barack Obama commuted most of the remainder of her sentence shortly before he left office, and Manning was released from jail on May 17th, 2017.
Refusal To Testify
When asked how the world and the U. S. appeared to her a year after her release, Manning’s own words in the video below indicate that things seemed to have gotten worse, and many of her fears about the direction the world was going were manifesting:
(Watch the beginning of the full interview here if the video above does not play)
As much as she may have thought that after this incarceration was over she would retire and ride off into the sunset, she would end up having to make a principled stand yet again. In May of 2019, prosecutors investigating Julian Assange and Wikileaks subpoenaed her to testify before a grand jury about their interactions. Believing that the case against Julian Assange was an extension of the kind of criminality and abuse of power that she had already been fighting against, she refused the subpoena on ethical grounds.
As the court order describes below, Chelsea Manning chose to reject a guarantee of immunity from the Department of Justice and was willing to once again endure prison time, and financial ruin as well, in order to stand up to her principles:
By Order dated May 6 , 2019 [Doc. 2 ], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S . C . 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding (“Grand Jury”). Subsequently , on May 16 , 2019, after Ms. Manning stipulated that she would refuse to comply with the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order, the Court found Ms. Manning in civil contempt, determined that a coercive sanction against Ms. Manning was appropriate, and remanded Ms. Manning to the custody of the Attorney General until such time as she purges herself of contemptor for the life of the Grand Jury, but in no event longer than 18 months. [Doc. 9] In that May 16 , 2019 Order, the Court also ordered that, if Ms. Manning did not purge herself of contempt within thirty (30) days, she shall incur a conditional fine of $500 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt; and if she did not purge herself of contempt within sixty (60) days after issuance of the Order, she shall incur a conditional fine of $ 1, 000 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt or for the life of the grand jury, whichever occurs first.
The Grumbles Motion
In February 2020, Manning’s legal team filed what’s known as a Grumbles motion in court, asserting that Manning has proven herself incoercible and so must, according to legal statute, be released from her incarceration. This article in The Intercept goes into more detail:
It is a grim peculiarity of American law that a person who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court and fined or imprisoned with the express purpose of coercing testimony, but when the coercive condition is absent, such incarceration becomes illegal. Wednesday’s motion directs Judge Anthony Trenga, who is presiding over the grand jury and Manning’s imprisonment, to accordingly recognize the illegality in this case.
“The key issue before Judge Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify,” said Manning’s attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, on filing the Grumbles motion. “Judges have complained of the ‘perversity’ of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”
If the motion is successful, Manning will be freed for the very reason she has been caged: her silence. The judge can decide to recognize that Manning won’t speak as a consequence of more time in jail — or because she will continue to face unprecedented $1,000-per-day fines. Any other conclusion, after her months of steadfast and principled grand jury resistance, would fly in the face of all reason. The whistleblower’s actions and words make it plain.
“I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral,” Manning said in a statement Wednesday. “It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not principle.”
This is what another modern hero, whistleblower Edward Snowdon, had to say on the news that Chelsea Manning had been released from prison:
The government cast Manning into a dungeon for resisting a scheme to make publishers of news subject to the Espionage Act. They offered to let her out in exchange for collaboration, but she chose her principles instead.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 13, 2020
Under these circumstances, Chelsea Manning’s release from prison on March 12th is a victory for humankind–if enough of us acknowledge its significance. If a ballot came out for the greatest hero so far in the 21st century, Chelsea Manning would get my vote.
Humanity is currently in a struggle against a small but extremely powerful group of people at the top of the political and economic pyramid. What needs to be understood, however, is that this group can only maintain its power if the majority of humanity continues to bow to its bribery, threats and coercion. This group considers humanity as mere cattle, to be pushed and swayed in whatever direction this group wants us to go. And who can blame them for their confidence? Who among us could say that they would have acted on their principles under the conditions that Chelsea Manning did? How many of us would have put our conscience to pasture and not even considered publicizing their own military’s unconscionable behavior, or would have chosen immunity in rationalizing that they ‘had to’ honor a Grand Jury subpoena?
When someone endures extreme retribution to stand up against a tyrannical authority on the basis of principle and what is in the best interests of humanity, then that person and their action should be celebrated in every corner of the world. Further, their actions should serve as a model to all of us, to stand up to our principles and values no matter the circumstances or consequences of those actions. If more people were willing to act in this fashion, we would have already liberated ourselves. But if the action of a brave person like Chelsea Manning has motivated at least some of us to be more courageous and principled when confronted with any form of tyranny or coercion in our lives, the great moment of emancipation may soon be upon us.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Why Did Twitter Censor An Eminent Infectious Disease Expert For His Opinion On COVID Vaccines?
