The Federal Reserve Is Looking Very Closely At Issuing Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

the-federal-reserve-is-looking-very-closely-at-issuing-central-bank-digital-currency-(cbdc)

Although no decisions have been made, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell explained Tuesday during a panel discussion on digital finance hosted by The Bank of France that they are “looking at it very carefully.” He’s of course talking about a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

He expressed that the Federal Reserve is currently evaluating both “the policy issues and the technology issues, and we are doing that with a very broad scope.”

Earlier this year, The Federal Reserve Board issued a discussion paper that examines the pros and cons of a U.S. CBDC.

“CBDC is generally defined as a digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public. Today in the United States, Federal Reserve notes (i.e., physical currency) are the only type of central bank money available to the general public. Like existing forms of money, a CBDC would enable the general public to make digital payments. As a liability of the Federal Reserve, however, a CBDC would be the safest digital asset available to the general public, with no associated credit or liquidity risk.”

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

The Federal Reserve

In September, the White House Released its First-Ever Comprehensive Framework for Responsible Development of Digital Assets. Banking elites atop the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements have also been quite outspoken about the potential move to CBDCs.

It’s most likely on its way, despite the fact that these institutions still only claim to be considering it. It may take a few years, but the groundwork seems to be paving the path to a cashless future, and it’s already making an appearance in some regions in China.

Although there still has been no full-scale launch of China’s digital renminbi (also known as the digital yuan, or e-CNY), a trial launch of the currency has been underway since for a few years, and will continue in to 2023. More than 20 million people have been regularly using the digital dollar there.

To be clear, a digital currency like Bitcoin is not a privately owned currency. It’s not part of the “system.” Your wealth in Bitcoin cannot be frozen, controlled, or seized by governments (yet). In fact, governments don’t have any “power” over these cryptocurrencies (yet) as they do with modern day currency – the type of control government would have over CBDC would increase their ability to control people in the end.

For example, if you are not compliant with something the government wants, or in the future if you have a bad social credit score (if that becomes a thing), or you donate to a cause like the “Freedom Convoy”, you may lose access to all of your money. Perhaps one day if you’re not vaccinated, the same could happen, but I’d like to think humanity is better than that.

It can be frightening to think what humans can be manipulated to accept and even agree with sometimes.

What’s Not Being Discussed

Like we’ve seen with many other initiatives and responses to global crisis’, there seems to be a constant theme that these initiatives are designed to take away more citizen rights, freedoms and privacy. This sentiment is often ignored within the mainstream, and if it is acknowledged it’s usually put in the “conspiracy theory” category.

These days, the transition from conspiracy to reality doesn’t seem as long as it used to be. One moment something like mass surveillance is considered the stuff of ‘tin foil hat wearing nutters’ and moves to fact quite quickly. We of course learned this through NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and several others. Yet the national security state justified this activity, saying that it’s for our protection. We will probably see the same reasoning with CBDC, and the further condemnation of other non-regulated crypto-currencies.

Cryptocurrency platforms allow people to trade anonymously and without any restrictions from a central authority. The untraceable nature of these transactions, according to governments, raises security concerns. Policymakers fear that this kind of financial transaction makes countries vulnerable to a threat of financing terrorism and other criminal activities. This is an issue that CBDC won’t face, because everything will be traceable and trackable.

Naysayers of current cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin claim that it incentivizes criminal activity. Bitcoin has be heavily criticized for simply making the world a more dangerous place. But are our modern day financial and other various systems any different? Can we honestly say criminals do what they do because of the tools they have to hide actions? Or are they doing it because perhaps our unfair systems and way of life incentivize people to take ‘short cuts’ i.e. illegal activity?

So, what are the concerns with CBDC? The biggest one seems to be the following, explained by Snowden,

“A CBDC is something closer to being a perversion of cryptocurrencyor at least of the founding principles and protocols of cryptocurrency—a cryptofascist currency, an evil twin entered into the ledgers on Opposite Day, expressly designed to deny its users the basic ownership of their money and to install the State at the mediating center of every transaction.”

Edward Snowden

People like Snowden aren’t buying the national security issue excuse. To them, and they obviously know a thing or two, banning Bitcoin along with the release of CBDC, especially in China, is according to Snowden, “clearly intended to increase the ability of the State to “intermediate” – to impose itself in the middle of – every last transaction.”

guest essay published in the New York Times by Dr. Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and the author of a forthcoming book on digital currencies, outlines a number of pros and cons of digital currencies. One of the cons is as follows,

“If cash were replaced with a digital dollar, however, the Fed could impose a negative interest rate by gradually shrinking the electronic balanced in everyone’s digital currency accounts, creating an incentive for consumers to spend and for companies to invest.”

Dr. Eswar Prasad

The thought of banks depleting the savings of every wage worker if they don’t spend it is quite concerning to say the least.

At this point, who knows what’s going to happen. But one cannot deny that more power and control will be put in the hands of the government with the issuing of CBDC. Given governments’ track record of truth, honesty and transparency, it’s nearly impossible to trust them and their motives when it comes to big initiatives like this.

As new technological solutions arise we see human life becoming simpler and more expansive. But what type of thinking and paradigm backs the way that technology is used? In our current world, it is a paradigm of control, disconnection, and domination. Perhaps the most important takeaway here is that as the world evolves technologically we are still not solving real problems because we are stuck in old ways of thinking. Are ethics, morality and service to others guiding or technological development, or is greed and the lust for power and control the guiding factor?

Woman Dies In Shoppers Drug Mart 7 Minutes After COVID-19 Vaccine Booster

woman-dies-in-shoppers-drug-mart-7-minutes-after-covid-19-vaccine-booster


Carol Pearce, a Canadian women from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is said to have died within 7 minutes of receiving a COVID-19 booster shot. According to her daughter, Stephanie Foster, her mother’s death is linked to the vaccine. She emphasized that her mother was in good health.

