Connect with us

Alternative News

British Medical Journal Editor Calls Into Question Pfizer & Moderna’s “95% Effective” COVID Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal published a piece in the Journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed "95% Effective" COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. You can read it below.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are those who question and raise concerns about vaccine safety usually vilified, ridiculed and labelled as "anti-vax conspiracy theorists" by mainstream media? Why are their concerns never really properly acknowledged or addressed?

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

What Happened: I wanted to bring to your attention a recent publication in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by one of its associate editors, Dr. Peter Doshi. You can take a look at his bio, here, if interested.

-->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.

The article he published in the BMJ on November 26th is titled ” Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” I wanted to post it here and archive it on our website for those who are interested.

Only full transparency and rigorous scrutiny of the data will allow for informed decision making, argues Peter Doshi:

In the United States, all eyes are on Pfizer and Moderna. The topline efficacy results from their experimental covid-19 vaccine trials are astounding at first glance. Pfizer says it recorded 170 covid-19 cases (in 44,000 volunteers), with a remarkable split: 162 in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Meanwhile Moderna says 95 of 30,000 volunteers in its ongoing trial got covid-19: 90 on placebo versus 5 receiving the vaccine, leading both companies to claim around 95% efficacy.

Let’s put this in perspective. First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly not the vaccine’s ability to save lives, nor the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown. Third, these results reflect a time point relatively soon after vaccination, and we know nothing about vaccine performance at 3, 6, or 12 months, so cannot compare these efficacy numbers against other vaccines like influenza vaccines (which are judged over a season). Fourth, children, adolescents, and immunocompromised individuals were largely excluded from the trials, so we still lack any data on these important populations.

advertisement - learn more

I previously argued that the trials are studying the wrong endpoint, and for an urgent need to correct course and study more important endpoints like prevention of severe disease and transmission in high risk people. Yet, despite the existence of regulatory mechanisms for ensuring vaccine access while keeping the authorization bar high (which would allow placebo-controlled trials to continue long enough to answer the important question), it’s hard to avoid the impression that sponsors are claiming victory and wrapping up their trials (Pfizer has already sent trial participants a letter discussing “crossing over” from placebo to vaccine), and the FDA will now be under enormous pressure to rapidly authorize the vaccines.

But as conversation shifts to vaccine distribution, let’s not lose sight of the evidence. Independent scrutiny of the underlying trial data will increase trust and credibility of the results. There also might be important limitations to the trial findings we need to be aware of.

Most crucially, we need data-driven assurances that the studies were not inadvertently unblinded, by which I mean investigators or volunteers could make reasonable guesses as to which group they were in. Blinding is most important when measuring subjective endpoints like symptomatic covid-19, and differences in post-injection side-effects between vaccine and placebo might have allowed for educated guessing. Past placebo-controlled trials of influenza vaccine were not able to fully maintain blinding of vaccine status, and the recent “half dose” mishap in the Oxford covid-19 vaccine trial was apparently only noticed because of milder-than-expected side-effects. (And that is just one of many concerns with the Oxford trial.)

In contrast to a normal saline placebo, early phase trials suggested that systemic and local adverse events are common in those receiving vaccine. In one Pfizer trial, for example, more than half of the vaccinated participants experienced headache, muscle pain and chills—but the early phase trials were small, with large margins of error around the data. Few details from the large phase 3 studies have been released thus far. Moderna’s press release states that 9% experienced grade 3 myalgia and 10% grade 3 fatigue; Pfizer’s statement reported 3.8% experienced grade 3 fatigue and 2% grade 3 headache. Grade 3 adverse events are considered severe, defined as preventing daily activity. Mild and moderate severity reactions are bound to be far more common.

One way the trial’s raw data could facilitate an informed judgment as to whether any potential unblinding might have affected the results is by analyzing how often people with symptoms of covid-19 were referred for confirmatory SARS-CoV-2 testing. Without a referral for testing, a suspected covid-19 case could not become a confirmed covid-19 case, and thus is a crucial step in order to be counted as a primary event: lab-confirmed, symptomatic covid-19. Because some of the adverse reactions to the vaccine are themselves also symptoms of covid-19 (e.g. fever, muscle pain), one might expect a far larger proportion of people receiving vaccine to have been swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 than those receiving placebo.