- The Facts:
In March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are so many opinions, evidence and research receiving no mainstream media attention at all? Why are some of them ridiculed and censored? Why do we always get one narrative from government health authorities?
Before you begin...
Follow me on Instagram here.
Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s preeminent and most cited infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard University’s School of Medicine has experienced what many others in the field have experienced during this pandemic, censorship and ridicule. Kulldorff has been quite critical of the response to COVID by multiple governments, including the measures put in place to combat the spread of the virus. Sometimes it seems as if scientists and doctors who question these measures are actually in the majority, while the minority seem to get all of the attention and praise within the mainstream media. Who knows what these numbers actually look like.
Lockdown measures are a great example. A wealth of data has been published in peer-reviewed science and medical journals suggesting that not only have lockdowns been inadequate for stopping the spread of the virus, but they’ve also caused a great deal of damage in both the health and economic sector. Two renowned Swedish scientists, Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation. 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 at the time of the estimate. These are a few of many examples.
“Lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 yrs. We will be counting the catastrophic health & psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation” —Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Professor of Medicine.
That being said, an argument can, and has also been been made for lockdowns halting or slowing the spread of the virus, and there are examples of that as well. You can read about that more here.
The point is that one side of the argument is censored, ridiculed, and ignored most of the time, while the other gets front and centre stage. Why?
In Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a note stating that physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations, and there are many of them, will be subjected to an investigation, especially if they are communicating “anti-vaccine, anti-masking and anti-lockdown statements.”
How is science and data that calls into question government public health recommendations “anti” anything? Why are these labels always used? Why are physicians and scientists being bullied into silence and subjected to extreme amounts of censorship on their social media platforms? Kulldorff has been one many victims of this treatment, while scientists who agree with and promote the “accepted narrative” seem to receive interview requests from mainstream media outlets all the time. This isn’t normal, and it’s served as a catalyst for more people to ask, what’s really going on here?
What Happened: Kulldorff’s tweet in March suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who have previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with his tweet and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Twitter did not provide any explanation, links, or reasoning as to why his tweet was “misleading.”
Kulldorff’s opinion is something that many experts in the field have suggested. For example, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, considered by many to be the world’s preeminent infectious disease expert explained that the way COVID vaccines are being promoted and the idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is unscientific and suspicious.
Why? For one, there is a wealth of data showing that previous infection to COVID can provide protection, and possibly even greater and longer lasting protection than any vaccine can or ever will. Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube explains:
I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better than a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. (source)
This statement was also recently echoed by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who said in a recent interview that he would prefer natural immunity as opposed to the COVID vaccine and explains why.
An analysis of millions of coronavirus test results in Denmark found that people who had prior infection, were still protected 6 months after the initial infection.
Another study also found that individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”
Dr. Daniela Weiskopf, Dr. Alessandro Sette, and Dr. Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from almost 200 people who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and recovered. The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection.
Virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards. Although the number of these cells appeared to reach a plateau after a few months, levels didn’t decline over the period studied.
Levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus. These cells help coordinate the immune response. About half the participants had CD8+ T cells, which kill cells that are infected by the virus.
A recent study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection explains:
Presence of cross-reactive SARSCoV2 specific Tcells in never exposed patients suggests cellular immunity induced by other coronaviruses. Tcell responses against SARSC0V2 also detected in recovered Covid patients with no detectable antibodies…Cellular immunity is of paramount importance in containing SARSCoV2 infection…and could be maintained independently of antibody responses. Previously infected people develop much stronger Tcell responses against spike protein peptides in comparison to infection-native people after mRNA vaccine.
The next question becomes, how many people have been infected? According to a meta-analysis by Dr John Ioannidis [Professor of Medicine at Stanford University] of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world), the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.77 per cent. For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95 per cent.
The CDC’s [Centres for Disease Control] and Prevention] best estimate of infection fatality rate for people ages 70 plus years is 5.4 per cent, meaning seniors have a 94.6 percent survivability rate. For children and people in their 20s/30s, it poses less risk of mortality than the flu. For people in their 60s and above, it is much more dangerous than the flu.
These estimates haven’t really changed, and they are based off of the scientific consensus that more people are infected than what we have the capacity to test for. Imagine testing the entire population, how many people would have an infection? Imagine testing for antibodies, how many people would have antibodies? Some infectious viruses, like the Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) which was first identified in 2001 in Dutch children with bronchiolitis are quite infectious, just like COVID. The hMPV virus is an RNA and has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5. These types of viruses, including common coronaviruses, are responsible for the death of millions of children worldwide every single year.
