Connect with us

Alternative News

Harvard & Stanford Medical Professors Strongly Condemn “Vaccine Passports”

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford are two of many experts in the field condemning the idea of "vaccine passports."

  • Reflect On:

    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?

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: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor, epidemiologist and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, (two founding members of The Great Barrington Declaration) a physician and professor at Stanford Medical school recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.

advertisement - learn more

These vaccine “passports” would allow those who have been vaccinated to travel without being subjected to quarantine measures, and perhaps go to concerts, enter certain restaurants, schools, sports arenas, and other public buildings that those who are not vaccinated will not be allowed to enter, it appears. It looks like these passports are going to be digital, once you’ve received your shots, you get a phone app or a document that you will flash to gain entry. Who knows what freedoms previously enjoyed will be unavailable to the unvaccinated? We have yet to see how this will all roll out.

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

According to the professors,

Covid vaccine passports would harm, not benefit, public health. The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children — for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway — are at far less risk of death than from the flu.

 The public has lost trust in officials in part because they’ve performed poorly — relying on lockdowns to disastrous effect — and in part because they’ve made clear their distrust of the public. Trust, after all, is a two-way street. Coercive vaccination policies would erode trust even further. Even well-informed people may legitimately wonder: Why are they forcing me to take this shot if it’s so good for me?

Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory. Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class — privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need.

advertisement - learn more

Keep in mind that these two professors are not against vaccination. In their article they make their belief quite clear that vaccines are very important and have saved millions of lives.

If you’re interested in learning why so many people, doctors and scientists will not take the vaccine, I recently wrote an article that goes a little more in-depth into that topic, which you can read here.

Why This Is Important: I recently wrote an article about Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube. In one of his most recent videos he makes the same point as the professors above regarding prior infection.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know.

As I’ve pointed out before in several of my articles, there are multiple studies hinting to the point these doctors are  making, that those who have been infected with covid have immunity, and may have immunity for decades. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19. Keep in mind, the estimated number of people infected is, like other viruses, highly likely to be much more than the numbers we seen have from testing.

According to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples, I thought I’d put it in here for reference.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the COVID-19 has a 99.95-99.97 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70, and 95 percent for people above that age.

The Takeaway: There has been wide scale disagreement amongst global citizens about the measures being taken with regards to COVID-19. On one hand, greater control, health surveillance and centralized power is being pushed in accordance with keeping people ‘safe’ from a virus with a very high survival rate. On the other hand, people are feeling as though their personal experience and everyday view of this virus and what health effects it is really causing don’t line up with the extreme measures. We have a split in our global community whereby many citizens’ desires and will are not being represented by the government and their decisions, and they feel as though by not participating in extreme measures, they will lose access to living life to the fullest. Furthermore, lockdowns may be responsible for more deaths than COVID.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

Things clearly aren’t as black and white as government and mainstream media is making them out to be, this is quite clear as we see a great deal of division among people, doctors and scientists. On top of this, there is an extreme amount of censorship taking place on science and opinions that oppose government and mainstream narratives. When this is the case, I believe it becomes even more clear that the correct thing to do would be for health authorities to simply make recommendations rather than impose mandates on the population.

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

Fully Vaccinated Individuals Are Testing Positive For The Coronavirus: More Examples Emerge

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reports around the globe are showing that fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe and effective are the vaccines?

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: News of fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID seem to be making headlines everywhere. For example, six people who tested positive in a Sydney hotel quarantine had already been fully vaccinated. According to data from NSW Health’s weekly COVID-19 surveillance report, between April 10 and May 1, six people in quarantine who reported being fully vaccinated were among the 150 overseas cases recorded. One had received a one-shot vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson, and the remaining cases had received both doses of a two-shot vaccine, such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Moderna. University of Sydney epidemiologist Dr. Fiona Stanaway said, given no COVID-19 vaccine is 100 percent effective, it was to be expected that some people who have been vaccinated test positive.

The New York Yankees recently announced that they had two coaches and one support staff member test positive for COVID despite all of them being fully vaccinated. In Seychelles, East Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that on Tuesday it was reviewing coronavirus data in the region after the health ministry said more than a third of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the past week had been fully vaccinated.

These are a few of many examples, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise as people have been warned throughout the pandemic that the full dosage of COVID vaccines will not be 100 percent effective. Canada’s Chief Public Health officer Teresa Tam, for example, recently reminded Canadians on Saturday that even those who are fully vaccinated are susceptible to COVID. She did say, however, that the risk of asymptomatic transmission is far lower for anyone who is fully vaccinated, but how much lower? What about asymptomatic individuals who are not vaccinated?

