Connect with us

Opinion

Study: Governments Should Be Testing 5G & Proving It’s Safe Before Exposing Humanity To It

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in 2019 is one of many to point out that appropriate safety testing is needed and should be required before 5G technology is rolled out.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do some mainstream media outlets ridicule the idea that 5G technology may be harmful to human health when there is an abundance of peer-reviewed literature emphasizing the need for further study?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The push for 5G forges on regardless of any safety testing. The mainstream continues to tout the idea that no science shows dangers associated with 5G radiation, but there are also no studies to show that it is safe. The truth is, there are medical and health experts who have been raising their concerns with regards to 5G technology, and human exposure to electromagnetic frequencies for quite some time. I’ve published multiple articles expressing these concerns. For example, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician, a former medical school assistant professor, and academic with more than two decades in the field gave her testimony regarding electromagnetic radiation and 5G in Michigan, after an industry sponsored 5G wireless infrastructure legislation recently passed through the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee with a vote of 15 to 4. You can watch that and read more about that here.

advertisement - learn more

Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” emphasizes that:

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

These concerns are also hitting the mainstream, one recent example of mainstream awareness is an article published in the blog section of Scientific American titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe” written by Joel M. Moskowitz.

So, it’s not like awareness is not getting out there, a few months ago, a number of doctors, scientists and activists sent a National 5G Resolution letter to President Trump, requesting a moratorium on 5G technology until the potential hazards for human health have been appropriately investigated. The Electromagnetic Safety Alliance and Environmental Health Trust coordinated gathering signatories for this 5G Resolution.

The Environmental Health Trust is actually a great place to access more of the science on this topic if you’re interested in learning more.

advertisement - learn more

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump recently signed into law a pair of bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act. You can read more about that here.

Despite all of the concerns being raised, the international body in charge of setting limits on exposure to radiation, The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), A Germany-based scientific body that assesses the health risks of this kind of thing, is claiming that 5G radiation is completely safe.

Dr. Eric van Rongen, the ICNIRP chair, said:

“We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease. The guidelines have been developed after a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process. They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects due to [electromagnetic field] exposure in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range.” (source)

The question is, why is there so much conflicting information, with some scientific bodies claiming that it’s safe, and others claiming that it’s not? Clearly, there are some issues here.

An article written in Forbes states “Fortunately, science already tells us that 5G almost certainly poses no danger to humans. Unless you value unfounded conspiracies over bona fide science.”

Why would they refer to such concerns being published by doctors and scientists in peer-reviewed literature as “conspiracy theories?” Why do they constantly use the ridicule factor instead of simply sharing both sides from a place of neutrality? Why is this “conspiracy theory” narrative constantly used within the mainstream instead of actually addressing the concerns that many scientists and health experts are having?

Perhaps this conflict comes as a result of corporate influence?  Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed (. Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

One major theme of the study is the absence of science proving that this technology is safe.

With this absence of human evidence, governments must require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents, whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past few years.

How can science like this be deemed a conspiracy theory? If it is, why are scientists allowed to publish it after going through a rigorous peer-reviewed process in an esteemed scientific journal?

At the end of the day, many doctors and scientists are concerned about the rollout of 5G technology, and the already existing levels of unnatural radiation that humanity is exposed to. Clearly, there are biological effects, but some studies point out that conclusions can’t be made. For example, a study published in The International Journal of Environmental Health titled “5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz” pointed out that,

The majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range. The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.

This particular study was even funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, and again, it emphasizes that “no -in-depth” conclusions can be drawn.

If this is true, as some studies argue it’s not and certain conclusions can be drawn, then shouldn’t we wait until “in-depth” conclusions can be drawn that guarantee our safety? Something to think about.

A list of Annual Reports by telecommunication companies clearly shows how companies warn their shareholders but not residents living near cell antennas. Read more here. They are already facing numerous lawsuits.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, this begs the question, do we really live in a democracy? If 5G came down to a vote from the people within that country, it’s hard to believe the vote would pass. Today, we seem to be living in a time where governments and big corporations can enforce measures upon us that we do not desire, or in this case, impose measures upon us that have not yet been proved to be safe. This is one of many examples of why people continue to lose trust in governments as well as federal health regulatory agencies. Furthermore, there seems to be a large bias within the mainstream media, almost ridiculing the idea

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Opinion

Is The Spike Protein Dangerous?

