Connect with us

Opinion

Why ‘Obamagate’ Could Become The Biggest Political Scandal In History

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Growing information being declassified, some of which suggests that Barack Obama was directly involved in attempts to derail Donald Trump's presidency, has given birth to the accusatory term "Obamagate."

  • Reflect On:

    Will the truth about what has gone on behind the scenes in American politics finally prevail?

We are a long way from being able to confirm or deny the substance behind Donald Trump’s current rallying cry “Obamagate!” However, one thing is pretty certain. In today’s polarized climate, a vast majority of right-leaning folks would give credence to the notion that Obama has committed serious malfeasance, while most who identify on the left consider the single-word accusation ludicrous. Whatever turns out to be true, if and when we get to the bottom of it American politics will never be the same.

advertisement - learn more

Let’s be clear right off the top that, unlike the majority of political commentaries in the mainstream and even in alternative news, I will be making an effort not to align with either side of the well-worn battle lines between Left and Right, Republican and Democrat. The attempt here will be to rise above that artificial polarity and examine the known facts as objectively as possible, with the intention of informing the reader as to what has actually been going on behind the scenes.

-->FREE Report: Discover the Top 10 Nutrient Deficiencies, including key signs you may be deficient in them and what you can do about it Click here to learn more!

It is heartening to see that in this time of awakening, people are starting to reject this artificial polarity and the identities of a growing number of people are no longer defined by whether they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Certainly, one can say that there is a ‘real’ distinction between the two sides, but the only value in making this distinction is to realize that the human experience is optimized when these two polarities are in balance. The notion that one will ultimately win over the other is what fuels the never-ending political divide. In effect, once we distance ourselves from identifying with one or the other of these polarities, we begin to see the whole political dichotomy as a control mechanism designed to keep us divided.

My Liberal Origins

So I’ll start with full disclosure: most of my life I identified with the Liberal party in Canada. When I turned my attention to American politics a few decades ago, I was an ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, a critic of George W. Bush and later was absolutely enamored with Barack Obama. In fact, in early 2008, I happened to be visiting my sister in Florida and Barack Obama had a rally scheduled less than an hour away. I felt that the Obama presidency might be historic and I wouldn’t have forgiven myself if I didn’t take this rare opportunity to see the man in person.

I was not disappointed. Not only did I find him to be even more charismatic and articulate than I even thought he was, I was even more convinced that he was about to bring “Change We Can Believe In.” Here is the sign I held up at the rally all those years ago.

advertisement - learn more

The climax of the evening actually came after the rally was over, and Obama walked off the stage to rousing applause and outstretched hands. There was no way of getting close to him to offer my hand, I thought. I was stuck at the front of some grandstands that sat far from the stage. Yet as fate would have it, his exit path ran directly past the grandstands that I was in. He started reaching up hand over hand with the people at the front. I squirmed through and somehow my left hand clasped his (extra special since we are both left-handed) and our eyes met at the same time. The moment was electric, as it felt like I was seeing into the soul of one of the greatest and most sincere leaders the world has ever known. I may have been willing to give him my left arm right then and there if he asked for it.

The Evolution Of My Thought

Twelve years later, much has changed–and it is not the ‘change we can believe in’ that Obama was touting in 2004. But it is a good change nonetheless, a change within me. As painful as it sometimes is, if our thinking is to continue to grow and evolve, we must always subject our own cherished beliefs to scrutiny, especially in the face of events that contradict them. While I found many of Obama’s early speeches to be inspiring and captivating, some of the policies coming out of his administration were a bit puzzling.

Then as his second term wore on, his actions in the world appeared contradictory to his promise of peaceful collaboration, while his rhetoric, always measured, became more serious and less heartening. During his presidency, though, I went along with the popular theory that Obama was highly compromised, as all presidents are, and that he had to ‘play ball’ with the powerful forces behind American politics instead of really doing what he wanted if he was to avoid the fate of JFK.

Today, I can’t say that I know for sure who Barack Obama is, or ever was. But in my eyes, evidence seems to be growing that he has been part of criminal activity like massive illegal domestic surveillance, unjust violence abroad under the fog of war and terrorism, a reduction of protections for whistleblowers, and huge coverups of the illegal activities of people connected to his administration.