The survival rate numbers above are largely based off the idea that many more people than what we can test for are infected. If you look at the actual data and compare the number of deaths to the number of cases, you won’t get a survival rate of 99.95 percent. In an interview with Greek Reporter, Dr.Ioannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases, and this was in June of 2020, so just think about how many people have been infected today. 162,891,712 have been infected up to now, that number is most likely well over a billion based on the above reasoning.
Furthermore we must ask: how effective is the vaccine? We know how effective natural immunity is, that’s well documented as illustrated above.
Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled “Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.
A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
Brown’s paper also cites Doshi’s paper which makes the same point,
“As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn’t it be reported? (source)
Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” – Brown
Fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.
How safe is the vaccine? Reports and examples of injuries and deaths seem to be quite prevalent on social media. For example, take a look at the post below. It’s from a woman named Heidi Neckelmann. The post is from her Facebook Page, it went quite viral and her Facebook Page was eventually deleted.
This story is true, it was actually receiving so much attention that mainstream media picked up on it. She was the wife of Dr. Gregory Michael from California, and she claimed that in her mind, her 56-year-old husband’s death was “100% linked” to the vaccine. Now, at least one doctor has come forward publicly to say he also believes the vaccine caused Michael to develop acute idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), the disorder that killed him. According to the New York Times:
“Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann’s description, ‘I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.’“
This is one of what may be hundreds of examples that have been shared across social media, which would still make it an extremely rare event given the amount of people who have been vaccinated in the United States.
According to the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, approximately 4000 people have died and more than 100,000 adverse reactions have been reported as a result of the vaccine. That being said, there is no way to determine or to verify wether any of these were actually a result of the vaccine, and therein lies the problem. Vaccine injury reporting systems are quite inadequate. Keep in mind more than 100 million people in the U.S. have been vaccinated. Adverse reactions seem to be more rare than prevalent, but what number qualifies as rare? What number qualifies as prevalent?
VAERS has come under fire multiple times, a critic familiar with VAERS’ bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”
So, we don’t really have a truly accurate number, when it comes to vaccine injuries in general, let alone the COVID vaccine. Anybody can make a report, this also means that some of them could be made up.
An HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research estimates that only 1 percent of vaccine injuries are actually captured by VAERS, but who knows? The point is we don’t have an accurate and reliable reporting system.
Some papers have raised concerns in the long term as well. For example, a study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.
Why This Is Important: Information like this is important because the rights and freedoms of people who do not wish to take the COVID vaccine may be subjected to unfair treatment compared to those who are vaccinated. Unvaccinated individuals may be unable to travel internationally, and if they do, they may be required to quarantine. They may also be banned from certain public buildings, restaurants, sporting events and more. We have yet to see how this will all roll out. In the U.S., the CDC is allowing vaccinated individuals to take off their masks both inside and outside, while vaccinated ones are instructed to continue wearing them. That said, this doesn’t apply to public indoor spaces yet.
Is all of this justified given the information shared above? We are talking about people who are not even sick.
The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.
Furthermore, outside spread among asymptomatic individuals is virtually 0 percent.
Why do we give governments the power to implement measures that, to a large portion of the population, simply don’t make sense. How can we truly say that we live in a democracy when the will of the people, and science, is ignored and censored? Are vaccine passports and requirements to access other “amenities” we were used to prior to the pandemic truly justified? Why are governments pushing to vaccinate everybody so hard, using methods of coercion like passports and other incentives, when this type of push doesn’t match up with the science?
The answer to this question warrants reflection, but I will offer a hypothesis. In 2021, there is clearly a small, but vocal minority of individuals opposed to nearly all vaccinations… In response, there is a group of individuals on the other extreme. To them, either one must embrace all vaccines for all indications for all ages, or one can be lumped with the other extreme. They favor universal child vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 via an EUA, even before they have the data for that claim. They were quick to embrace vaccination for pregnant woman prior to appropriate trials establishing safety. Suppressing critical thinking to extol vaccines is also wrong and may backfire, but I believe this explains why it occurs. It is, to some degree, a counter-movement against the anti-vaxxers, which can go too far….A small faction of people vigorously opposed to all vaccination have done damage … As a reaction, many confuse [vaccine] cheerleading with science. A true scientist does not take reflexive extremes. Sadly, there are few scientists left.” – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH
Prasad is an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, and has also been quite vocal about Facebook “fact-checkers”, calling it scam and that what they are doing is nothing short of scientific censorship.
There is data showing the vaccines are indeed working. Even scientists who support COVID vaccinations and their efficacy, like Kulldorff, have been speaking up against taking away rights and freedoms of those who are not vaccinated. For example, 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.”
