Connect with us

Essay

A Question About Extraterrestrials On Everybody’s Mind: Are They A Threat?

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article is brief examination into the question, do extraterrestrials represent some type of threat? Evidence suggests they've been visiting for a long time, if some type of 'invasion' was to happen, would it not have already happened?

  • Reflect On:

    How much does the human race have to discover about itself? Are there aspects of our reality we continue to ignore simply because it conflicts with what we've been made to believe?

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.

Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

advertisement - learn more

The idea, as said by Lord Admiral Hill Norton that “we are being visited and have been visited” by “people” from other planets, solar systems, galaxies and perhaps more is a hypothesis that’s now accepted by millions of people on our planet. I’ve come to this conclusion after studying the UFO phenomenon as well as the extraterrestrial hypothesis for the past 15 years.

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

Modern day mainstream media coverage has also sparked interest among people who once thought the idea that “UFOs” are real was a  “conspiracy theory,” most notably a New York Times article regarding Dr. Eric Davis earlier this year. Davis is a renowned astrophysicist who worked within the Pentagon UFO program. He, according to the article, gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency about retrievals from “off world vehicles not made on this Earth.” CNN also aired an interesting clip of Ex-Defense official Christopher Mellon mentioning this incident.

There was an interesting leak that dealt with Dr. Davis a couple of years ago that involved Apollo 14’s Dr. Edgar Mitchell, which was confirmed by Mitchell, among others in Dr. Steven Greer’s film, “Unacknowledged.” It’s one of multiple leaks suggesting that, in some high level circles, it’s already known that many of these objects are indeed extraterrestrial, and/or extradimensional in origin.

What’s important to mention is that there are several accounts of supposed retrievals from off world vehicles that have most likely been made over the past several decades. The Davis example spoken about in the New York Times does not seem to be an isolated incident and I’ve come across many supposed incidents over the course of my research. This isn’t surprising given the evidence suggesting that governments have been desperate to capture this type of technology over the years.

A large lack of trust for mainstream media has some people confused and worried that there is the possibility for those who control media to shape our perception of the topic, or at least not tell the complete truth about a phenomenon that goes much deeper than the examples and cases that are and will receive coverage in mainstream media, I believe.

advertisement - learn more

How we collectively perceive this phenomenon is important, and there may be some powerful people atop this trail of secrecy who, like with many other topics, attempt to shape our perception of what is and has been going on for a very long time in order to benefit from that perception manipulation in some way.

It’s also interesting to note how there is and has been a long and “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy” (Rear Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence (1947-50), signed statement to Congress, 22 Aug. 1960) that has surrounded this subject for years, making the idea that these objects represent some sort of fake type of deception by some elite group obsolete. Those who want to legitimize something false as real do not ridicule it and label it a conspiracy theory, they legitimize it using the tremendous resources they have, like mainstream media, at their disposal. This has not been the case for the UFO issue over the years.

Not only are these objects real, but they’ve been spotted, recorded and tracked on radar performing maneuvers no known man made air-craft can perform.

The mainstream has yet to dive into the evidence available which points to the idea that many of these objects are probably extraterrestrial, they seem to be staying away from that confirmation for now, but they have come a long way from ridiculing it which should raise some questions. Why now? Are some groups of people trying to use UFO disclosure in the same way they’ve used the “war on drugs” or the “war on terror?” To benefit off of it in some selfish type of way? These are important questions to ask.

Again, having researched this topic for many years I can tell you that there is indeed “abundant evidence that…civilizations have been visiting us for a very long time.” (Dr. Brian O’leary, Ex NASA Astronaut, Princeton Physics Professor)

The phenomenon has huge implications, and as I’ve said in many of my articles it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. From science, to technology, history, parapsychology and much more – all are affected by the reality of the ET phenomenon. Greater coverage and honesty about the subject will change human consciousness forever, and provide insights into aspects of our reality that we were once not aware of.

If you’re willing to accept that we are being visited, a common question that seems to come next is, are they a threat? Obviously, as of now we don’t really have an answer that everybody would agree with.

It seems the more you dive into the lore of the phenomenon the less you know, but with recent mainstream media UFO disclosure I’ve observed a strong “threat” narrative. This confuses me, given the fact that from the information and incidents that have been declassified and made available to the public, these objects are predominately performing evasive maneuvers to avoid our own air-craft. This has been a common theme, in 1947 General Nathan Twining, who at the time was Chief of Staff for the United States Air Force described them as “evasive” and so did former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer in 2008. Statements like these corroborate with UFO encounters that have spanned the past several decades and make up the bulk of declassified incidents by multiple governments.