Was he a manchurian candidate from the start, or was he an idealistic community organizer who rose to great heights only to get the hammer of reality dropped on him when he was inaugurated? Did he succumb to threats, bribes, and other such enticements to become ideologically and morally aligned with dark forces? Or is he in fact exactly as he currently portrays himself, as a good person and a great president whose administration, in his words, ‘didn’t have a scandal’? Let’s see what the evidence suggests.

It must be said that ‘Obamagate’ presupposes the existence of a ‘Deep State’, a cabal that has placed or bribed/blackmailed a great number of people in powerful and influential positions in all branches of government, the military, intelligence, and mainstream media. Further, unlike previous presidents including Barack Obama who were part of or have been willing to go along with the Deep State, Donald Trump is seen as having been supported by a military/intelligence axis that opposed the Deep State, and who sought to employ Trump to help them ‘drain the swamp’ (i.e. remove Deep State players from power and, where possible, prosecute them for their crimes). I’m not asking you to just take my word on this, but you have to admit that if it’s true, it would really explain the relentless motivation to denigrate Donald Trump in the public eye at every turn, and ultimately try every trick in the book to remove him from power.

Please note that the belief in the existence of a ‘Deep State’ based on the evidence available is not participating in ‘far-right’ conspiracy theories, much as the mainstream media would want it characterized that way. In fact, the Deep State is seen as having had control over powerful people on both sides of the political aisle for a very long time. It was certainly in control during the George W. Bush administration, and his father George H. W. Bush was known as a high-ranking member. John F. Kennedy, probably the last president truly opposed to the Deep State, recognized its presence a lot more clearly than most people realize:

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Today, the Deep State is doing most of its damage through the Democratic party because Donald Trump has not aligned with them, or their minions within the Republican party. Many such players have already been removed from power. For me, this is not a testament to Trump as much as it is a testament to the power and cohesion that the military/intelligence axis that supports him has finally reached, an endeavor that has been going on at least since JFK was murdered.

It’s not within the scope of this article to provide evidence of the existence of the Deep State, but some of my previous articles here, herehere, here, and here should help to satisfy those who are looking for more concrete examples of the Deep State’s activities and modus operandi.

What Is Obamagate?

Now ‘Obamagate’ itself centers on claims that officials in then-President Barack Obama’s administration went after a number of Trump officials as early as Trump’s nomination in order to prevent him from winning the 2016 election, and then through his early presidency to get him removed from office. The narrative holds that Obama, along with his then-Vice President Joe Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and agents from multiple intelligence services in both the US and abroad, knowingly planted a phony theory that Trump was colluding with Russia in order to win the 2016 election. This theory, supported by virtually no ‘evidence’ except the now-dismissed ‘Steele Dossier,’ was used as the basis to get FISA warrants to spy on select members of Donald Trump’s inner circle who could be tied in any way to Russia, in order to further build on the narrative of Russian collusion.

Wherever possible, those spied upon were prosecuted in order to amplify suspicion of Trump’s wrongdoing, despite the fact that none of the prosecutions that took place were actually related to the theory that there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Among those spied upon through questionable FISA warrants were foreign policy advisor Carter Page, foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was prosecuted by the Mueller Special Counsel for a number of unrelated crimes, and National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, who was indicted for lying to the FBI by the Mueller Counsel as well.

While each of these four, and many others, have their own detailed story to tell that allege they were wrongfully targeted by the Obama administration, we would require a full article for each person in order to examine their complex story properly. So for the purposes of this article we will focus on the person who is currently in the news, General Michael Flynn, and dive into the facts surrounding his experiences and see what we can extrapolate from that.

The Case Study: General Michael Flynn

Here I will attempt to use the pertinent facts in the Michael Flynn case in order to see if these facts give any support to the ‘Obamagate’ narrative. I have to honestly note here how difficult it is to try to walk the line between two opposing narratives while objectively presenting the points of view in good faith. Here goes.

FACT: Barack Obama had issues with General Michael Flynn’s pushback on Obama’s attempts to remove Syria’s president.

Under President Obama, Flynn became director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in July 2012. They clashed heads over foreign policy in the Middle East and particularly in Syria.  Flynn announced his retirement from the military on April 30, 2014, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position. As noted in Wikipedia:

[Flynn] believed he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration’s public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat. Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that “Flynn confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings… about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad.”

