Why Did Twitter Censor An Eminent Infectious Disease Expert For His Opinion On COVID Vaccines?

Follow me on Instagram here.

Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s preeminent and most cited infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard University’s School of Medicine has experienced what many others in the field have experienced during this pandemic, censorship and ridicule. Kulldorff has been quite critical of the response to COVID by multiple governments, including the measures put in place to combat the spread of the virus. Sometimes it seems as if scientists and doctors who question these measures are actually in the majority, while the minority seem to get all of the attention and praise within the mainstream media. Who knows what these numbers actually look like.

Lockdown measures are a great example. A wealth of data has been published in peer-reviewed science and medical journals suggesting that not only have lockdowns been inadequate for stopping the spread of the virus, but they’ve also caused a great deal of damage in both the health and economic sector. Two renowned Swedish scientists, Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS  and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID.

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID at the time of the estimate. These are a few of many examples.

“Lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 yrs. We will be counting the catastrophic health & psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation” —Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Professor of Medicine.

That being said, an argument can, and has also been been made for lockdowns halting or slowing the spread of the virus, and there are examples of that as well. You can read about that more here.

The point is that one side of the argument is censored, ridiculed, and ignored most of the time, while the other gets front and centre stage. Why?

In Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a note stating that physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations, and there are many of them, will be subjected to an investigation, especially if they are communicating “anti-vaccine, anti-masking and anti-lockdown statements.”

How is science and data that calls into question government public health recommendations “anti” anything? Why are these labels always used? Why are physicians and scientists being bullied into silence and subjected to extreme amounts of censorship on their social media platforms? Kulldorff has been one many victims of this treatment, while scientists who agree with and promote the “accepted narrative” seem to receive interview requests from mainstream media outlets all the time. This isn’t normal, and it’s served as a catalyst for more people to ask, what’s really going on here?

What Happened: Kulldorff’s tweet in March suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who have previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with his tweet and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Twitter did not provide any explanation, links, or reasoning as to why his tweet was “misleading.”

Kulldorff’s opinion is something that many experts in the field have suggested. For example, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, considered by many to be the world’s preeminent infectious disease expert explained that the way COVID vaccines are being promoted and the idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is unscientific and suspicious.

Why? For one, there is a wealth of data showing that previous infection to COVID can provide protection, and possibly even greater and longer lasting protection than any vaccine can or ever will. Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube explains:

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 than a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. (source)

This statement was also recently echoed by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who said in a recent interview that he would prefer natural immunity as opposed to the COVID vaccine and explains why.

An analysis of millions of coronavirus test results in Denmark found that people who had prior infection, were still protected 6 months after the initial infection.

Another study also found that 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.”

Dr. Daniela Weiskopf, Dr. Alessandro Sette, and Dr. Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from almost 200 people who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and recovered.  The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection.

Virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards. Although the number of these cells appeared to reach a plateau after a few months, levels didn’t decline over the period studied.

Levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus. These cells help coordinate the immune response. About half the participants had CD8+ T cells, which kill cells that are infected by the virus.

A recent study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection explains:

Presence of cross-reactive SARSCoV2 specific Tcells in never exposed patients suggests cellular immunity induced by other coronaviruses. Tcell responses against SARSC0V2 also detected in recovered Covid patients with no detectable antibodies…Cellular immunity is of paramount importance in containing SARSCoV2 infection…and could be maintained independently of antibody responses. Previously infected people develop much stronger Tcell responses against spike protein peptides in comparison to infection-native people after mRNA vaccine.

The next question becomes, how many people have been infected? According to a meta-analysis by Dr John Ioannidis [Professor of Medicine at Stanford University] of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world), the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.77 per cent. For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95 per cent.

The CDC’s [Centres for Disease Control] and Prevention] best estimate of infection fatality rate for people ages 70 plus years is 5.4 per cent, meaning seniors have a 94.6 percent survivability rate. For children and people in their 20s/30s, it poses less risk of mortality than the flu. For people in their 60s and above, it is much more dangerous than the flu.

These estimates haven’t really changed, and they are based off of the scientific consensus that more people are infected than what we have the capacity to test for. Imagine testing the entire population, how many people would have an infection? Imagine testing for antibodies, how many people would have antibodies? Some infectious viruses, like the Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) which was first identified in 2001 in Dutch children with bronchiolitis are quite infectious, just like COVID. The hMPV virus is an RNA and has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5. These types of viruses, including common coronaviruses, are responsible for the death of millions of children worldwide every single year.