In the article, they explain,
It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.
Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.
Kulldorff and Bhattacharya recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.
The Takeaway: At the end of the day, what can we really do to combat governments that continue to implement measures that seem to benefit the few, the rich and the powerful, while leaving everybody else to suffer? When so many people disagree, is peaceful protesting and voicing our concerns enough? I would argue that this is something we need to continue to do, because at some point you can only push a large group of people who disagree with governments so far, especially if you continue to spark this feeling in the majority of people.
Governments cannot implement measures without justifying them in the eyes of a large group of people. Vaccines, and vaccine passports are justified in the eyes of the majority, which makes it easy for these measures to be implemented and justified. My question is, were people properly educated, or were they manipulated and coerced to support vaccine passports?
We’ve seen what propaganda can do it the past, are we any different today? Does equality really exist in a day and age where so many people are having their voice censored, and their rights, freedoms and privacy taken taken away?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
The End Goal Of All True Freedom Movements Must Be Unity
Before you begin...
The deception, the manipulation, and the injustices that have long been perpetrated by the ‘socioeconomic elite’ are quickly coming to light in public perception. The ‘Pandemic’ and all of its restrictive measures are, in my opinion just part of a larger agenda to create a global technocratic surveillance state to permanently enslave us.
But all of this activity has started to awaken a sleeping giant. The mind of this giant is nothing less than the collective consciousness of humanity. Whether this giant will awaken in time, or at all, remains to be seen. In a free will universe, nothing is guaranteed. It’s a challenging game, but that’s why we all came here to play it.
A Call to Action
Many individuals have emerged as leaders, often when their personal ‘line in the sand’ has been crossed and has compelled them to take some form of action. Some leaders are modeling freedom in their everyday lives, some have formed groups to challenge regulations in public, some have taken to the courts or even bypassed them to invoke Natural/Common Law, some are researching and proliferating the truth in the face of increasing mainstream propaganda and social media censorship.
There is no need to debate what is the ‘best’ strategy or point of focus. Everybody has a role to play here. Each leader that is truly following their conscience inherently believes that their course of action is the best, and that is as it should be. What is paramount is that we see where all our roads intersect, and create a unified field of energy around that.
Any action that an individual takes to to truly free themselves is an action that seeks the liberation of all of humanity. The quest for freedom is grounded in TRUTH, motivated by LOVE resulting in a spirit of UNITY. The quest for freedom only for oneself or one’s tribe is actually a quest for CONTROL, grounded in DECEPTION, motivated by FEAR resulting in a spirit of DIVISION.
The latter is the modus operandi of the ruling class. Their quest for ‘freedom’ is actually just a desire for extreme self-enrichment that necessarily enslaves the majority of humanity. Their motivation is something that we, as imperfect human beings, have to admit we have some familiarity with.
So then it is important for all of us, especially those of us who would lead the quest for human freedom, to take the time to look inside, on an ongoing basis, and reflect on whether or not some parts of us still have a need for control, and whether some of our words and actions are inadvertently creating a spirit of division.
Leaders Unity Affirmation
In order to help these efforts of self-reflection, I have created a ‘Leaders Unity Affirmation,’ a 10-minute guided affirmation that is available for those who would stand for human freedom.
I will be contacting leaders of the current freedom movements to see if some of them would like to come together virtually to create a powerful field of unified energy through this affirmation. Anyone who would like to be alerted to such an event can email me at email@example.com.
All are welcome. This affirmation is not only for ‘leaders’ but also for ‘followers,’ and I use those terms very judiciously because I truly believe each individual has to act as a leader, insofar as each individual in any freedom movement is equal, has a voice and a perspective, and needs make sure their group’s activities resonate with them on an energetic level. Individuals within the group are responsible for having a conversation with their leader when they feel that leader may be creating division. (This kind of dialogue is explored in depth in my book Parables for the New Conversation). We have to guide our leaders even as they are tasked with guiding us.
Go With the Flow
Of course some leaders may pay no heed to the insights of their followers, and there is no problem there. Eventually, each person will naturally gravitate over to other individuals and groups that they resonate more with. The energy of unity attracts like energy, as does the energy of division. In this natural and organic process, leaders will eventually learn what they are ready to learn, while followers will slowly gain more courage to step up and express themselves. As is spoken in the affirmation,
Ultimately leaders must be willing to follow.
Followers must be willing to lead.
That is how we will achieve unity.
