Connect with us

Alternative News

COVID-19: “For People Younger Than 45, The Infection Fatality Rate Is Almost 0%” – Stanford Professor

Published

on

Stanford Professor
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University is one of many scientists around the world, and one of several from Stanford University, who has been telling the world that the new coronavirus, so far according to the data, is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be by mainstream media. For example, earlier on in the pandemic he published an article titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“In the article, he argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate. He stated that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless.”

This is exactly what these numbers did. In fact, they were the basis and justification for the lockdown.

It turns out he was right. The idea that the infection rate is much larger than previously thought seems to be well accepted and clear in the scientific community, and multiple studies have come out emphasizing the same over the past few months. Not long ago, several academics from the Stanford School of Medicine, including Ioannidis, suggested that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza based on the data they found in their study.

In a recent interview with Greek ReporterIoannidis 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. He warned that “the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended.” He told the Greek Reporter that “the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives.”

He isn’t the only world renowned scientist to call these measures “draconian.” You can see another example here. In fact there are many of them, a large majority of whom have been censored by platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Since when are the expert opinions and research of scientists in this field constantly censored simply because they oppose the views of our federal health regulatory agencies and World Health Organization? Why is there a digital authoritarian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t?

Not only are people experiencing huge economic impacts, but it’s also having a health impact. A new article published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus. You can read more about that here.

Here’s what Ioannidis, had to say about the infection fatality rate now that things have progressed further:

“0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.” (source)

The idea that the death rate is far lower than original estimates, and even far lower than what the numbers show now seems to be quite obvious. Even CNN recently acknowledged this, only to state that just because it has a low infection fatality rate doesn’t mean that we should get too comfortable. In other words, keep wearing your mask.

Even the CDC recently announced that they may stop calling COVID-19 an “epidemic” due to the remarkably low death rate. You can read more about that here.

Why This Is Important

This all begs the question, are all of the measures that our federal health regulatory agencies forcing us to adopt actually necessary? Are they even good for us? Is this really about the virus, or are we simply having our perception manipulated by big media and powerful people, just as we have with regards to a number of other topics, like ‘the war on terror,’ for example. Why is there so much information showing that masks, for example, should not really be mandatory?

Why have we taken the measures that we’ve taken for this virus, but don’t do it for all of the other severe respiratory viruses that infect and kill millions of people around the world every single year?

For example, did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? (pubmed 18820584) Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know it has a substantial morbidity rate, again in the elderly, but also among children as well? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? Imagine if the infection rates and death numbers were constantly tracked, and put on an easy to access website, mainstream media, radio etc. Imagine if the other coronaviruses and respiratory illnesses that are more severe in some cases, and arguably more infectious in some cases, were subjected to constant monitoring and beamed out to the population every single minute, could you imagine the hysteria that would be created?

At the end of the day, it seems quite clear that this virus is not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and again, based on the data, it doesn’t seem to be any more dangerous than what we’ve already been experiencing for years. So again, it begs the question, what’s really going on here, and why have governments used the coronavirus, as Edward Snowden said, the same way they used 9/11? To push more authoritarian measures on the population without their consent?

The number of controversies surrounding the coronavirus is quite revealing. Even people whose deaths are marked as COVID deaths may not have died as a result of the coronavirus. You can read more about that here. This, along with the high infection rate even drives the infection mortality rate lower.

The Takeaway

Never in history have we experienced such a collective distrust for health authorities that we rely on to provide us with truthful information. As a result, more people are starting to think for themselves instead of believing what they are told. The coronavirus, just like 9/11, is really contributing to another massive shift in consciousness, where even more people become aware of the deceit corruption, as well as the politicization of science that seems to plague our world and waking up to the realization that our world is not how it’s been presented to us, and that our perception of major events always seems to be subjected to high levels of manipulation.

We are the ones that choose the system we live in. We are the ones that continue to play the game every four years and elect a ‘leader.’ All this does is reinforce as a system we no longer want to play with. Is it time to stop giving our power away to others, and begin organizing in another fashion? Is our current political model truly serving us to thrive? If billions of us can together and follow instructions for a global lockdown, imagine what else we could do on a collective level for other important issues…

This article (COVID-19: “For People Younger Than 45, The Infection Fatality Rate is Almost 0%” – Stanford Professor) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Alternative News

Report: White House Asked SD Governor About How Trump Can Be added To Mount Rushmore

Published

on

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

(TMU) – The White House has reportedly reached out to the governor of South Dakota with a monumental request: adding the likeness of President Donald Trump to Mount Rushmore.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that White House aides inquired with conservative South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem about the process of adding additional presidents’ faces to America’s shrine to long-deceased leaders in the state’s Black Hills.

