Connect with us

Alternative News

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Environmental Health Trust is has filed a case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regarding 5G and wireless radiation, citing health and environmental concerns.

  • Reflect On:

    How are federal health regulatory agencies able to approve this technology without any appropriate safety testing? Is there an Industry influence? Why are health concerns raised by thousands of papers considered a "conspiracy?" What's going on here?

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 case is Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC  case number 20-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

advertisement - learn more

The Environmental Health Trust is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education, and policy and the only nonprofit organization in the world that carries out cutting edge research on environmental health hazards. They work directly with communities, health and education professionals, and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Dr. Devra Davis founded the non-profit Environmental Health Trust in 2007 in Teton County, Wyoming. She has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and has authored more than 200 publications in books and journals. She is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Dr. Davis lectures at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and major universities in India, Australia, Finland, and elsewhere.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

She’s actually one of the scientists who was creating awareness about big tobacco and how they were deceiving the public back in the day, and she’s compared that with the current climate of wireless technologies, proving that these technologies, like 5G and its predecessors, may be harmful to not only human health, but environmental health as well. The bottom line is, it’s firmly established in scientific literature that there are biological effects to be concerned about. These technologies pose great risks, and it’s quite alarming that federal health regulatory agencies have approved the rollout of these technologies without our consent, and furthermore, without any health and/or environmental safety testing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists doing their part to try and tackle this issue together by raiding red flags.

What Happened: The Environmental Health Trust has filed a case against the Federal Communications Commission. They explain:

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense.

advertisement - learn more

Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.  Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.

Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).

Here is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology. During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The EHT goes on to explain that:

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants.

Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

In large measure, the FCC simply ignored the vast amount of evidence in the record showing an urgent need for action to protect the public and the environment. EHT contends that the FCC ignored the recommendations of hundreds of medical experts and public health experts who called for updated regulations that protect against biological impacts and for the development of policies to immediately reduce public exposure.

The brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its order is arbitrary and capricious, and not evidence-based; violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FCC did not take a hard look on the environmental impacts of its decision; and violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because the FCC failed, as required by the TCA, to consider the impact of its decision on the public health and safety.

“The FCC entirely ignored the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and over 30 medical and public health organizations. Wireless emission limits should protect children who will have a lifetime of exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust. Scarato pointed out that the FCC “saw no reason to take steps to protect children” despite voluminous scientific evidence on the record showing that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.

“Equally shocking is how the FCC could state that the existing limits which were developed in 1996 are protective without even addressing the impact of the existing limits on the natural environment. In this regard, there was a noticeable absence of on-the-record comments by the EPA. In fact, the EPA recently stated that it has no funded mandate to even review research on RFR. Yet there is a great deal of evidence in the FCC proceeding showing that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to birds, bees and trees.”

Video of Press Conference 

Opening Brief 

EHT Submissions to 13-84

The science is also clear, there are thousands of peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern. For example, 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.”

Would it not be in the best interests of everybody to simply put this technology through appropriate safety testing?

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.

A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. 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.

The list is quite long, and for the sake of a short read, if you want to learn more and access more of the science, you can start by visiting the Environmental Health Trust. It’s an excellent resource. There is a bit more information this article I recently published, but we’ve published many on the topic so you can browse around our site as well if interested, just use the search bar.

Why This Matters: 5G technology, and wireless technologies in general are a great example of measures being imposed on us against our will. It’s one of many examples that should have us questioning, do we really live in a democracy? Why has so much effort and awareness been raised, yet the idea that these technologies could pose a threat, and do pose a threat, is still considered a conspiracy theory within the mainstream? Why? What’s really going on here? Are there constant battles over human perception when it comes to certain topics? How much have we been misled? Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead of relying on federal health regulatory agencies? How are we living? Why do we think the way we do? Human beings are full of unlimited potential, and there are better ways to do things here on planet Earth!