The survival rate numbers above are largely based off the idea that many more people than what we can test for are infected. If you look at the actual data and compare the number of deaths to the number of cases, you won’t get a survival rate of 99.95 percent. In an interview with Greek Reporter, Dr.Ioannidis estimated that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases, and this was in June of 2020, so just think about how many people have been infected today. 162,891,712 have been infected up to now, that number is most likely well over a billion based on the above reasoning.

Furthermore we must ask: how effective is the vaccine? We know how effective natural immunity is, that’s well documented as illustrated above.

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

Fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.

How safe is the vaccine? Reports and examples of injuries and deaths seem to be quite prevalent on social media. For example, take a look at the post below. It’s from a woman named Heidi Neckelmann. The post is from her Facebook Page, it went quite viral and her Facebook Page was eventually deleted.

This story is true, it was actually receiving so much attention that mainstream media picked up on it. She was the wife of Dr. Gregory Michael from California, and she claimed that in her mind, her 56-year-old husband’s death was “100% linked” to the vaccine.  Now, at least one doctor has come forward publicly to say he also believes the vaccine caused Michael to develop acute idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), the disorder that killed him. According to the New York Times:

“Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann’s description, ‘I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.’“

This is one of what may be hundreds of examples that have been shared across social media, which would still make it an extremely rare event given the amount of people who have been vaccinated in the United States.

According to the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, approximately 4000 people have died and more than 100,000 adverse reactions have been reported as a result of the vaccine. That being said, there is no way to determine or to verify wether any of these were actually a result of the vaccine, and therein lies the problem. Vaccine injury reporting systems are quite inadequate. Keep in mind more than 100 million people in the U.S. have been vaccinated. Adverse reactions seem to be more rare than prevalent, but what number qualifies as rare? What number qualifies as prevalent?

VAERS has come under fire multiple times, a critic familiar with VAERS’  bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

So, we don’t really have a truly accurate number, when it comes to vaccine injuries in general, let alone the COVID vaccine. Anybody can make a report, this also means that some of them could be made up.

An HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research estimates that only 1 percent of vaccine injuries are actually captured by VAERS, but who knows? The point is we don’t have an accurate and reliable reporting system.

Some papers have raised concerns in the long term as well. For example, a study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

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

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

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

Why This Is Important: Information like this is important because the rights and freedoms of people who do not wish to take the COVID vaccine may be subjected to unfair treatment compared to those who are vaccinated. Unvaccinated individuals may be unable to travel internationally, and if they do, they may be required to quarantine. They may also be banned from certain public buildings, restaurants, sporting events and more. We have yet to see how this will all roll out. In the U.S., the CDC is allowing vaccinated individuals to take off their masks both inside and outside, while vaccinated ones are instructed to continue wearing them. That said, this doesn’t apply to public indoor spaces yet.

Is all of this justified given the information shared above? We are talking about people who are not even sick.

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 compared to 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.

Furthermore, outside spread among asymptomatic individuals is virtually 0 percent.

Why do we give governments the power to implement measures that, to a large portion of the population, simply don’t make sense. How can we truly say that we live in a democracy when the will of the people, and science, is ignored and censored? Are vaccine passports and requirements to access other “amenities” we were used to prior to the pandemic truly justified? Why are governments pushing to vaccinate everybody so hard, using methods of coercion like passports and other incentives, when this type of push doesn’t match up with the science?

The answer to this question warrants reflection, but I will offer a hypothesis. In 2021, there is clearly a small, but vocal minority of individuals opposed to nearly all vaccinations… In response, there is a group of individuals on the other extreme. To them, either one must embrace all vaccines for all indications for all ages, or one can be lumped with the other extreme. They favor universal child vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 via an EUA, even before they have the data for that claim. They were quick to embrace vaccination for pregnant woman prior to appropriate trials establishing safety. Suppressing critical thinking to extol vaccines is also wrong and may backfire, but I believe this explains why it occurs. It is, to some degree, a counter-movement against the anti-vaxxers, which can go too far….A small faction of people vigorously opposed to all vaccination have done damage … As a reaction, many confuse [vaccine] cheerleading with science. A true scientist does not take reflexive extremes. Sadly, there are few scientists left.” – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH

Prasad is an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, and has also been quite vocal about Facebook “fact-checkers”, calling it scam and that what they are doing is nothing short of scientific censorship.