Avatar

Published

on

By

2 minute read
By MattLphotography

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

This article has been updated and corrected.

Dr. Bryam Bridle, a Viral Immunologist from the University of Guelph has been claiming that the vaccine Spike Protein can enter into the bloodstream and is dangerous. Multiple Facebook fact-checkers have said this assertion is completely false. No appropriate studies were cited by Bridle showing any harmful effects from the spike protein produced by COVID-19 vaccination. It is true, however, that some spike protein produced through vaccination might enter the bloodstream, but at a lower level compared to the amount that’s associated with damage in infected animals.

Health Feedback explains:

COVID-19 vaccines are injected in the upper arm muscle, where they instruct the muscle cells to produce the spike protein. Most of the vaccine remains around the injection site, either in the muscle cells or in the lymph nodes responsible for the immune response.

Bridle claimed that this assumption is wrong, and the spike protein from COVID-19 enters the bloodstream, accumulating in tissues such as the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries. Bridle based this claim on a small study by Ogata et al. that examined blood samples from people who received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and detected spike protein in 11 out of 13 vaccinated people[9].

Bettinger explained that the sample size of this study was very small. Besides reporting that part of the vaccine-derived spike protein enters the blood, “nothing about being detrimental is mentioned in the publication,” she added.

Ogata et al. found extremely low levels of the spike protein compared to the harmful levels reported in animal studies, as Uri Manor, one of the authors of the study in hamsters, pointed out on Twitter. The blog Deplatform Disease calculated that the amount of spike protein that the authors found in vaccinated people was about 100,000 times lower than the levels of viral spike protein shown to cause harm. This is “a situation that could hypothetically occur in severe COVID-19 patients, pending studies confirming it, but not achievable in vaccinated people, at least for those who received the Moderna vaccine, and unlikely to occur for the other vaccines”, explained Al-Ahmad.

If you’d like to read about/learn more about this issue, please refer this article via Health Feedback for more information.

 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dear Canadian Parents: Will You Give Informed Consent For Your Child To Get The Covid-19 Injection?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Dear Canadian Parent, with the recent announcement from Health Canada in May 2021 that children 12 and older have been cleared to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, you are now faced with a highly consequential decision: whether or not to consent to your child getting this injection.

And, I think you will agree, this decision cannot be justified as a simple continuation of the regular schedule of childhood vaccines, for several reasons:

1. This product is not a traditional ‘vaccine,’ because by definition vaccines use the actual virus (dead or weakened) to stimulate the production of antibodies that will fight off future infections. This product is actually an experimental mRNA gene manipulator, in that it forces our cells to make a new protein to trigger an immune response which, allegedly, will then trigger our body to produce antibodies that will supposedly protect us from this virus.

2. Not only do manufacturers have complete immunity from prosecution if this injection causes bodily harm or death to your child, Canada has not yet set up a vaccine injury compensation program for victims of injury.

3. A thorough risk/benefit analysis for giving this product to your child, who statistically has a 99.96% recovery rate from the disease, has not been established by Health Canada or any other agency promoting this product.

This product is the first ever “vaccine” in the world to have purportedly been developed and approved within less than 2 years. It has not had to follow the legally mandated safety protocols, which involve years of testing and trials, because it has been cleared for ’emergency use only.’ Aside from mounting evidence of short-term injury and death, its mid-term and long-term effects are absolutely impossible to determine.

Now far be it from me, dear parent, to tell you what choice to make. You are the one who bears the full weight of responsibility for providing consent on behalf of your child. My only urging, and the point of this letter, is that such consent be informed. The argument that your child will ‘have to’ get the vaccine, so you might as well do it sooner than later, does not hold water. It is well established in Canadian law that Canadians have personal sovereignty with regards to what is put into their bodies. You remain responsible for making an informed decision on behalf of your child.

I became informed about vaccines just before my son was born in 2014. I had real trepidation and ambivalence about the vaccine issue, and whether or not I would be comfortable with my son receiving vaccines. I had heard arguments on both sides, but hadn’t looked into it in depth. I decided to read a book from each side of the argument, ‘The Vaccine Book’ by Robert Sears, and ‘Dissolving Illusions’ by Suzanne Humphreys. Once I had read these two books, and had done some follow-up research, my mind was made up for life.