This assumes all people with symptoms would be tested, as one might expect would be the case. However the trial protocols for Moderna and Pfizer’s studies contain explicit language instructing investigators to use their clinical judgment to decide whether to refer people for testing. Moderna puts it this way:

It is important to note that some of the symptoms of COVID-19 overlap with solicited systemic ARs that are expected after vaccination with mRNA-1273 (eg, myalgia, headache, fever, and chills). During the first 7 days after vaccination, when these solicited ARs are common, Investigators should use their clinical judgement to decide if an NP swab should be collected.

This amounts to asking investigators to make guesses as to which intervention group patients were in. But when the disease and the vaccine side-effects overlap, how is a clinician to judge the cause without a test? And why were they asked, anyway?

Importantly, the instructions only refer to the first seven days following vaccination, leaving unclear what role clinician judgment could play in the key days afterward, when cases of covid-19 could begin counting towards the primary endpoint. (For Pfizer, 7 days after the 2nd dose. For Moderna, 14 days.)

In a proper trial, all cases of covid-19 should have been recorded, no matter which arm of the trial the case occurred in. (In epidemiology terms, there should be no ascertainment bias, or differential measurement error). It’s even become common sense in the Covid era: “test, test, test.” But if referrals for testing were not provided to all individuals with symptoms of covid-19—for example because an assumption was made that the symptoms were due to side-effects of the vaccine—cases could go uncounted.

Data on pain and fever reducing medicines also deserve scrutiny. Symptoms resulting from a SARS-CoV-2 infection (e.g. fever or body aches) can be suppressed by pain and fever reducing medicines. If people in the vaccine arm took such medicines prophylactically, more often, or for a longer duration of time than those in the placebo arm, this could have led to greater suppression of covid-19 symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccine arm, translating into a reduced likelihood of being suspected for covid-19, reduced likelihood of testing, and therefore reduced likelihood of meeting the primary endpoint. But in such a scenario, the effect was driven by the medicines, not the vaccine.

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer have released any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, instructions patients were given regarding the use of medicines to treat side effects following vaccination, but the informed consent form for Johnson and Johnson’s vaccine trial provides such a recommendation:

“Following administration of Ad26.COV2.S, fever, muscle aches and headache appear to be more common in younger adults and can be severe. For this reason, we recommend you take a fever reducer or pain reliever if symptoms appear after receiving the vaccination, or upon your study doctor’s recommendation.”

There may be much more complexity to the “95% effective” announcement than meets the eye—or perhaps not. Only full transparency and rigorous scrutiny of the data will allow for informed decision making. The data must be made public.

Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ.

Why This Is Important: Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials.

According to the L.A. Times, “The vaccine doubts swirling among healthcare workers across the country come as a surprise to researchers, who assumed hospital staff would be among those most in tune with the scientific data backing the vaccines.”

Another recent article published in the BMJ by journalist Paul D. Thacker highlights the conflicts of interest that exist between the United Kingdom’s COVID-19 advisors, which also seems to be a common theme around the globe.

Even Kamran Abbas, a doctor, executive editor of the BMJ and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine. This is evident by the fact that other cheap therapies have shown a tremendous amount of promise and success for treating COVID-19, yet they’ve been heavily ridicule by the “medical-political complex,” as Abbas calls it.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates. – Abbas

These are simply a few examples as to why it comes as no surprise to many that frontline health-care workers are refusing to take the vaccine. Afterall, how necessary is it really for a virus that has a 99.95 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70? For people over the age of 70 the survival rate is still 95 percent. This data comes from more than 50 seroprevalence studies that have now been published. Let’s not forget about the fact that tens and thousands of doctors have openly opposed lockdown measures as a means to combat the virus, citing a lot of information showing the harms lockdowns are having from deaths that could have been prevented, to economic impacts, starvation, poverty and much more.

The L.A. times points out that “The extent to which healthcare workers are refusing the vaccine is unclear, but reports of lower-than-expected participation rates are emerging around the country…To persuade reluctant workers, many hospitals are using instructional videos and interactive webinars showing staff getting vaccinated. At an Orange County hospital, Anthony Wilkinson, an intensive care nurse who cares for coronavirus patients, said he had co-workers who had “lost faith in big pharma and even the CDC.”

Why This Is Important: Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. (source)

When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new: Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction,

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

More data beyond the L.A. times article indicates widespread hesitancy.

 Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles’ Karin Fielding School of Public Health surveyed healthcare personnel working in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As the Washington Post reported, they found that two thirds (66.5%) of healthcare workers “intend to delay vaccination,” meaning they do not intend to get the COVID vaccine when it becomes available. They plan instead on reviewing the data once it’s widely administered and proven safe.

A recent Gallup poll showed that only 58% of Americans plan on getting the COVID vaccine when it’s available. An October poll conducted by Zogby found that nearly 50% of Americans have concerns about the safety of the coming COVID vaccines.

Concerns about vaccines are not just rooted in a lack of trust, but sound science. You can read about one of many examples, aluminum, here if you’re interested.  Vaccines are not a one size fits all product, in the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety.

The Takeaway: Doubts surrounding the COVID -19 vaccine have been largely unacknowledged. When they are acknowledged within the mainstream media they are usually played off as ridiculous, or not based in sanity. For the most part anybody who is concerned about vaccine safety is usually dubbed an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist.” Concerns that many scientists, doctors and people are bringing up with regards to vaccine safety are never really acknowledged or addressed, which brings me to my next point.

Why do we have such a hard time discussing controversial topics? Why are things always made out to seem so black and white? Why are we so polarized in our beliefs to the point where we can’t look at another viewpoint that challenges our own? Why can’t we understand why some people disagree with us and why they feel the way they do?

When it comes to vaccines, there is clearly an increased pressure for mandates in several different ways to the point where some of our rights and freedoms may be restricted if we don’t comply. Is all of this really justified? Is it really for the greater good or are we just made to believe it is? Should freedom of choice always remain? Why do we give so much power over to governments and private institutions to the point where they can lockdown the world against the will of many people? Should governments simply recommend measures and present the science on both ends of the coin in an open and transparent way and let people do as they please?

Are we seeing basic freedoms and enjoyable experiences within life become inaccessible for those that don’t wish to participate in extreme COVID measures? What is this fear driven approach saying about our general view of life at this 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.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Another EX-CIA Director Comments on UFOs & Shares A “Paranormal” Story

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ex CIA Director James Woolsey comments on the reality of the UFO phenomenon and shares a story about an aircraft being stopped in mid-air at 40,000 feet.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications of the masses becoming aware of such phenomena?

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.

For anybody who has heavily researched the evidence behind “paranormal phenomenon”, it’s common that hearing about other paranormal phenomenon is simply “normal.” After all, the evidence does suggest paranormal events happen all the time, culture simply hasn’t caught up to realizing how normal these events are. Those who recognize how normal these events are include scientifically minded people, like Dr. Jessica Utts, former Chair of the Department of Statistics and professor at the University of California, Irvine.

“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls…And so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked.”  (source)

That was her take on remote viewing, a phenomenon where people are trained to view details about places and objects from a position very far away. This illustrates the non local nature of our consciousness. The remote viewing studies Utts is talking about are incredibly rigorous and yielded repeatable results time and time again.

When it comes to numerous experiments at the quantum level, consciousness has been shown to have some sort effect on physical/material reality as well. There are also topics such as precognition, telepathy and more examples of mind/matter interaction, like “distant healing” which are quite intriguing.

What I find the most intriguing are the examples of people with “special” abilities. I came across much of this documentation via the CIA’s electronic reading room. Examples of children and people with psychokentic ability, able to “break through spatial barriers” by teleporting small objects in small containers from one location to another, perform “paranormal writing” and more, all done under controlled double blind conditions.

When it comes to the topic of UFOs, they’re going mainstream with extreme legitimacy as well. This has many people concerned that mainstream media and government disclosure will result in perception manipulation regarding the phenomenon. Many long time researchers feel we will get a sanitized version of disclosure. That is to say, many key details will be left out purposefully, yet the government will claim all has been told.

Having studied the subject for approximately 15 years now, I can tell you that the phenomenon is quite vast and touches upon all aspects of humanity. There is a lot to the UFO story that I don’t think people will ever hear about from governments and intelligence agencies. If you want to go through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here

The former Director of the CIA, John Brennan (2013-2017) was recently asked about the UFO phenomenon and expressed his belief that we may be dealing with some other form of life.

He stated the following:

I think some of the phenomenon we may be seeing continues to be, um, unexplained, and um, might in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that, um, we don’t yet understand, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say, um, constitutes a different from of life.  (source)

James Woolsey, another retired CIA director 1993-1995 also spoke up on the subject an interview with John Greenwald, founder of The Black Vault, a resource for declassified documents pertaining to UFO related phenomenon.

In the interview he describes an interesting paranormal event that happened to a plane that was “frozen” and stopped in the air at 40,000 feet. He also makes a number of comments about the UFO phenomenon.

“…A friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at 40,000 feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft. What was going on? I don’t know, does anybody know? We’ll have to look into it. There have just been enough things like that that have occurred…”

Why This Is Important: Paranormal phenomenon and the study of parapsychology has the potential to create a major paradigm change for humanity. In fact, it’s happening right now, we’re living in it and part of this phenomenon involves non material science. I believe this field represents the next scientific revolution and will push humanity to open up to a broader view regarding the nature of reality, who we are and how we relate to our universe. There is still so much we have to discover.

The UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not even the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to learn, and it is my hope that the phenomenon itself somehow sparks humanity to ask itself deeper questions about the human experience and why we live the way we do, when we have the potential to do so much better and create a planet where all life can truly thrive.

Again, it is also my belief that mainstream media and government may try and shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, as they do with so many other topics.

Many decades ago, the mentor of Wernher Von Braun, Hermann Oberth (both seen in the picture above), the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that “flying saucers are real” and that “they are space ships from another solar system.” He went on to say that “I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” He wrote these words in “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World”, The American  Weekly, Oct 24, 1954

According to a paper published in the Journal History and Technology titled Extraterrestrial encounters: UFOs, science and the quest for transcendence, 1947–1972,

At the Internationaler UFO/IFO-Kongress, hosted in Wiesbaden and organized by Karl Keit (1907-2001), credulous UFO-impresario and president of the Deutsche UFO/IFO-Studiengemeinschaft (DUIST), Oberth repeated claims first made in 1954 that he was no longer willing to exclude the possibility that UFOs could indeed be of extraterrestrial origin. Having examined all existing arguments, Oberth proclaimed in front of ‘many hundreds of people who apparently believe that the Earth has been visited by emissaries from outer space,’ as The Times wrote, that he was now convinced that flying saucers were ‘very real,’ and carrying visitors from outer space.

Oberth later repeated that ‘the UFOs are a kind of sentinel, here simply to observe and report; because a humankind which is as gifted as inventors and researchers as we are, yet has remained politically and morally on our stage of development, constitutes a threat to the entire cosmos.’

Perhaps he’s right? Perhaps there are multiple groups observing? Perhaps some are concerned for multiple reasons? The UFO/extraterrestrial topic is a deep one, and endless discussions and questions can emerge from it, especially when discussing the benevolent/malevolent narratives.

If you’d like to go deeper and comb through our article archive on the subject, you can do so 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

Alternative News

Chris Sky Enters Big Chain Stores Without Mask & Films It: His Version Of Non-Compliance

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Chris Sky, a social media 'influencer' has gained a lot of attention lately due to the fact that he is demonstrating non-compliance when it comes to the various covid measures that are being put in place.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large group of people, who see issue with governmental measures, taking action to stop them? Does it show we don't agree on our collective approach? Does it show we don't agree on the threat level of COVID-19?

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.

Is non-compliance a solution? Of course it is, what other way can a citizenry function against what are perceived to be tyrannical authoritarian measures that are imposed on them? What’s so difficult about non compliance today when it comes to COVID-19 is that we have a population that’s completely separated on what’s happening.

On one hand, you have a large group of people who believe that COVID is extremely dangerous, this includes a number of people, doctors scientists and journalists. On the other hand you also have a large group of people, doctors, scientists who believe that the measures being used to combat COVID are not warranted given the fact that it has a 99.95 percent recovery rate, and strong protection from antibodies.

Of course, death is not always the key concern, overloading hospitals and ICUs is a key detail, however, places who have not introduced lockdowns don’t seem to be having a problem with overloaded hospitals, why? Perhaps we don’t know the answer, but it’s something to consider. After all, we are repeating waves of lockdowns over and over and yet the ‘problem’ is not going away, why?

Part of what separates the two camps seems to be the amount of censorship that journalists, doctors and scientists are receiving for presenting peer-reviewed science, information, data and opinions that, in many ways, completely contradicts what we are being told by our governments and mainstream media.

There are countless examples of censorship. For example, A 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.”

It was published by Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute. He received so much backlash and hatred for his discovery that he has now quit his work on COVID.

Even the (at the time) executive editor of the British Medical Journal published a piece explaining how:

“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. There are many examples, especially when it comes to “alternative treatments.”

Why is it that a government scientist, or a scientist who ‘agrees with the narrative’ gets all of the attention and virality they want, but when some of the world’s leading experts in the field share data and science contradicting this information they are censored? Mainstream media is a major source of information for people. It’s one reason why so many people, including healthcare professionals, are completely unaware of important information pertaining to the pandemic when it comes to al’ things covid such as  the vaccine, as well as the effectiveness of masks and more.

Lockdowns are another great example, despite a wealth of science and data showing that lockdowns do nothing to stop the spread of covid and may actually kill more people than covid, not many people are aware of this perspective. When the mainstream does address, it, they simply label it as a “conspiracy” and as a result, mainstream media watchers repeat this rhetoric, especially when you try and have a conversation with them. At the end of the day things aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, which strongly suggests, in my opinion, that people should be able to free to choose what they would like to do and that governments should be making recommendations, not mandates.

What Happened: Below is a video of Chris Sky, in conjunction with BlockTalkTO, entering into various stores showing how he chooses non compliance when it comes to mask wearing. To be clear, Chris Sky is demonstrating an example of how some might choose to not comply with these COVID measures, we say this because many have criticized him for his approach and tone with store workers. That said, it would certainly be difficult to remain calm and cool in tense situations like this.

Chris makes it quite clear to workers that he is not breaking any laws and is choosing to push back against the loss of his rights. As you will see below, not everyone in the store will agree with his approach and the nature by which he handles his encounters. Which brings up the question, how else could this situation be approached? Can it even be approached without tensions running high?

You can check out his Instagram account to see his multiple encounters at the Toronto airport showing and explaining that one doesn’t have to comply and that one supposedly can’t get in trouble for not complying.

Why This Is Important: As tensions rise due to such a deep level of division and confusion, many notice the mental health effects of this reality. Since it’s not customary in our mainstream culture to have tools of physiological regulation, we tend to lack the capacity to do much more than simply survive day to day. We might avoid looking at information that might challenge narratives that are effortless to receive –  like that of mainstream media.

As a society, we are failing to have appropriate conversations about ‘controversial’ topics. Even information that is backed by a tremendous amount of evidence, if it conflicts with what one believes, it doesn’t really register. This happens to all of us on both “sides.”

For example, The COVID pandemic is bringing a stark reality into question that suggests governments may be withholding clinically proven effective treatments for COVID, contributing to the needless deaths, all while favoring the rollout of a highly profitable vaccine. Many people can see this and begin asking questions about intentions of leaders. While at the same time, many could not fathom the possibility that governments would do such a thing, and so it’s labelled a conspiracy and the topic is avoided entirely – regardless of looking at the evidence. Can you see the division this could create?

The Takeaway: So, what are we to do when we are forced into measures that may not be in our best interests? In my opinion, given the fact that so many agree with them, and so many don’t, it seems freedom of choice is the best answer. The challenge is, when governments claim that the solutions require very large numbers of the population to be involved for them to work, say 80% – 100%, do we really have a choice? Is it our duty to comply for the safety of all? Perhaps in a highly dangerous situation, but the point being made by many professionals is that COVID is not that dangerous situation, and most don’t recognize this possibility due to unfair coverage by mass media.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (Propaganda)

This is why non compliance, in a peaceful manner, is such a revolutionary act and always will be. Which is why we must couple non compliance with sound reasoning. To this point, it’s hard to say that COVID is as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and many places around the world have no locked down and their hospitals are fine. Why is this the case?

Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. Chris Sky is inviting us to have controversial conversations in his own 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.

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

Leaked Videos & Pictures of ‘Pyramid Shaped UFOs’ Above U.S. Navy Destroyer Ship

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Filmmaker Jeremy Corbell has obtained unclassified slides and videos of UFO encounters with a Navy destroyer showing what appear to be triangle or pyramid shaped UFOs

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications for humanity if we are being visited and have been visited for a long time by life from elsewhere?

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: A few years ago, the Pentagon released video footage of a military encounter of UFOs with Navy fighter pilots, the Navy has since confirmed the authenticity of the videos and the pilots involved in the encounter have gone on record speaking about their experience, as have hundreds of other military pilots from around the world who have experienced the same thing. Last year, the Navy released even more official documentation with regards to recent incidents with unidentified aircraft encounters. This recent slew of bizarre events in 2019 remain unexplained according to a recent statement by the Chief of Naval Operations.

So what’s the latest news regarding these incidents? According to filmmaker Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, who became more well known in the field due to his recent documentary on supposed UFO whistleblower Bob Lazar,

On May 1st 2020 a classified briefing was generated about the UFO / UAP presence, via the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Those familiar with the briefing articulated to me that the goal was to de-stigmatize the UAP problem and to promote more intelligence collection regarding UAP incursions and encounters with active military deployments. This UAP briefing was a build-on to a previous ONI briefing, generated October 18th 2019. Both were distributed across a wide range of intelligence networking platforms (such as SIPRNet, JWICS and various Intelink systems).

I was able to obtain information regarding these and other UAP related briefings – as well as – two unclassified slides and some of the most intriguing military captured UAP footage I have ever seen.

The context surrounding this content is important to understand – as its evidentiary value is best demonstrated through the lens of provenance. I want you to understand why this new evidence is worth your full attention – if it’s not inherently obvious to you.

Mystery Wire has also confirmed this leak, and has recently published more photos that’ve been taken by Navy pilots. I came across this video from a tweet recently tweet by Christopher Mellon, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Why This Is Important: Gone are the days when UFOs were considered a conspiracy theory. We are talking objects performing maneuvers that no known aircraft can perform that defy our understanding of aerodynamics and physics. Today in the mainstream they are referred to as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP), and multiple governments have, including most recently the U.S. government, released video footage, pictures, and millions of pages of previously classified documents pertaining to military encounters with these objects. This topic has been seriously covered in the New York Times, and CNN among other “mainstream” media outlets.

Reports and incidents of “crashed craft” have also gone mainstream.

This has us here at Collective Evolution quite concerned, as we do believe there is a strong possibility for mainstream media to take a real phenomenon and manipulate the masses perception around it, as they do and have done with so many other topics. You can read more about that concern, here.

The UFO phenomenon can be a complicated one to understand. Collective Evolution has been diving into the topic in depth since our inception in 2009. If you’d like to access our article archive on the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon, you can click here.

This field is no doubt filled with deception, hoaxes and misinformation, despite the fact that we are dealing with what appears to be a very real phenomenon. It can be hard to sift through all of the information that’s out there and determine what’s false and what may be real. The very fact that intelligence agencies have spread disinformation across this field, for years, is a testament to that.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, why does mainstream media all of a sudden present this topic seriously? Why don’t they give any air time to researchers in the field who have been diving in depth into this topic for decades? Are they trying to control our perception of the phenomenon? Will they present the phenomenon in a manner and light that is not truly indicative of the truth? For example, many believe this onslaught of legitimacy given to the topic as of late within the mainstream will be used to present the phenomenon as a “threat” for ulterior motives. Painting the issue with a threat narrative would be very suspicious, given the fact that the behaviour of these objects do not seem threatening at all, but rather evasive and curious, if anything.

According to Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades, in 50 percent of the cases he’s come across, the objects appear to come within the vicinity of our aircraft, performing fascinating maneuvers and demonstrating what appears to be curiosity. He mentions that the phenomenon seems to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid our aircraft as to not create any sort of potential for a collision. When I saw this part of the interview, it reminded me of the following quote from General Nathan Twining in 1947.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), and the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.” (source)

The quote below comes from Renowned UFO researcher, scientist, mathematician, and astrophysicist Dr. Jacques Vallée who recently made an appearance on the Joe Rogan show to discuss the UFO phenomenon. The F18s he’s referring to come from the encounter released by the Pentagon a few years ago that shows Navy pilots attempting to intercept a UFO, also mentioned at the beginning of the article.

We have to stop reacting to intrusions by UFOs as a threat…there is more…this should not be looked at specifically as a threat…With the phenomenon that we observe if they wanted to blow up those F18s they would do it. Obviously that’s not what it’s all about, and this idea of just labelling it all as a threat because it’s unknown, that’s the wrong idea. (source)

The Takeaway: This topic has huge implications. I’ve said it a million times before, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. Just as there was evidence for the fact that UFOs were real when the topic was considered a “conspiracy theory” there is, in my opinion, abundant evidence suggesting that some of these objects originate from some other type of life.

“There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases – perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies – for which there is no explanation…We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to.”  Margaret Mead (“UFOs – Visitors from Outer Space?,” Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

What are the implications of humanity coming to terms with the idea or fact that we are being visited and have been visited by life from elsewhere for quite some 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
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!