There is data showing the vaccines are indeed working. Even scientists who support COVID vaccinations and their efficacy, like Kulldorff, have been speaking up against taking away rights and freedoms of those who are not vaccinated. For example, 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.”

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.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, what can we really do to combat governments that continue to implement measures that seem to benefit the few, the rich and the powerful, while leaving everybody else to suffer? When so many people disagree, is peaceful protesting and voicing our concerns enough? I would argue that this is something we need to continue to do, because at some point you can only push a large group of people who disagree with governments so far, especially if you continue to spark this feeling in the majority of people.

Governments cannot implement measures without justifying them in the eyes of a large group of people. Vaccines, and vaccine passports are justified in the eyes of the majority, which makes it easy for these measures to be implemented and justified. My question is, were people properly educated, or were they manipulated and coerced to support vaccine passports?

We’ve seen what propaganda can do it the past, are we any different today? Does equality really exist in a day and age where so many people are having their voice censored, and their rights, freedoms and privacy taken taken away?

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.

 

CDC Specifies PCR Test Cycle Threshold For Vaccinated Individuals: What Does This Mean?

(Arjun Walia) The CDC is monitoring COVID-19 “vaccine breakthrough” cases at the moment. This means that those who are fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine can still become infected. According to the CDC, “a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will get sick and some may be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.”

The post CDC Specifies PCR Test Cycle Threshold For Vaccinated Individuals: What Does This Mean? appeared on Stillness in the Storm.

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.

New Moon In Taurus: Steady & Serene

We are having a New Moon in Taurus on May 11th in most of the world and in the morning hours of the 12th everywhere east of the Middle East. This is initiating a 29.5 day lunar cycle and new wave of energy for the coming month; however, the astrological configurations mentioned throughout this article will be more prominent over the following two weeks.

We are approaching eclipse season as we are having Total Lunar Eclipse in Sagittarius in this same Lunar Cycle, a few weeks after this New Moon. This will be followed by a Solar Eclipse in Gemini on June 10th. Eclipses can reflect shifts and evolutionary developments pertaining to the sign it is in and in the specific areas of our lives based on our individual astrological blueprints.

The effects of eclipses don’t always fully play out when they are occurring although you may experience things connected to them on these dates or in the weeks before and after. In this case Mercury will also be going retrograde in Gemini at the end of May which is the same sign as one of the eclipses. This can also highlight significant adjustments and shifts pertaining to Gemini energy playing out in the period between late May to mid-July. I will be writing separate articles on these Eclipses and Mercury Retrograde, you can join my mailing list here to ensure that you receive them.

New Moon In Taurus

Although Taurus season began on April 19th/20th, this New Moon emphasizes its energy even more so. Ruled by Venus, it is associated with values, sensuality, beauty, worth, money, possessions, food, and pleasures of life. As an Earth sign, it is practical, realistic, and very much invested in the physical world.

Taurus is one of four fixed signs with the others being Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius, which are all the middle signs of each quarterly season. However, being an Earth Fixed sign, it is as fixed as it gets. It is slow, steady, solid, grounded, routine oriented, and thorough.

Taurus is also associated with nature and it is very fitting and reflective for Earth Day to occur during this time. It is the second sign of the zodiac and therefore is more self-oriented as is all the earlier signs. Negatively, Taurus can be too rigid, lazy, habitual, overly self-indulgent, greedy, possessive, stubborn, materialistic, and very slow.

New Moon Sextile Neptune, Trine Pluto, & Square Jupiter

This New Moon is in a tight sextile with Neptune in Pisces. Although this isn’t a very strong type of aspect, this brings an energy that can be spiritual, compassionate, creative, and soothing. It can trigger intuition and inspiration. With the Taurus influence, it can be a ‘chilled out’ combination. This energy will be more present from the New Moon until May 13th.

The New Moon is also in a trine with Pluto in Capricorn which will be strongest on May 16th/17th. We may feel more determined, strategic, or resourceful. Some people may feel empowered or experience financial benefits. This can also be good for uncovering things, making positive changes, and emphasizing what’s important and real.