However, Saskatchewan Health has declared that Pearce’s death was from natural causes after the Saskatchewan coroner’s service investigated the case.

Pearce was visiting her daughter earlier that day before heading to the Shoppers Drug Mart to get her booster shot. Pearce went into the pharmacy, was vaccinated, and stuck around for the normal 15 minute waiting period to be sure no adverse events occurred.

It was only 7 minutes into that 15 minute period when she dropped onto the Shopper Drug Mart floor and died.

SASKTODAY, a local paper in Saskatoon, tracked down a witness who was at the store that day to get more of the story. The witness wished to remain anonymous in fear of losing her job. This is what she said:

“People started screaming, people were crying, just about everybody that worked there was crying and freaking and hugging each other and just losing their [sh**].

They were saying in the store that it was about seven minutes, [after Pearce got the booster shot that she collapsed on the floor,] it wasn’t long at all before the ambulance was there.”

Anonymous Witness named ‘Heather’

Both Pearce and her daughter Stephanie were vaccinated and proponents of the vaccine. As mentioned, Pearce’s daughter does not believe her mother’s death was from natural causes,

“I do not believe this was caused from natural causes. My Mom had no health conditions. I believe had she not gotten that Covid shot then she would be here with us today!”

Stephanie Foster

Foster texted with her mother right after she got the booster, as she explained via her Facebook page, you can see the screen shot of her post below.

“My mom text me right after she got the shot to let me know she was waiting the 15 min and I text her back.”

Stephanie Foster

Shoppers Drug Mart told Foster that “she dropped dead before she hit the floor.”

“It was right after then that they say ‘she dropped dead before she hit the floor’ in Shoppers Drug Mart!!!!! That is what the docs have told us,”

Stephanie Foster

Below is our complete video report on this case, including discussion around a FOIA request done in Saskatoon that allude to vaccine injuries in the province.

The Canadian government maintains that there is a “very small chance” that people will experience rare, serious side effects from taking any COVID-19 vaccines, and that they are extremely safe and effective.

They stress that “only vaccines that meet the safety, effectiveness and quality standards of Health Canada are approved for use in Canada” and “the benefits of all COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease.”

That being said, the way to determine if a vaccine is related to a death would be through an autopsy which would reveal a pathology leading to death. Deaths that have occurred after vaccination have been found not to be a result of vaccination. On the other hand, deaths that have occurred after vaccination, in some cases, have been found to be a result of COVID-19 vaccination.

For example, three pathologists have published a piece in the journal, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine regarding their examination of autopsies conducted of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” They concluded that the vaccine was the cause.

If we look at some VAERS examples, a death involved a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first Pfizer product dose. Another death is the case of a 16-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died of pulmonary embolism 9 days after a Pfizer product dose (whether it was the first or second is unknown).

Another death was that of a 15-year-old boy who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer product. The VAERS report (I.D. 1764974) states that the previously healthy teen ‘was in his usual state of good health. Five days after the vaccine, he complained of shoulder pain. He was playing with 2 friends at a community pond, swinging from a rope swing, flipping in the air, and landing in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed, told his friends “Wow, that hurt!”, then swam towards the shore, underwater as was his usual routine. The friends became worried when he did not reemerge.

His body was retrieved by local authorities more than an hour later.’ The autopsy revealed ‘small foci of myocardial inflammation’, an adverse effect of these COVID products commonly found among children and youth, particularly young men.

Anecdotal evidence of people sharing what they perceive to be their COVID vaccine induced injuries has exploded on social media. There are multiple examples, Jab Injuries Australia is one of them, Jab Injuries Canada is another.

Below is one of the most recent examples, Regan Lewis, a nursing student from Grinnell, KS passed away on September 27, 2022. She died after she got the Covid shot for her nursing clinical at Kearney Regional Medical Center, in Kearney, NE. She was 20 years old.

The question is, how often are these deaths occurring, and at what rate? And how many are linked to the vaccine?

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra is one of many in the field who have been concerned for quite some time about this situation. He was a very large vaccine proponent himself, until he began seeing adverse events that changed his perspective on how these products should be recommended to people..

The most important announcement of my life and career so far. Please watch, listen and share with family and friends. I reached these sobering conclusions reluctantly. To read the free full open access peer reviewed medical journal articles visit https://t.co/9IMbUlAAQ9 pic.twitter.com/sYxJJjeh9S

— Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra) September 28, 2022

Sure, it’s great to have a conversation regarding the benefits of these vaccines and what they have provided, but it’s disheartening to see that this is the only conversation that’s allowed to take place.

Many academics and journalists who provide legitimate information and evidence that challenge the ‘official narrative’ are being silenced. Mainstream is painting a black and white, one size fits all narrative, and seem to ignore all other evidence that suggests otherwise.

Have you noticed that anyone daring to counter the narrative is silenced and cancelled, not debated?

— Dr Zoe Harcombe, PhD (@zoeharcombe) September 30, 2022

Vaccine Injury Reporting Systems from all over the world are recording a record number of vaccine injuries. Millions of adverse reactions, serious adverse reactions and deaths have been reported. But much of the time these reports are not investigated by health authorities.

“All along, we have been piecing together indirect evidence. It paints a picture of a devastating toll from vaccine injuries in the last year. No drug product in the past has been anything like this. Injuries from the worst vaccines have come in at a rate about 1/100 of the mRNA vaccines. Thalidomide maimed tens of thousands of babies compared to 1.4 million vaccine injuries and 30,000 deaths in the last year and a half, counting only those that were reported to VAERS, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The only comparable drug disaster was oxycontin, which led to about 20,000 overdose deaths in its worst year.”