This does not mean those who control these objects are “good” or “bad,” it simply calls into question why they would be perceived as a threat if most of the evidence suggests otherwise.

I’ve come across very little, practically nothing, that hints to the idea that these objects represent a great threat. Perhaps curious, and possibly intrusive may be better words to use, but to imply that there is a threat here seems to be irresponsible. Sure, if you’re looking to get some attention perhaps the only way to do it would be to present the phenomenon as a threat, but I believe we should be presenting things as they are. Some people even believe a false flag alien invasion to be a possibility.

What we have here is a phenomenon worthy of serious study and investigation.

It’s also important to mention that right now with mainstream UFO disclosure, we are getting a wiped down or sanitized version of the phenomenon. There are tens of thousands of cases and sighting reports that can be found within the literature over the past seventy plus years, yet the cases we are receiving from organizations like To The Stars, for example, don’t even represent a fraction of what’s been observed. Again, this makes it easy to generalize and come to false conclusions given the fact that any case released by this organization will be the focal point of attention within the mainstream media.

There’s decent evidence suggesting that these objects have been around for a very long time. From ancient cave paintings to Vedic scriptures, indigenous lore, all the way to military agencies tracking these objects. If there were any sort of threat posed by these objects, or some sort of harmful intentions on a big scale, I feel it would have already manifested by now and we would have already witnessed some type of disturbing event. Maybe I’m wrong?

Furthermore, evidence suggesting that multiple governments have been desperate to capture this type of technology lends to the conclusion that perhaps, in some cases, it’s not that easy for these objects to enter into our atmosphere given the fact that, if spotted or tracked on radar they’ll be subjected to some type of reconnaissance or “take down” mission. This is probably a rare success given the capabilities that these objects have been seen to possess, but it wouldn’t be surprising to me if the protocol was to “shoot first and ask questions after.” (Hellyer, 2008)

Beyond UFOs, Actual Extraterrestrial Encounters

When one goes beyond studying the behaviour of these objects and into stories of actual extraterrestrial encounters, things become a little cloudy. The literature and lore from all places, including modern day abduction accounts, simple contact experiences, indigenous stories and more suggest these beings, or at least some of them, are concerned about us, care about us, and want to see us and all life on our planet thrive. At least that’s one perspective.

For example, the case in Zimbabwe where more than 60 school children witnessed an object as well as beings during recess at their school. This was an interesting case, given the fact that at the time all 60 children drew the exact same pictures while recalling the event, and told the exact same stories. Some of them experienced telepathic messages about Earth’s future and where we will be if we don’t turn our behaviour around.

Another example would be testimony from high ranking military personnel like Colonel Ross Dedrickson providing examples of extraterrestrials deactivating nuclear weapons sent out into space, and the apparent help they provided to the crew of Apollo 13, emphasizing that some of these beings care about the well being of our planet.

The list of friendly tales of extraterrestrial contact is long, and the idea that there are different groups observing us, encouraging us, and warning us of our own behaviour and want to see us turn it around and wake up to seems to be quite common.

This wouldn’t be surprising to me. If we look at all life on our planet there’s one thing all of it has in common, and there is an ability to experience feelings, emotions, altruism, love and empathy, and the desired to be cared for. It’s safe to assume that these characteristics extend beyond life on our planet and into life on other planets as well.

On the other hand, some abduction accounts paint a different picture. Reports of people being held against their will, terrified and subjected to unpleasant procedures like they were some sort of lab specimen doesn’t really sit well with most people. Stories of alien human hybrid programs and the supposed take over of our planet in the works paint a dark picture of some sort of take over agenda. What seems to rub me the wrong way is, again, the evidence suggesting “they’ve” been around longer than we have. If this were to take place I believe it already would have happened, and abduction experiences only account for a portion of this phenomenon. We understand very little about them and the intentions behind them.

What clouds this particular portion of the phenomenon is that some of these abduction experiences may be completely fake given that many are recalled during hypnotic regression. Not to say that this isn’t reliable, it very well could be, but we cannot say for sure and there are a lot of issues with it. Secondly, there are multiple credible sources suggesting that some of these forced”abductions” may in fact be some sort of military/mind control operations and experiments, like Dr. Jacques Valle. In his book, “Forbidden Science 4,” Valle explains how he came in possession documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. You can read more about that here.

So are they a threat? I don’t know, if we look at the human race as an example and expand out, there are many “good” humans and “bad” humans on our planet. That is to say, some who cause harm and disrupt harmony, and many who bring harmony and create a more peaceful environment. But, we are destroying our planet, and the way we treat other species and other people needs a lot of work. Love, care, empathy, awareness and a greater understanding of who we are and the relationship we have with all life needs to be stepped up. But our faults do not make us “bad.” You would think an intelligent observer looking down on our planet would perceive us as “bad” given what we do to our planet and how many people die every day unnecessarily. But perhaps they see the “good” side as well, our ability to love, care, be empathetic and many peoples desire to create a human experience where all people thrive. Perhaps we are just playing out a human narrative built on separation, and that a new narrative built on connection is what we are evolving towards.

