- The Facts:
A new article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by Journalist Paul D. Thacker highlights the conflicts of interest that exist between the United Kingdoms COVID-19 advisors.
- Reflect On:
Why are Facebook fact-checkers able to suppress peer-reviewed published science? Should not all information be open, free to view and transparent? Should people not be able to ponder for themselves as to what's happening with COVID?
Many doctors, scientists, journalists, citizens and publications and various medical journals have been calling into question what we are being told about COVID-19 on various different fronts. Be it the severity of the virus, lockdown measures, mask mandates and more, it’s quite clear that there is a great divide among the citizenry as well as the academic community as to what’s really going on here.
Scrolling through the twitter feed of Carl Heneghan, a Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and Editor in Chief of BMJ (British Medical Journal) Evidence-Based medicine, and an NHS General Practitioner working in urgent care I came across a publication in the BMJ titled “Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers.” It was written by journalist Paul D. Thacker.
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with journalist Derrick Broze about the need for journalistic standards, Qanon, and agorism. Click here to listen!
I wanted to post it below as it’s an interesting read. It reminded me of another publication I recently came across in the BMJ by their executive editor, and editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization Dr. Kamran Abbas. The publication was titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science. You can read that here if interested.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. – Abbas
Below is the publication from Thacker.
As the number of UK deaths caused by covid-19 reached 50 000 in early November, England enacted a second national lockdown to control the epidemic. Boris Johnson’s government put these measures into action after months of controversial and sometimes confusing policies, including the “rule of six,” regional tiered controls, and directions to “stay alert.” At the same time, the government has faced mounting questions about procurement decisions, from personal protective equipment to testing kits, from vaccine deals to the services of logistics companies.
Calls for greater transparency around such decisions have included those bodies focused on science and health, such as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), as well as taskforces charged with advising on vaccines and testing. Although Downing Street has become more transparent in disclosing the advice of SAGE, it has kept members’ financial conflicts of interest unpublished and shown little concern that advisers to the coronavirus Vaccine Taskforce have financial interests in pharmaceutical companies receiving government contracts. When The BMJ sought further information on these bodies, such as lists of members’ interests, the information was denied or requests were unanswered.
After months of criticism about SAGE secrecy, the government reversed course this summer and began releasing the names of SAGE members, minutes of meetings, and some of its policy papers. Still, the government has refused to release to The BMJ the financial interest forms signed by SAGE members, leaving the public in the dark.
Criticism over SAGE’s secrecy first appeared in a Nature editorial1 in March. In April, the government’s chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance sent a letter to parliament2 stating that SAGE’s membership, recommendations, supporting documents, and meeting minutes would be published, but only after the group ceased meeting about covid-19. Vallance argued3 that secrecy protected SAGE members and shielded them “from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder their ability to give impartial advice.”
Rob Weissman, president of Public Citizen, an American non-profit organisation focusing on government transparency, was troubled by this statement because, he says, corporate interests are always granted access to government decision makers: “It’s never a secret from the companies. The secrecy is selective. Secrecy becomes the way to selectively make information available to the powerful, and connected corporations, while the public is kept in the dark.”
Within days of Vallance’s statement, the Guardian published the names of SAGE members, which included two political advisers to Downing Street, one of whom was the prime minister’s now former chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings.
As pressure increased for greater openness, the government finally relented in late May with a pledge for SAGE transparency, publishing dozens of documents, including minutes from the group’s first meeting on covid-19 in late January. Reversing his previous statement to parliament, Vallance said, “Openness and transparency around this disease is a social imperative, which is why it’s important we don’t wait to publish minutes and evidence.”
Vallance’s decision puts SAGE more in line with recommendations made by the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee in 20114 that SAGE membership should not be kept secret. He has, however, ignored the same committee’s call to publish SAGE members’ declarations of financial interest.
Independence and balance questioned
Meanwhile, the matter of SAGE’s independence persists. “It’s not independent,” says Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “It cannot set its own agenda. They can only answer questions the government sends them. They should have more freedom to reshape the questions.” The term “independent,” does not appear anywhere in the 64 pages of current guidance5 that governs SAGE.