According to a Republican official familiar with the conversations, the governor was so stricken by the question that when Trump landed in the state last month to hold a fireworks-filled July 4 gala event, she greeted the president with a four-foot replica of Mount Rushmore that included his face.

In 2018, Noem said in an interview that Trump had privately expressed his “dream” to have his likeness carved into the 1927 monument alongside the mammoth 60-foot-high carvings of the faces of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. She initially assumed that the former reality television star was joking.

“I started laughing,” Noem said. “He wasn’t laughing, so he was totally serious.”

“He said, ‘Kristi, come on over here. Shake my hand,’” she recounted. “And so I shook his hand, and I said, ‘Mr. President, you should come to South Dakota sometime. We have Mount Rushmore.’ And he goes, ‘Do you know it’s my dream to have my face on Mount Rushmore?’”

In July 2017, Trump also floated the idea of having his face added to the monument during a campaign rally in Youngstown, Ohio.

“I’d ask whether or not you think I will someday be on Mount Rushmore, but here’s the problem: If I did it joking, totally joking, having fun, the fake news media will say ‘he believes he should be on Mount Rushmore,’” Trump said at the time.

“So I won’t say it, OK? I won’t say it.”

Trump offered a stalwart defines of Mount Rushmore during his July 4 speech to supporters, which coincided with a massive wave of protests against police brutality, racism and white supremacy in the United States that saw tens of statues to colonial and Confederate historical figures being toppled.

In his speech, Trump vowed that Mount Rushmore would “stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers, and to our freedom.”

“As we meet here tonight there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for,” he also warned.

A White House official told the New York Times that Mount Rushmore is a federal, not state, monument.

Mount Rushmore was built in the Black Hills of South Dakota atop what the Lakota Sioux nation, who originally inhabited the land, saw as the sacred territory of the Six Grandfathers Mountain.

While the controversial 79-year-old sculpture now known as “America’s shrine to democracy” is recognized as one of the great patriotic monuments in the United States and a symbol of national “heritage,” Native American tribal spokesmen and activists largely see the gigantic monument as a symbol of disrespect and desecration of their sacred land.

“Nothing stands as a greater reminder to the Great Sioux Nation of a country that cannot keep a promise or treaty than the faces carved into our sacred land on what the United States called Mount Rushmore,” Chairman Harold Frazier of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe said in a statement in June. ”We are now being forced to witness the lashing of our land with pomp, arrogance and fire hoping our sacred lands will survive. This brand on our flesh needs to be removed and I am willing to do it free of charge to the United States, by myself if I must.”

“Visitors look upon the faces of those presidents and extoll the virtues that they believe make America the country it is today,” he continued. “Lakota see the faces of the men who lied, cheated and murdered innocent people whose only crime was living on the land they wanted to steal.”

“The United States of America wishes for all of us to be citizens and a family of their republic yet when they get bored of looking at those faces, we are left looking at our molesters,” he added..

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Bill Making It Illegal To Forcefully Microchip Employees Passes In Michigan House

Lawmakers on Michigan have passed a bill that would make it illegal for employers to force their workers to be tagged with microchips.

Published

on

Microchip 2020
Photo Credit: TMU

(TMU) – Lawmakers in Michigan have passed a bill that would make it illegal for employers to force their workers to be tagged with microchips in a bid to pre-emptively thwart companies who seek to make it mandatory to wear the productivity-tracking devices.

The Michigan House passed the bill on Wednesday, which would make acceptance of the microchip implants voluntary, reports WJRT.

The move comes as growing numbers of companies have explored the idea of using the sub-dermal, rice-sized Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) microchips as a substitute for time cards, ID badges, and security clearance devices.

The chips can help make it a bit easier to get into the office, log into a computer, or buy food and drinks in the cafeteria.

But they can also be used to make sure workers are hustling on the job in line with management desires to maximize efficiency.

“With the way technology has increased over the years and as it continues to grow, it’s important Michigan job providers balance the interests of the company with their employees’ expectations of privacy,” said Republican State Rep. Bronna Kahle, who sponsored the bill.