If another intelligent being was observing us, our planet may actually seem quite scary, violent and unpleasant.

It’s a philosophical question with no clear answer, but as far as some sort of alien invasion or war of the worlds scenario that’s often been portrayed by Hollywood, I deeply feel that’s something we don’t have to worry about, but again, I don’t know.

What I do know is that it’s human nature to explore, ask questions and discover more about ourselves and the nature of reality. At this point in time, many of us have been pushed heavily into a life of school, work, and providing for our families. The human experience doesn’t easily encourage the freedom for all us to simply explore, ponder ask questions and discover, but we are still doing it. Recognizing, examining and exploring “others” who are visiting us seems to be the next step and represents the next “paradigm buster” of our existence.

I feel there is so much about ourselves we have yet to discover. I feel our plant has all the solutions it needs to thrive, but we simply need to do a better job of identifying and solving why these solutions are never implemented. There is a lot of deception on our planet, but there is also a lot of good, and perhaps there is some good out there too?

Human consciousness is rapidly changing, and extraterrestrial contact is one small but large part of this massive shift in human consciousness we are experiencing. Why do we live like we do when we could truly thrive?

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

Essay

How Corporations Influence You & Control Your Actions

Franklin Okanu

Published

on

By

7 minute read
By metamorworks

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.

In the movie Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio and his team work by placing thoughts and ideas into influential people. Have you ever had a idea suddenly pop up in your head? If so, you might be a influential person.

Think back to when you’re going through your day, and boom — a crazy, completely random idea enters your mind. It’s frustrating and completely throws off your routine. You’re not alone. The worst part is that the thought seems to linger before disappearing — the inception.

We all have thoughts that come in out of left field and throw off everything. Whether you’re trying to study, or trying to focus, the IG post you saw yesterday or the article you just read, randomly comes to mind that  doesn’t have anything to do with you.

These “inceptions” are the effects of what’s known as propaganda. Propaganda is “telling people what to think.” The act of thinking happens in the brain, which is made up of three separate brains:

  1. Human Brain: This is the only part of your brain that’s you consciously control. It oversees all logical thought process.
  2. Mammalian Brain: This is the first half of your subconscious. It oversees all emotional attachments. This is the largest brain.
  3. Lizard Brain: This is the second half of your subconscious. It oversees survival and reproduction.

And that’s why propaganda is so dangerous — it doesn’t appeal to your logical mind; it appeals to your feelings, the language of your subconscious, the driver of 90% of the actions you take. By doing this, propaganda influences you to have certain thoughts that it placed there. These thoughts lead to actions like impulse buys, and before you know, you have new shoes everywhere.

The good news is that these aren’t your thoughts, and since they’re not, you can use this piece of information to form a solution. Identifying these thoughts and evaluating them stops the propaganda before it takes place.

The first step is understanding what propaganda, or inception looks like.

The Creator of the Propaganda Machine

To grasp propaganda, you need to know the man who made it famous: Edward Bernays.

Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud — the father of modern psychology — understood psychology and the working of the human mind, but more significantly, what made them tick.

If you want to go full-blown conspiracy, Bernays happens to be the grand-uncle of Marc Randolph, co-founder of Netflix. Talk about a first-class ticket to people’s subconscious.

Bernays effectively used propaganda to help companies sell products by appealing to the consumer’s wants and desires. How did cigarettes become so profitable? Thank Bernays. JC Penny, Sears, and other major retail giants. Thank Bernays. “You don’t need a new dress — you want a new dress because you know it’ll make you look good.” By using psychology techniques to appeal to the subconscious, Bernays and companies have been influencing consumers for years.

As with Bernays, Netflix has been keen on influencing the masses as well. Two examples include the R. Kelly trial and the orcas at SeaWorld. Both movements were driven by Netflix documentaries. After numerous years, R. Kelly went to jail, and SeaWorld had to change its policies. This shows the power of the propaganda machine, not just to increase sales but also to start a revolution.

Now that you know the history and have examples, let’s see how it affects you.

Propaganda, Propaganda, all that matters is Propaganda

You’ve encountered propaganda today, and had no idea. If you look at your favorite TV shows or music, you’ll see that some kind of product is being pushed. And it doesn’t have to be a physical product — it can be a narrative, a lifestyle, a way to look at the world.

