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.

--> Read: A rare mineral can remove harmful toxins & heavy metals with just 30 seconds a day. Click here to learn more.

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

UFOs: More Advanced Intelligent Life Could Exist Right Here On Earth

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The UFO phenomenon may not only be indicative of extraterrestrial life, but perhaps intelligent life from here on our planet, perhams in other realms or dimensions that are not always perceivable to our senses.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is the UFO phenomenon receiving extreme amounts of legitimacy within the mainstream after years of ridicule?

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.

Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), now commonly known as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAPs) have become a big topic of discussion within the mainstream as of late. We are talking about objects that have been photographed, videotaped, tracked on radar, and seen by high ranking military personnel as well as civilians on the ground and in air-craft. These objects perform maneuvers and travel at speeds no known man made piece of machinery can. They truly defy our understanding of aerodynamics and, and in some cases, physics.

The next discussion to arise is, are those manning these craft human or something else?

Based on my years of research, just as there was strong evidence for the existence of these objects decades ago when they were deemed a conspiracy theory, there is strong evidence now, and in my opinion, there is evidence these objects are not human made.

As far as credible sources that support this idea, Colonel Robert Friend, in his very last interview before his death, who was a director of Project Blue Book from 1958-1962, suggested that the U.S. Air Force knew what these objects were even at that time. The former director of the Pentagon’s UFO program, Lue Elizondo, recently gave an interview to the NY Post saying that he had a meeting with a very senior Department of Defense official who mentioned he knew the craft were not of human origin as well. Former Air Force Colonel Ross Dedrickson also claimed to have information that these objects were not human made, and from what he knew, the beings are benevolent, concerned about the well being of our planet.

I recognize not all people will consider these sources ‘credible evidence.’

Beyond these testimonies are things like documented cases of sightings or “contact” experiences. According to these cases, people report both benevolent and malevolent experiences, often linked to the UFO phenomenon.

So, if they are not human, what are they? The obvious truth is, we don’t know, but there’s no harm in speculating.

Are They From Here?

Plato once said, as documented in Phaedo:

And upon the Earth are animals and men, some in a middle region, others (elementals) dwelling about the air as we dwell about the sea; others in islands which the air flows round, near the continent; and in a word, the air is used by them as the water and the sea are by us, and the ether is to them what the air is to us.

The truth is, much of our “reality” isn’t even perceivable to our human senses. We can only see within a tiny frequency of the entire visible light spectrum. We have to use special equipment like infrared telescopes and more to see things that we otherwise couldn’t. Quantum mechanics and the emergence of post-material science has shown us that there are “invisible” parts of what we perceive to be our physical and material world that make up the vast majority of it. Some, like Plato, referred to this as the ether, or aether. Who is to say that life does not dwell in these realms? They exist all around us, perhaps some of these objects originate from there – or as you might say, right here on Earth.

Another interesting quote from ancient philosophy:

“And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied; “Of elements.” “Are there then four?” he asked. “Not four,” said Larchas,  “but five.” “And how can there be a fifth,” said Apollonius, “alongside of water and air and earth and fire?” “There is the ether,” replied the other, “which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the wire, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether.” “Am I,” said Appollonius, “to regard the universe as a living creature?” “Yes,” said the other. – The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD (source)

Even Rene Descartes proposed the theory that “space,” (what we perceive as empty space) is completely filled with matter in various states. There is evidence to suggest he was executed by the Church because his science entered into the realm of metaphysics.

Many ancient cultures have stories and texts which refer to ‘magical’ and ‘mythical’ lands that co-exist alongside our reality. Whether these places are actual physical places, or places that reside in ‘another dimension,’ for lack of a better term, has been the subject of great discussion within various material throughout the ages. These stories can be found in ancient Buddhism and Vedic philosophy, along with oral stories passed down from Native cultures throughout the world.

According to Paracelsus, a German-Swiss physician and alchemist (like Issac Newton) who established the role of chemistry in medicine, in his Philosophia Occulta, translated by Franz Hartmann: 

“Man lives in the exterior elements and the Elementals live in the interior elements. The latter have dwellings and clothing, manners and customs, languages and governments of their own, in the same sense as the bees have their queens and herds of animals their leaders.” The Secret Teachings of All Ages, An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, 1928, Manly P. Hall

What’s also interesting is that these objects are commonly observed entering or exiting our oceans. Sometimes when they “fly away” they don’t appear to fly away, but rather dematerialize. In other cases they are observed “taking off” at tremendous speeds.

The point is, there could be a number of different explanations, and chances are not all objects originate from the same source. It truly calls into question what we think we know about the nature of reality. And I feel we’re at an important time to question this curiously. Recall that there was a time when scientists, like Galileo, were condemned for the discoveries that they made and ideas they presented. Are we really any different today? How open are or minds to concepts of reality that don’t fit within the current framework of accepted knowledge?

One thought I’ve often had is that it can feel concerning to that topics like UFOs have to be presented in mainstream media before most will see it as legitimate. Footage has to be verified by the Pentagon, as it recently was, for the masses to realize that these objects are indeed real. Less than a decade ago the evidence for the existence of these objects was already very strong.  Yet we have to be told by government or mainstream media before the general populace can see it as real?

Does this highlight just how reliant humanity has become on these sources for information? What are the implications of that? As with so many geopolitical issues, it’s hard to trust mainstream media, or government for that matter, to get an accurate depiction of what’s really happening. This is why I am concerned that so many people rely on these sources when it comes to an honest depiction of the UFO phenomenon. Perhaps this phenomenon is one that requires a citizens initiative as well?

One thing to look out for with critical thinking is the US government’s suspicion that these objects are Russian or Chinese in origin. I believe this narrative is an effective to heighten the national security state, for no legitimate reason, while simultaneously controlling the extraterrestrial and/or other life hypothesis that goes with this phenomenon.