According to Flynn, these reports “got enormous pushback from the Obama administration,” who he felt “did not want to hear the truth.” According to former DIA official W. Patrick Lang: “Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria… they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.”

There is a lot of information supporting the notion that the Obama administration and his CIA were facilitating the rise of (if not downright building, supplying, and training) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups in the Middle East. This coincided with a primary objective for the Deep State in the Middle East, the removal of Syrian president Bashar al Assad. We have written extensively about the Deep State propagation of false-flag chemical attacks through their mainstream media arm, falsely blaming the Syrian president for ‘gassing his own people’ to sway public opinion against him here, here, here, here and here.

If someone has as their agenda the removal of a sitting president in a foreign country, and they have become aware of the Deep State’s previous commerce-centered strategy which John Perkins so comprehensively describes in his book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, then the next strategy is to build up local opposition groups with money, training, and supplies in order to fight the proxy war, with promises of untold rewards if the objectives are met. This appears to be why ISIS and other Middle East terrorist groups gained steam during the Obama administration. If General Michael Flynn was blowing the whistle on this powerful operation, and was not willing to shut up despite pressure being applied, then he would certainly be seen as a dangerous impediment to their plans and would get labeled an ‘Enemy of the [Deep] State’ in the eyes of the Obama administration.

FACT: Barack Obama warned president-elect Trump about Flynn

Still in the aftershocks of Trump winning the 2016 election, Obama must have felt it important enough to stress in their first post-election meeting how much of a bad idea it would be to have Michael Flynn on his national security team, as per this New York Times article:

President Barack Obama warned Donald J. Trump against hiring Michael T. Flynn to be part of his national security team when Mr. Obama met with his successor in the Oval Office two days after the November election, two former Obama administration officials said on Monday. Mr. Obama, who had fired Mr. Flynn as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Mr. Trump that he would have profound concerns about Mr. Flynn becoming a top national security aide, said the administration officials, who were briefed on the Oval Office conversation.

So one way of looking at this, to give the mainstream narrative its due, is that Barack Obama sincerely felt that Michael Flynn would be a detriment to Trump’s administration, and wanted to help Trump out. But are we really that naive? How often does someone from one party actually help out someone from the other party? Is it not more likely, given the general polarization we see in American politics, that there was an ulterior motive here?

I will be presenting evidence later that demonstrate that the outgoing Obama administration did little to nothing to help Trump out during the transition. Here is what I consider a more plausible explanation for Obama’s warning: if the election of Donald Trump was, as the narrative goes, big trouble for the past administration, since Trump was not one of ‘them,’ then Michael Flynn, a man who ‘knew where the bodies were buried,’ as they say, would be very damaging to them if he had Trump’s ear on national security.

Certainly, Obama going to Trump and chumming up to him in order to dissuade him from hiring Flynn would be one of many strategies the Deep State would consider using if they wanted to delay the uncovering of their crimes, until such time as they could find a way to remove Trump from power. And hasn’t removing Trump from power been the focal point of the Democratic Party/mainstream media axis the whole time? Whether it be by digging up potential scandals from the past, having bought-and-paid-for celebrities graphically wishing him dead, organized campaigns accusing him of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, pushing the Russia Collusion narrative all the way to the East Siberian Sea, and filling the news cycle with insubstantial articles of impeachment, we have been inundated by a perceived need in the mainstream to get him out of office any which way we can. 

Beyond just hating Trump for being a pompous reality-TV buffoon, there must be a serious reason for all the commotion we’ve seen. If in fact he was such a buffoon and incapable of handling the rigors of being president and commander-in-chief of the biggest armed forces in the world, as the mainstream media continues to suggest, the opposition likely would have sat back and let the fruits of his actions speak for themselves. But rather than do that, the mainstream media is working hard to characterize every one of Trump’s actions in a bad light before people even have a chance to evaluate the actual impact of what he is doing. This smells like panic and fear evoked by threats to one’s self-preservation more than anything else. 

This article has reached its limit and we haven’t even gotten into the timeline of the case against General Michael Flynn! I guess that’s a consequence of diving deep into the details. Instead of continuing here, I will work on a second article that will serve as Part 2 of this analysis of why ‘Obamagate’ could become the biggest political scandal in history. The full timeline and details of Michael Flynn’s prosecution are sure to continue providing some interesting insights. 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Opinion

How A Future Without Money Would Work

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Several brave thinkers, including Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and Colin Turner of the Free World Charter, have proposed ways in which a future society could thrive if we eliminated money and trade and instead built a resource-based economy.