We identify with certain celebrities, actors, politicians, and we see ourselves in them. So when they take stances or make statements, that leads you to take a similar perspective. Everything in our society has some form of propaganda because propaganda is very rewarding, especially to companies, industries, and countries.

What makes propaganda so dangerous is that when it’s properly executed (which is often), you, the target, think those thoughts as if they were yours, and then transform them into actions. “Yes, I want to buy a new purse.” “I should get a new car.

Lastly, all propaganda has elements of truth in it. If it was an outright lie, you would automatically dismiss it. But with that truth, it bypasses your logic brain and enters into the emotional brain. When you take everything that propaganda does, you have:

  1. Propaganda shapes your views on factual events taking place in the world
  2. Propaganda convinces you the thoughts you have are yours
  3. Propaganda persuades you towards one direct path

By now, you know the history of propaganda, how it affects you, and what makes it so dangerous. Now, we’ll discuss how to arm yourself against it.

Propaganda Protection

You should’ve realized that Netflix isn’t the only propaganda machine out there. Every company with a marketing department is using propaganda techniques to capture you as a potential customer. But, as we said before, it’s not just companies. For generations, rulers, shamans, and politicians have been telling you what to think. The technology is a lot better now.

The first step to break this cycle is to step back. Whether it’s the news or a social media post, before responding or engaging, take a step back and ask yourself “how well informed are you on the particular subject?” This forces you to address what you know and don’t know. If you can’t speak to the counterargument, then you’ve been exposed to propaganda by one side and face a bias that makes you more likely to be swayed one way versus another. So it’s important to take a step back.

The second step to overcoming propaganda is to pay attention to the message being delivered. You may or may not know everything about the topic being shared, but you should expect whoever is sharing the topic to present a thorough argument. When attentive, you pick up on what angle the messenger is coming from. The more you’re actively engaged, the clearer you see the direction that the messenger is trying to take you.

The final step is to evaluate yourself. Remember, propaganda is here to move you towards a goal that it wants for you. So ask yourself, is this a goal that you want for yourself? Have you previously thought about this? If not, then you can easily flag that thought as a propagandist idea.

As the poem goes, “I am the master of my ship — the Captain of my soul,” by constantly stopping to pause, think and evaluate yourself, you ensure that you stay in control of your mental ship rather than relinquishing control.

Closing Remarks

Propaganda is all around us. Unfortunately, not many in the general population are aware of this age-old trick. But now you are. You’ve been informed against it, and you know that at the end of the day, propaganda wants to you to do its bidding. The question is, will you?

Once you realize that everyone is trying to get you to think how they want you to, you realize how truly influential you are. You then have two choices: blindly act and let your body take the wheel — or take a minute, ask yourself, “why am I doing this?

That small moment to pause, breathe and reassess, ensures that you stay in control of your actions — and your life.

In my adventures, I’ve come to see that life is a great game, and we too can develop strategies to ensure that we come out on top. I’m developing an E-Book that will unveil the world’s mysteries, how it applies to us, and how we can better our lot in life. If interested, please follow my handles (IG/Twitter) for more information to come.

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

Essay

The Unseen Damages Fact Checking Has On Public Discourse

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 13 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

By now the discussion around the potential lab leak origins of COVID-19 is where it should be – in a space where we can admit we don’t know exactly what the truth is, but that there is in fact evidence of lab origins that should be investigated. This evidence was widely available to public health officials and the public as far back as February of 2020 when the pandemic began hitting Western countries and the origins battle began. Yet here we are in disarray, wondering how mainstream media and science labelled this story a ‘conspiracy theory’ in the first place.

We’ve covered the question of lab origins in depth through multiple pieces we’ve published since the pandemic began. A more recent article we published in March 2021, by Dr. Madhava Setty, pointed to the validity of lab origins even before the famous,  Nicholas Wade investigative piece. Due to public sentiment at the time, Dr. Setty’s article was met with criticism of course.

Back in September of 2020, I published a piece exploring the claims of a Chinese virologist named Dr. Li-Meng Yan who said she had proof that COVID was made in a Wuhan lab. Interestingly, our coverage was met with a fact check from PolitiFact claiming that our piece was false because her claims have been widely debunked. And it’s here where I want to turn your attention to how fact checking works and also discuss the unseen damages it causes to not only independent media public also public discourse. Inevitably, we’ll also have to discuss a truth I feel is emerging: fact checkers seems to be glorified journalists that re-enforce mainstream perspectives, as opposed to fact checking content.