Perhaps they will paint these objects as a threat, even though the vast majority of the time these objects perform evasive maneuvers to avoid our own aircraft. We seem to be the ones chasing them.

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

Are Lockdowns Affecting Children?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 2 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    We spoke to activist and mother Stephanie Sibbio about her co-creation of an organization called 100 Million Moms which seeks to empower women to stand up against injustices.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we choosing virus mitigation methods that are short sighted and harmful over the long term? Are they more harmful than the virus itself?

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 potential downsides of lockdowns during pandemics have been explored quite a bit – and the truth is the scientific community is quite divided on whether it’s the right move. On one hand a case can be made for effectiveness of lockdowns, but at quite a cost, while on the other hand many have shown lockdowns to be ineffective in slowing spread. How a study is organized and conducted can also dramatically change results.

Interestingly a study in Nature showed that “less disruptive and costly NPIs can be as effective as more intrusive, drastic, ones (for example, a national lockdown).” This essentially states that governments could choose effective ways to mitigate virus spread effectively without inducing unwanted and long term side effects on society as a whole via lockdowns – regardless, lockdowns are still widely being used.

One question we might have is, what about factors that are not so easy to measure right away? Things like long term psychological damage of being constantly stressed, out of touch with community and friends, and confined to our homes. What affects are children experiencing in their development and learning? We may not know exactly for quite some time.

I felt inspired to speak to a mother who has not only be asking this question with regards to her child, but who has decided to do something to push back against government measures, like lockdowns, that many citizens and scientist don’t agree with.

Along with another activist, Stephanie Sibbio created a movement called 100 Million Moms who, as their Instagram states, are a rights-based movement empowering moms all over the world to stand up against injustice. We advocate for natural health & medical freedom.

I spoke to Stephanie about how she has seen lockdowns affecting children, and her story in co-creating 100 Million Moms. In this discussion you will learn how you can get involved as well.

Further Discussion

A large meta analysis on mask wearing has shown that children are having physiological issues and learning challenges with prolonged mask wearing.

A group of doctors did a panel worth considering that discusses the potential harms of lockdowns and the science that supports 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.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Yankee Stadium & Citi Field To Seat Fans In Vaccinated & Unvaccinated Sections

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Fully vaccinated spectators will also be able to attend Yankees and Mets games in sections designated for 100% capacity starting this month. Unvaccinated people will have to sit in a separate section and maintain social distancing.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe and effective is the vaccine? Is mass vaccination justified? Are mandatory measures like this scientifically sound and justified? If so, why censor so many doctors and scientists who say otherwise? What's really 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.

What Happened: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced that Mets and Yankees games will allow full capacity in some areas of their ballparks. Starting May 19th, both fields will have separate sections set aside for those who are vaccinated and those who are not. In the vaccinated sections, social distancing restrictions will be no more, however fans will be required to wear a mask. Full capacity seating will be available for vaccinated people while 33 percent of seats will be available to the unvaccinated but they will have to social distance. In the future, tickets will be marked vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Why This Is Important: We are creeping into a world that seems to be pushing hard for the loss of certain rights and freedoms for people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID. It’s still uncertain how things will rollout, but many countries are already starting to implement, or have announced that they will implement vaccine passports, like Canada for example.

It’s still unclear whether or not the unvaccinated will have the option to travel to certain places, and if they are allowed, it seems they will most likely be subjected to test requirements and/or a mandatory quarantining period.

Scientists and doctors who oppose these measures, as well as oppose lockdowns and mandatory mask measures, have been ignored, ridiculed and in many cases censored during this pandemic, no matter how much research and evidence they present. Scientific critique seems to have been halted, and any discussion that discourages or points out scientific flaws in the mandatory measures that are being put in place is not allowed on big tech platforms like social meida. Furthermore, mainstream media has gone so far as to call anything that opposes the mainstream narrative a “conspiracy theory.”

 An article in The Spectator provides one of countless examples of how important discussion is being shut down:

This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.

Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void?

The point is, many people do not agree with the mainstream narrative around COVID that is being force fed to the public. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the idea that those who want to get vaccinated should, and those who don’t shouldn’t be required to, and that vaccinated individuals who are not susceptible and vulnerable to COVID may not make much of a difference when it comes to the transmission of the virus. This perspective is, according to many, completely false, ridiculous and has no backing when in fact, that’s not true at all.

I recently published an article going into detail as to why so many people are hesitant to get vaccinated. You can access that here.

Whether the COVID-19 vaccine will be effective is something we’ll know in time. A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years. (source) Given COVID appears to be a fast changing virus, this may be something to consider.

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.

Further, many experts in the field have argued that the clinical trials for COVID vaccines did not actually show a 95% efficacy rate.

Below is a screen shot from a presentation by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who has explained several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. You can read more about that in detail here.

 

Final thoughts: People are extremely polarized in their beliefs right now, so much so that even talking about this subject is hard to do with family and friends who have an opposite point of view. Sometimes I wonder if those who support mandating vaccines for schools, sporting events, travel and more would support mandatory vaccines for going outside.

Is it strange to imagine that one day large support could gather for isolating the unvaccinated in lockdown facilities for life? I doubt that would happen, but how far can mandates be pushed and supported by the people? This is why it’s important to look at and consider evidence that contradicts what you believe in.

At the end of the day, more important than being right and wrong is to see from the perspective of another and be able to understand why they have come to the conclusions they have. In many cases, it is in fact based on evidence. When things are so controversial and are not as black and white as mainstream media makes them out to be, should freedom of choice not always remain? Why is one perspective being heard and marketed to the masses, while the other is being completely ridiculed and censored? What is going on here?

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!