Multiple experts contacted by The BMJ also argued that SAGE appears unbalanced, favouring certain types of scientific proficiency over others. Some claim that SAGE has relied too much on disease modellers who have been given priority over behavioural researchers. Others point out that public health experts, who best understand how to control communicable diseases, should have been given more seats at the table. Meanwhile, it remains tough to confirm if the government is following SAGE’s advice.
“They’re not ignoring SAGE,” says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, who is not a member of the committee, “They’re selectively taking their advice.” Bauld says that after the government sends questions to SAGE and gets the group’s feedback, the government then works in other considerations, such as economics, public opinion, and politics. But unlike the advice from SAGE, these other inputs that inform policy are never made public, making it impossible to know if the government has ignored scientific expertise. She adds that SAGE is now more transparent than the Scottish government advisory group, which publishes minutes of its meetings, but which she says contain little information and are not useful.
Like other specialists The BMJ contacted, Bauld also wondered if SAGE requires members to report their financial conflicts of interest. “I’ve not seen that information published anywhere,” she says. The BMJ then contacted the Government Office for Science (GOS) to ask whether SAGE members were required to fill in financial disclosure forms. We also requested copies of any such forms for current members. A spokesperson for GOS confirmed that SAGE members must declare their financial conflicts of interest and provided us with an empty template copy of the SAGE disclosure form.
The BMJ is making this form available to the public.6 GOS declined to provide SAGE members’ signed disclosures, adding that they are looking at options to make these declarations public while complying with relevant data protection legislation. The BMJ is now seeking the financial disclosure forms of SAGE and Vaccine Taskforce members through freedom of information requests.
“Citizens need to be able to trust the advice of professional scientific advisers. We need transparency,” says Margaret McCartney, a Scottish general practitioner and former BMJ columnist who has campaigned for financial transparency. “Public trust is paramount and I know there are a huge number of scientists and doctors working extremely hard just now. I don’t want those efforts wasted because there hasn’t been enough openness.”
In many cases, the UK government’s lack of financial transparency in combating covid-19 has resulted in negative headlines. In April, the government announced7 that it was placing Vallance in charge of a new Vaccine Taskforce to expedite research to produce a coronavirus vaccine. Among the named members were AstraZeneca, the Wellcome Trust, and John Bell of Oxford University. The following month, the government announced that Kate Bingham would chair the taskforce, while taking temporary leave from her job as managing partner at SV Health Investors, a life sciences venture capital firm. Bingham is married to the Conservative minister Jesse Norman.
By July the UK government had signed a coronavirus vaccine deal for an undisclosed sum with GlaxoSmithKline, securing 60 million doses of an untested treatment that was still being developed. In September, media outlets reported that Vallance had £600 000 (€661 000; $800 000) worth of shares in the company. The government responded to say that,8 while he heads the government’s Vaccine Taskforce, Vallance “has no input into contractual and commercial decisions on vaccine procurement, which are taken by ministers following a robust cross government approvals regime.”
Days later, the Daily Mail broke another story, this time focusing on Bell. On top of his role with the Vaccine Taskforce, Bell also headed the National Covid Testing Scientific Advisory Panel and chaired the government’s new test approvals group. But the Mail discovered something The BMJ had first reported in 20129—that Bell had substantial financial interests, now amounting to £773 000 worth of shares, in pharma company Roche, which had sold the government £13.5m of antibody tests in May. Following the deal, Bell appeared on Channel 4 News and Radio 4’s Today, calling the tests a major step forward. Yet Public Health England found the tests unreliable.
Bell told the Mail that he had no role in the deal and that he had disclosed to the government “a long list of my interests.” According to the Mail, “He said that he did not sit on the advisory body involved in the decision to purchase the Roche antibody tests, adding: ‘I did not know about the Roche contract until it was signed. I advised on diagnostic home testing kits, not these ones.’”
The BMJ asked the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which announced the Vaccine Taskforce, to confirm that Bell had reported his “long list” of financial interests. We also asked to see any forms Bell had filled in as evidence. Contradicting its own press release which listed Bell as a taskforce member, a BEIS spokesperson told The BMJ, “Sir John Bell is a member of the expert advisory group to the Vaccine Taskforce, rather than a member of the taskforce itself.”