How Fact Checking Happens

The way it works is, we painstakingly work on a piece, fact check it, edit it, and then publish. We then start disseminating our content to our networks via email and social media. If we’ve made a mistake, we usually catch it within hours as inevitably someone brings it to our attention. While this is not common, it happens, and it is a normal part of running a news/media publication. We then issue a correction and make it clear in the article. But when a fact checker gets involved it’s a bit different. We receive the dreaded email in our inbox claiming that an independent fact checker has rated our content posted on Facebook as false. We know what this means, and it’s rare that it’s actually a mistake.

It’s important to understand what happens next.

A notice is placed over top of our content on Facebook newsfeeds. Someone on Facebook would see something like this:

Readers are then given the option to read why it was considered “false” or “misleading” by reading an article written by a fact checker. In some cases, the fact checker is correctly ‘debunking’ poor claims made in an article. But in many cases, this isn’t quite what is going on. Sometimes, the fact checker merely disagrees with the objectivity of the article in question.

Before we continue, this “False Information” notice doesn’t just look bad on brand who produced the content, who’s logo appears next to the post in millions of newsfeeds, it also affects the content reach of the brand and thus their ad revenue.

From our data, which admittedly isn’t perfect, we typically see about a 75% reduction in traffic from Facebook when we are hit with a ‘fake news’ claim. That equates to a 75% reduction in our ad revenue as well considering that traffic is now gone. What’s worse is that Facebook seems to keep a log of how many fact checks a brand gets over time, and they claim that repeated false news strikes will result in long term reach reduction .

According to a 2021 article in Adweek,

Facebook will begin showing prompts to users who are about to follow a page that has repeatedly shared content deemed to be false by its independent fact-checking partners.

Facebook has also said that repeated sharing of misleading information could result in page deletion as well. Of course, no one knows just how much reach is taken away or how many strikes a brand needs for their page will be removed, but I can tell you we’ve gone from doing about 20 million page views a month in web traffic to about 3 million a month.

Evidence of our traffic loss over time. Source: Google Analytics

Almost all of our traffic loss is from the Facebook side, with about 15% coming from Google search after they systematically removed us from their search results in 2020.

Google’s systematic removal of our content from their search results. Source: Google Search Console.

Looking specifically at the Facebook side, ‘false news’ claims have huge implications on independent media companies, and it directly affects the bottomline. And what we’re about to get into explains how it’s not as though in all cases fact checkers are cleaning up fake stories, they are actually dead wrong – a lot. This attack on objective journalism can literally put a news company out of business. And no one is holding fact checkers accountable when they are flat out wrong.

Let’s take our story of the Chinese virologist that PolitiFact claimed was false back in September 2020. As of May 17, 2021, PolitiFact retracted their claim saying:

When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19.”

I struggled to include this next bit in this piece because I truly don’t want to become petty here, but I don’t know how else to bring attention to how serious this situation truly is. Having been so intimately connected to this particular example since last year, I feel PolitiFact needs to be more honest and say something like:

“Here at PolitiFact we ignored sources of information that provided evidence that COVID may have originated in a lab. We only looked at evidence we thought was trustworthy from establishment sources. We did not spend enough time truly digging and applying objectivity, as journalists would, and thus we made unfounded assertions. We have since updated our story now that mainstream discourse has opened up to the idea of lab origins and now that our parents, mainstream media, told us it is OK to talk about it.”

However, this is obviously not what they wrote, because why would they? Instead, they are passing off their lack of objective research and blaming the “researchers” they sourced. For reference, here is what an objective look into this story would have produced, and why an obvious conflict of interest that ‘debunked’ the lab origins theory would have been found.

Recently, I’ve heard many people come to the defense of mainstream media and fact checkers when it comes to this ‘new’ information about COVID’s origins. Many have said things like “this is what science and journalism is, we update ideas. When new information comes forward and we see we are wrong we admit it, and move forward – updating our understandings. You should be congratulating people for changing their mind.”

But that’s not what happened. It’s not like no one knew what was going on with this information, they were just too busy hating Trump. Mainstream journalists ignored the evidence – and fact checkers followed right behind mainstream media and did the same. They did an objectively bad job of investigating this story and are now trying to celebrate their mind changing, all while continually attacking the sources that got it right from the start – independent media.

The position we took in our piece in September 2020 was simple: we don’t know enough about the origins of this virus and we need a call for further research. This was met with “this is a conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked.” And now those debunkers are admitting “we don’t know enough about the origins of this virus and we need a call for further research.”

So where is our compensation for lost revenues from Facebook or PolitiFact? Where is an apology and notification to people of Facebook that clears our name of wrong doing? There won’t be one and I’m OK with that. Could we really expect otherwise? At the same time, I feel we need to learn from the choices we’re making right now.