  • Reflect On:

    The first step in any new paradigm is believing it's possible. Do you believe humanity could not only survive but thrive in a money-free world? What would it look like?

“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.”–1 Timothy 6:10

While it is still not commonly held in mainstream discourse that humanity could survive and even thrive without some form of monetary exchange, more and more people that are starting to trace their general discontent about contemporary society to its source are finding money and profit motive at the root of it.

Perhaps the first of the knee-jerk reactions some people might have to the idea of shifting into a money-free system is the sinking feeling of watching their hard-earned wealth evaporate into nothingness, which they might equate with abject poverty. We are so programmed to equate money with abundance that we don’t understand what abundance truly is.

At the heart of it our ‘net’ abundance is shared, and is grounded in the resources available in nature on the planet. The aggregate of these natural resources not only represents our potential abundance but our very survival. A money system grants ownership to many of these resources, and makes it exponentially easier for those with abundance to get more abundance at the expense of the vast majority of people. A money system is, in some ways, antithetical to the proper management and distribution of these resources. Without money, each individual would naturally be entitled to their share of all the resources in the world, and that would never change. But how would such a system work?

Resource-Based Economy

Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project, believes that the world has reached a level of technology that will allow us to build fully self-sustaining communities all over the world which, when optimally designed, will provide not only an unimaginably high level of abundance for all its residents, but a far greater sense of shared purpose within a community. This vision is grounded in the principles of a Resource-Based Economy:

In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind could reach extremely high productivity levels and create abundance of resources.–Venus Project website

Without profit motive, individuals within the community will naturally turn their energy towards the efficient maintenance of the infrastructure and problem-solving and innovation for the collective, as the happiness and well-being of the community is naturally equated with one’s own happiness and well-being.

In the video below is a brief introduction to Fresco’s inspiring vision of our potential future. More information. including where the Venus Project is at on their timeline, is available on their website.

No Need For Trade

Since money is nothing more than a medium of exchange, it is only in removing the convention of exchange or ‘trade’ itself that then renders money obsolete. That’s why a Resource-Based Economy proposes that ‘all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants.’

In his TedX talk, Colin Turner really questions the idea that ‘trade’ is the only organizational model for life on the planet, and in fact outlines the ways in which trade is actually antithetical to human abundance and well-being:

We all more or less accept trade as being the de facto way of operating our society, so much so that we even see it as some kind of universal law. But it might surprise you to know actually that trade has only existed in relatively recent years, that in 90% of our modern human history we didn’t actually trade at all, there still are no archaeological traces of trade. In these early tribal, agrarian communities what actually happened was there was an implied understanding that everyone in the tribe looked after each other. And this was how the tribes operated for perhaps the vast majority of our early human history.

So we see trade now as a very important way of doing business, and you have to say that trade works, I get what I want and you get what you want and we all go home happy. But when you actually scratch the surface a little bit more about how trade actually pans out in the real world, it’s not such a nice story. It seems to be a better theory than actually works out in practice.

For example, the most obvious case is, about 3 billion people in the world today live on $2.50 or less a day–many of them much, much less than that. Obviously they are wracked with starvation or dying of curable diseases, so, I mean, you have to ask yourself, is trade really working for them, for those people? Clearly, it isn’t.

Colin Turner is the founder of The Free World Charter, which currently has 58,611 signatories among people from 215 different countries (and would welcome yours, if you are so inclined). The charter constitutes a set of principles that really formalizes the notion that all human individuals are entitled to maintain an equal share of the Earth’s resources, but it also outlines the natural responsibilities and practices that each individual would assume in order to live optimally and harmoniously together in a money-free community and world. Here are the ten principles:

  1. The highest concern of humanity is the combined common good of all living species and biosphere.
  2. Life is precious in all its forms, and free to flourish in the combined common good.
  3. Earth’s natural resources are the birthright of all its inhabitants, and free to share in the combined common good.
  4. Every human being is an equal part of a worldwide community of humans, and a free citizen of Earth.
  5. Our community is founded on the spirit of cooperation and an understanding of nature, provided through basic education.
  6. Our community provides for all its members the necessities of a healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation.
  7. Our community respects the limits of nature and its resources, ensuring minimal consumption and waste.
  8. Our community derives its solutions and advances progress primarily through the application of logic and best available knowledge.
  9. Our community acknowledges its duty of care and compassion for members who are unable to contribute.
  10. Our community acknowledges its responsibility to maintain a diverse and sustainable biosphere for all future life to enjoy

These are certainly not the final words on which principles should truly define a future society and world free of money, but in reading them one can clearly grasp the overall essence of the kind of mindset we will need to develop and implement in our lives if we are to shift into this new paradigm.

