Connect with us

Alternative News

NY Frontline Nurse Turns Into Investigative Journalist After Taking A Hidden Camera Into The Hospital



NY Frontline Nurse Turns Into Investigative Journalist After Taking A Hidden Camera Into The Hospital
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: The interview below, conducted by Journeyman Pictures, features Erin Marie Olszewski. Olszewski is a nurse who became an investigative journalist after experiencing and witnessing some confusing events that took place regarding the new coronavirus in the hospitals where she was working. This includes patients being neglected, deaths being attributed to COVID-19 when they were not a result of the virus, and other strange happenings like putting susceptible sick people who did not have the coronavirus in the same area as all of the people who did, and much more.

During the pandemic, she worked at two hospitals. One private and one public, in Florida and in New York. The hospital where she worked in New York was called Elmhurst in Queens, and it’s considered the “epicenter of the epicenter” of the outbreak. Her experiences inside of the hospitals give her a very interesting perspective of what’s been going on, and it inspired and affected her so much that she decided to quit and become an investigative journalist. It’s just another person added to the list that is seeing something completely different than what we’ve been told, and what we are being told.

The interview is a bit outdated and took place last month. It’s reached well over one million views and is one of many videos that Journeyman Pictures has put out with some interesting people that have received a lot of attention. I just came across it, which is why I am sharing it now because I know there are still a few people out there who will be interested in this.

Alternative media is so important because no matter how much evidence and examples exist to prove something, if the narrative threatens the official stance that’s beamed out by mainstream media and the World Health Organization (WHO), it’s usually deemed as false or just ridiculed and labelled a conspiracy theory.

This is concerning, especially when it comes to COVID-19 because many doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists have had their research and opinion completely censored, especially by social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. YouTube recently admitted that any information that contradicts the WHO will be taken down, no matter who it comes from. Again, we’ve seen this happen to some of the world’s leading scientists in this area.

Is it right to have what I call a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet? Should people not have the right to examine information openly and freely, and decide for themselves what they chose to believe instead of being told what is correct and what isn’t correct?

What’s really going on here? These are important and OK questions to ask. Many people still don’t want to travel down that road. Are we living in a time where even questioning something is greeted with a harsh reaction? Why are we so offended all of the time? Why are we so closed off to perspectives that are not shared by the mainstream media? Why are we so sheltered from these perspectives? Is it because these perspectives completely dismantle many people’s perception of how our world really works?

Why This Matters

I found it interesting when she provided information suggesting that COVID-19 deaths were not accurate, in that people who don’t die as a result of the virus were being counted in the death count. This correlated with a lot of other information that’s surfaced with regard to this. For example, Toronto Public Health tweeted in late June that “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19, are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” There are multiple examples from multiple countries and states. If interested, you can read more about that in this article as it goes into more detail.

What’s interesting is that it’s not just Olszewski. Many nurses, doctors, scientists, epidemiologists, and pathologists have all raised concerns about this pandemic hinting towards foul play, and this interview is simply another great example.

Perspectives on the pandemic like this, again, are not really well known when it comes to the mainstream collective mind. This is why alternative media is so important, and it’s also why there has been a massive censorship campaign of media outlets like ours. We’ve been demonetized and our social media reach is constantly limited due to the restrictions that Facebook puts on our page.

The Takeaway

We are living in a world where mainstream media literally beams their perception of events in the consciousness of people through television programming. Simultaneously, a massive ridicule campaign combined with censorship ensues when it comes to information that threatens that narrative, the narrative portrayed by the select few mainstream media outlets, who have been exposed as mouthpieces for powerful corporations, governments, and intelligence agencies, that is. You can see a few examples here.

Why are people who expose information always punished? Alternative media outlets are also being punished and people like Julian Assange are in jail for exposing crimes against humanity by powerful people, governments, and corporations. How is it that this is happening, is it because we identify with those who are committing these crimes against humanity? Is it because the ones doing it always seem to do it under the guise of goodwill and necessity?

Human beings are good, moral, ethical creatures. The environment that shapes us and our consciousness, however, has been influenced by an extreme amount of manipulation. The only way to drive us into certain measures is to make us believe we are doing it for the good of not only ourselves but for others as well.

We have to ask ourselves, are the measures we are being forced into actually effective? Is this really about the virus or are governments using the coronavirus for ulterior motives?