Josh Mitteldorf

Governments continue to maintain that these reporting systems do not prove any type of causation. This may be true in many cases, but the frightening thing is that the vaccine may be the cause for many, yet it is not being investigated.

What’s concerning is that in some age groups the COVID-19 vaccines may be more dangerous to recipients than a COVID infection itself. We know this already for children. Health authorities don’t necessarily agree with this position although they are starting to recognize the need for a risk/benefit analysis.

One of the latest examples of a poor safety profile for COVID vaccines comes from Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, Robert M. Kaplan from the Clinical Excellence Research Center, School of Medicine at Stanford University and colleagues. 

They found the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events. The study was limited to analyzing trial data the companies submitted to the FDA and did not evaluate the vaccines’ overall harm-benefit.

Then, there are concerns such as this, as Dr. Marty Makary pointed out out twitter,

“immune function among vaccinated individuals 8mo. after the administration of two doses of COVID vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated”.

According to European Med Agency, “frequent booster shots could adversely affect the immune response” https://t.co/NoVN4PdSi3

— Marty Makary MD, MPH (@MartyMakary) July 20, 2022

Another factor contributing to vaccine hesitancy are statements from high level scientists within federal health regulatory agencies themselves, alluding to fraud, data manipulation and the lack of science that has gone into studying the safety of these shots.

Researchers in Israel found that many serious side effects from COVID-19 vaccines were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established a causal relationship with the vaccine. Yet, instead of publishing the findings to the public, the Ministry of Health withheld the findings for nearly two months.

When it finally released in an official document, it misrepresented and manipulated the findings, minimized the extent of reports, and stated that no new adverse events (“signals”) were found. It further stated that the events that were detected were not caused by the vaccine, even though the researchers themselves said the exact opposite. 

So, when it come to cases like that of Carol Pearce, it’s important we don’t dismiss them as having nothing to do with the vaccine. At the same time, it’s important to be open to the idea that it wasn’t. Overall, we should realize that there are concerns being raised and important safety signals being set off that are still not being discussed within the mainstream nor investigated by some governments.

The FDA Has Still Not Investigated Ventavia For Falsifying Data During Pfizer's COVID Vaccine Trials

the-fda-has-still-not-investigated-ventavia-for-falsifying-data-during-pfizer's-covid-vaccine-trials

Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Brook Jackson, who was employed at the organization Ventavia Research Group, told The British Medical Journal in 2021 that Pfizer falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial for COVID vaccines.

Ventavia is a contract research company that helped carry out the main Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial for adults.

Jackson didn’t just come out with claims, she provided proof. In the video below Jackson explains what happened.

The editor-in-chief of The British Medical Journal (BMJ) at the time, Fiona Godlee, alongside Kamran Abbasi, an executive editor of the BMJ who will replaced Godlee on January 1st 2022, published a piece in the journal criticizing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook “fact checkers” for trying to decrepit and dismiss this story.

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

In it, Godlee and Abbasi criticize Facebook for putting a “fake news” label on an article published in the British Medical Journal by award winning investigative journalist Paul Thacker, who was commissioned by the BMJ to write up the story about Brook Jackson.

This of course isn’t the first time “fact-checkers” have been wrong, especially during the pandemic.

The BMJ commissioned Thacker to cover the story as Jackson began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails in September of 2021.

Godlee and Abbasi explain

“These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.”

We covered this story in depth as it happened, and published three pieces about it on November 3rdNovember 5th, and more recently December 7th, if you’d like to learn more about it.

While there are not new updates in this story at the moment one must as “why has the FDA still not investigated her claims?” What Jackson is alluding to is extremely serious scientific fraud, and yet regulators are silent. Why?

This forces one to question the motivations and incentive systems tied to our health agencies, as well as pharmaceutical companies in general. For years, multiple scientists from within big ‘health’ organizations like the FDA and CDC for example, have been blowing the whistle with regards to fraud and the falsification of data. What’s happening at these organizations is not representative of science, but rather political and elite agendas that use ‘science’ to push forth political and other agendas.

Prior and current actions paint a clear picture that these organizations can not be relied upon as the “gold standard” when it comes to all this science and health.

What’s even more concerning is that these organizations have a stranglehold on the medical industry, as well as medical education itself. Not to mention the fact that mainstream media seems to refuse to challenge or investigate the claims coming from these agencies.

If things don’t change, the already large lack of trust in ‘medicine’ that we are seeing from the masses will simply continue to grow.

The question is, what is the solution here? Can one really expect more regulation or a change of leadership will make a difference? Or must we consider that these companies and regulators are incentivized to engage this behaviour by our underlying economic systems and likely won’t stop because there is no incentive for them to. Since when has ethics mattered in politics?

First Child Myocarditis Advertisement Airs: Is Myocarditis In Children Being Normalized?

first-child-myocarditis-advertisement-airs:-is-myocarditis-in-children-being-normalized?

With the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the risk of vaccine induced myocarditis in children and young adults quickly became a topic of discussion around the world. Because of these concerns, multiple countries like Finland, France, Germany Sweden, Norway, and Thailand halted or altered their vaccination programs for the younger cohorts.

In many countries COVID-19 vaccines are not recommended for children due to the fact that, for them, COVID-19 may pose less of a health risk than the inoculations themselves. Some children have died as a result of these inoculations, and serious injuries have been recorded not only within vaccine injury surveillance databases, but also from the clinical trials themselves.

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

Amongst these facts are ad campaigns talking about myocarditis in children. Here is an ad below released by New York Presbyterian Hospital in collaboration with Weill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University.

