Connect with us

Alternative News

Donald Trump Says The Coronavirus Was “Artificially Induced”

Published

on

Donald Trump Says The Coronavirus Was “Artificially Induced”
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

In a recent press conference, Donald Trump stated that the coronavirus was an “artificially induced” virus. You can view a clip of him saying it, here. Obviously, his comments are open to interpretation, and we’ve seen nothing but the ridicule of Donald Trump from mainstream media news sources since he took office. As a result, it’s hard for many people who tune in to these networks and use them as regular sources of information to take anything that he says seriously, at all. But Trump is not alone in his thoughts, that being said, again, it’s hard to really know exactly what he meant. This does not mean that we “supportTrump. In fact, the entire idea that someone who we supposedly elect can make any significant change on this planet is odd. We seem to put our power and faith into one person instead of realizing that we, humanity, ourselves, together, as one are the real solution. Electing and looking to one person for change seems to take the power away from ourselves, and place it into another.

Earlier on in the pandemic, Trump referred to the virus as a “hoax.” I thought when he stated that  he meant it was created and released, intelligently, for multiple purposes. The media took his statements as him implying that the virus itself is not real, and that there is no issue. He then explained that he meant that certain people are simply trying to politicize the issue, and use the crises to their advantage. Specifically, the Democrats.

When it comes to the new coronavirus, we are seeing a massive censorship of opinion. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, had his opinion article on the coronavirus flagged as “fake news.” When I saw this, I was curious as to how someone’s opinion can be ‘fake’ at all? In his article, he was encouraging people to ask themselves  whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with  regards to the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic. He emphasized his statements were not to say the disease is harmless. “Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back.”(source)

Another opinion that’s been making its way around the internet has also been flagged as ‘fake news,’ and it comes from Dr. Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law,  who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the Palestinian Authority.

He shared his belief that the coronavirus is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaked, be it deliberately or not.

Mainstream media quickly picked up on this narrative and also deemed it a conspiracy theory.

But there are some oddities to take note of, for sure. And one seems to be that many in the scientific/medical community are pointing out their confusion with regards to the measures that are being put into place as a result of the new coronavirus.

A paper recently published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data claims “that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated.” (source) John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford, recently published an article entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data” that emphasizes the same, and Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say?” Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history who refers to the measures being taken governments around the world as “Draconian.” You can read more about that and watch what he has to say about the new coronavirus, here.

Furthermore, the opinion that coronavirus deaths are actually being miscalculated which is inaccurately driving up, and perhaps skyrocketing death rate is also being shared around the internet quite a bit.

For example, take a look at the tweet below from Brit Hume, an American journalist and political commentator currently working for the Fox News Channel.

Another recent tweet from Candace Owens.

Prior to this tweet, she posted stated, “Apparently, doctors and nurses around the world are wondering why no one is dying from heart attacks and strokes anymore. Flu and pneumonia deaths also went off a cliff. Turns out everyone is only dying of #Coronavirus now. Gee. I wonder why” and linked an article from the New York times discussing the fact that deaths from other diseases have suddenly dropped.

But is there any legit evidence of what these people are implying? Professor Walter Ricciardi, an advisor to the Italian Health Ministry, stated that “The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die … with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus,” he has said. “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity—many had two or three” Pre-morbidity refers to having serious health issues prior to the onset of a disease. (source)

According to another study out of Italy, 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities that were examined specifically for this study were people who suffered from previous medical conditions. More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease. The study provides inside as to why their death rate may be much higher compared to other countries.

An article recently published by the Financial Times points out,

“In the UK, about 150,000 people die every year between January and March. To date, the vast majority of those who have died from COVID-19 in Britain have been aged 70 or older or had serious pre-existing health conditions. What is not clear is how many of those deaths would have occurred anyway if the patients had not contracted COVID-19. Speaking at a parliamentary hearing last week, Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London, said it was not yet clear how many “excess deaths” caused by coronavirus there would be in the UK. However, he said the proportion of COVID-19 victims who would have died anyway could be “as many as half or two-thirds”.

I go deeper into that specific discussion in this article if you’re interested in dividing deep into that narrative: Coronavirus Deaths May Be Miscalculated.

So, as you can see, there may be something here and it should be OK for people and media outlets to have these discussions and share information and opinions without getting censored and flagged as fake news and punished. The idea that ‘fact checkers’ are censoring the opinions and narratives of some in order to protect a dominant narrative in itself raises red flags.