At the end of the day, the amount of fraud, corruption, and deceit that seems to be exposed every month within these governments, corporations, and federal/world health organizations is quite clear for those who are willing to take a look. This begs the question, why do we continue to listen, obey, and follow? Why are we constantly relying on a small group of elite people to decide the direction of the human race and what we should do with our lives? Why do we keep voting and upholding a system that is clearly outdated and serves no real purpose?

This article (NY Frontline Nurse Turns Into Investigative Journalist After Taking A Hidden Camera Into The Hospital) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Alternative News

22 Scientists Publish Paper Claiming The PCR Test Is “Useless” For Detecting COVID-19 Cases



22 Scientists Publish Paper Claiming The PCR Test Is “Useless” For Detecting COVID-19 Cases
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

What Happened: recent publication titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” recently published in the Journal Eurosurveillance has come under fire by 22 scientists/independent researchers. The publication claims that the RT-qPCR tests used for detecting COVID-19 is quite robust and a useful tool, but the independent publication presents a number of scientific and methodological “blemishes” that has them confident “that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”

According to the researchers,

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

The conclude by stating,

The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognize the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.

They are not specific when they refer to “human cost and suffering, but I believe they are referring to the implications of lockdown measures as a result of COVID cases. 50,000 doctors and scientists have signed a declaration strongly opposing lockdown measures for a number of reasons, more than 100 million people will be pushed to starvation as a result of global lockdowns, and lockdowns in the UK, for example, may have already killed more seniors than COVID itself.

Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we concluded: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.

You can read the entire paper and the evidence behind their reasoning, here. The site where the paper is found was put up by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany and Rajesh Kumar Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria.

To view the credentials and affiliations of the other 19 authors, you can refer to the bottom of the paper.

Other Doubts That’ve Been Expressed About PCR Testing

The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50% false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.

In July, Professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article, argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.

As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York Times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

The Bulgarian Pathology Association claims that PCR tests are “scientific meaningless” to detect COVID-19. They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that goes into more detail and explanation as to why.

The idea that many COVID-19 cases around the world could be false positives is quite a common theme. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stated that,

The false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus.

Is Raab implying a 93% false positive rate?

A Portuguese court recently determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt. You can read more about that story here.

A number of everyday citizens have also come forward expressing their doubts, including some high profile people like Elon Musk for example. He recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day. Using the same test and the same nurse, he received two positive results and two negative results, causing him to state his belief that “something bogus” is going on here. He then asked his Twitter following

“In your opinion, at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive? If I’m asking the wrong question, what is a better question?”

In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, stating that “if someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”  The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

I just wanted to provide a brief background as to why there is so much controversy out there regarding COVID-19 testing and false positives.

On the other side of the coin,

According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

All of this being said, there is also a scientific consensus that infection cases are much higher and comparable to other respiratory viruses for example that already infect hundreds of millions a year, and that the survival rate for people under 70 is 99.95%. But there is a lot of controversy surrounding this as well.

The Takeaway

It’s easy to see why so many people are confused and polarized when it comes to this topic. So many doctors, scientists, researchers and even politicians are providing evidence and claiming that these tests are going to have a very high false positive rate. Others, who are just as “renowned” with similar credentials are claiming that these tests are extremely accurate.

There are so many odd ‘things’ happening with this pandemic in terms of information that completely contradicts other information, not only with regards to the testing to detect the virus, but with regards to the severity of the virus as well. Never before have we seen people so polarized in their views, and this in itself is creating a big problem because it creates tension between us.

At the end of the day, we need to try and understand someone who does not share the same perspective as we do, and they should do the same without getting worked up. Our state of being when communicating is of utmost importance.

With so much confusion and lack of appropriate data to justify a lockdown, and with tens and thousands of doctors and scientists explaining how detrimental these measures are, I believe governments and health organizations should simply be presenting data and making recommendations based on science. Those who want to stay inside, wear masks and shut down their businesses for example should have the option of doing that and those that don’t should have the option of doing that as well. Respiratory viruses kill tens of millions and infect hundreds of millions every single year, it’s not out of the box to treat this virus as we do all others, but that’s just my opinion, what’s yours?

Never before have so many people opposed and not trusted their government, yet we give these entities the power to make decisions and enforce them. Is this right? Especially when such a large majority, or minority, do not agree? Do governments actually execute the will of the people? Why do we continue to allow them to make such big decisions for us? Should it not be put to a vote? Should governments have the authority to shut things down whenever they please? Are they really executing the will of the people? Why do we simply rely on entities that may not have the best interests of humanity at heart?

The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to when we may be taking things too far.