This began to turn the heads of some doctors out there. Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist-oncologist and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, posted the following.

“Recently, I came across this shocking ad playing in New York outlets. It is a television ad for myocarditis in a child. She does well after developing it. Watch it. My first question is: Why is this a young girl? It should be a man between the ages of 16-26, the highest risk demographic. My second question is: Why are we normalizing myocarditis? I have never seen a TV ad for this condition before, and now there’s one. Why are we trying to normalize something that we can easily reduce?”

Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist-oncologist and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco.

A number of top cardiologists — such as Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Dr. John Mandrola, Dr. Amy Kontorovich, and Dr. Venk Murthy — have publicly spoken out against minimization of vaccine-induced myocarditis. They feel the message being portrayed by Big Media and government is suggesting myocarditis is not a big deal, and not something to be considered so serious.

According to Dr. Kontorovich, professor of Medicine and Cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,

“[M]any of those affected are young people who were previously healthy and are now on three or more heart medications and potentially out of work due to symptoms, even if their heart function is ‘back to normal.’”

University of Michigan cardiologist Dr.Venk Murthy has also noted,

“People with myocarditis are usually counseled to limit activity, placed on 1 or more meds and are at lifetime increased risk of cardiac complications. This can have profound consequences.” “[They] are typically told to limit activity for several months, sometimes longer. This means no sports. Some kids are told not to carry books to school.”

According to cardiologist Aseem Malhotra,

“Although vaccine-induced myocarditis is not often fatal in young adults, MRI scans reveal that, of the ones admitted to hospital, approximately 80% have some degree of myocardial damage. It is like suffering a small heart attack and sustaining some – likely permanent – heart muscle injury. It is uncertain how this will play out in the longer-term, including if, and to what degree, it will increase the risk of poor quality of life or potentially more serious heart rhythm disturbances in the future.”

Malhotra has also pointed out at the fear some research have of publishing this type of data, given the fact that they may lose their funding.

An analysis of relative myocarditis risk by Oxford researchers who published a paper in Nature Medicine on December 14th. The authors find higher rates of vaccine-induced myocarditis than myocarditis from infection in males ages 16 – 39 across multiple vaccine doses: Pfizer dose 2 & 3 and Moderna dose 1 & 2.

With regards to this paper, Prasad brings up the point that, if the researchers used more accurate seroprevalence data for viral infection (which would increase the denominator) and analyzed the risk in younger males ages 16-24 specifically (the highest risk group), the risk-benefit ratio would swing further against the administration of the aforementioned vaccine doses in this population.

A study from Israel found that males aged 16 to 29 faced the greatest risk, with around 11 in 100,000 males developing post-vaccination myocarditis. A pre-print study last year comparing risks of infection versus vaccination found that boys aged 12 to 15 were four to six times more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than become hospitalized with any Covid-related condition

Incidence of myocarditis rocketed from spring 2021 when vaccines were rolled out to the younger cohorts having remained within normal levels for the full year prior, despite COVID-19 with the most up-to-date evidence. The paper from Israel found that the infection itself, prior to roll-out of the vaccine, conferred no increase in the risks of either myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID-19.

The Latest Paper

In the video below, Prasad explores and breaks down a new paper published in The Lancet that asked the question, how are kids and young adults doing 90 days after vaccine induced myocarditis?

Safety Signals Ignored

Researchers in Israel found that many serious side effects from COVID-19 vaccines were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established a causal relationship with the vaccine. Yet, instead of publishing the findings to the public, the Ministry of Health withheld the findings for nearly two months. When it finally released in an official document, it misrepresented and manipulated the findings, minimized the extent of reports, and stated that no new adverse events (“signals”) were found. It further stated that the events that were detected were not caused by the vaccine, even though the researchers themselves said the exact opposite. 

Epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D and researcher Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. have published a paper that includes anonymous testimonies from CDC officials about the lack of science taking place at the CDC when it comes to COVID-19. Many scientists are frustrated and embarrassed by the lack of science to support recommendations being made by the CDC.

One high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit” with regards to COVID-19 vaccines and children.

The things is, it’s been hard for proper research and information that opposes government narratives to be properly heard. The extent to which government and social media “fact checkers” have gone to censor and smear information, especially quite early on in the pandemic, is almost unbelievable.

Early on in the pandemic Jonas F. Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, published research showing that out of nearly 2 million school children, zero died from COVID despite no lockdowns, school closings or mask mandates during the first wave of the pandemic. After he published his research he was bombarded with an onslaught of intimidating commentsAs a result Ludvigsson quit his research which led the Swedish government to strengthen their laws on academic freedom.

There are now many examples of self censorship. How many doctors and scientists felt one way about COVID, but when they spoke about it and shared their thoughts gave the opposite answer in fear of being stigmatized?

Key Takeaways

The fact of the matter is, governments are no longer capable of portraying an honest and transparent perspective with a balanced look at current events. Political and corporate agendas plague our societal systems. In this case, politics within federal health regulatory agencies and the stranglehold corporate ‘health’ has on politics is clear.

how can we continue to rely on these agencies to provide accurate information and provide recommendations with so much corruption and influence from rogue interests? The truth is, it seems this has been happening since agencies like the FDA and CDC were established.

They are rooted in and thriving off of this type of behaviour primarily because our systems of commerce incentivize this behaviour. Without addressing the core of these issues, can we expect it to be any different? Radical changes in our systems need to occur.

New Report: UFOs Spotted Over Ukraine Skies, Reaching Speeds of Up To 53,000 km/h

new-report:-ufos-spotted-over-ukraine-skies,-reaching-speeds-of-up-to-53,000-km/h

According to a new report from the Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have been spotted over Kyiv. The report was published in the preprint database arXiv.