Learning From Cultural Mistakes

The sad part is, this is not the first time this has happened to us. To our tally of ‘fact checks’ since the start of Facebook’s campaign, only 2 of 15 have been correct, and they were more so about providing a bit of deeper context as opposed to incorrect facts.  Multiple times we have received ‘fact checks’ that stay on our page for a couple of days, only to be removed by fact checkers a day later claiming “oops this was a mistake” or even sometimes they sit in dead silence. Of course, the damage has already been done by the time they remove their mistaken fact check.

An email we received from Politifact for a fact check they wrongly applied to a piece of content we put out in 2020.

One recent fact check we received was from the small outfit called Lead Stories. They applied a fact check to one of our articles, but they cited an article that wasn’t ours. When we asked to discuss what was wrong our piece in particular they said they would look into it. They took over a month to respond, and they still have not provided any clarity as to why our piece is “missing context.” This too might be a case where pride is getting in the way and admitting there is nothing wrong with our piece is just too much – we don’t know, and that’s the problem. We won’t know if this bogus strike will be added to the pile of strikes we receive on Facebook that could one day lead to facebook terminating our account due to ‘repeated publishing of fake news.’

Another company called Science Feedback has a division called Health Feedback. They are who we deal with most. Typically Health Feedback handles health related stories that are usually the most relevant in culture at any given time. Think of things like COVID-19 or vaccine hesitancy. We’ve had multiple interactions with Health Feedback where they fact check our work and use straw-man arguments, that we do not make in our pieces, so they can debunk the straw-man claim and pretend they’ve debunked our piece. Communication with this organization typically goes nowhere productive as they hold strong to their opinions. Since they hold all the power, they wait for you to concede so you can get your business revenue back. This single fact is probably what the public does not understand about fact checking: they have the power to hold your ad revenue hostage by means of holding your social media traffic hostage.

How This Affects Public Discourse

Mainstream media often sends out a pretty common narrative across the board. Alternative or independent media often provide more information, another perspective, or even a counter perspective. Yet fact checking seems to have come along and ‘debunked’ that alternative perspective by using the same sources the mainstream uses – and in a lot of cases they are downright false. This makes fact checkers an apparently objective re-enforcement of mainstream narratives. This effectively negates the point of independent media.

Look at the COVID lab origins story as just one example of literally hundreds. People gave up on the idea, even called it downright crazy, just because mainstream media and fact checkers wrongly labelled the story a ‘conspiracy theory.’ For over a year, people argued, fought over this story. Companies who stuck with the truth saw their revenues and social media reach cut – only to be vindicated a year later, but with no real benefit to that vindication other than a personal pat on the back.

Fact checking does well to debunk obviously and verifiably false claims, but it is not always objective and thus shutting down meaningful discourse in public policy and science. Both important factors to creating a thriving society.

People have speculated that fact checking is just a way for powerful corporate interests to further police factually based dissenting ideas – they might be right. After all, look at the people behind some of these organizations.

Another way to look at it is, perhaps people began to notice that objectivity in journalism was dying. Fact checking then was a way to bring objectivity back to journalism by being a third party. Only, what’s happening doesn’t seem to support that idea as it appears fact checkers and mainstream media push their narratives in lockstep.

There are real problems in media too that aren’t just about facts. The political slanting in most mainstream and alternative media is obvious. Does that cloud the facts of a story? Does it manipulate the viewer? Does an organization choose to cover what supports its view as opposed to what is in the best interest of people? Sure, news organizations have to make money. And in many cases the first step to that is finding out who your target market is and tailor your message towards them. And in most cases, mainstream and alternative organizations are doing just that; usually aligning their content to the political views of their audience.

But in the case of mainstream media, they are also aligning with corporate interests or their main TV network sponsors, which is likely why when it comes to health and Pharma, one can’t expect to get ‘the whole story’ from mainstream news. It would be a direct conflict of interest. A conflict of interest that is not widely disclosed to you, the viewer, during every broadcast about these products, which it should be.

Now, in June 2021, with the Wuhan lab origins story of COVID being taken seriously by mainstream media, in stead of coming out and admitting they had it wrong from the start because they ignored facts an published improper journalism, they continue to weave a narrative of protection – further confusing the mass populace. Which is why, I hope, you read our news and watch our media, because we have consistently been ahead of the curve over the last 12 years.

This won’t be the last time.

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

Essay

If You Want To “Trust The Science” Don’t Read The Washington Post

Avatar

Published

on

By

10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    When we trust media sources to explain the science, we are trusting the media source, not the science. The Washington Post's explanation of the risk the unvaccinated face is based on assumptions but presented as measurable fact.

  • Reflect On:

    So called fact checkers rarely challenge narratives coming from the MSM but unfairly attack the dissenting opinion. Who can we rely upon to fact check the fact checkers? In this piece, I demonstrate what is required of a reader to "know for oneself."