While the RFID devices haven’t come into widespread usage yet, Kahle and others believe they could become the norm in states like Michigan in the coming years.

“While these miniature devices are on the rise, so are the calls of workers to have their privacy protected,” Kahle said.

Microchips have long been the basis for a number of conspiracies that claim the government is planning to implant tracking chips in the populace, leading to a kind of scenario similar to the dystopian George Orwell novel, 1984.

However, the Michigan bill reflects long-brewing concerns over private industry using such high-tech methods – alongside a growing suite of surveillance technology at the workplace – to erode employee privacy.

RFID microchips have long been used by everyone from libraries to schools, governments, and the private sector to pinpoint and track the physical location of items where the tags are embedded.

And while RFIDs provide a cheap and convenient means to track inventory and safeguard raw materials from being misused, misplaced, or stolen, they have increasingly been used to track people and keep tabs on their activities – or in activities – in the workplace.

And as states mull reopening and allowing workplaces to resume functions under the “new normal” of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, some companies such as Engineering have touted using RFID sensors as an efficient and affordable solution to upholding physical distancing standards.

RFID technology has also been used in such high-risk locales like oil rigs, where they have been used to determine whether workers have been evacuated or how evacuation scenarios are formulated.

But experts have warned that the security of information stored on the chip could also be easily compromised, with such data including the comings and goings of employees, their daily routines outside of work, as well as who somebody wearing the chip has interacted with.

And with companies like Amazon coming under increasing criticism over its use of surveillance technology and production-tracking devices to turn its workers into “human robots” working alongside actual robots, concerns remain about the dehumanizing effects such labour-saving devices can have on workers.Formun Üstü

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns

Published

on

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

The Environmental Health Trust is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education, and policy and the only nonprofit organization in the world that carries out cutting edge research on environmental health hazards. They work directly with communities, health and education professionals, and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Dr. Devra Davis founded the non-profit Environmental Health Trust in 2007 in Teton County, Wyoming. She has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and has authored more than 200 publications in books and journals. She is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Dr. Davis lectures at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and major universities in India, Australia, Finland, and elsewhere.

She’s actually one of the scientists who was creating awareness about big tobacco and how they were deceiving the public back in the day, and she’s compared that with the current climate of wireless technologies, proving that these technologies, like 5G and its predecessors, may be harmful to not only human health, but environmental health as well. The bottom line is, it’s firmly established in scientific literature that there are biological effects to be concerned about. These technologies pose great risks, and it’s quite alarming that federal health regulatory agencies have approved the rollout of these technologies without our consent, and furthermore, without any health and/or environmental safety testing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists doing their part to try and tackle this issue together by raiding red flags.

What Happened: The Environmental Health Trust has filed a case against the Federal Communications Commission. They explain:

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defence.

Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.  Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.

Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).

Here is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology. During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The EHT goes on to explain that:

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants.

Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

In large measure, the FCC simply ignored the vast amount of evidence in the record showing an urgent need for action to protect the public and the environment. EHT contends that the FCC ignored the recommendations of hundreds of medical experts and public health experts who called for updated regulations that protect against biological impacts and for the development of policies to immediately reduce public exposure.

The brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its order is arbitrary and capricious, and not evidence-based; violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FCC did not take a hard look on the environmental impacts of its decision; and violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because the FCC failed, as required by the TCA, to consider the impact of its decision on the public health and safety.

“The FCC entirely ignored the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and over 30 medical and public health organizations. Wireless emission limits should protect children who will have a lifetime of exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust. Scarato pointed out that the FCC “saw no reason to take steps to protect children” despite voluminous scientific evidence on the record showing that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.

“Equally shocking is how the FCC could state that the existing limits which were developed in 1996 are protective without even addressing the impact of the existing limits on the natural environment. In this regard, there was a noticeable absence of on-the-record comments by the EPA. In fact, the EPA recently stated that it has no funded mandate to even review research on RFR. Yet there is a great deal of evidence in the FCC proceeding showing that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to birds, bees and trees.”

Video of Press Conference 

Opening Brief 

EHT Submissions to 13-84

The science is also clear, there are thousands of peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern. For example, A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed.  Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

Would it not be in the best interests of everybody to simply put this technology through appropriate safety testing?