If you are starting your research today it is even easier to find information, even though one side of the argument is being subjected to growing censorship. My belief is that, in order to make an informed decision, it is important to look deeply into both sides of the argument. The notion that these Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ are safe and effective is being promoted by mainstream media, the big social media companies, the government and the medical establishment. So you have ample avenues to investigate that side of the story. The place I would start you off to find information about vaccines being potentially harmful and ineffective is Vaccine Choice Canada, which has long established itself as an alternative to the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety, and can lead you to other sources of information as well.

I am not suggesting you should trust one side or the other when it comes to your child’s health and well-being. I am suggesting that you have the courage to trust yourself, and rely on the discernment of your own logic and intuition, to the best of your ability.

Do your important research of both sides with an open mind, and don’t just accept surface opinions. Follow to where (or whether) these opinions are substantiated by fact, evidence, actual studies, statistics, and take note of the credentials of experts testimony. Only once you look deeply into both sides will you be able to make an informed choice and a decision you can live with.

It is important to note that in Ontario, the government believes there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination. The notion that they have the legal right to enforce this has been refuted by constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati. Nonetheless, they have started setting up clinics where children aged 12 and over are being invited to consent for themselves to get the Covid-19 injection, and, as happened at Toronto’s city hall on May 23rd, ice cream was being offered as an extra incentive for young participants. If you still believe you should trust the government and the medical establishment to make your decisions for you, I don’t know what more I need to say.

But if, dear parent, you at least agree with me that your child should only get the Covid-19 injection after you have made that informed choice on their behalf, you may need to have a conversation with your child to protect them from the growing risk that the government is trying to lure them into getting the Covid-19 injection without your knowing.

The Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’ is still sworn to by all doctors and nurses who are physically performing the injections. It makes me wonder whether those who are performing injections on self-consenting children as young as 12 understand the full weight of that oath. We are living in a time, dear parent, where more than ever we need to re-establish ourselves, in our own minds as well as in the public consciousness, as the legal and conscientious guardians of our beloved children.

Richard Enos, Ontario parent

This letter was originally published on my website daocoaching.com

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Exopolitics

Obama Says UFOs Are Real & We Don’t Know What They Are: Is This True?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Barack Obama, along with recent mainstream media coverage, recently emphasized that UFOs, or UAPs are real and that the U.S. government does not know what they are.

  • Reflect On:

    When UFOs were a "conspiracy", the evidence for their existence was strong, yet it was still not accepted. Did you know that the evidence showing UFOs may originate from a non-human life form is also quite strong?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

UFOs have gone “mainstream” in a big way. The U.S. Navy has released multiple videos and pictures of “unidentified aerial phenomenon” (UAPs) as they call it, and the Pentagon has verified this footage to be authentic. It’s unfortunate that footage has to be released and confirmed “authentic” by the Department of Defense for it to be credible in the public eye. This alone shows how reliant humanity has become on these institutions and organizations.

It’s also the reason why humanity’s perception of major global events and controversial topics is open to manipulation. It’s no secret that governments, through their relationship with mainstream media, have attempted to manipulate the perception of the masses on a wide range of issues for “national security” purposes, as they claim. It’s unfortunate that there is simply not enough trust in governments or mainstream media institutions to provide a correct and accurate analysis of major issues. That being said, it’s great to see the phenomenon being legitimized within the mainstream.

The question is, why would mainstream media actively engage in ridiculing this topic, deeming it a “conspiracy,” for so many years yet now all of a sudden take it so seriously? It’s not like the UAP encounters released into the mainstream are anything new, military encounters with UFOs have been happening for decades. Here’s one of many examples.

Just as there was evidence for the existence of UFOs when they were a considered a conspiracy theory, there is ample evidence suggesting that these objects are not made by humans, at least some of them. This it’s suspicious when someone like Barack Obama goes The Late Show and says that the US government doesn’t know that it’s unknown what these objects are.

We know that governments and military agencies have been studying the phenomenon for at least 70 years. Perhaps “high ranking” individuals are simply adhering to their national security oaths? Perhaps they are simply regurgitating what they’ve been told to say from people who are “in the know.”

What is true, and I’m actually being serious here, is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. Barrack Obama

Next month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense will be required to provide the intelligence and armed services committees of Congress with an unclassified report on UAPs, but it’s safe to say that what is actually known about the phenomenon within these circles will remain classified. What we do get from this report will be nothing new to those who have been studying the phenomenon for years.