According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University’s School of Medicine,

The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.

Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household. (source)

Something to think about.

It’s hard to say. In the United States, for example, the CDC makes it quite clear that “there will be a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19” and that “symptomatic breakthrough cases will occur, even though the vaccines are working as expected. Asymptomatic infections among vaccinated people also will occur.”

But the concern here is the fact that the CDC recently announced the following,

As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021.

This means that people who get infected with COVID after being vaccinated will not be reported unless they are hospitalized or died. It begs the question, how can any appropriate data in the United States, for example, be collected regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine if those who test positive and have had the vaccine are not being reported?

It is a bit confusing, because the CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold. A common occurrence when using this test is a Ct value greater than 35, which makes the probability of “false positives” quite high. Why are they all of a sudden specifying a Ct value for vaccinated individuals? You can read more about that, in depth, here.

Why This Is Important: Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled “Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.

A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.

Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Brown’s paper also cites Doshi’s paper which makes the same point, “As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn’t it be reported? (source)

Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” – Brown

Furthermore, there are a variety of other factors that may be responsible for a drop in cases that we are likely to see in combination with the rollout of these vaccines. One of those factors is previous infection, as there is evidence suggesting that previous infection is more efficient than the vaccine when it comes to creating immunity.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. – Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States

Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that, “After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.”

There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”

With all of this said, there is also evidence suggesting that the vaccines are indeed working. 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.” It was pertaining to the United Kingdom. Many of these scientists have also been quite vocal about their belief that not everybody needs to be vaccinated, and the fact that this is indeed the message we are being bombarded with is suspicious given the fact that this messaging does not, as one of the Professors, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains, does not align with the science. All this is expressed by her, and others, while maintaining their belief that the vaccine can be used as a great tool for focused protection, on those who are vulnerable and who need it the most.

In the article, they explain,

It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.

Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.

The Takeaway: Regardless of how effective the vaccine is at preventing the spread of COVID, and more, there are a number of valid scientific reasons why freedom of choice and informed consent should always remain. A number of “pro-vaccine” scientists who believe and point to the idea that these vaccines are indeed working are also pointing out that they believe mandatory vaccines for travel, employment, and school are unscientific and unethical. If this vaccine was completely safe and effective, travel mandates, for example wouldn’t be needed, everybody would be rushing to get one. Do we really want to give governments the power to implement health mandates when it goes against the will of so many people, doctors, and scientists? Is it not enough to simply promote and recommend people receive the vaccine instead of using measures to coerce the entire population to do so? Why are certain viewpoints, opinions, research and evidence of so many experts in the field being completely ignored and in some cases ridiculed if they oppose the common narrative we receive from governments and mainstream media?

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

Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A team of aluminum experts at Keele University has found that multiple childhood vaccines contain significantly more or less aluminum than what is listed on product labels. They have filed a petition with the FDA in an attempt to resolve this issue.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the consequences of misleading or incorrect product information, like vaccines, listed on the product label? Should these labels not be completely accurate?

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 aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year.

The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.

A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix.

This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it’s content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.

Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.

The petition states,

These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.

The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.

  Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.

If you would like to provide the FDA a comment regarding the petitions filed regarding aluminum levels in childhood vaccines, you can do so here and here.

Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,

We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.

You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.

Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,

Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?

How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.

No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.

I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.

The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of  certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.

If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again,  it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model.

Isn’t human health and ‘doing no harm’ the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate 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

Alternative News

Melinda Gates Was Concerned About Her Husband’s Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein, WSJ Reveals

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Wall Street Journal is reporting that one possible reason for the divorce of Bill and Melinda gates may be due to his supposed relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

  • Reflect On:

    Did you know that elite child sex trafficking may be a real issue among certain circles? We are bringing attention to this recent story to bring awareness to this fact.

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.

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

What Happened: Bill and Melinda Gates recently announced that they will be divorcing. They haven’t revealed the specific reason for their divorce, but the Wall Street Journal has reported that one source of concern for Ms. Gates “was her husband’s dealing with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the people and a former employee of their charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Gate’s concern about the relationship dated as far back as 2013, the former employee said.”