Using specially calibrated cameras at two weather stations in Kyiv and Vinarivka, a village about 75 miles (120 kilometers) to the south, astronomers observed dozens of objects “that cannot scientifically be identified as known natural phenomena,” the report said. 

The researchers divided their UAP observations into two categories: “cosmics” and “phantoms.” According to the report, cosmics are luminous objects that are brighter than the background sky. These objects are designated with birds’ names — such as “swift,” “falcon” and “eagle” — and have been observed flying solo as well as in “squadrons,” the team wrote.

The researchers estimated that phantoms range from 10 to 40 feet (3 to 12 meters) wide and can travel at speeds of up to 33,000 mph (53,000 km/h). For comparison, the Lockheed SR-71 blackbird is the fastest known aircraft, reaching speeds of up to 3,500 km/h.

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

There was no speculation on the researchers’ part regarding what these objects are, it simply focused on the methods used to identify them and the characteristics and qualities of the objects that could be detected.

The U.S. government has openly renewed its public interest in UAP investigations since 2017, when several videos taken by U.S. Navy aircraft leaked to the media. The videos showed unidentified aircraft moving in seemingly impossible ways, with no explanation.

In some cases, according to incident reports and interviews with military personnel, these vehicles descended from altitudes higher than 60,000 feet at supersonic speeds, only to suddenly stop and hover as low as 50 feet above the ocean. They are also capable of travelling through water, in the ocean, just as they are through the atmosphere at the same speeds.

The Hessdalen Interactive Observatory at Østfold University College in Norway has also been capturing some amazing footage over the years. As far as I know, it’s the only official 24 hour UFO observatory in the world (except for our governments, of course). Radar and cameras have tracked and filmed numerous inexplicable phenomena in this area, with the fastest one recorded at an astonishing 30,000 km per hour. You can see some examples and read more about that here if interested.

Important considerations to think about when it comes to “mainstream” UFO disclosure

Dr. Jacques Valée, an academic who holds a masters degree in astrophysics and a Ph.D., in computer science who co-developed the first computerized map of Mars for NASA in 1963 is one of many who have revealed potential manipulation with regards to this subject.

In one of his latest books, Forbidden Science 4he shares a record of his private study into unexplained phenomenon between 1990 and the end of the millennium, during which he was traveling around the world pursuing his professional work as a high-technology investor. It’s a bit of a diary, documenting his experiences and encounters/meetings as he tries to examine and explore the phenomenon.

In an entry dated Thursday 26 March 1992, Vallée writes:

“I have secured a document confirming that the CIA simulated UFO abductions in Latin America (Brazil and Argentina) as psychological warfare experiments.”

Richard Doty is also mentioned multiple times in Valle’s book. He is a retired Air Force Special investigations officer (AFSIO), and his job was to spread disinformation about the UFO subject during his time with the Air Force. Spreading disinformation about the reality of UFOs is no secret. In Doty’s case, he admitted to infiltrating UFO circles, along with his colleagues, to feed ufologists and journalists lies and half truths so that they would never understand any real truth. How do we know this isn’t happening today on an even grander scale?

A quote comes to mind here,

“It is time for the truth to be brought out … . Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

Rear Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Director of Central Intelligence (1947-50), signed statement to Congress, 22 Aug. 1960

Kit Green, a scientist and former senior CIA intelligence officer with a longstanding connection to research into psi phenomena and UFOs, has also expressed and shared his knowledge and experience regarding misinformation regarding UFOs and aliens being disseminated by the CIA.

There are a plethora of examples. But if what is written above is true, it wouldn’t be the first time that governments misrepresent and disseminate misinformation regarding actual events that are taking place. The big question is why would they be doing this?

We’ve also seen this many times before with various geopolitical issues like the war on terror and “false flag terrorism.” The US government, for example, has disseminated false information, and in some cases helped to create ‘terrorist attacks’ to justify the invasion of various regions overseas. Many speculate that this is what happened with 9/11, for example, or the chemical weapons attacks that took place in Syria six years ago. Western media was blaming Russia, while all other media outlets seemed to be presenting evidence that this was a staged event by the west.

An old tweet from Riam Dalati, who at the time was a well known BBC Syria producer. He stating that the supposed gas attacks in Douma were “staged.”

For years they’ve (Western governments) been claiming to bring democracy to these areas when in reality, there are ulterior motives at hand under the guise of good will. It’s so hard to know what’s really happening these days, especially when certain narratives are deemed “conspiracy” for simply threatening the “official” narrative.

“Within a year, the young agency had already slipped the leash of its intended role of intelligence collection and analysis to establish a covert operations division. Within a decade, the CIA was directing the coverage of American news organizations , overthrowing democratically elected governments (at times merely to benefit a favored corporation), establishing propaganda outfits to manipulate public sentiment, launching a long-running series of mind-control experiments on unwitting human subjects (purportedly contributing to the creation of the Unabomber), and—gaspinterfering with foreign elections. From there, it was a short hop to wiretapping journalists and compiling files on Americans who opposed its wars.”

Edward Snowden. America’s Open Wound, The CIA is Not Your Friend

Organizations like NASA, along with various governments, suddenly claiming that only now will they begin to investigate the UFO phenomenon puts them in a prime position to explain the phenomenon, to relay “new” discoveries to the citizenry and control the narrative.

Anybody who has studied ufology and sifted through the evidence and the lore knows that it is an extremely vast topic that leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. What we are most likely to get is a simple, extremely watered down and sanitized version of disclosure – something that will not be an accurate version of truth and that does not represent the true nature of the phenomenon.