The furthest applying aspect to this New Moon is a square with Jupiter which will be strongest from May 19th-21st (and somewhat on the 22nd in the countries furthest East). Although this can feel expansive, we can more easily overextend ourselves, get scattered, have blind spots, and be excessive. However if we stay focused and cautious, this energy can be great for learning and education.

Mars Sextile Uranus & Square Chiron, Mercury Trine Saturn

Mars in Cancer is in a very tight sextile with Uranus and square with Chiron at the time of this New Moon. This can be good for applying ourselves in a new, unusual, experimental, stimulating, progressive, technological, rebellious, healing, or liberating way. Issues or conflicts around blockages, wounds, negative patterns, anger, sexuality, or holism can come up.

On May 12th/13th, Mercury in Gemini will be in an exact trine with Saturn in Aquarius. This is good for practical, disciplined, and realistic thinking. Discussions or thoughts may involve long term goals, commitments, or what we are building towards. This can also reflect putting things or structures in place that involve communication or delivery of information.

Jupiter Going Into Pisces, Mercury Entering Pre-Retrograde Shadow Period

Jupiter had recently gone into Aquarius in December and has been quickly making its way towards entering Pisces on May 13th/14th. It later returns to Aquarius this summer after it goes retrograde, and then re-enters Pisces late December of this year. We are going to be getting a taste of Jupiter in Pisces until July 28th, yet will still be somewhat of a mix of Pisces/Aquarius until the end of the year.

Jupiter is the planet of expansion, growth, learning, beliefs, exploration, travel, abundance and therefore it will affect Piscean areas and qualities in those ways. Pisces is associated with spirituality, mysticism, retreats, compassion, energy healing, psychedelics, dreams, creativity, divine inspiration, imagination, idealism, and psychic abilities. It is also associated with escapism, intoxication, delusion, disease, and lack of boundaries. Jupiter can have an excessive effect as well when it comes to these Piscean expressions.

Pisces is one of Jupiter’s homes as it is the traditional ruler of this sign. It gets to express itself in ways that it wants to and is more free and limitless in the eternal sign of Pisces. Since late 2019 Jupiter has been in Saturn ruled signs with Saturn also present which has been very restricting for a boundless planet.

This will be a big shift for Jupiter, but keep in mind that this is a just taste. It will still be returning to Aquarius which is traditionally Saturn ruled with Saturn also present there. From now until the end of the year it will be like Jupiter is having one foot in each sign, however, once it re-enters Pisces in late December, it will be more free from the restrictive Saturnian domain.

Mercury is going retrograde at the end of the month and will be entering its pre-retrograde shadow phase on May 14th/15th. It entered Gemini, the sign it will be retrograde in, on May 4th/5th. Some of the things that have been coming up recently, and especially after mid-May, will contribute to a process of adjustments and shifts that will occur in June and July.

As we get closer towards the end of May, Mercury will be slowing down and the complications that Mercury retrograde is known for can occur before it actually changes motion. I will be writing a separate article on this, join my mailing list here to ensure that you receive it.

Taurus Ruler Venus Conjunct North Node, Sextile Chiron, & Trine Saturn

Venus, the ruler of Taurus, is moving towards a conjunction with the Lunar North Node in Gemini and a sextile with Chiron which will be exact from May 17th-18th. New relations, or developments around past relations, could have a fated quality that can bring growth and help us to move forward in a better or constructive way.

Our perception or approach to Venus ruled areas, such as relationships, values, finances, art, may evolve in a helpful manner. It can also reflect healing, expressions of wholeness, bridging, integration, or solutions around Venus areas or connected to communication with others.

Following this aspect, Venus will then be in a trine with Saturn which is exact on May 19th/20th, but may be felt in the days prior as well. This can reflect commitments, practical approaches, discipline, structure, constructive efforts,  or some sort of stabilization pertaining to friends, lovers, financial matters, artistic endeavours, or things that are aesthetically related.

Making Intentions & Things To Consider

Is there anything that you are currently doing that requires you to be more practical or thorough? Do you need to incorporate some sort of routine or structure? Are there aspects of your diet that you need to change? Is there anything that you’d like to experiment or take new approaches with? How can you be more proactive when it comes to healing or addressing personal blockages? How can you make your life more beautiful? Are you spending enough time in nature? What ways do you feel are best for you to grow spiritually?