The spokesperson added that the expert advisory group is not involved in commercial decision making, and that those involved must declare their conflicts of interest. The spokesperson did not respond to The BMJ’s request for copies of Bell’s declarations.
The BMJ also approached Oxford University, Bell’s employer, to ask for documents that confirm he had disclosed his “long list” of financial interests. Stephen Rouse, Oxford University’s head of communications, responded, “Professor Sir John Bell has always declared his financial interests and board membership at Roche, in accordance with the university’s conflict of interest policy for all staff.” Oxford did not respond to The BMJ’s repeated request to see evidence of this disclosure. The BMJ is now seeking the financial disclosure form of John Bell through a freedom of information request to Oxford.
Lagging behind the US?
Much of the transparency The BMJ and others have sought around advisory committees in the UK is automatically provided in the US. “We have strong rules that require transparency, openness of proceedings, and rules in place to deal with conflicts of interest that are automatic,” says Rob Weissman, president of Public Citizen, an American non-profit organisation focusing on government transparency.
Not that these rules are impenetrable: Weissman points out that the US vaccine taskforce, called Operation Warp Speed, is being directed by Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive who has been criticised by senators for his pharma investments. The Trump administration bypassed normal government hiring procedures by bringing in Slaoui as an unpaid special adviser, who is therefore not required to disclose his interests. “The arrangement was improper and he should be dismissed immediately because of this conflict,” Weissman says. Even if a person is well intentioned, he says, direct financial investments create bias that is impossible for anyone to remove.
Covid cronyism: transparency is “even more important” in a crisis
In these exceptional times when, for example, contracts are being awarded outside usual procurement rules, it is essential that government decisions are properly documented and made transparent to maintain public trust. So said the National Audit Office10 (NAO) earlier this month in its report into government procurement during the covid-19 crisis.
It highlighted “a lack of transparency and adequate documentation” on some key decisions, including how the government identified and managed conflicts of interest. The report said it was “even more important to have a clear approach to managing conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded directly to suppliers without any competition.”
Because so many covid-19 contracts have been awarded to companies with ties to the Conservative Party, the government has faced charges of cronyism.
“You want these things to work,” says Peter Geoghegan, a journalist who has been covering the UK’s failed covid-19 contracts for Open Democracy, the Guardian, and the London Review of Books. “It’s taken a long time for the penny to drop about how this isn’t working.” Digging up untendered covid-19 contracts involved diligent spade work. Contracts can be published on different websites, which are not easily searchable. Furthermore, the government has been ignoring requirements to publish contracts within 30 days, meaning that it took many months after the pandemic started before the untendered contracts became public.
In awarding contracts, a cross government process called the “high priority lane” assessed commercial leads brought in by officials, ministers, MPs, and lords through a special mailbox and which were treated as more credible than leads going through ordinary channels, the NAO reported.
Critics of UK contracting tell The BMJ it is impossible to trace the influence of lobbyists in the decisions to award contracts because little lobbying information is published or even collected in the first place. “Considering the gravity of decisions under ministers’ consideration, there should be much greater transparency over who’s trying to influence them, how, and over what decisions, than is currently the case,” says Alex Runswick, senior advocacy manager at Transparency. “We know more about lobbying activity in rural Ireland than we do in Whitehall.”
Passed in 2014, Britain’s lobbying law requires only rudimentary information to be reported, most importantly, the name of the lobbyist, their company, and address, and the names of clients. In the US, lobbyists must disclose much more information and forms are disclosed quarterly. For each client, lobby companies must disclose the names of their lobbyists; list the matters or specific bills that were lobbied on; who was lobbied, such as a specific congressional committees, government agencies, or White House offices; and how much was spent lobbying, meaning lobbyist salaries and expenses.
“It tells you more than nothing, but not much more,” says Weissman of the UK lobby disclosure forms. He says that the US system requires such extensive information, because any one company has broad interests before the government. Pharma companies are considered the most powerful lobby in Washington and they lobby on everything from drug safety to labour laws to healthcare policy, tax matters, contracting law, defence spending, and government subsidies. “You’ve got no way to assess what they’re actually up to,” Weissman says of the UK lobbying law.