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.

It is being proclaimed on lawn signs and social media memes, on T-shirts and in PSAs. From sea to shining sea, the message is clear: Trust the Science! This is the mantra chanted by pro-vaccine portions of the population to encourage us to do our part. Getting the jab is no longer a matter of debate. There is only one sensible choice: vaccinate or be condemned to the anti-science movement that denies the horrors of polio and remains entrenched in a flat-earth delusion.

Scientists Do Not “Trust The Science”

I have a message for all you “science trusters”: scientists don’t trust the science. Scientists are the most skeptical of the science because they know that science is always changing. That is why our understanding evolves, and why we trust the scientists to begin with.

Scientists trust the scientific method, which is an entirely different thing. In order to do the systematic measurement, experimentation, observation and reformulation of hypotheses, the scientific method demands that we approach what is happening with an open mind, so that all possibilities are on the table to begin with. It is their unbiased approach to examining what is that instills credibility to their opinion.

Unless you are a scientist yourself, it is very hard to understand what the scientists are actually saying. Trusting the science is not the same thing as trusting what the media is telling you what the science says. This is becoming more and more evident as MSM sources continue to distort and oversimplify nuanced and complicated subjects into sound bites, tweets and headlines. In this article I attempt to explain how to critically examine content published in Mainstream Media that attempts to explain “the science”.

“Lab Origins” Was Always The Scientific Position

Perhaps the biggest example of the enormous amount of Mainstream media distortion around scientific matters is the recent acknowledgement that the SARS-COV2 virus was most likely engineered in a laboratory. Of course no new evidence emerged recently. The evidence pointing to lab origins was available 15 months ago, but it was portrayed as an absurd notion unworthy of any consideration by any legitimate news source. Nevertheless, Collective Evolution covered it here nearly three months ago.

How Do We Know If The Vaccine Is Proving Effective ?

The arguments for universal vaccination have been starting to shift now that hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated. Is the vaccine making an impact on the spread of Covid-19? That is an extremely difficult question to answer. Unless we have access to clear data that demonstrates the rate of infection in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated we can only guess. Why don’t we have those numbers now? It’s because we haven’t completed Phase III trials of the first vaccines that were formulated. That’s why we do the trials and why we generally wait for them to be completed before giving the vaccine to anyone.

The best data I have seen has come from Israel and published in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 24, 2021. They matched nearly 600,000 vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated ones and observed them over 42 days. At the end of that period approximately 10,000 documented cases of Covid-19 resulted, the unvaccinated outnumbered the vaccinated by about 5 to 4. To be precise, 57% of the people who got documented Covid-19 in this examination were not vaccinated. What this means is that vaccine efficacy over the entire period of observation is:

(57-43)/57=24.6%

On the other hand, the vaccine seemed to be more effective (over 91%) as time went on. This is of course encouraging and is more representative of what the vaccine’s efficacy really is. However, if we compare the incidence of the disease in the unvaccinated to the vaccinated after 35 days we are now dealing with a much smaller pool of subjects. At that point there were 47 unvaccinated people that contracted the disease compared to 4 that were vaccinated. The vaccines may prove to be that effective as time goes on.

Perhaps what is more telling is that at the end of the study period only about 1% of the people got Covid-19. Of those, 43% were vaccinated. This means the absolute risk reduction of vaccination is just over 0.1%. In other words, in order to prevent 1 case, 1000 people need to be vaccinated. If the vaccine continues to demonstrate a 91% efficacy then 110 vaccinations would prevent a single case in the long run. The point here is that unless one is willing to look more closely it is very easy to come to unsound conclusions, especially around the true impact of the vaccine.

The Washington Post Used Circular Reasoning To Make False Claims

The Washington Post has built an interactive Covid-19 data tracking page called “The Unseen Covid-19 Risk for Unvaccinated People” on May 21, 2021. This page was cited by a member of my social media community as proof that the vaccines were very effective and, based on the title of their page, the unvaccinated were facing a risk “unseen”. This person was quite convinced that remaining unvaccinated was irrational if not unconscionable and the data proved it. After all, it was in the Washington Post, a publication with a long history of balanced and rigorous inquiry.

The page demonstrates rates of infection among unvaccinated compared to the total population over time. From the day that vaccines began, it seemed (from the dozens of graphs presented) that the rate of infection in the total population began to drop faster than that of the unvaccinated. This was demonstrated in a number of selected states and not the country as a whole. Could they be cherry picking data? Of course. Nevertheless, I was surprised to see such a marked effect of the vaccines in any given population, cherry picked or not.