These are just some examples of what to consider or focus your intentions on at this time. However, it is good to reflect on anything else that is coming up for you. It is generally best to make any intentions within the first 24 hours following a New Moon. The exact moment it will occur is 7:00pm Universal Time on May 11th. You can click here to see what that is in your time zone.

Follow me on INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK, and YOUTUBE for more astrology-related content.

astrology, astrology readings, carmen di luccio

Gain more astrological insight into what is going on in your life and have a better understanding of your individual potentials. Get a personalized astrology reading with Carmen (author of this article) specific to you based on your exact birth date, time, and location. I’m currently doing a DISCOUNT with 20-30% off.  Click here for more information or to order.

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.

The End Goal Of All True Freedom Movements Must Be Unity

The deception, the manipulation, and the injustices that have long been perpetrated by the ‘socioeconomic elite’ are quickly coming to light in public perception. The ‘Pandemic’ and all of its restrictive measures are, in my opinion just part of a larger agenda to create a global technocratic surveillance state to permanently enslave us.

But all of this activity has started to awaken a sleeping giant. The mind of this giant is nothing less than the collective consciousness of humanity. Whether this giant will awaken in time, or at all, remains to be seen. In a free will universe, nothing is guaranteed. It’s a challenging game, but that’s why we all came here to play it.

A Call to Action

Many individuals have emerged as leaders, often when their personal ‘line in the sand’ has been crossed and has compelled them to take some form of action. Some leaders are modeling freedom in their everyday lives, some have formed groups to challenge regulations in public, some have taken to the courts or even bypassed them to invoke Natural/Common Law, some are researching and proliferating the truth in the face of increasing mainstream propaganda and social media censorship.

There is no need to debate what is the ‘best’ strategy or point of focus. Everybody has a role to play here. Each leader that is truly following their conscience inherently believes that their course of action is the best, and that is as it should be. What is paramount is that we see where all our roads intersect, and create a unified field of energy around that.

Any action that an individual takes to to truly free themselves is an action that seeks the liberation of all of humanity. The quest for freedom is grounded in TRUTH, motivated by LOVE resulting in a spirit of UNITY. The quest for freedom only for oneself or one’s tribe is actually a quest for CONTROL, grounded in DECEPTION, motivated by FEAR resulting in a spirit of DIVISION.

The latter is the modus operandi of the ruling class. Their quest for ‘freedom’ is actually just a desire for extreme self-enrichment that necessarily enslaves the majority of humanity. Their motivation is something that we, as imperfect human beings, have to admit we have some familiarity with.

So then it is important for all of us, especially those of us who would lead the quest for human freedom, to take the time to look inside, on an ongoing basis, and reflect on whether or not some parts of us still have a need for control, and whether some of our words and actions are inadvertently creating a spirit of division.

Leaders Unity Affirmation

In order to help these efforts of self-reflection, I have created a ‘Leaders Unity Affirmation,’ a 10-minute guided affirmation that is available for those who would stand for human freedom.

I will be contacting leaders of the current freedom movements to see if some of them would like to come together virtually to create a powerful field of unified energy through this affirmation. Anyone who would like to be alerted to such an event can email me at daocoaching.awakening@gmail.com.

All are welcome. This affirmation is not only for ‘leaders’ but also for ‘followers,’ and I use those terms very judiciously because I truly believe each individual has to act as a leader, insofar as each individual in any freedom movement is equal, has a voice and a perspective, and needs make sure their group’s activities resonate with them on an energetic level. Individuals within the group are responsible for having a conversation with their leader when they feel that leader may be creating division. (This kind of dialogue is explored in depth in my book Parables for the New Conversation). We have to guide our leaders even as they are tasked with guiding us.

Go With the Flow

Of course some leaders may pay no heed to the insights of their followers, and there is no problem there. Eventually, each person will naturally gravitate over to other individuals and groups that they resonate more with. The energy of unity attracts like energy, as does the energy of division. In this natural and organic process, leaders will eventually learn what they are ready to learn, while followers will slowly gain more courage to step up and express themselves. As is spoken in the affirmation,

Ultimately leaders must be willing to follow.

Followers must be willing to lead.

That is how we will achieve unity.

We are in a very exciting time in human history. We are being presented with an opportunity to participate in the definitive awakening and liberation of humanity. If we all keep an eye on the bigger picture and focus on our common goal, we will indeed awaken the sleeping giant and have the power to create a better world at our collective fingertips.

This article was originally published on my website daocoaching.com