Telegram Passes 500 Million Users As People Seek Facebook & Twitter (Big Tech) Alternatives
- The Facts:
Messaging app Telegram has now surpassed 500 million users after more big names/pages flock to the platform due to censorship by Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter.
- Reflect On:
Do we really want to live in a world where freedom of speech is limited even if it's not causing any harm? Should we not have the freedom to access information and decide for ourselves what it is we choose to believe?
Telegram is a social media platform, currently known as a messaging app, that now has more than 500 million users worldwide. Telegram founder Pavel Durov recently confirmed the fact on his personal Telegram channel (@Durov).
Here at Collective Evolution we’ve experienced a tremendous amount of censorship from Big Tech platforms like Facebook, for example. We’ve been working in the field of “alternative media” since 2009. We have since grown our Facebook page to well over 5 million followers, and for years we’ve been subjected to algorithm changes, Facebook “fake news” strikes that are clearly unwarranted, and much more. Most recently, Founder Joe Martino and Myself had our own personal Facebook pages completely deleted with no explanation.
We have been dealing with and coming to terms with the fact that we just don’t know how much longer our Collective Evolution Facebook page will be around or how much longer will have access to it, and this is why we are transitioning our followers over to our recently made Telegram account.
All of this censorship has also resulted in a very significant demonetization. What we do here at Collective Evolution is being threatened, and has been threatened for quite some time. We want to keep doing what we do but sometimes worry that we cannot produce the means necessary to do what we do. This is why we started CETV.
CETV is our own platform and our attempt to move away from dependance on Big Tech. If you’re interested in helping us continuing our work, you can support us by joining there. It’s what is now barely helping us to continue to do what we do, conduct interviews, create personal development courses, write articles, attempt to expand human consciousness, inspire change from within and more. CETV is in its beginning stages, it’s still growing and we are still trying to improve it. We hope you join us there.
Last but not least, and perhaps one of the most important ways you can keep up to date with what we are doing, apart from CETV, is by joining our email list.
It’s not only Collective Evolution that has been subjected to extreme censorship. Doctors, scientists, various academics, peer reviewed science, journalists and more have and all are experiencing the same thing. There is a digital authoritarian “‘Orwellian” fact-checker going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Any information, opinion, or piece of evidence that seems to go against the grain or threaten the status quo seems to be subjected to this nowadays.
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. – Edward Bernays, Propaganda 1928
Encounters With Star People: Three Native Indians Describe An Encounter Of The “First Kind”
- The Facts:
Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People, and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. This article shares one of many.
- Reflect On:
Are we alone? If not, what are the implications when the public becomes fully aware of this? How will it change the way we look at the nature of reality and how we live here, and why we live the way we do?
Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. In her book, “Encounters With Star People, Untold Stories of American Indians” she details many of these stories, and explains how her fascination with Star People came from stories told to her by her older relatives, like her grandmother, when she was a child. Be sure to visit her website to find out more about her work.
I’ve been reading the book for quite some time now and I find myself having a great deal of trouble actually finishing it because everytime I come across a new story, I want to share it with our readers. I’ve written multiple articles that take excerpts from her book. So far I’ve written about a story she shared regarding an elder who told her about a ship that crashed on his reservation. You can read that story here. I wrote about another elder who shared a story of a petrified alien heart, which he claimed belonged to the Star People, and you can read that one here. I’ve written one about an elder who claimed to have been told that humans were one of four violent species in the universe, you can read that here. I wrote about a fascinating story regarding a man who had an encounter during an Alaskan blizzard, you can read that here, and another one where a gentlemen was told “not to be afraid.” You can read that here.
This particular story comes from three American Indians who are military veterans. All three of them were stationed together at an Air Force base when this event occurred. An encounter of the “first kind” refers to a UFO sighting in close proximity.
Clarke knew Arlan 15 years before he told her his story. She describes how they first met while he served on the interview committee established by her school (Montana State University) in the hiring of a new faculty position that would recruit American Indian students and teach in the College of Education. Arlan was on the hiring committee, and after Clarke was hired she stayed in contact with him and became part of his extended family,
He frequently stopped by my office at the University on his monthly trip to Helena to meet with the governor’s liaison on Indian Affairs. On one such visit, we sat in my office discussing tribal politics, when I noticed he was staring at the poster hanging on the wall. It pictured a UFO with words underneath it that read, “I believe.” “Do you believe?” he asked, pointing to the poster. “I do,” I replied. “I believe too,” he began.”