Like everything else in this world that comes from ‘official’ sources, it will likely be portrayed as a ‘threat’ to national security. Based on my research, this is an inaccurate statement. It’s simply one of multiple perspectives based on the evidence and testimony available. All of these perspectives should be disseminated to the public, not just the ‘threat’ narratives, or narratives that don’t benefit government and policy makers.

Will the ‘official’ explanation be forced upon us while the ‘ministry of truth’ censors and ridicules other evidence that counters government narratives? This is a very strong possibility as, again, we’ve seen it happen with many other topics, like COVID-19. In fact, in 2021, the European Defence Industry stated they would “crack down” on UFO misinformation.

We are living in a world where ‘truth’ can only come from government, and our right to access, disseminate and examine other sources of information and evidence is being cut off.

In a way, modern day mainstream UFO disclosure could be used to maintain secrecy around the subject by painting a false perception of the phenomenon to keep certain realities about it under wraps. We saw this with Project Bluebook, a decades old effort by the U.S. government to supposedly study the phenomenon, when it was actually used to debunk the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

There is hardly any transparency in our world when it comes to big and ‘controversial’ topics and events, so don’t expect this to be the case with UFOs. Perhaps it’s not the best idea to constantly rely on official government offices and officials to provide us with explanations about such things.

We should aim for a holistic view of the phenomenon, one that includes all of the research and experiences that have taken place not only from the past century, but from years prior as well. I take no pleasure in sharing this sentiment. It would be great if we had a government that people could trust. But it seems that every day more people learn that we can’t rely on these entities for honest information anymore. Can you blame them?

The study of this phenomenon should be one that is spearheaded by civilians, independent organizations that are separate from government.

Three Popular Claims About COVID That Turned Out To Be False

three-popular-claims-about-covid-that-turned-out-to-be-false

Legacy media and governments have amassed a tremendous amount of power over our thoughts, feelings and emotions. When it comes to our perception about major global events, whether it be climate change, COVID-19, 9/11, or what’s happening in Ukraine, it’s often beamed into our consciousness as an unquestionable truth.

We’ve put our consciousness in the hands of powerful people who have labelled opposing views and evidence, no matter how strong, as “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.”

“Fact-checking” organizations have also been birthed. And despite being called out and exposed by the likes of the British Medical Journal, and many others, they are still censoring information that opposes the “official” position of government, big corporations, pharmaceutical companies and federal health regulatory agencies – regardless of what the truth actually is.

After being proven wrong time and time again, they continue to muzzle scientists and promote irresponsible and incorrect conclusions about many things related to COVID-19.

Love reading The Pulse? If you’re a regular reader of our work and love what we do, consider becoming a paid subscribing member and help us expand our work. You can support for as little as $5 a month and enjoy multiple member benefits. Click Here to Learn More.

  1. Claim: Natural COVID -19 immunity does not provide strong protection against COVID-19, especially compared to the vaccines.

One common theme throughout the pandemic was the idea that natural immunity is not strong in preventing transmission or reducing severe disease. This idea was beamed out by mainstream media and government health officials consistently.

For example, in August 2021 the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said despite the fact that people can gain some protection after contracting Covid-19, it’s “not nearly as strong” as the vaccine.

Scientists and other experts in their fields who shared evidence regarding the strength of natural immunity were quickly ‘fact checked,’ censored, and in our case here at The Pulse, demonetized.

Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins provided one of many examples when it comes to censorship of science around this fact. This was from February 2022.

What does the science say? Back in…

Well, there are a number of examples of natural immunity providing strong protection from reinfection, death and hospitalization from COVID-19. Even early on in the pandemic more than 130 compelling studies emerged.

Fast forward to today, the study Dr. Makary referenced found evidence of strong and robust natural immunity from COVID-19 in unvaccinated healthy US adults up to 20 months after confirmed infection.

It will be interesting to see studies examining natural immunity years down the road to see if it lasts beyond this point. Some speculate it could last a lifetime, like we’ve seen with other coronaviruses.

Another paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine had similar results. According to their research, the effectiveness of a prior COVID infection in preventing reinfection is, for Alpha: 90.2% Beta: 85.7% Delta: 92.0% Omicron: 56.0%.

“Natural infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) elicits strong protection against reinfection with the B.1.1.7 (alpha), 1,2 B.1.351 (beta(,1 and B.1.617.2 (delta) 3 variants.”

Protection against the Omicron Variant from Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection, NEJM.

I emailed one of the authors, Dr. Laith Jamal Abu Raddad with a question regarding the duration of the immunity. He responded,

“Hello Arjun,

Thank you for your interest in our study. We have been following people for >18 months, and so far natural immunity remains strong with little waning, apart from the drop in protection against Omicron. Our studies continue for us to see how long this will last. My guess natural immunity protection will wane against infection over-time, but slowly over few years. However, natural immunity against severe COVID-19 will last substantially longer, perhaps even for a lifetime (as we see for other common cold coronaviruses.)”

It’s a shame that a proper discussion regarding natural immunity has not been had simply because it threatened various corporate and political agendas, not to mention ‘health policy’ like vaccine mandates, mask mandates and lockdowns.

Perhaps this, now unavoidable science, is why YouTube has quietly updated some of its COVID misinformation policies about these very facts. They have removed items relating to social distancing, masks and vaccines.

You can find more studies and examples regarding natural immunity here, we’ve covered it in depth over the past two and a half years.

Claim #2: COVID-19 Vaccines are safe and effective. The benefits outweigh the risks in all age ranges.

Even today, if one questions the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, they are subjected to extreme censorship, ridicule and ‘fact checking.’ This is despite the fact that there has been concerning data that’s emerged regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.

When it comes to efficacy, throughout the pandemic some of the most highly vaccinated regions on the planet were experiencing the highest outbreaks. There were multiple examples. Yet suggesting COVID vaccines weren’t very successful in reducing transmission was not allowed.