There are many questions and theories going around about what’s going on here, and granted, some of them are indeed conspiracies, but others may not be and are simply being labelled as such.

Treatment is a great example, all we seem to be hearing about is a vaccine when other promising developments seem to be having some success, according to some.

As far as its origin and whether or not it is indeed “artificially induced” for ulterior motives as Trump says, I personally would not be surprised, at all. In fact, this was one of my first thoughts when news broke out about it. It’s sad that it’s gotten to the point where so many people can no longer rely on their governments nor their federal health regulatory agencies for accurate information, but at the same time, it’s quite glorious, because people are waking up.

This article (Donald Trump Says The Coronavirus Was “Artificially Induced”) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

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

Alternative News

US Government & Yale Hold Clinical Trials On How Best To ‘Persuade’ Americans To Take COVID-19 Vaccine

Published

on

US Government & Yale Hold Clinical Trials On How Best to ‘Persuade’ Americans to Take COVID-19 Vaccine
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: The US Federal government in collaboration with Yale University are held clinical trials to determine what the best messaging would be to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is ready. The news of this study does show an interest in finding the best way to emotionally and mentally manipulate people into an ideal decision for the Federal government, and likely vaccine makers, and it also shows that a mandatory vaccine campaign may still be the plan B down the road, as opposed to plan A.

According to the brief summary for the study:

This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available. Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available between the 10 intervention arms to the 2 control arms.

Study participants are recruited online by Lucid, which matches census based sampling in online recruitment.

The study essentially looks at the best possible messaging that can be used on Americans, ranging from expressing vaccine benefits, to using messaging about economic impact, making someone feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking the vaccine, and so on.

The study looked at around 4000 participants aged 18 years and up, all of whom had to be US residents of course.

The various ‘arms’ used in the study when it came to messaging were as follows:

Other: Control message
Other: Baseline message
Other: Personal freedom message
Other: Economic freedom message
Other: Self-interest message
Other: Community interest message
Other: Economic benefit message
Other: Guilt message
Other: Embarrassment message
Other: Anger message
Other: Trust in science message
Other: Not bravery message

Interestingly, the study also looked at various social elements involved in vaccination, see below:

Primary Outcome Measures:

  1. Intention to get COVID-19 vaccine [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]…This is a self-reported measure, immediately after the intervention message, of the likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccination within 3 months and then 6 months of it becoming available. During analysis, responses among those assigned to different intervention messages will be compared to those in the control group.

Secondary Outcome Measures:

  1. Vaccine confidence scale [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]…This is a validated scale. This scale will be used to assess the impact of the messages on vaccine confidence. (Outcome assessed only for the half of the sample that answers these items post-treatment)
  2. Persuade others item [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]…This is a measure of a willingness to persuade others to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
  3. Fear of those who have not been vaccinated [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]…This is a measure of a comfort with an unvaccinated individual visiting an elderly friend after a vaccine becomes available
  4. Social judgment of those who do not vaccinate [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]…This is a scale composed of 4 items measuring the trustworthiness, selfishness, likeableness, and competence of those who choose not to get vaccinated after a vaccine becomes available.

Why This Matters: As more credible information about vaccinations and their associated dangers circles the internet and informs people, their choice to not vaccinate in certain situations is increasing. As noted by The World Health Organization, even doctors are starting to question and have a lack of trust in vaccines due to adverse reactions. Because of all of this, Big Pharma now have to work harder to convince people to get vaccines so their profits can stay where they are at. We are seeing the power of free and open media. You can likely guess you would not see a story like this nor honest coverage about vaccines in mainstream media.

The Takeaway: Humanity is waking up to truths that have long been held hidden behind the lack of honest media and government. As we begin to understand what is truly going on behind the scenes, we are beginning to ask even deeper questions. Why have we not be told the full story? Why do we give up our power to those who do not have our best interests at heart? What role are they playing in the awakening of humanity? Who are we? Why are we truly here and why are we not thriving as a global society? What is truly holding us back?

These questions lead us inwards to explore the true nature of who we are. Do we really lack the solutions in our world to allow humanity to thrive? Or is it that human consciousness is suppressed and stuck in a story of separation? Raising human consciousness is the solution we’re looking for.

This article (US Government & Yale Hold Clinical Trials On How Best to ‘Persuade’ Americans to Take COVID-19 Vaccine) 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!