Business Insider explains:

Sources told The Daily Beast last week that Bill Gates’ willingness to meet as early as 2011 with Epstein — who by then had already pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage girl in 2008 — “still haunts” Melinda Gates. According to the outlet, the couple met with Epstein in New York City at his Upper East Side mansion in September 2013. Sources told The Daily Beast that soon after the meeting, Melinda Gates told friends of her discomfort during the encounter. Several people close to the couple reportedly said she was “furious” over her husband’s relationship with Epstein. Bill Gates told The Journal in 2019 that he was not friends with Epstein. Documents reviewed by The Journal say that after The New York Times first reported in October 2019 that Bill Gates had met more than once with Epstein, Melinda Gates called her advisors multiple times.

According to the National Post, days before Epstein died in a New York Prison he named venture capitalist Boris Nikolic as a backup executor of his will. Nikolic had worked as a science advisor to Bill Gates. The Post goes on to mention that in an emailed statement at the time, “Nikolic told Bloomberg that Epstein had not consulted him about the will and that he had no intention to fulfill the duties.”

Nikolic is seen in the picture above on the left side of Gates. The others, from the left are, at the time, a senior JP Morgan executive James E. Staley, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Mr. Epstein and of course Bill Gates.

This is the only other connection between Gates and Epstein that seems to exist. Gates met with Epstein in 2011, 2013 and 2018 it appears although no information as to why is available. Rumours related to philanthropy seem to be the reason but again, these meetings had occurred after Epstein was a convicted sex offender.

In 2014, multiple media outlets reported that police arrested  a Seattle man at the Gates’ mansion for allegedly collecting more than 6,000 child rape photos. Rick Allen Jones, reportedly employed as an engineer at the Gates’ home, is also accused of trading pornography images via Gmail. None of the activity Jones was involved in occurred at the Gates’ residence except for his arrest.

Why This Is Important: It’s no doubt odd that Bill Gates would meet with Epstein multiple times, especially after he was convicted as a sex offender. Perhaps these meetings were the only ones made public and there were more we don’t know about? Who really knows, we will probably never get the truth as to why they had this kind of relationship, if you can even call it that. We’ve seen the same thing with Prince Andrew, except Bill Gates doesn’t have any sexual offence accusations against him like Andrew does.

 Last year the former CEO of Reddit, Ellen K. Pao, tweeted that Ghislaine Maxwell “was at the Kleiner holiday party in 2011” but she “had no desire to meet her much less have a photo taken with her. We knew about her supplying underage girls for sex, but I guess that was fine with the “cool” people who managed the tightly controlled guest list.” After the tweet, Pao removed it and then made her profile private.

Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate is now on trial facing multiple sex offences and child sex trafficking charges, just like Epstein. It’s concerning that many people  seemed to be well aware of Epstein’s activities yet nobody really went public.

The Epstein saga, and all of the strange connections that go along with it are important because it highlights a very real problem that doesn’t seem to receive enough attention within the mainstream, and that’s the issue of supposed elite level child sex trafficking.

These kinds of rumours are quite prevalent among high ranking people, as a paper published in European Psychiatry details:

Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.

It’s a very deep issue, with countless examples of accusations and convictions involving high ranking people which include Vatican officials, Royal Family members, Prime Ministers, Presidents, politicians, Hollywood elite, financial elite and many more. You can read about more examples here if interested.

Sonia Poulton, a British journalist, social commentator, and filmmaker, has been investigating the dark web of pedophilia for years. Some of her research has been compiled into a documentary called “Pedophiles In Parliament.” You can access that here if interested.

We have conducted an interview with a survivor of elite child sex trafficking/slavery. You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.

The Takeaway: Much has come to light over the past few years regarding this issue, but if it is prevalent at the highest levels, how can it be stopped? If those with the power to stop this issue and the ones we approach to deal with this issue are involved, what steps can we take? Take Cardinal George Pell, for example, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse. His charges were dropped and he was set free. It’s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, after all, he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996.

Perhaps some of those whom we view as idols, or gods and saviours are actually not what they seem? Perhaps it’s time for humanity to turn to itself instead of continually relying on big politics and powerful people to solve our issues. Perhaps that’s why they never get solved? Politics has become a cesspool of corruption and a system that does not seem to be adequate at dealing with many of the issues we face today, yet we continually turn to it for answers and permission. Given the amount of corruption within the system, the idea that sex trafficking is prevalent in some of these circles should come as no surprise.

The mainstream has failed to have appropriate conversations around elite level child sex trafficking and pedophilia, many people would consider it to be a “conspiracy theory” if you brought it up to them. It really goes to show how media sources have become a hub for disinformation and perception manipulation in many areas. It’s important to start having these discussions if we are going to make any progress with regards to solving it, regardless of how unbelievable it may seem.

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!