“When I was in the service, I was in the Air Force, most indians join the army, but I joined the Air Force. One night the whole base was on alert. An unidentified object appeared on radar. It was headed straight for the base. Several jet fighters scrambled in pursuit. They returned but the base remained on alert. That meant we were all in full combat uniform and dispersed around the perimeters.”
This story corroborates with information that has now been declassified by multiple governments and intelligence agencies around the world. It’s a well known fact than when a UFO, or as they are termed within the mainstream now, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon” (UAP) is tracked on radar, the military scrambles jets to take a closer look. One (out of thousands of similar cases) great example comes from a case I’ve shared a number of times. This incident occurred on the night of September 18th, 1976. A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA report describes the encounter in detail. Furthermore, both of the pilots involved discussed the event years later.
Residents of the city (Tehran, Iran) noticed a big bright object in the sky. The airport traffic controller also noticed, “it was an intensely bright object that was not supposed to be there.” The Iranian Air Force was contacted and they dispatched two F-4 fighter jets to check out the object.
Both of the F-4 interceptor pilots reported seeing the object visually, it was also tracked on their airborne radar. Both planes experienced critical instrumentation and electronics go offline at a distance of twenty-five miles from the object. Here is an excerpt from the report:
“As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nautical miles it lost all instrumentation and communications. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. Another brightly lighted object came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F4. ”
Back to the story. I just wanted to provide a brief example.
Around 2 a.m., a spacecraft appeared. It hovered over the base for a good 30 minutes. There were windows where you could see shadows moving, like someone walking around. We all stood there, our rifles ready to fire. The order never came. The UFO just hovered there, not moving, not making a sound. One foolish airman broke rank and ran in the direction of the craft, shouting and waving his rifle in the air. A beam of light shot out of the craft. He was frozen on the spot. When the light retracted, he fell on his face. A few seconds later, the craft flew away. Two hours later, we were called together and told it was a test and ordered not to talk about the event. I never did. I kept it a secret until this moment.”
“Why now” Clarke asked.
It’s that poster. That craft looked identical to the one we saw that night. “After the incident, did you ever talk to your buddies about it?” I asked. I never did. Within hours of the sighting, I was transferred to a different base. My friends were transferred out the same day. We were given 12 hours to prepare for our transfers. There was a lot of paperwork. We didn’t have much time to talk about the transfers or about the UFO. Some of us exchanged home addresses, but you know how it is when you’re 18. You think you’ll write, but you never do. I never saw or heard from any of those guys again.
Arlan did however know the names and addresses of the men when they were enlisted, and through that Clarke was able to track them down for a chat. Keep in mind this incident occurred decades ago.
Clarke asked Max about the UFO incident.
Yes, I remember. The brass told us never to talk about it. In fact, they said if we did talk, they would come after us. They told us we had witnessed a top-secret test to determine how we would react under unusual and stressful situations. I never believed them. It was a barefaced lie, and they thought we were so inexperienced and dumb that we would buy into anything…They said it was an experimental craft. It was all lies. Not even the big boys knew what that craft was or where it originated. They were shaking in their boots and the last thing they wanted was for the word to get out.
The idea that this could be some sort of experimental craft/technology that the military possesses is not so far fetched. There are documents, for example, that show the U.K. was “desperate” to get their hands on UFO technology. There are interesting statements from interesting people, like Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell who once said that “yes, there have been crashed craft and bodies recovered.” Even an article in the New York Times from last year covered the story about retrievals of “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth” in a serious manner. (You can read more about “mainstream UFO disclosure” here.) In his book, “Forbidden Science 4,” Dr. Jacques Vallee explains how he came in possession documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. I obtained a document from the CIA’s electronic reading room that details a story about a famous German Engineer, George Klein, describing his experience with “Flying Saucer” technology in Germany, claiming that it’s been operational since 1941.