Evidence suggests otherwise, that it is actually known what some of these objects are, but it depends on your definition of evidence.  Whether it’s examples of, as Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell said, “crashed craft and bodies recovered”, civilian experiences, and even high ranking military personnel sharing what they apparently know, testimony like this never seems to make its way into the public domain. If you’re interested in reading more about UFO crash retrievals, you can do so here.

Sure, military pilots and and political figures are now able and willing to talk about the phenomenon, but this is nothing new. Why is it that those who go deeper  are unacknowledged within the mainstream? Why is it that those who go in depth into the implications on human consciousness, or perhaps supposed evidence that these objects do indeed originate from another non-human intelligence, are never acknowledged properly within the mainstream? Why can’t we take the discussion to the next level and speculate?

What makes one person’s testimony who remains on the “safe” side, simply going as far as saying that these objects are real, more credible than another person’s testimony, of equal or higher rank, going into a deeper discussion into the question and intentions of the intelligence behind the “unidentified” objects? Why do we keep saying “we don’t know” when really, there is more than enough information and testimony out there to have an intelligent discussion and/or speculation? Is it because we have video and pictures of these objects from the government and not pictures of other intelligent life forms? I could see how that may play a role, but again, the testimony from “credible” sources is curious to say the least when they continually express that nobody knows what these objects are. I don’t believe that to be true.

For example, in his very last interview before his death, conducted by director James Fox, Colonel Robert Friend, who from 1958-1962 was a director of Project Blue Book, suggests the U.S. Air Force knew what these objects were. He didn’t quite say what, but it seems as if he was implying that they were extraterrestrial. Mitchell, mentioned above, has done the same.

Colonel Ross dedrickson served the with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1950-1958, his stint there included contract administration duties at Nevada test sites, Pacific Nuclear Test Area west of Hawaii, nuclear weapon manufacturing and quality assurance in Albuquerque, and inspection of nuclear and non-nuclear facilities throughout the country. He retired from the air force in 1962. According to him, various people within the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force Space Command were well aware of the fact that some of these objects are, according to him, extraterrestrial, and that they are concerned about the preservation of our planet.

Now, there are plenty of benevolent, and what seem to be in some cases malevolent stories associated with this phenomenon and non-human intelligence, and that’s where the discussion needs to go in my opinion. Unfortunately humans want to put everything into a box and label it. This phenomenon is quite large, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and goes into quantum physics, consciousness, multiple dimensions, and much much more.

Dr. Norman Bergrun, renowned NASA/Ames research scientist, has also shared the same type of information regarding non-human intelligence, implying that it’s already known that this intelligence is behind the phenomenon.

Despite these examples, and they are a few of many, there is good reason to believe that we are being lied to by mainstream media and governments when they state that they don’t know what these objects are. Sure, there are probably a lot of unknowns that remain, but why they seem to be lying is a different story and discussion. Again, individuals who share this perspective may simply be sharing what they are told, and others may be under non-disclosure agreements and national security oaths that may not be able to go past stating that these objects are real. Perhaps they are sharing what they can, which is great.

My concern is this, by mainstream media and governments are sharing that that they don’t know what these objects are and staying firm in this stance, they can simply continue to keep their secrets as they have done for decades and continue doing whatever it is they do in the black budget world.  It’s another way of saying “here, this is all we know, satisfied?” “National security” in my opinion has become an umbrella term to justify the secrecy of information due to the fact that its disclosure may threaten various corporate, financial and other elite interests, but I don’t know.

Secondly, by sharing that they don’t know what these objects are sets up the government, in the public eye, to find out. The Pentagon has created a new program to study this phenomenon, and they now have, through this program, the ability to relay to the public what exactly they find out and discover. As I said in the beginning, does this give them the ability to paint a perception of the phenomenon that is not accurate or indicative of it’s behaviour? That remains to be seen. If one thing is certain, to me at least, the behaviour of these objects, which have clearly been around a very long time, is not indicative  of any type of threat.

Sure, there may be some perceived air-safety issues and perhaps other issues with regards to approaching these craft, like radiation and what not, but as far as their behaviour goes, for the most part they perform evasive manevuers to avoid our own aircraft. They’ve been observed doing this for decades. In my opinion, based on my research, they are curious and playful when engaging with our air-craft, they clearly do not want to shoot them down like we do.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Our Journalism Has Moved

Our journalism has moved to The Pulse

You have Successfully Subscribed!