Some Further Reading, If You’re Curious…

This article (22 Scientists Publish Paper Claiming The PCR Test Is “Useless” For Detecting COVID-19 Cases) 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

The Seven Reasons We Obey Authority



The Seven Reasons We Obey Authority
Photo Credit: Pexels

Phillip Schneider, Guest Writer

Rebels are a very important part of society, but they rarely get the recognition they deserve. They help us break through old norms and keep us from falling into groupthink. However, human nature urges most of us to remain in our comfort zone even when it means less freedom or more difficult problems down the road.

Why is it the case that so many people ignore the outside world or pass it off as somebody else’s problem until it reaches their own doorstep? In a recent video, Brittany Sellner (Brittany Pettibone before she married) describes the seven reasons men obey authority, even when it is against their best interest.

1. Habit

“As everybody knows, habits are extremely difficult to break and even if we have gripes about the state of things, accepting our imperfect reality seems better to us than taking on the daunting prospect of change. Conversely… habit ceases to be a reason for obedience in times of political crisis; kind of similar to what we are experiencing now as a consequence of Covid. Despite many of us not wanting to alter our habits, our habits were forcibly altered for us.”

2. Moral Obligation

“The second reason for obedience is moral obligation which is obviously a motive that is very often found in religion, but politically speaking… some see it as a moral obligation to ‘1) obey for the good of society,’ 2) ‘due to the ruler having superhuman factors such as being a supernatural being or a deity,’ which isn’t something that I think applies to too many Americans… 3) People see it as a moral obligation to obey because they ‘perceive the command as being legitimate, owing to its source an issuer’. For example, a mayor or a police officer [would be considered under this reason], and 4) People see it as a moral obligation to obey due to ‘conformity of commands to accepted norms.’ For example, most people believe that a command such as not committing murder is a moral command and therefore, they obey it.”

3. Self-Interest

“The third reason for obedience is self-interest and this is perhaps one of the more common motives nowadays. For example, most big corporations are immoral and seek to piggy-back off of current social and political trends in order to gain money, status, and approval. Just look at all the corporations that suddenly became ‘champions of social justice’ after the death of George Floyd; none of them gave a crap about police brutality and Black Lives Matter until it became in their interest to care.

This self-interest can of course also extend to individuals. Famous and non-famous people have a lot to gain by falling in line, or… there is also a negative self-interest wherein the person doesn’t obey simply because they’re going to gain something but so they won’t lose everything: their reputations, jobs, social standing and future career prospects.”

4. Psychological Identification with the Ruler

“The fourth reason for obedience is psychological identification with the ruler, meaning that people have a close emotional connection with the ruler, regime, or the system. I imagine you would have encountered a lot of this in, for example, Communist Russia or N. Germany.”

5. Zones of Indifference

“The fifth reason for obedience is an extremely common one today and that is ‘zones of indifference,’ meaning that even if people are not fully satisfied with the state of things, they have a margin of indifference or a margin of tolerance for the negative aspects of their society and government.”

6. Fear of Sanctions

“The sixth reason for obedience is the most obvious reason… and that is ‘fear of sanctions,’ which generally involve the threat or the use of some form of physical violence against the disobedient subject and induce obedience by power merely coercive, a power really operating on people simply through their fears.”

7. Absence of Self Confidence

“Lastly, the seventh and final reason for obedience is the absence of self confidence among subjects, meaning that many people simply don’t have sufficient confidence in themselves, their judgement, and their capacities to make themselves capable of disobedience and resistance.

Thanks to the internet, I observe this motive quite often. Thousands of people decry on the daily that they’re miserable with the state of things and yet they do nothing because they have no confidence in their personal ability to lead, to organize a peaceful protest, to start a movement and so on.”

Although authority can be legitimate and meaningful, resistance to unnecessary acts of violence or draconian government injustice is often better for the individual and his society and shows greater character than inaction. Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list, perhaps it will help you to better understand your own role in life and greater society.

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a staff writer and assistant editor for Waking Times. For more of his work, you can visit his WebsiteFacebook Page, or follow him on the free speech social network Minds.

This article (Brittany Sellner Explains the Seven Reasons We Obey Authority) originally appeared at and may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author credit, and this copyright statement.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

COVID Vaccine Hesitancy Widespread, Even Among Medical Professionals



COVID Vaccine Hesitancy Widespread, Even Among Medical Professionals
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all-time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

We have to ask ourselves the question, why? Vaccines are not a one size fits all product, in the US alone nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children, and a number of studies are calling into question their safety. Aluminum, for example, seems to be a concern. You can and read about why here, but that’s just one of multiple examples.