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

Alternative News

Florida Education Minister Urges Schools To Drop Mask Mandates

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran said schools should make mask-wearing voluntary in the 2021-2022 school year, stating that they should simply be optional.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is one narrative being pushed hard, while the other is being heavily ridiculed and labelled as "dangerous" by mainstream media and government?

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.

What Happened: Earlier this week, Florida’s education commissioner directed all schools to drop mask mandates for the next school year because, according to him, they are not necessary and can simply be an optional measure for students and parents. According to him, mask policies “do not impact the spread of the virus” and they “may impede instruction” for some students. The decision is not up to him, however, as each individual district will ultimately decide whether or not they want to impose mask mandes for next school year.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently convened a round table on public health. At that discussion, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated that “masks have not only been not effective but have been harmful.”

The video of this discussion was removed from YouTube, and then ridiculed hard by mainstream media. This has been a big problem throughout this pandemic. We have big tech “fact-checkers” going around the internet censoring and removing any kind of narrative that does not fit within the framework or narrative that government health authorities are telling us. If things were so obvious, why would they need to censor world renowned experts?  It’s been a common theme, and Bhattacharya is one of many who have been subjected to this type of treatment.

He’s one of the three initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The other two are  Dr. Sunetra Gupta, PhD Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist. You can watch an interesting discussion with all three of them here if interested.

Bhattacharya responded to the criticism in a recent piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stating the following:

I attended a public-policy roundtable hosted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last month. The point was to discuss the state’s Covid policies in the months ahead. That 600,000 Americans have died with Covid-19 is evidence that the lockdowns over the past year, including significant restrictions on the lives of children, haven’t worked. Florida reopened in May and declined to shut down again. Yet age-adjusted mortality is lower in Florida than in locked-down California, and Florida’s public schools are almost all open, while California’s aren’t.

My fellow panelists—Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scott Atlas of Stanford—and I discussed a variety of topics. One was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks. The press asked questions, and a video of the event was posted on YouTube by local media, including Tampa’s WTSP.

But last week YouTube removed a recording of this routine policy discussion from its website. The company claimed my fellow panel members and I were trafficking in misinformation. The company said it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Yet the panelists are all experts, and all spoke against requiring children to wear masks. I can’t speak for my counterparts, but my reasoning was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of masking children are small to none; the costs are much higher.

The scientific evidence is clear.

He then goes on to cite site some science.

Kari Stefansson, senior author of a study  study from Iceland conducted early in the epidemic when masking was uncommon showing that incidents of covid in children is far less than adults, stated that children are “less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults.”

According to Bhattacharya, “many studies in the scientific literature reach a similar conclusion: Even unmasked children pose less of a risk for disease spread than adults.”

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

You can read more about this specific story here, as he has quit his research due to the harassment he received for simply presenting data.

Why This Is Important: So, there are the points made above, and then there are papers outlining the supposed dangers and ineffectiveness of masks. Many have been published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals prior to covid, and during covid.

For example, one paper titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” concludes:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

I’ve written about a study published in the New England Medical Journal by Harvard doctors that outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection in a public setting. According to them,

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The papers cited above are a few of many, there are a plethora of them available within the scientific literature.

YES, there are also studies that claim and explain why they believe masks are an effective tool to mitigate the virus, and we know that organizations like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) deem them to be extremely effective and necessary.  The point is, why are those who point out, explain, and provide evidence and reason for the idea that masks are not effective being heavily censored, vilified, and ridiculed? What’s going on here? Why is proper debate and discussion being completely shut down and why are those who are creating awareness about these issues labelled as “dangerous anti-maskers.” This, in my opinion is quite frankly, insane and completely anti-scientific.

Perhaps I can offer an explanation, it’s because any type of information, data or evidence, no matter how credible, that opposes the measures and narrative of government and big media threatens various business/agendas in these powerful circles. It begs the question, does government and government affiliated health/business really look out for what’s best for its citizens? The covid pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to ask that question who wouldn’t have prior to the pandemic.