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed thatResearch on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimetre wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimetre wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimetre wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

The list is quite long, and for the sake of a short read, if you want to learn more and access more of the science, you can start by visiting the Environmental Health Trust. It’s an excellent resource. There is a bit more information this article I recently published, but we’ve published many on the topic so you can browse around our site as well if interested, just use the search bar.

Why This Matters: 5G technology, and wireless technologies in general are a great example of measures being imposed on us against our will. It’s one of many examples that should have us questioning, do we really live in a democracy? Why has so much effort and awareness been raised, yet the idea that these technologies could pose a threat, and do pose a threat, is still considered a conspiracy theory within the mainstream? Why? What’s really going on here? Are there constant battles over human perception when it comes to certain topics? How much have we been misled? Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead of relying on federal health regulatory agencies? How are we living? Why do we think the way we do? Human beings are full of unlimited potential, and there are better ways to do things here on planet Earth!

This article (Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Alan Dershowitz Implicated In Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell Documents

Published

on

Alan Dershowitz Implicated In Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell Documents
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: Well known attorney and political commentator Alan Dershowitz has been implicated in the latest news pertaining to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. She is currently being held in New York awaiting her trial next year. Dershowitz was mentioned, along with Bill Clinton and others in a set of unsealed documents that were part of now-settled civil litigation against Maxwell. She appealed the decision of the judge to unseal them, but to no avail.

Maxwell was Epstein’s right hand person, and the documents, along with testimony from many others over the past few years, show that Maxwell sexually abused children and also directed victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre to be sexually abused by others, using her and many others as sex slaves.

The NY Post explains:

The emeritus Harvard Law professor was accused of having sex with then-minor “Jane Doe #3” — identified in court documents as Virginia Roberts Giuffre — and witnessing Jeffrey Epstein and others sexually abusing girls and young women.

The allegations, lodged in a 2014 court filing, reemerged in more than 600 pages unsealed Thursday night in Giuffre’s 2015 defamation case against.

In 1997, Dershowitz wrote the following: “Reasonable People Can Disagree Over Whether It Should Be As Low As 14.” You can find that article and read more about that here.

He is currently denying the allegations made by Giuffre, calling her a liar. He also stands by that article he wrote in 1997.

Why This Is Important: Elite level trafficking and pedophilia are coming to light, and it’s a major step for humanity given that many implicated and accused people are those in positions of great power, and in some cases made out to be idolized by the general public, usually showered with fame and fortune.

Research indicates there are many children suffering and that do suffer as a result of this activity, and there are so many examples going beyond the Jeffrey Epstein showing that this is quite rampant among our political and financial elite, and among those who pull the strings that we never really see.

This type of activity also shines light onto the world of politics. For example, with regards to Epstein and Maxwell, there is evidence suggesting that both are actually high ranking intelligence officers, with the job of entrapping powerful politicians and people. You can read more about that here. Is this what goes on in the system we continue to hold up and empower by voting year after year? Why are we playing with a system that’s clearly created out of disconnection and separation, and that does not allow humanity to thrive?

Is it time for something new? Is the current state of our world a reflection of the ‘leadership’ we choose and agree to put into power?

If you want to see some more examples and dive through more evidence, you can refer to this article I published towards the end of last year.

You can also watch our interview with a survivor of these types of pedophile rings.

You can access the full interview and start your free trial here.

The interview is with Anneke Lucas, who is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model. Her work is based on personal experience of a 30-year healing journey after surviving being sold by her family as a child sex slave to a pedophile network.

The interview is deep, and goes into the consciousness aspect of her experience and why that aspect is so important.

The Takeaway: There are many events taking place that are causing people to really question what’s happening on our planet and why. Why do we think and live the way we are living, and why is there so much misinformation, deception, and examples of fraud and deceit that come from multiple governments? Is it really a surprise that many of these people may be involved in activities that represent such a disregard for human life? Isn’t that what geopolitics has resulted in? War is a great example.

More people are starting to realize that we’re not really living in a democracy, but in the illusion of democracy where our physical rights are slowly taken away by governments who are capitalizing on crisis after crisis, ones in which they themselves help create and prolong.  Elite level child trafficking simply shines a light on how our current level of unconsciousness is creating a world built on disconnection.  Now is a time where these truths are being made transparent.

At the end of the day, we can change things anytime we want. We are indeed that powerful as one human collective.

This article (Alan Dershowitz Implicated In Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell Documents) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending Now

STAY AWARE

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

You have Successfully Subscribed!