Walking Away From A Money Economy

The shift we are looking for here is grounded in a conscious move by the individuals of this planet away from a model of competition and towards a model of cooperation. We are all quite familiar with both, as we surely have an ample amount of experience in both ways of relating to the people around us. If you could choose right now, which kind of model would you want as the basis for the entire planet?

Some might argue that the competitive/trade/money paradigm has been instrumental in getting us to make progress, especially technologically, which we may not have achieved by remaining with the cooperative tribal model. There may be some truth in this. But does it not seem that, at this time in history, most of us have had it with the debt, scarcity, and inequality that is a hallmark of the money model? Are we not hungering for more love, cooperation and shared abundance imbued in the very organizational structures we create for ourselves to live?

Understand that making this change is not as simple as going to the United Nations or other authoritative world body, as Jacque Fresco has already done. Presenting a compelling vision of a future without money to the benefit of all of humanity does not automatically mean that the world authority will implement it right away. The powers behind world authority like the UN are actually made up of those who have the most money. What we see going on in the public arena are essentially the machinations of the puppets they control.

This is nothing new. An overall system that maintains power by the few has been in place ever since money and exchange were introduced. While in the past this wealth was protected over generations and generations by certain families who were the visible ‘royalty,’ ‘noblemen’ and ‘aristocracy’ of the day, today’s world only differs in the sense that these powers are more hidden from sight, while countries maintain the illusion of having some form of ‘democracy.’

The point is that we will never be able to elicit the help of our authority if we want to abandon our current money economy. Those in authority, who at the very top own a vast percentage of the world’s resources, certainly believe they would have the most to lose if we moved to a model founded on equally-shared abundance. What we actually need to do is elicit the help of each other, energizing important movements and fostering an awakening as to how powerful we actually are as a collective. When a critical mass of us begin marching in step to a new way of life, the current authority will have no power to stop us.

The Takeaway

A money-free society and world can certainly work from the standpoint of creating abundance for everyone on the planet. What is needed is a new awareness founded on some of the natural principles discussed here. The more that individuals of the planet slowly move away from competitive money-centered practices and spend their time and energy cultivating cooperation, the more quickly we will be able to collectively walk away from a system that no longer serves us.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dr. Fauci Says “Individual Institutions” May Make The Coronavirus Vaccine Mandatory

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Anthony Fauci recently expressed that the coronavirus vaccine will not be mandatory, but private institutions may require it.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we being forced to accept measures that we, as a collective, don't agree with? Is this really in our best interests? What will the reaction be when some institutions mandate the vaccine for adults?

What Happened: Dr. Anthony Fauci recently explained that the US “could see individual institutions mandating a vaccine.” As of now, it seems quite clear that this vaccine will not be mandatory, but what seems to be the case is that health authorities may make it mandatory to travel, and individual institutions that employ people, for example, may make it mandatory as well. Who really knows at this point. We do seem to be trending in that direction though, perhaps we won’t be if a majority of people simply don’t accept it?

Why do we always comply with that which does not resonate? Why do we give away our consciousness and allow our perception to be moulded by a small group of powerful people?

One thing is for certain, wherever a vaccine mandate pops up there will be a tremendous amount of controversy. Fauci  told CNN last month that vaccine education efforts in the US is “not going to be easy” and went on to say that “there is a general anti-science, anti-authority, anti-vaccine feeling among some people in this country – an alarmingly large percentage of people, relatively speaking.” He went on to say that “we have a lot of work to do” with regards to educating people “on the truth about vaccines.”

This type of “education” seems to be the censoring of any information, no matter how credible, that paints vaccines in a questionable light. It also seems to be complemented by a massive campaign of ridicule, as Fauci did above. How can a number of scientists and doctors who support informed consent and question vaccine safety “uneducated?”