The point is there is a lot of information out there suggesting that governments, or even more powerful institutions have had and do have this type of capability.
But for some reason, I do believe Max in this case. Despite all of the evidence that we have suggesting some of this technology is in our possession, UFO lore is littered with stories like this from military bases and nuclear weapons facilities.
Arlan, Hank and me – we were sent to protect the entrance to the base. We took our positions and waited for an unknown enemy. We must have been there for over an hour. I was cold and my teeth were chattering. That’s when it happened. The craft came out of nowhere. Not a sound. Suddenly it just appeared hovering silently over the base. We didn’t know what to do. We are all nervous as hell. Our commanding officer told us not to fire, but to be ready to respond if something happened. This one guy, I don’t know if he lost his mind or what, went running toward the craft shooting. A light came out of the craft and he was stopped in his tracks for just a moment as though he was paralyzed, and then he dropped to the ground unconscious. A few moments later, the craft moved silently upward and disappeared into the night.”
A couple of years later, after I re-enlisted, I ran into one of the medics who was on-duty at the hospital that night when the UFO appeared. He told me that the guy was burned all over this face and body. He said he heard a doctor say it was radiation. He said they kept him in a sleep-induced coma for a while, and then they just let nature take its course. He died within a month of the incident.”
This is interesting and it also corroborates with other incidents out there. Stefan Michalak, for example, was involved in a UFO incident in Manitoba, Canada. It’s known the “Falcon Lake Incident” and is quite famous among Canadian UFO researchers. Stefan also suffered severe burns from the crafts he encountered.
According to Stefan’s son, Stan Michalak, who co-authored a book detailing his father’s encounter titled When They Appeared: “I recalled seeing him in bed. He didn’t look good at all. He looked pale, haggard. . . .When I walked into the bedroom there was a huge stink in the room, like a real horrible aroma of sulphur and burnt motor. It was all around and it was coming out of his pores. It was bad.”
Below. you can see the burn marks left from the encounter. Stefan is of many who have had this type of ‘evidence’ left on their body after an alleged encounter. Below is a sketch done by Stefan of the craft he encountered. You can read more about this story here.
Clarke asks Max to describe the craft.
It was huge. Bigger than anything I had ever seen. It just hung there in the sky. Like it was suspended on strings. It made no sound. I would say it was probably about 50 or 60 feet around. Maybe 25-to-35 feet tall. There were windows but you couldn’t see through them. Very small windows but only a dull light emitted from them. The craft was gray metal, perfectly smooth. No angles. Just a perfect circle. It was dark but all the lights at the base were on so we had a good view. I couldn’t see any seams on the craft. That was unusual. It was like it was one piece or there was a skin stretched over it to make it look that way. I saw blue and white lights when it hovered over the base. There were reddish-orange flashing lights that came on as it moved away. It flew upward at first and then disappeared into the night sky within seconds.”
We saw them in Vietnam sometimes. Frequently we would see several at a time, but they never came close. They just flew over, sometimes, in formation. It was like they were observing the war. The pilots talked among themselves. Those of us who worked on the planes heard their conversations. The pilots were concerned about the UFOs. At first they thought they were some kind of communist aircraft sent to scare us out of Vietnam. There were stories of jets that crashed when they pursued them, but most pilots knew what we all knew: these craft were not from this planet. We were no match for them.
Clake goes on to find the third man, Hank, and he tells the exact same story as Max and Arlan. If you want to read more stories like this, make sure you check out the book. The link is at the top of this article.
The Takeaway: I’ve said it many before, so I apologize if this is a repeat for you but I’ll say it again, the ET phenomenon truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and greatly expands human consciousness and the way we perceive ourselves, the cosmos, and the nature of reality. Just think of all that would change when we consider not only the existence of off-world civilizations but also the technology they use to get here. Perhaps other races use their technology for discovery, advancement, service to others and more instead of simply using it to profit in some way, or use it to make weaponry like we do? I don’t know. At the end of the day what we need more on our planet is to question the way we live here, what we are doing here and why we live the way we do when we have so much potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive. The question of “are we alone” is a big one, but thousands of other questions will come forth when we realize, for sure, that we’re not and that we are being visited and have been visited for quite some time.
