Connect with us

General

‘Fairness is Overrated’: NBC’s Lester Holt Says No To Objective Journalism

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    NBC Host Lester Holt gave a speech after receiving an award for journalism stating that "I think it’s become clearer that fairness is overrated" when referring to objective journalism and giving platform to "misinformation."

  • Reflect On:

    What does it mean to be objective in journalism? How do we decide what misinformation is? When we consider how all ideas evolved in the past, don't we see that at the start people violently deny emerging truths?

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.

Take an honest look around social media or news and you’ll notice a multitude of completely opposing, yet certain, perspectives on any given issue. Further, you might find people will tell you that they are often confused about what is true these days. Can I trust what I read online? Can I trust alternative news? Can I trust mainstream news? Are these platforms always wrong? Or maybe just sometimes? Do we really know that ‘fake news’ is fake? How can we tell?

advertisement - learn more

The questions can feel dizzying, yet I feel we are seeing the result of several factors playing out, including that of a mainstream culture that has been choosing to shun important conversations for quite some time now. Of course, those who might be into more ‘fringey’ topics have a role in this too, But let me explain so we’re clear and not offending each other.

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

First off, we’ll get it out of the way right off the top, yes, I do feel that ‘conspiratorial’ thinking, for lack of a better word, has increased in recent years. Sometimes, the reasons for this are good, evidence based and justified – conspiracies do exist in our world. Other times however, many ideas are brought on with no evidence or poor logic, and this is a problem that some feel needs to be dealt with through force of censorship. I chronicled my specific thoughts on the damage of poor conspiratorial thinking in an essay I wrote last year called Conspireality: Time for a Serious Conversation?”

The basic summary is that conspiracy does exist in our world today, we have evidence to back that up, but if we aren’t careful in sticking to actual evidence that exists, and instead just make wild claims, conversation will get shut down around these topics. This won’t allow mainstream and alternative ideas to converge in any way.

Second, I want to note that just because there are a few fake conspiracies out there that gained steam, it doesn’t mean all conspiracy sounding topics are false. Remember that just 6 years ago someone would have laughed at you for believing UFOs are real – yet the US Navy has recently confirmed that they are in fact real. Following that admission comes further dialogue and exploration of evidence that we do have. This dialogue requires openness and mutual respect, something that didn’t exist prior to the mainstream telling some people it was OK for them to now believe in UFOs.

Were those ‘unhinged conspiracy theorists’ wrong in presenting the evidence they had that UFOs were real 6 years ago? No, we just weren’t willing to listen and were relying on a heavily bias mainstream culture to tell us what’s true.

advertisement - learn more

NBC Journalist Bares All

So let’s take a quick look at some recent comments from a widely known mainstream media personality Lester Holt, who’s the anchor of NBC’s Nightly News. On March 30th, during his acceptance speech after receiving the Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism, Holt stated:

Holt added:

“Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”

“Imagine, if you would, what the pandemic would look like without the media holding leaders to account for vaccines rollouts or countering harmful misinformation or why some communities are being left behind,”

The irony, a journalist receiving a lifetime achievement award in journalism for breaking the number one rule in journalism: objectivity – and perhaps holding government and big corporations accountable.

The interesting part here is Holt likely does not believe he is breaking these rules. More than likely he feels it’s absolutely the right thing to do to not give platform to misinformation. I don’t doubt his intentions. This exercise of empathizing with someones perspective is something we have to continually practice before we go on attacking people for what WE think their beliefs and intentions are.

What I do doubt in Holt’s intentions is how he, and mainstream media in general, decides what is misinformation and what is not. This process has long seemed unclear to me.

Why should we not give platform to a doctor who feels COVID-19 tests may not be accurate, if they, in fact, may not be accurate? Why should we not give platform to scientific studies that bring into question the effectiveness of lockdowns if those lockdowns are not only harming people’s lives greatly but may in fact not be useful? Are we really to pretend that ideas that descent from mainstream worldview are not fact based all of the time? Or are we just working to protect our fragile mainstream worldviews?