Perhaps skepticism about vaccines is growing because people are becoming educated? Is this why we now have a digital authoritarian Orwellian fact-checker patrolling the internet? Should people not be able to examine information and evidence from other experts and decide for themselves what is instead of having a “fact-checker” it for them?

Why This Matters

When Bill Gates said that the world won’t go back to completely normal until we get a vaccine, his Instagram feed was littered with comments from people who oppose vaccines. This is the result of vaccine hesitancy, something that continues to grow among people, physicians and scientists. This point was recently emphasized at the World Health Organization’s summit on vaccine safety.  You can read more about it here.

Multiple studies suggest that this hesitancy is a result of not only faulty products that have caused injury, but also a lack of trust in pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, multiple studies call into question vaccine safety, and the need for more appropriate safety testing. Take aluminum, for example, it’s been added to vaccines for more than 100 years simply because it’s been presumed safe. Studies have not been conducted to actually prove that it’s safe. There are still many unanswered questions with regards to where these metals end up in our body after they are injected. Studies are already showing that injected aluminum doesn’t exit the body like the aluminum we take in from food, for example, and that the substance may end up in distant organs and eventually lodged within the brain. (source)(source)(source)(source)

According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine-injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

This act has already paid 4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children has now been paid to families of vaccine injured makes it quite clear that vaccines are not a one size fits all product, and injuries could be happening at a far greater rate than what we have been told, as emphasized above.

These concerns aren’t even the tip of the ice-berg, and it’s a shame that, in today’s day in age, concerns raised about vaccines in a credible, scientific way are often ridiculed rather than countered in a peaceful manner. This is usually the result of mainstream media also ridiculing the idea of questioning vaccine safety.

Why are the points made by vaccine safety advocates never addressed? Why are they simply met with ridicule?

One of the biggest problems we have to day with regards to science is the politicization of it. And one of the biggest problems we have with regards to health is the amount of fraud that plagues the industry. Our federal health regulatory agencies have been completely corrupted, and there are countless amounts of examples that prove this, like the Spider Papers, among many others.

Some people have accused Fauci of this, with his connections to bill gates, the Pharmaceutical company Moderna who seems to be winning the race for the vaccine, and his position as the Director. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The Takeaway

It’s great news that the new coronavirus vaccine will not be mandatory, but again, the idea that it could be mandatory or perhaps necessary to travel and enter into certain public places is concerning to many. To single out these individuals under the premise that unvaccinated individuals are a danger to vaccinated individuals is completely unscientific.

Is this the world we want to live in? One in which we are forced into specific measures if we want to be part of society? It’s been happening with children for a long time with regards to public schooling, are we making our way to mandatory vaccines for adults?

Are these measures for the greater good of everybody? Why does so much evidence exist showing that vaccines don’t really protect the “whole”?

At the end of the day, more people are loosing trust in federal health regulatory agencies, it’s never to late to take your power back and start thinking for yourself and doing your own research.

This is one of many ways in which the world changes, with information, awareness and transparency.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Opinion

High Profile European Pathologist Says They Haven’t Identified Any Antibodies Specific For SARS-CoV-2

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, has said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there so much conflicting information about what's going on with this pandemic? Why are high profile scientists being censored, ignored and having their research and opinions deemed as false?

The president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, has called the World Health Organization (WHO) a “criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without providing any actual verifiable proof a pandemic, according to him.  He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a May 8, 2020, European Society of Pathology (ESP) webinar on COVID-19. It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.

What he says may be false. It may not be false. That’s up for the reader to decide. These doctors and scientists are simply sharing what they’ve come across based on their experience thus far with regards to this pandemic.  That’s why in the title, I put “claims.”

It goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claim that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source)

The official position of the Bulgarian Pathology Association is that “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless.” (source)

An article written by Rosemary Frei, an MSc. in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, former freelance medical journalist for two decades, independent journalist, and Patrick Corbett, a retired writer, producer and director who now works as a Citizen journalist & filmmaker explains:

Dr. Stoian Alexov called the World Health Organization (WHO) a “criminal medical organization” for creating worldwide fear and chaos without providing objectively verifiable proof of a pandemic.

Another stunning revelation from Bulgarian Pathology Association (BPA) president Dr. Alexov is that he believes it’s currently “impossible” to create a vaccine against the virus.

He also revealed that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.

These stunning statements raise major questions, including about officials’ and scientists’ claims regarding the many vaccines they’re rushing into clinical trials around the world.