We are in a very exciting time in human history. We are being presented with an opportunity to participate in the definitive awakening and liberation of humanity. If we all keep an eye on the bigger picture and focus on our common goal, we will indeed awaken the sleeping giant and have the power to create a better world at our collective fingertips.
This article was originally published on my website daocoaching.com.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Fact-Check Blog ‘HealthFeedback’ Is Punishing Balanced Journalism
Before you begin...
It happened like it has happened many times before, we wonder why our Facebook reach is suddenly cut to virtually nothing only to find out another fact check has arrived. “What is it going to be this time?” We often ask. It’s become frustrating. We tirelessly spend time as journalists checking our facts, gathering different perspectives, seeking experts and putting it into a story. Then we’re told “you can’t say that.” But why?
In case you assume that we’re just upset and that the fact check was valid, let’s look at it and get this out of the way.
Iria Carballo-Carbajal one of the team members at Health Feedback has used her many years in academic training to strike down a piece we wrote discussing the claims of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche. In our piece, we focus on claims Bossche has made about the COVID-19 vaccines and his theory that the current vaccines could potentially create stronger variants. In the article we clearly lay out:
- Bossche’s claims and state them as his theory
- We lay out the fact that other doctors and scientists don’t agree with him and cite their reasons
- We lay out that his claims have already been fact checked and ‘debunked,’ and provide quotes from fact checkers
- We make no personal claims in the piece other than that we feel science is having a tough moment with COVID as only some scientists are allowed to talk, while others have to just stay quiet or be ridiculed
This is the hallmark of a well written and balanced journalistic piece. This is how you would be taught to write a piece that’s honest and transparent. Just because this is no longer common in journalism today, doesn’t mean it’s not how it should be done. So why was it fact checked by Iria Carballo-Carbajal? Did she even read the piece? Or did she just assume that it was ‘bad’ based on the title and shut it down? The fact check article she leads our audience to is not even about our article, it’s about other pieces of content that make different claims and that may not have been fully balanced. So why are we getting punished?
I can’t say we know. We have reached out to their team to get an answer from them as to how such a dishonest and defaming decision could have been made. We will certainly update you when we know more, but for now this story is yet another example of how over the last 5 years fact checking is only sometimes about checking facts, while other times it appears to be about stopping certain narratives from spreading. Typically, narratives that support establishment rules, decisions and products.
Is HealthFeedback more concerned with shutting down a topic than supporting honest journalism? Do they think readers can’t look at different perspectives in an article and inform themselves on the fact that yes, there are experts who have different opinions right now? How could trained scientists be operating so unscientifically?
As you can see below, we received a ‘partly false’ rating. But of course, as usual, there is no clarity on what is false because the fact check has nothing to do with our content and we have made it abundantly clear in the piece that Bossche’s claims may in fact be false.
Many have been losing trust and faith in our institutions, primarily because there is often a lack of transparency, honesty, and the fact that it responds to differing perspectives through force. Instead of listening, allowing scientific dialogue to occur, government, Big Tech and their armed fact checkers are literally shutting down journalism.
I debated writing this piece. I do not want to get further into the ‘bad books’ of fact checkers as they already seem to have a watchful eye on what we do and, at least in my perspective, are complicit in creating an incredibly unfair marketplace for journalism today that has absolutely crippled our business – I don’t want them to come after us even harder. But I feel that if I don’t say something people won’t know the type of stuff that we’re facing, the stuff that is affecting the information they see and the perspectives they have access to.
Decisions made by the general public are not as informed as they should be due to the overreaching power fact checkers have. We see this as a huge problem. Journalists are the ones there to help expose dishonesty in government and hold them accountable, that’s how it has always been. But now, those journalists aren’t allowed to speak, and long time journalists like those at NewsGuard have even joined in the fight against their own professions. Perhaps it’s because they see where culture is headed and they might as well join the side who has all the power – for now.
We are being pushed into manufactured echo chambers, not because people love them, but because speech is being silenced so aggressively that there is no way to have public discourse on important topics without having to go to the fringes to find a new perspectives. Unfortunately, mainstream perspective doesn’t live on the fringes to challenge alternative perspectives, and vice versa, so echo chambers emerge by nature.
In my view, these echo chambers are the result of an authoritarian mindset and culture that is arming fact checkers with way too much power, not realizing the long term damage they are causing.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
New Footage of “Transmedium” Sphere (UFO) Disappearing Into The Ocean From The U.S. Navy
Footage filmed (video below) in the CIC (Combat Information Center) of the USS Omaha on July 15th 2019 off the...
Why Did Twitter Censor An Eminent Infectious Disease Expert For His Opinion On COVID Vaccines?
Follow me on Instagram here. Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s preeminent and most cited infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard...