Notice of Application to Ontario Superior Court Could Halt All Covid Measures Forced Upon Children

All the way back at the end of October 2020 I applied to join a lawsuit that was to challenge the Covid measures that were instituted in ten school boards in Ontario.

To make a long story short, the retainer fee I had submitted was eventually returned to me, as the legal counsel wanted to focus on only a few of the most egregious cases. In my particular case, I had obtained a mask exemption based on conscience for my 6-year old son, and after the complete runaround I experienced up and down the school board, where no individual from the principal to the director of education was actually willing to take responsibility in the event of any infringements of the exemption, I decided that I had lost all trust in the system and pulled my son out of school altogether.

From what I’ve heard from parents who reached out to me for help with their mask exemptions, as well as the heart-wrenching stories from other parents whose children have been traumatized by these measures, I have been waiting anxiously for an announcement that this action had been filed in court, which finally came on May 4th in the form of a press release on the website of Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati:

On April 20th, 2021 Children’s Health Defense (Canada), Educators for Human Rights (an Association of Teachers), as well as a group of seventeen (17) children (through their litigation guardian parents), along with three individual teachers, filed Notice of Application against the government of Ontario and various School Boards and Public Health Officers with respect to school lock-downs, lock-outs, and treatment of children under the COVID measures.

Notice of Application

This was the first time I had heard of ‘Notice of Application,’ but I have taken this excerpt from the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure which I believe covers this particular notice:

A proceeding may be brought by application where these rules authorize the commencement of a proceeding by application or where the relief claimed is,

(g)  an injunction, mandatory order or declaration or the appointment of a receiver or other consequential relief when ancillary to relief claimed in a proceeding properly commenced by a notice of application;

(g.1)  for a remedy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194: RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

My aim here will be to summarize in layman’s terms the declarations and orders of this action, to the best of my ability, because I feel it is important for more people to know and understand the significance of this action being taken. Of course, I would recommend reading the entire 22-page Notice of Application itself to get the most detailed and accurate understanding.

Respondents

The notice of application has listed the following people and entities as respondents, meaning these are the people/entities whose past and ongoing actions are being challenged:

Eileen De Villa, (Chief Medical Officer, City of Toronto Public Health), City of Toronto, Dr. Lawrence Loh, (Chief Medical Officer for Peel Public Health), Hamidah Meghani, (Chief Medical Officer for Peel Public Health), Robert Kyle, (Chief Medical Officer for Durham Public Health), Dr. Nicola Mercer, (Chief Medical Officer for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health), Dr. David Williams, (Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), The Attorney General for Ontario, The Minister of Education, The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, The Toronto District School Board, The Halton District School Board, The Durham District School Board, Robert Hochberg, Principal at Runnymede Public School, Superintendent Debbie Donsky of Toronto District School Board, Johns and Janes Does (Officials of the Defendants Minister of Education, Health and Long-Term Care and School Boards)

Declarations

The notice begins with an application for the court to make a set of declarations, the first one being (a) a declaration that s.22 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect [in this or any other application].

This is followed by an application for the following to be declared by the court:

  • (b) the state of emergency was invoked illegally, and even if it was legal, it is under federal jurisdiction, with regards to quarantine, lockdown, stay-at-home orders and curfews; further, the measures were invoked without people’s right to consult, a breach of the Charter.
  • (c) the municipal Covid measures ordered and taken by the medical officers is beyond their powers, and even if it is within their powers, reasonable and probable grounds for their invocation have not been met.
  • (d) the Covid measures taken were not scientifically based, and were justified solely by a fraudulent PCR test; further, the quarantining and isolation of asymptomatic children in their bedrooms is particularly abusive and against the Charter, and even more egregious is the lack of appropriate consideration for children with special needs.
  • (e) the consensus opinion of the world’s scientific community is that masking and all other Covid measures are ineffective, and in some cases irreparably harmful to children.
  • (f) mandatory masks, isolation and PCR testing violates applicants’ and childrens’ constitutional rights.
  • (g) the notion of transmission of this virus from asymptomatic children to adults is completely without medical or scientific basis or merit.
  • (h) masking, social distancing and testing in schools is unscientific, non-medical, unlawful and unconstitutional and should be halted immediately.
  • (i) children do not pose a threat to their teachers with regards to Covid-19.
  • (j) teachers who do not wish to mask have the statutory and constitutional right not to mask.
  • (k) the masking of children is unscientific, non-medical, and harmful, and children should be prohibited from wearing them even if their parents want them to.
  • (l) none of the above Charter violations can be dismissed by s.1 of the Charter.

Orders

Following these applications for declarations are applications for the following orders to be proclaimed by the court:

  • (m) the respondents are prohibited from registering a PCR test above a cycle threshold of 25 as a screening test, and must administer specific additional diagnostic methods (as recommended) to determine the presence of a live virus; the respondents are prohibited from locking down schools, requiring children to wear masks, or requiring that children isolate themselves; the respondents are prohibited from declaring an ‘outbreak’ based on two positive PCR results, and from conducting school and classes by remote online distance learning over a computer.
  • (n) the respondent Ministers are required to reveal the source and substantive evidence they received, and the specific scientific and medical evidence used to justify the measures imposed; they are required to reveal the cycle threshold rates for ALL PCR tests administered, and provide specific demographic data on all case mortalities, with distinctions provided between those who died ‘of’ as opposed to’with’ Covid-19; children are able to attend in-person school without masks or PCR test requirements.

Remainder of the Application

These declarations and orders were followed by: a request that costs of the application and other relief be paid by the respondents; the grounds for the application based on the various pertinent laws, legal decisions and arguments; and a list of the documentary evidence and expert testimony that will be presented at the hearing.

For those wondering why this action does not appear to be an immediate injunction or a lawsuit in which defendants are being sued for damages, Rocco Galati said the following in a May 6th press conference announcing the filing:

This is by way of application, we’re not going to waste our time trying to get interim injunctions, we’re going to argue this on the merits, as a final application, and I hope that scheduling for urgent matters, which we consider [this is], we will have a scheduling and a hearing date by fall…

We will be following this application by an action for monetary damages, which is a separate proceeding. We did not want to bog down and delay this proceeding in terms of declaratory and prerogative relief, injunctive relief, to wait for the long, drawn-out statement of claim. We will, in time, we’re going to give the 60-day notice to the Crown’s office that we will be coming at them, these same people will be coming at them for damages, on behalf of the damage that they’ve caused these children and the grief they’ve caused to their parents and their families because they did not respect the law.

The Takeaway

It was a little disconcerting to learn that the hearing would at best be scheduled in the fall, and even that is not guaranteed as delay tactics from the government are expected. However, it gave me satisfaction to read a thorough and decisive document that cuts through the Covid narrative promoted by mainstream media (who, as expected, chose not to attend this important press conference) and highlights what many of us have long known to be obvious: that these measures have been ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus, and have caused severe mental, emotional, and physical damage to our children, the extent and permanence of which will be impossible to determine.

Perhaps the silver lining here is that parents like myself have awoken to the fact that our educational system is a bureaucratic mess, and its agenda is to serve the state rather than the children and their families. This ‘Pandemic’ agenda has laid bare the people and institutions who don’t care about the rights of individuals nor in particular the well-being of our children, and this application is a big step in the direction of holding these people and institutions accountable. If this case is scheduled and heard, and the application is successful, the orders will immediately take effect throughout the province and perhaps the whole country. It could actually be the fatal blow to this entire ‘Pandemic’ agenda.

New Footage of “Transmedium” Sphere (UFO) Disappearing Into The Ocean From The U.S. Navy

Footage filmed (video below) in the CIC  (Combat Information Center) of the USS Omaha on July 15th 2019 off the coast of San Diego depicting an unidentified flying object (UFO) has made its way into the pubic domain. It’s one of several incidents when U.S. warships were what seems to be continuously observed by multiple objects of unknown origin. One video and multiple images have been released of these particular incidents, and the Pentagon confirmed these leaks that are apparently being investigated by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF).

The Pentagon has also confirmed this particular video to be authentic as well.

The Debrief reached out to the Pentagon about the newly leaked video asking whether it could be confirmed as authentic, and whether it was obtained by Navy personnel aboard the USS Omaha.  “I can confirm that the video was taken by Navy personnel, and that the UAPTF included it in their ongoing examinations,” said Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough in an email response.

This particular video is the second one that has been leaked, the first one mentioned above shows triangular or “pyramid” shaped UFOs flying near the military vessels, again, the footage was confirmed to originate from Navy personnel. They did not release anymore information about the incident.

In the new video below, we see a small spherical object hovering, changing direction, flying above the ocean and also capable of “flying” underwater it seems, hence the term “transmedium.” Navy submarines searched for the object but did not recover anything. This object was filmed using Night Vision and FLIR technologies, and was also tracked on military radar. It was released and published by investigative filmmaker Jeremy Corbell.

One thing that’s important to stress is the fact that military encounters with UFOs is not a new phenomenon, in fact it dates back decades.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), at the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely. -General Nathan Twining, U.S. Air Force, 1947. (source)

Common themes among these objects, based on our research here at Collective Evolution, seem to be evasive maneuvers as well as the capability to travel at speeds and perform maneuvers that no known man made piece of machinery can. It’s not uncommon for these “vehicles” to enter and exit our oceans, and what seems to be materializing and dematerializing, starting and stopping on a dime, splitting into multiple objects and much more. In one incident released by the U.S. Navy in 2016, the pilot described one of the objects descending from 60,000 feet and stopping right above the ocean surface, instantaneously.

Critical equipment failure, like radar and weapons systems going offline, also seems to be common in various instances of documented encounters with military aircraft. Here’s one example from Iran in 1976 when military jets attempted to fire on one of these objects. At that exact moment, their weapons and electronic systems were “paralyzed.” How could the occupants or “controllers” of these objects know the exact moment they would be fired upon?

As far as what these objects are, where they come from, why all of a sudden the mainstream is legitimizing this topic after years of secrecy and ridicule, it’s impact on human consciousness and more, we’ve had these discussions and speculations quite a bit. You can access our article archive on the topic here if interested. There are a lot of articles we’ve published that go more in depth than this one.

We’ve been covering this topic since our inception in 2009, and one thing we believe is that it’s OK to speculate and discuss possibilities. Relying on mainstream media as well as government to constantly tell us what something is doesn’t seem to be, in our opinion, the most intelligent thing to do. Years of lies, propaganda (perception manipulation) on various global issues make it clear that independent investigation into this issue is quite important. We must ask ourselves, why does information and evidence need to come from the government for it to be confirmed as real? What does this tell us about ourselves and the influence these “institutions” may have over human consciousness? That being said, it’s great to see more legitimacy pertaining to this topic emerge into the public domain. So far,what we’ve seen is great.

 

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

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?

Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines

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.

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

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.

Why Can’t We Question COVID’s Origins?

Recall back to the beginning of the COVID pandemic and discussion were had about the origins of the virus. Was it naturally occurring, coming from an infected bat sold in a wet-market in China, or was it created in a lab and leaked whether on purpose or accidentally? At the time, the ladder was sharply considered a conspiracy theory, and if you ask most people today, inevitably including fact checkers, they will tell you this is true – COVID coming from a lab is a mere conspiracy theory.

But still today, many don’t agree with this hypothesis.

On May 3rd, journalist Nicholas Wade, a science writer who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science and, for many years, on the New York Times, penned an extremely lengthy piece on Medium called: Origin of Covid — Following the Clues.

In it he explores how the ‘debunking’ of the lab origins story came to be, and the stark conflict of interest associated with the letter published by the Lancet claiming the virus was naturally occurring. The letter was written by Dr. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. His organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This means Dr. Daszak would at least partly responsible for COVID leaking from that lab if it in was made there and in fact had leaked. Yet this stark conflict of interest was never claimed in the Lancet letter that became the political piece that encouraged the world not to consider lab origins.

As time has gone on, as Wade suggests, the evidence that COVID indeed originated in a lab continues to mount:

After all, the more months pass without the natural emergence theory gaining a shred of supporting evidence, the less plausible it may seem. Perhaps the international community of virologists will come to be seen as a false and self-interested guide. The common sense perception that a pandemic breaking out in Wuhan might have something to do with a Wuhan lab cooking up novel viruses of maximal danger in unsafe conditions could eventually displace the ideological insistence that whatever Trump said can’t be true.

Make no mistake, and I have to write this in or else we risk further demonetization and de-platforming, mainstream media and fact checkers will assure you COVID did not originate in a lab.

As I read through Wade’s extensive research into the origins of COVID, I began to see a possible pattern: the same ridicule and shutting down of scientific conversation regarding the origins of COVID that occurred throughout 2020 appears to be occurring right now when scientists and virologists question current vaccinations and roll out methods.

Multiple scientists have drawn questions about COVID vaccines, and they are only met with censorship and the label of “anti-vaxxer”, even when they are themselves pro-vaccine.

We had a discussion about this, and we also gave an inside look at how internet fact checking and Big Tech are being sure vaccine  story doesn’t get out. We wanted to give people an inside look at how our narratives, and financial well being as a company, is held hostage until we agree with change them at the behest of internet fact checkers.

UFOs: More Advanced Intelligent Life Could Exist Right Here On Earth

Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), now commonly known as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAPs) have become a big topic of discussion within the mainstream as of late. We are talking about objects that have been photographed, videotaped, tracked on radar, and seen by high ranking military personnel as well as civilians on the ground and in air-craft. These objects perform maneuvers and travel at speeds no known man made piece of machinery can. They truly defy our understanding of aerodynamics and, and in some cases, physics.

The next discussion to arise is, are those manning these craft human or something else?

Based on my years of research, just as there was strong evidence for the existence of these objects decades ago when they were deemed a conspiracy theory, there is strong evidence now, and in my opinion, there is evidence these objects are not human made.

As far as credible sources that support this idea, Colonel Robert Friend, in his very last interview before his death, who was a director of Project Blue Book from 1958-1962, suggested that the U.S. Air Force knew what these objects were even at that time. The former director of the Pentagon’s UFO program, Lue Elizondo, recently gave an interview to the NY Post saying that he had a meeting with a very senior Department of Defense official who mentioned he knew the craft were not of human origin as well. Former Air Force Colonel Ross Dedrickson also claimed to have information that these objects were not human made, and from what he knew, the beings are benevolent, concerned about the well being of our planet.

I recognize not all people will consider these sources ‘credible evidence.’

Beyond these testimonies are things like documented cases of sightings or “contact” experiences. According to these cases, people report both benevolent and malevolent experiences, often linked to the UFO phenomenon.

So, if they are not human, what are they? The obvious truth is, we don’t know, but there’s no harm in speculating.

Are They From Here?

Plato once said, as documented in Phaedo:

And upon the Earth are animals and men, some in a middle region, others (elementals) dwelling about the air as we dwell about the sea; others in islands which the air flows round, near the continent; and in a word, the air is used by them as the water and the sea are by us, and the ether is to them what the air is to us.

The truth is, much of our “reality” isn’t even perceivable to our human senses. We can only see within a tiny frequency of the entire visible light spectrum. We have to use special equipment like infrared telescopes and more to see things that we otherwise couldn’t. Quantum mechanics and the emergence of post-material science has shown us that there are “invisible” parts of what we perceive to be our physical and material world that make up the vast majority of it. Some, like Plato, referred to this as the ether, or aether. Who is to say that life does not dwell in these realms? They exist all around us, perhaps some of these objects originate from there – or as you might say, right here on Earth.

Another interesting quote from ancient philosophy:

“And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied; “Of elements.” “Are there then four?” he asked. “Not four,” said Larchas,  “but five.” “And how can there be a fifth,” said Apollonius, “alongside of water and air and earth and fire?” “There is the ether,” replied the other, “which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the wire, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether.” “Am I,” said Appollonius, “to regard the universe as a living creature?” “Yes,” said the other. – The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD (source)

Even Rene Descartes proposed the theory that “space,” (what we perceive as empty space) is completely filled with matter in various states. There is evidence to suggest he was executed by the Church because his science entered into the realm of metaphysics.

Many ancient cultures have stories and texts which refer to ‘magical’ and ‘mythical’ lands that co-exist alongside our reality. Whether these places are actual physical places, or places that reside in ‘another dimension,’ for lack of a better term, has been the subject of great discussion within various material throughout the ages. These stories can be found in ancient Buddhism and Vedic philosophy, along with oral stories passed down from Native cultures throughout the world.

According to Paracelsus, a German-Swiss physician and alchemist (like Issac Newton) who established the role of chemistry in medicine, in his Philosophia Occulta, translated by Franz Hartmann: 

“Man lives in the exterior elements and the Elementals live in the interior elements. The latter have dwellings and clothing, manners and customs, languages and governments of their own, in the same sense as the bees have their queens and herds of animals their leaders.” The Secret Teachings of All Ages, An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, 1928, Manly P. Hall

What’s also interesting is that these objects are commonly observed entering or exiting our oceans. Sometimes when they “fly away” they don’t appear to fly away, but rather dematerialize. In other cases they are observed “taking off” at tremendous speeds.

The point is, there could be a number of different explanations, and chances are not all objects originate from the same source. It truly calls into question what we think we know about the nature of reality. And I feel we’re at an important time to question this curiously. Recall that there was a time when scientists, like Galileo, were condemned for the discoveries that they made and ideas they presented. Are we really any different today? How open are or minds to concepts of reality that don’t fit within the current framework of accepted knowledge?

One thought I’ve often had is that it can feel concerning to that topics like UFOs have to be presented in mainstream media before most will see it as legitimate. Footage has to be verified by the Pentagon, as it recently was, for the masses to realize that these objects are indeed real. Less than a decade ago the evidence for the existence of these objects was already very strong.  Yet we have to be told by government or mainstream media before the general populace can see it as real?

Does this highlight just how reliant humanity has become on these sources for information? What are the implications of that? As with so many geopolitical issues, it’s hard to trust mainstream media, or government for that matter, to get an accurate depiction of what’s really happening. This is why I am concerned that so many people rely on these sources when it comes to an honest depiction of the UFO phenomenon. Perhaps this phenomenon is one that requires a citizens initiative as well?

One thing to look out for with critical thinking is the US government’s suspicion that these objects are Russian or Chinese in origin. I believe this narrative is an effective to heighten the national security state, for no legitimate reason, while simultaneously controlling the extraterrestrial and/or other life hypothesis that goes with this phenomenon.

Perhaps they will paint these objects as a threat, even though the vast majority of the time these objects perform evasive maneuvers to avoid our own aircraft. We seem to be the ones chasing them.

Are Lockdowns Affecting Children?

The potential downsides of lockdowns during pandemics have been explored quite a bit – and the truth is the scientific community is quite divided on whether it’s the right move. On one hand a case can be made for effectiveness of lockdowns, but at quite a cost, while on the other hand many have shown lockdowns to be ineffective in slowing spread. How a study is organized and conducted can also dramatically change results.

Interestingly a study in Nature showed that “less disruptive and costly NPIs can be as effective as more intrusive, drastic, ones (for example, a national lockdown).” This essentially states that governments could choose effective ways to mitigate virus spread effectively without inducing unwanted and long term side effects on society as a whole via lockdowns – regardless, lockdowns are still widely being used.

One question we might have is, what about factors that are not so easy to measure right away? Things like long term psychological damage of being constantly stressed, out of touch with community and friends, and confined to our homes. What affects are children experiencing in their development and learning? We may not know exactly for quite some time.