They also raise doubt about the veracity of claims of discovery of anti-novel-coronavirus antibodies (which are beginning to be used to treat patients).

Novel-coronavirus-specific antibodies are supposedly the basis for the expensive serology test kits being used in many countries (some of which have been found to be unacceptably inaccurate).

And they’re purportedly key to the immunity certificates coveted by Bill Gates that are about to go into widespread use — in the form of the COVI-PASS — in 15 countries including the UK, US, and Canada.

The body forms antibodies specific to pathogens it encounters. These specific antibodies are known as monoclonal antibodies and are a key tool in pathology. This is done via immunohistochemistry, which involves tagging antibodies with colours and then coating the biopsy- or autopsy-tissue slides with them. After giving the antibodies time to bind to the pathogens they’re specific for, the pathologists can look at the slides under a microscope and see the specific places where the coloured antibodies — and therefore the pathogens they’re bound to – are located.

Therefore, in the absence of monoclonal antibodies to the novel coronavirus, pathologists cannot verify whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in the body, or whether the diseases and deaths attributed to it indeed were caused by the virus rather than by something else

It would be easy to dismiss Dr. Alexov as just another crank ‘conspiracy theorist.’ After all many people believe they’re everywhere these days, spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 and other issues.

In addition, little of what Dr. Alexov alleges was the consensus from the May 8 webinar is in the publicly viewable parts of the proceedings.

But keep in mind that whistleblowers often stand alone because the vast majority of people are afraid to speak out publicly.

Also, Dr. Alexov has an unimpugnable record and reputation. He’s been a physician for 30 years. He’s president of the BPA, a member of the ESP’s Advisory Board and head of the histopathology department at the Oncology Hospital in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia.

On top of that, there’s other support for what Dr. Alexov is saying.

The article goes into much more detail, if interested, you can read it here.

Why This Is Important

People putting their trust in big government in order to supply them with correct, factual information is decreasing rapidly, and the number of people who are starting to question their government with regards to the measures and solutions they propose continues to increase rapidly. It seems to happen every single time when the world faces a large “threat,” whether it’s a pandemic, terrorism, or something else. Even more people are starting to become aware of the fact that those who are proposing the solution may somehow have hand their hand in creating the problem. This seems to be a modern day geopolitical strategy, and has been for a while.

Right now, as there always has been, there is a battle over human perception and a battle to control it. This seems to be especially evident with regards to the new coronavirus, but seems to be true for many different events as well.

Any type of information that threatens the manufactured perception is always hit hard with opposition. High-profile scientists who speak out, which seems to have reached a very high number with regards to the coronavirus, are character assassinated, censored, labelled as conspiracy theorists and ignored.

People have become aware of this alternative information, perhaps even more now as a result of the censorship? The information regarding Covid-19 is hard to navigate, especially when it comes to the testing itself.

Tanzania’s President John Magufuli has dismissed imported coronavirus testing kits as faulty, saying they returned positive results on samples taken from a goat and a pawpaw.  The president said the samples tested positive for COVID-19, and as a result, he stated his belief that this meant it was probable that some people were testing as positive when it fact they were not infected by the coronavirus. He has said that “There is something happening. I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation.” But what does that mean? Is he implying that foreign aid has another agenda? In this case, to perhaps make the coronavirus more of an issue than it actually is? He is suggesting that there is manipulation and ‘sabotage’ when it comes to the virus numbers. (source)

Why is the WHO censoring information that opposes them? Why have multiple countries called the organization out for fraud? Why are deaths being attributed to covid when they’re not really from covid? Why did Vimeo ban a documentary exposing the power and influence that big pharma has on WHO policy? Why are the Wikileaks dumps about the influence that pharmaceutical companies have on the WHO ignored?

If all of these events tell us something, it’s how big of a problem corruption and the manipulation of human consciousness through big media is in our world.

The Takeaway

More people are starting to rely on their own thinking and their own research instead of relying on health authority figures to provide proper instruction and direction. Do we continue to want to live in a world where our ‘leaders’ don’t seem to really have the best interests of humanity at hand? Why do we keep voting? By doing so are we simply upholding a system we no longer desire to play with? If we can all come together and lock ourselves down for coronavirus, imagine what else we could do together as one human collective, if we all decided to do it.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!