Cover Photo Credit: Billy Meier. Supposed authentic picture of a UFO he captured.
Nearly Half of All Health Care Workers At Chicago’s Loretto Hospital Refuse COVID-19 Vaccine
- The Facts:
A survey conducted at Chicago's Loretto Hospital shows that only 40 percent of healthcare workers will not take the COVID-19 vaccine once it's available to them.
- Reflect On:
Why does vaccine hesitancy not only among people, but healthcare workers seem to be growing larger and larger every single year?
What Happened: Earlier this month Dr. Nikhila Juvvadi, the chief clinical officer at Chicago’s Loretto Hospital, said that a survey was administered there to healthcare workers in December regarding who would get the COVID-19 vaccine and who wouldn’t. The survey found that 40 percent of the hospital staff said they would not get vaccinated and 60 percent said they would.
Juvvadi said that, “in her hospital, a lot of that hesitancy is based on minority groups’ deep-rooted mistrust of vaccinations and other large-scale health care programs; “I’ve heard Tuskegee more times than I can count in the past month – and, you know, it’s a valid, valid concern.”
In 1972, a government whistleblower, Peter Buxton, revealed that for the previous forty years, beginning in 1932, both CDC and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted the so called “Tuskegee Experiment” to study the progression of untreated syphilis in impoverished African-American men in rural Alabama. Public health regulators lured illiterate sharecroppers with the promise of hot meals, funeral costs and free health care from the U.S. government. According to the Centers for Disease Control, which took over the study in the early 1960’s, none of 299 syphilitic sharecroppers were ever told they had the disease. CDC purposefully withheld penicillin after the antibiotic became a proven treatment in 1947. CDC actively prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs elsewhere. CDC’s victims in that study included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease, and 19 children born with congenital syphilis.
When, in 1966, Buxton sent a letter to government regulators complaining about the ethics and morality of the study, CDC reaffirmed the need to continue the research until all subjects had died and been autopsied. To bolster its position, the CDC sought, and gained support for the study’s extension, from the American Medical Association (AMA).
Buxton finally told his story to my uncle, Senator Edward Kennedy in July of 1972. Senator Kennedy convened Senate hearings, at which Buxton and HEW officials testified and CDC finally terminated the study. – Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Why This Is Important: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine hesitancy in general is nothing new. 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, and fewer than half of the hospital workers at St. Elizabeth Community Hospital in Tehama County, Calif., were willing to be vaccinated. You can read more about this story here.
Roughly 55 percent of surveyed New York Fire Department firefighters said they would not get the coronavirus vaccine, the Firefighters Association president said last month.
A recent survey by Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly a third of health care workers across America would probably or definitely would refuse the vaccination.
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.
Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new, and it’s been an issue prior to the COVID vaccination. A number of studies point this out, for example, a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection in 2017 titled “Addressing vaccine hesitancy: the crucial role of healthcare providers” is a great example.
Another one published a year before titled “Vaccine hesitancy and healthcare providers” is also a good example. One of the authors of this study, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety at the end of 2019.
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. (More information and links to the conference here)
There are many studies regarding vaccine hesitancy, and if you go through the literature the main causes seem to be a lack of trust for pharmaceutical companies and various concerns about vaccines that have yet to be answered. Aluminum, for example is one. The adjuvant is blamed for adverse reactions and injuries, and science is and has been raising cause for concern for many years.
A recent publication in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by one of its associate editors, Dr. Peter Doshi, titled ” Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data” calls into question these claims by the COVID vaccine manufacturer. I thought I’d post it here in case you were interested in reading it. It raises a few of many issues as to why some people are hesitant as well.
When it comes to a lack of trust, this is completely understandable, is it not? 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.
Concerning conflicts of interest, specific to the COVID-19 vaccine also seem to be raising concerns. According to Kamran Abba, executive editor of the BMJ and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, “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.” Perhaps this is why other therapies and treatments that have shown success have been brushed off, ignored and in some cases labelled as “fake news.”
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – source)(
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. Based on my research this seems to be a global phenomenon.
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. The scientists outlined great corruption that happens at “all levels” within the CDC.
The Takeaway: 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.
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?
Should freedom of choice not always remain?