This is just my opinion, but in presenting it I put our platform, Collective Evolution, at risk being punished in various ways for simply sharing it.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, it’s not about who is right or wrong, the fact that simple discussion and pieces of evidence that change the narrative, or threaten it, is being shut down, censored and completely ridiculed is quite concerning. The mainstream media continues to fail to have appropriate conversations surrounding all things covid while forcing their narrative on the public. This in turn has created a great divide among the citizenry when really, we should all be coming together and respecting everybody’s decision to act as they please.

When things are not so cut and dry, it’s questionable whether or not we should really give governments the ability to control our lives in the manner they have done with this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. –

 Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. Taken from his published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

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

Alternative News

Ontario, Canada To Impose Stricter Measures: Lockdown & Stay At Home Orders Are Not Working

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 5 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ontario (Canada) government is set to impose even more restrictions and enforcement on the citizenry despite already being in lockdown and stay at home order mode. The announcement will be made this afternoon.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do governments continue to ignore the vast amount of research and data that's been published showing lockdowns and other restrictions do nothing to stop the spread of covid, and are probably doing more harm than covid?

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.

What Happened: Ontario, Canada is and has been well into a province wide lockdown and stay at home order. Most businesses, if not already permanently closed from going out of business, have been reduced to curb side pick-ups only, while essential stores, like grocery stores, have remained open. This has been ongoing, on and off, as all of you know for more than one year now.

This afternoon, the government is set to announce even more restrictions.

According to CTV News Toronto,

Sources tell CTV News Toronto and CP24 the latest data, which is expected to be released on Friday, shows that based on Ontario’s current trends there could be between 12,000 to 18,000 new daily infections by the end of May, with up to 1,800 patients in intensive care. The measures under consideration include shutting down construction to just critical infrastructure projects and placing limits on non-essential manufacturing and warehousing. Additional restrictions on religious services are also being considered by cabinet.

Ontario is also considering more enforcement with regards to fines for those who disobey rules, and perhaps shutting down curb side pick-ups of some non-essential retailers.

Cases, however, are still accelerating exponentially. A lot of “fear-mongering” and concern is being raised by government public health officials, doctors and scientists. On the other hand, you have a number of doctors and scientists who are not as concerned, explaining that the number of cases, and rising case numbers are not as big of a threat as it’s being made to be, especially given the fact that infection can provide an immunity that is stronger than the supposed immunity a vaccine can provide. They have also been pointing out that we are dealing with a virus that has a very low mortality rate, 99.95 percent and higher for people under the age of 70, to be exact.

Many in the field have been creating awareness around the catastrophic impacts of lockdowns, providing data showing that lockdown measures around the globe may have already killed more people than covid itself, and will have lasting impacts for years to come while they affect most aspects of humanity. Furthermore, they’ve also presented a wealth of data showing that lockdowns are not effective at all at stopping the spread of the virus, that they are, essentially, useless.

This is quite confusing, if lockdowns and restrictions do nothing to curb the spread, why is government, especially the Ontario government, acting like they are effective and necessary tools? Why do they also completely ignore the idea that lockdowns may be completely ineffective and more harmful? This is a discussion that has not at all been had within the mainstream, and renowned experts in the field who are presenting this data have been completely ignored, censored and in many cases ridiculed.

Another point that’s being used to justify restriction measures is the fact that hospitals in Ontario are at capacity, and ICUs are full. This has always been a concern in many countries, especially in Ontario, Canada. For example, in 2017 more than 50 percent of hospitals in Ontario were above 100 percent capacity. There are examples all over the world for the past decade. That being said, is covid adding to this, or is it simply something we’ve always seen in hospitals? Is the only difference big media coverage?

Why This Is Important: Sure, many people might agree with lockdowns and other mandates. It’s hard to hear, however, the Ontario government constantly blaming portions of the population for the fact that they are not being effective, without ever considering, as again something that’s been shown time and time again in several countries, that lockdowns are simply not effective in stopping the spread. If this is the case, it renders lockdowns useless and paints a bad picture for government, which would be the fact that they’ve done nothing but put people in harm’s way.