Today we know for a fact, just like we did during the initial rollout of these shots, that they are not very effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19. This is because immunity conferred by the vaccines wanes quite fast, which is why we will probably see the constant push for one or two booster shots a year – an idea many are suggesting is unsustainable and potentially harmful.

“immune function among vaccinated individuals 8mo. after the administration of two doses of COVID vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated”.

According to European Med Agency, “frequent booster shots could adversely affect the immune response” https://t.co/NoVN4PdSi3

— Marty Makary MD, MPH (@MartyMakary) July 20, 2022

Despite the facts listed above, media and government health agencies created a crisis that stigmatized the unvaccinated, often referring to the pandemic as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, even went as far as referring to unvaccinated Canadians as “racist” and “misogynistic” extremists.

“Public and political discourse quickly normalized stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles; for example, a popular news outlet compiled a list of “notable anti-vaxxers who have died from COVID-19” (Savulescu and Giubilini, 2021). Political leaders have singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures. 

Political rhetoric has descended into moralizing, scapegoating, blaming and condescending language using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination.”

“The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Segregated Lockdowns may cause more Harm than Good.” BMJ Global Health.

As far as vaccine safety concerns go, anybody who has questioned COVID-19 vaccine safety, regardless of background, has been ridiculed and censored as well.

One of the latest examples of a poor safety profile for COVID vaccines comes from Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, Robert M. Kaplan from the Clinical Excellence Research Center, School of Medicine at Stanford University and colleagues.

They found the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events. The study was limited to analyzing trial data the companies submitted to the FDA and did not evaluate the vaccines’ overall harm-benefit.

However, the authors followed up in The BMJ with a public call for the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna to release the original COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data for independent analysis.

“What they found is shocking. In the trial itself it appeared that one was more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine, so disability, life changing event, hospitalization, then they were to be hospitalized for COVID and that was during the more lethal strain.”

Dr. Aaseem Malhotra.

With data like this, one has to look at the risk/benefit of COVID infection across different age groups to determine if the vaccine itself could cause similar or more risk than COVID. A one size fits all ‘vaccinate everyone’ policy is what most people have been contending. Not everyone is exposed to the same level of risk, and asking them to assume risks from an intervention they don’t need is an ethical question ignored by government policy.

There have also been concerning injuries reported during trials. Maddie De Garay is one example. She was severely injured during her participation in Pfizer’s clinical trials for 12-15 year olds. You can read more about her story here. Again, should children be given a medical treatment for an illness that poses them almost no risk?

One of the biggest concerns is the lack of transparency and poor data collection on the part of many governments. This means that those who are using public data to draw conclusions are may be misled. Data that paints a more accurate picture is often not being considered.

For example, researchers in Israel found that many serious side effects from COVID-19 vaccines were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established a causal relationship with the vaccine. Yet, instead of publishing the findings to the public, the Ministry of Health withheld the findings for nearly two months. When it finally released in an official document, it misrepresented and manipulated the findings, minimized the extent of reports, and stated that no new adverse events (“signals”) were found. It further stated that the events that were detected were not caused by the vaccine, even though the researchers themselves said the exact opposite. 

“In fact, since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, many Israeli experts have expressed serious concerns regarding the ability of the IMOH to monitor the safety of the vaccine and provide reliable data to the world. Nevertheless, the IMOH told the Israeli public, the FDA, and the entire world that they have a surveillance system, and that they are closely monitoring the data.”

Yaffa Shir-Raz, PhD. Risk communication researcher and a teaching fellow at the University of Haifa and Reichman University.

There are multiple examples of this type of fraud from around the world. But many researchers are simply not acknowledging or factoring in this manipulation into their calculations.

Epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D and researcher Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. have published a paper that includes anonymous testimonies from CDC officials about the lack of science taking place at the CDC when it comes to COVID-19. Many scientists are frustrated and embarrassed by the lack of science to support recommendations being made by the CDC.

Approximately 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS in the last 30 years are all from COVID vaccines. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of people sharing what they perceive to be their COVID vaccine induced injuries has exploded on social media. There are multiple examples, Jab Injuries Australia is one of them, Jab Injuries Canada is another.

Although there are criticisms of VAERS, researchers who have not even used VAERS have found concerning numbers from other surveillance systems, like the Brighton Collaboration, for example.

Furthermore, we must look at the double standards. The CDC used VAERS to determine the rate of myocarditis and acknowledged the cases reported. Yet the CDC refuses to use VAERS to acknowledge or investigate reported vaccine deaths. Why?

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency group has revealed that Pfizer was aware of 1,223 possible vaccine related deaths and more than 40,000 serious adverse reactions within the first 90 days of their COVID vaccine rollout.

Three pathologists have published a piece in the journal, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine regarding their examination of autopsies conducted of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and concluded the vaccine was responsible.

His body was retrieved by local authorities more than an hour later.’ The autopsy revealed ‘small foci of myocardial inflammation’, an adverse effect of these COVID products commonly found among children and youth, particularly young men.

Below are a few examples of reports submitted to VAERS in context with the autopsy examination analyzed in this article.

A recent death involved a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first Pfizer product dose. Another recent death is the case of a 16-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died of pulmonary embolism 9 days after a Pfizer product dose (whether it was the first or second is unknown).

Yet another recent death was that of a 15-year-old boy who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer product. The VAERS report (I.D. 1764974) states that the previously healthy teen ‘was in his usual state of good health. Five days after the vaccine, he complained of shoulder pain. He was playing with 2 friends at a community pond, swinging from a rope swing, flipping in the air, and landing in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed, told his friends “Wow, that hurt!”, then swam towards the shore, underwater as was his usual routine. The friends became worried when he did not reemerge.