6 years ago, should we not have investigated and pressed government to release UFO information because it was a well known conspiracy that was commonly laughed off by journalists, academics and politicians? We were told many times over the last 12 years that we shared ‘UFO misinformation’ when we wrote about the issue. But was that information really wrong? It’s funny now to see how many mainstream and alternative news sources are suddenly investing heavily in covering the subject – as if now that it’s OK to talk about UFOs. Mainstream sites like the New York Times or newcomers like The Drive are now the authority.

The key here is, if you’ve been ridiculed in the past, when you’re shown to be right, it doesn’t matter, the damage has already been done.

What about vaccines? Steam is gaining around certain issues associated with vaccines, issues that could be widely admitted as common knowledge only 3 or 4 years from now, so should we ignore all doctors and scientists who raise scientifically validated concern about vaccines simply because mainstream media and its hosts believe its misinformation? Who are they to say? Why do they trust some experts but not others? When this information is eventually widely known, are we then going to say The New York Times is now the authority on the issue even though they were wrong for decades?

You can very quickly see where the issue is here. We can very easily build a culture of doubt around any issue that we want to be false, and how we portray it in mainstream conversation feeds that culture. Then, without a doubt, we’ll see all others  fall in line with this cultural narrative without truly looking at all the facts.

It’s here where I think Holt missteps. When I probe many journalists or even doctors about whether they have looked into vaccine research that suggests they may be causing unintended illness they often tell me it has been debunked but have never looked into it themselves. When you do however, you begin to see that the vaccine issue is not one of just ‘science vs anti-science’, it’s a complex one, that we really should be openly talking about in the public eye to make sense of some glaring issues.

Instead, we’ve chosen to label those ‘other facts’ as misinformation, and give them no platform – just as mainstream award winning journalism intends.

Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson gave a statement to Fox News following Holt’s comments:

“In the real world, Holt’s advice simply justifies media political bias.”

Absolutely, and herein lies the hard truth: we’ve come to accept bad journalism as truth. That is to say, we’ve come to accept political bias and unbalanced inquiry into various subjects as good honest journalism, when in reality it’s subjective opinion passed off as certain truth. And look at the mess this culture is creating.

Some people distrust mainstream media because conspiracy analysts told them to, but the majority who don’t trust mainstream media don’t because they see how bad its process is. When will mainstream media take responsibility for this instead of just saying it’s unhinged conspiracy theorists that are ruining society? Sure, some poor conspiratorial thinking is happening out there, and responsibility has to be taken there too, but what’s worse is when citizens and experts have serious questions to ask and they are not addressed in mainstream dialogue because its ‘too controversial’ or doesn’t align with the agendas of pharmaceutical companies the mainstream media relies on to pay their bills.

When these conversations are censored and pushed to the fringes, that is to say ‘not given a platform,’ the level of inquiry and quality of thinking applied to these issues can sometimes suffer as less experts have the courage to weigh in and converge on ideas.

The Takeaway

The situation we are in is one that we’re all responsible for in some way, and various camps have to really take a step back and ask how they are contributing to a culture of confusion in an age of censorship.

True objectivity in mainstream journalism is somewhat rare, we can see that in the ease at which Holt made the comments he did. His comments reveal the type of culture that exists in mainstream newsrooms, it may not be malicious as some might assume, but it’s a culture, a groupthink, and most are likely honestly doing their best.

But, as citizens not in journalism, we have an opportunity to apply objectivity whenever we like, and the world just might need this level of effort to end our current meaning crisis.

Just a few weeks ago we created a course to help empower people with the tools to become more aware of bias and improve critical thinking as we’re in a time where authoritative figures literally cannot see how their thinking and awareness is broken and the implications of this are huge as we discussed. Further, the extreme views that can sometimes be created in conspiracy circles, as a result of pushing conversations from common dialogue, has also created a mess of bad thinking.

If you want to check out our course, you can catch a preview here and learn more.

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

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.

According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.

The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.

Australian UFO study.

According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

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

General

PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

  • Reflect On:

    Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.

Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.

We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis

The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.

Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”

This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.

PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?

When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?

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

General

New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?

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.

A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.

They point out the following:

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.

We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.

How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.

Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”

This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.

When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,

This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].

Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.

There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.

As the study points out,

A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26]…Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.

The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.

This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.

Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.

Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.

It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.

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!