In the case of covid, it’s quite clear that people of all backgrounds and professions are split. You even have world renowned experts in the field split on these issues, with many opposing and supporting measures. This as a result has many people confused, and it begs the question, should government really have the authority to put mandates into place that restrict our movement, rights and freedoms? Is this really about the virus, or about the benefits that big tech, health and government will reap and have been reaping from this pandemic? When measures go against the will of so many people, should government not be allowed to mandate such measures and instead, present their science and make recommendations to people, leaving them the choice to act in ways they see fit? Are we living in an age where government and big tech are doing the thinking for us, telling us what is and isn’t and trying to control our lives more and more every single year? How do we stop this? Why do we continue to comply? One thing is certain, covid has been a great catalyst for more and more people to really question what type of world we are currently living in.

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

Alternative News

Renowned Professors Explain The Harms of Lockdowns & The Dangers of Censorship

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Two Ontario doctors recently hosted a video conference with three renowned infectious disease experts explaining the danger and harms of lockdowns and the censorship of information that we've witnessed during this pandemic.

  • Reflect On:

    Why does the mainstream fail to have conversations about "controversial" topics?

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.

What Happened:  President and Co-Founder of Your Ontario Doctors and frontline physician Dr. Kulvinder Kaur recently sat down with Dr. Richard Schabas, MD, Former Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario, Canada, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, Epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, PhD Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist. Bhattacharya, Gupta and Kulldorff were the initiators behind The Great Barrington Declaration.

In the video below they discuss the harms of lockdown and the dangerous of censorship, as well as a path forward. Throughout this pandemic, numerous studies have found that lockdowns have been quite ineffective at stopping the spread of covid. You can access some of those studies and read more about it here for more examples and an in depth discussion. I also recently published an article about two renowned Swedish scientists/epidemiologists who have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and came to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight covid as have died of covid. You can read more about that here.

Obviously, as you probably already know, there is information on both sides of the coin when it comes to all things covid. What doesn’t bode well, however, is the fact that one side is being completely unacknowledged, ignored, and censored within the mainstream. Some experts have not been given a voice, and discussion has been completely shut down. When certain information, data/evidence or opinion goes “against the grain” and gains some sort of “virality” it then seems to be heavily ridiculed within the mainstream and labelled a “conspiracy theory.” It seems mainstream media along with government health authorities don’t even want to entertain the idea of having a discussion with experts who oppose their narrative. They simply continue to push forth their viewpoints and perspective as the ultimate truth.

This type of censorship, and the entire pandemic has truly served as a catalyst for ‘ordinary’ citizens, doctors and scientists to really question what type of world we are currently living in as well as the intentions of government and ‘big health.’ This is a very encouraging thing to see, but what’s more important is that everyday people who disagree with each other really need to start empathizing with each other.

I decided to share the video below because, whether you agree or disagree is not important. What’s important is that everybody in the field gets to share their perspective, openly and freely without being subjected to censorship. What’s happening during this pandemic is quite unfair, immoral, unethical and harmful, which is why it’s so important to share discussions like this.

The Takeaway: Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.

At the end of the day, it’s quite clear that things with regards to the pandemic are not as clear as mainstream media is making them out to be. Lockdowns and other “authoritarian” measures taken by governments, although supported by many people are also heavily opposed by many people. When this is the case and things aren’t as black and white has they are being made out to be, should the government simply not make recommendations and let the people decide for themselves? Should we really give them the authority to put into place such mandates that they have when there are such enormous consequences as a result and when it’s not even clear if they (the mandates) are effective?

People want to thrive, they are tired of being constantly handed the short end of the stick as the rich get richer. It does not take long to look with open eyes and see that government is not working to serve people as much as we’d like to think.

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

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!