I felt inspired to speak to a mother who has not only be asking this question with regards to her child, but who has decided to do something to push back against government measures, like lockdowns, that many citizens and scientist don’t agree with.

Along with another activist, Stephanie Sibbio created a movement called 100 Million Moms who, as their Instagram states, are a rights-based movement empowering moms all over the world to stand up against injustice. We advocate for natural health & medical freedom.

I spoke to Stephanie about how she has seen lockdowns affecting children, and her story in co-creating 100 Million Moms. In this discussion you will learn how you can get involved as well.

Further Discussion

A large meta analysis on mask wearing has shown that children are having physiological issues and learning challenges with prolonged mask wearing.

A group of doctors did a panel worth considering that discusses the potential harms of lockdowns and the science that supports the idea.

Yankee Stadium & Citi Field To Seat Fans In Vaccinated & Unvaccinated Sections

What Happened: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced that Mets and Yankees games will allow full capacity in some areas of their ballparks. Starting May 19th, both fields will have separate sections set aside for those who are vaccinated and those who are not. In the vaccinated sections, social distancing restrictions will be no more, however fans will be required to wear a mask. Full capacity seating will be available for vaccinated people while 33 percent of seats will be available to the unvaccinated but they will have to social distance. In the future, tickets will be marked vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Why This Is Important: We are creeping into a world that seems to be pushing hard for the loss of certain rights and freedoms for people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID. It’s still uncertain how things will rollout, but many countries are already starting to implement, or have announced that they will implement vaccine passports, like Canada for example.

It’s still unclear whether or not the unvaccinated will have the option to travel to certain places, and if they are allowed, it seems they will most likely be subjected to test requirements and/or a mandatory quarantining period.

Scientists and doctors who oppose these measures, as well as oppose lockdowns and mandatory mask measures, have been ignored, ridiculed and in many cases censored during this pandemic, no matter how much research and evidence they present. Scientific critique seems to have been halted, and any discussion that discourages or points out scientific flaws in the mandatory measures that are being put in place is not allowed on big tech platforms like social meida. Furthermore, mainstream media has gone so far as to call anything that opposes the mainstream narrative a “conspiracy theory.”

 An article in The Spectator provides one of countless examples of how important discussion is being shut down:

This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.

Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void?

The point is, many people do not agree with the mainstream narrative around COVID that is being force fed to the public. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the idea that those who want to get vaccinated should, and those who don’t shouldn’t be required to, and that vaccinated individuals who are not susceptible and vulnerable to COVID may not make much of a difference when it comes to the transmission of the virus. This perspective is, according to many, completely false, ridiculous and has no backing when in fact, that’s not true at all.

I recently published an article going into detail as to why so many people are hesitant to get vaccinated. You can access that here.

Whether the COVID-19 vaccine will be effective is something we’ll know in time. A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years. (source) Given COVID appears to be a fast changing virus, this may be something to consider.

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.

Further, many experts in the field have argued that the clinical trials for COVID vaccines did not actually show a 95% efficacy rate.

Below is a screen shot from a presentation by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who has explained several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. You can read more about that in detail here.

 

Final thoughts: People are extremely polarized in their beliefs right now, so much so that even talking about this subject is hard to do with family and friends who have an opposite point of view. Sometimes I wonder if those who support mandating vaccines for schools, sporting events, travel and more would support mandatory vaccines for going outside.

Is it strange to imagine that one day large support could gather for isolating the unvaccinated in lockdown facilities for life? I doubt that would happen, but how far can mandates be pushed and supported by the people? This is why it’s important to look at and consider evidence that contradicts what you believe in.

At the end of the day, more important than being right and wrong is to see from the perspective of another and be able to understand why they have come to the conclusions they have. In many cases, it is in fact based on evidence. When things are so controversial and are not as black and white as mainstream media makes them out to be, should freedom of choice not always remain? Why is one perspective being heard and marketed to the masses, while the other is being completely ridiculed and censored? What is going on here?