Again, what all of this points to is the question of whether vaccines we don’t know a whole lot about should be given to EVERYONE. For people who assume almost no risk from COVID-19, should they be given this medical treatment?

There is also concerning science that’s been published regarding the distribution of vaccine contents, and whether or not they could be reverse transcribed into human DNA. These can all lead to concerns in the long term that will probably not be monitored.

In the video below, Pediatric Neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital & assistant professor at the University of Calgary gives a great summary of the data he’s come across which conflicts with what we’ve been told about vaccine safety and efficacy when it comes to COVID-19 transmission, hospitalization and deaths.

Another great video here providing a balanced discussion regarding potential vaccine benefits and failures we’ve seen throughout the pandemic. The COVID vaccine conversation is an important one, but rife with hyperbole. On one hand, it appears regulators and pharma companies are claiming their product is safe and effective, while companies mandate the jab on millions.

Claim #3: COVID-19 is deadly, so much so that we need to take aggressive health measures to lockdown and force everybody to get vaccinated.

You were definitely not allowed to question the severity of COVID-19. Any data or evidence suggesting COVID-19 is not as dangerous as big media and big health were making it out to be was censored. This doesn’t mean stages of COVID were not more severe than others, but that one was not allowed to question whether the measures taken actually caused more harm than COVID itself. A proper contextual discussion within the mainstream was not had, at all.

If we start with children without any underlying health issues, they have a near one hundred percent survival rate from COVID-19. Yet the effects of COVID-19 mandates, like lockdowns and mask wearing for example, were detrimental to children and not considered in policy creation.

Health policy in the west was not the same as in some places in Europe. Many countries, like Sweden for example, don’t recommend vaccines for children, more on that in a bit. Denmark has halted their vaccine program for people under the age of 50 due to the fact that, according to them, “people aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19.” This decision has come now that we are in the midst of the less lethal strain, and the fact that many have gained immunity through natural infection.

At the height of the pandemic, if infected with COVID-19, children ages 0-9 had on average a chance of 0.1% or 1/1000 of being hospitalized and, for ages 11-19 a 0.2% or 1/500 chance of being admitted to the hospital (Herrera-Esposito, 2021). This was based on seroprevalence data from eight locations around the world: England; France; Ireland; Netherlands; Spain; Atlanta, USA; New York, USA; Geneva, Switzerland. The infection fatality rate for 0–9-year-olds is estimated to be less than 1 in 200,000 (less than 5 in 1 million) and 1 in 55,000 for 10–19 year-olds.

The risks of COVID-19 weren’t enough compared to the risks of vaccine injury, as outlined above, for many parents, regardless how ‘rare’ one may perceive vaccine injuries to be. Meanwhile, multiple countries like Sweden and Norway for example, had to halt the rollout for children due to concerns over a myocarditis risk that was greater from the vaccine compared to a COVID infection.

When it comes to adults, although COVID is more of a risk, we have to put that risk in context with other viruses. Imagine if, for example, we tested every single person who entered into the hospital for a flu virus, and included that as a cause of death on every single death in the hospital, regardless if the cause of death was a car accident, heart attack, or something else. Those numbers would likely be shockingly high.

Concerns about the COVID death count emerged in early to mid 2020. This was primarily due to the fact that multiple health authorities admitted that a COVID death includes those who died with a positive test, regardless of whether the cause of death was something completely unrelated. There are a number of examples showing that we’ve been bombarded with a misleading COVID death count for years.

Infection fatality rates, even for adults, are still very high. And these numbers do not include the number of deaths that have been falsely labelled as COVID deaths. Given the fact that mass testing occurred, which is something that’s never occurred before, the probability for a very significant over-count, in my opinion, is a no brainer.

This issue has been brought up as far back as 2007 when journalist Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

When put into context with other viruses, diseases and causes of death, COVID seems to be just as dangerous as various other ’emergencies’ we’ve already been facing for years, in my opinion.

This doesn’t mean COVID-19 is not dangerous, it simply means that throughout the pandemic, there was no context from health officials. False and misleading models were beamed out within the mainstream, and a death count ticker seemed to be on every single news station, every single day. One must factor in the massive psychological warfare operation that was deployed during COVID, rather than a balanced contextual conversation. We were fed a lot of propaganda that placed many people in an unnecessary state of fear.

We were never given a true representation regarding the severity of this virus, as the severity of the virus was heavily linked with political and other elitist agendas.

Final Thoughts. The Bigger Picture.

One of the biggest issues we face today as a people is simply being divided, unable to talk to each other. People become consumed in anger at those who opposed what they believed to be true and necessary. This anger in itself makes it impossible for us to ever come together to find a way forward.

It’s still happening today.

It doesn’t help when our sources of information, like government and legacy media, is ripe with ridicule and deception. Those who are subjected to this programming simply repeat what they see and hear, and take on that energy that is beamed out and embody it.

This type of aggressiveness is something we see within all of our systems, systems that actually incentivize bad behaviour. To me, it’s quite clear that we cannot continue to go through modern day politics as a means for change. Yet we constantly participate and vote, while we continue to face and even add to more of our problems every single year. Big politics, despite people seeing it as a means for change, has become a cesspool of corruption. Agencies like the CDC and FDA that are charged with protecting the people are doing the exact opposite.

Even those within these systems are speaking out.

Can these agencies truly be transformed, or do we need to figure something else out? Government has and continues to lose the trust of the people, so much so that it seems nearly impossible to ever get back.

These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-centered universe, for a couple of thousand years.

Dr. Madhava Setty. “The Anatomy of Conspiracy Theories.”