However, upon closer inspection something was missing. Where was the plot showing the rate of infection among the vaccinated? It wasn’t shown. The graphs only plotted total rates compared to unvaccinated rates. The mystery deepens…

Numbers of unvaccinated and vaccinated people with infection were not counted

If you searched for the raw data (the numbers of people who got covid who were vaccinated and unvaccinated), you won’t find it. So how are they able to tell us the rate of infection in the unvaccinated? They weren’t telling us that at all. Instead they created a variable which they call “Rate adjusted for Unvaccinated”. To see how they arrive at this “rate” you must read their methodology section at the bottom. In it they demonstrate their deception. They assume that 85% of all people vaccinated could not contribute to the total number of cases. They make that assumption based on a small study from the CDC involving about 4,000 people (one tenth that of the Pfizer study). They then apply this to all the states in their plots. 

This is a big assumption. Although the authors cite the study upon which this assumption is made in at the bottom of the article in the “methodology” section, the assumed efficacy of the vaccine (85%) is never explicitly stated in the body of the article. Perhaps the vaccine will turn out to be that good. The point here is that there is no consensus on what the vaccine efficacy is (Phase III trials are yet to be completed), and they buried their assumptions in the methodology section.

Let’s go back to the basics. These are the proper scientific definitions:

Total Case rate = Total Number of Cases/Total Population

Vaccinated rate = Number of Cases in Vaccinated/Number of Vaccinated 

Unvaccinated rate = Number of Cases in Unvaccinated/Number of Unvaccinated

Hopefully that was straightforward and logical. The Washington Post then introduces this term:

Rate adjusted for Unvaccinated = Total Cases/(Total Population – 0.85 x Vaccinated)

What is wrong with this? Nothing–as long as they know that only 15% of the vaccinated are contributing to the number of cases. But they don’t know this, they are assuming this in order to make their graphs. To casual Washington Post readers (numbering in the millions), it would be easy to look at the graphs and believe that that is what is being reported while in fact that is what the graphs would look like if their assumption were true. 

They are taking out 85% of the vaccinated people from the total population to calculate the new “rate” and calling that the Rate of Unvaccinated. This would in fact be true if they actually measured every population in each plot and confirmed that 85% of the vaccinated people were not contributing to the case count. But that is not what they did. They assumed that was the case, drew their plots and “demonstrated” that the rates in unvaccinated people were much worse than the vaccinated. This is pure circular reasoning.

Notice that in their formula for “Rate adjusted for Unvaccinated” the denominator is the difference between the Total Population and 85% of the vaccinated. What do you suppose happens to the adjusted unvaccinated rate as more people get vaccinated? Before answering, “it gets bigger!” notice that it depends. It depends on “Total Cases” which had also been dropping day after day. However in every graph they compare Total Case rate and Rate adjusted for Unvaccinated. A quick glance at the formulas above should lead you to the conclusion that “Rate adjusted for Unvaccinated” will always be larger than Total Case rate as more and more people get vaccinated. That is what every graph they published demonstrated. They are not introducing another artifact; it is the direct result of their assumption that in every geographical area plotted 85% of the vaccinated are protected.

They deepen the deception by subsequently referring to their “Rate adjusted for the unvaccinated” as “case rate for the unvaccinated” by subtly removing the word “adjusted”. As explained and defined above, the unvaccinated case rate requires that the actual number of unvaccinated individuals who are infected were counted. This is pure manipulation. What happened to the fact checkers?

They conclude the article by quoting Umair A. Shah, Washington State Secretary of health who makes this audacious claim:

“The people who are not vaccinated are the ones who are not wearing a mask or washing their hands. Those are the very people who oftentimes will socialize and be around similar like-minded people. You’re going to have the pandemic continue in those clusters.”

I wonder how Dr. Shah, an MD and epidemiologist was able to make this measurement? Did he survey unvaccinated people to see if they were wearing masks or washing their hands? Did he surveil them? This level of propaganda coming from the Washington Post or any other media platform is unconscionable yet continues to go unchecked.

The Takeaway

The Washington Post is not the only culprit in this kind of manipulation. In this piece from CE, similar kinds of spin were apparent in the NYTimes in their effort to paint 5G naysayers as Russian apologists and citing articles that contradicted their own position. Are established, corporate funded publications given an enormous amount of latitude because of their reputation? Or is it because they contribute to a narrative that is accepted by their sponsors and “independent” fact-checkers? I believe it is both.

(This article was corrected on June 7, 2021 to clarify the efficacy results from the NEJM paper submitted 2/24/21)

Dive Deeper

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Our Journalism Has Moved

Our journalism has moved to The Pulse

You have Successfully Subscribed!