Here’s an example of a vaccine injury I recently wrote about regarding the HPV vaccine.

Below is an article that was recently published Jeremy Loffredo, a reporter for The Defender. It goes into details about vaccine hesitancy among health professionals when it comes to the new COVID vaccines that are about to hit the market. 

As details on the latest COVID vaccine contenders flood the news cycle on a daily basis, reports of concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine are widespread among many demographics, even including the professional medical community.

As vaccine hesitancy grows agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), are stepping up efforts to build vaccine confidence through public relations and communications campaigns.

Surveys reveal vaccine hesitancy

Researchers from the University of California Los Angeles’ Karin Fielding School of Public Health surveyed healthcare personnel working in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As the Washington Post reported, they found that two thirds (66.5%) of healthcare workers “intend to delay vaccination,” meaning they do not intend to get the COVID vaccine when it becomes available. They plan instead on reviewing the data once it’s widely administered and proven safe.

Seventy-six percent of the vaccine-hesitant healthcare workers cited the “fast-tracked vaccine development” as a primary reason for their concerns. Typically, vaccines take between eight to 10 years to develop, Dr. Emily Erbelding, an infectious disease expert at National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN in an article titled, “The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that’s risky.”

The coronavirus vaccine frontrunners — Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca — are expected to make their debut in January. The pharmaceutical giants have exponentially accelerated the average safety and review timeline for vaccine development and production, to get the vaccines to market in under a year. Erbelding admitted that the accelerated pace will involve “not looking at all the data.”

Susan Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said in a video that the number of physicians expressing hesitancy was “unprecedented” and “posed a real risk” to public confidence in vaccines.

A recent Gallup poll showed that only 58% of Americans plan on getting the COVID vaccine when it’s available. An October poll conducted by Zogby found that nearly 50% of Americans have concerns about the safety of the coming COVID vaccines.

A new collaborative survey project by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Langer Research found that Black and Latinx Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about the coming COVID vaccine.

The survey, as reported in the Washington post, claims to be “one of the largest and most rigorous conducted on this topic to date.” It found that only 14% of Black Americans trust that a vaccine will be safe, while only 34% of Latinx Americans trust it will be safe.

The survey also found, in the context of COVID, only 19% of Black Americans trust drug companies, while less than a third trust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “look after their interests.”

According to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of medical experts who advise the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fears surrounding the painful or harmful side-effects of the COVID vaccine are rooted in reality.

According to CNBC, during a virtual Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ meeting on Nov. 23, Dr. Sandra Fryhofer told fellow CDC officials that patients need to be aware that the side effects from the COVID vaccines “will not be a walk in the park.” Fryhofer acknowledged that side effects from the vaccines have been reported to mimic symptoms of a mild case of COVID, including muscle pain, fever, chills and headache.

Fryhofer, who explained that both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID vaccines require two doses, worries that her patients might not come back for a second dose after experiencing potentially unpleasant side effects after the first shot.

As a participant of the Moderna vaccine trials noted “it was the sickest I’ve ever been.”

Health officials try to combat vaccine hesitancy

Despite this, officials at the forefront of the COVID response plan to combat vaccine safety concerns and hesitancy using, what some are calling, questionable psychological techniques.

For example, the WHO, which named “vaccine hesitancy” as the top global public health threat, has hired the PR firm Hill + Knowlton to identify micro-influencers, macro-influencers and “hidden heroes” on social media who could covertly promote the organization’s image as a COVID authority in order to “ensure WHO’s advice and guidance is followed.”

Cass Sunstein, the chairman of WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights, recently wrote an article in Bloomberg in which he promoted the use of popular celebrities, athletes and actors as tools for vaccine persuasion against those who “lack vaccine confidence.”

Trusted politicians, athletes or actors — thought to be ‘one of us’ rather than ‘one of them’ — might explicitly endorse vaccination and report that they themselves have gotten the vaccine,” Sunstein wrote.

Then there’s the “Guide to COVID-19 Vaccine Communications,” developed by the University of Florida and the United Nations that aims to help governments improve COVID vaccine uptake. The authors of the guide promote the tactic of covertly using trusted community leaders to help with pro-vaccine information.

Citing vaccine hesitancy among the African American community, the guide suggests that barber shops and hair salons in predominantly black neighbourhoods might be tapped to help disseminate approved vaccine messaging.

This article (COVID Vaccine Hesitancy Widespread, Even Among Medical Professionals) 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

Senator Questions Mark Zuckerberg On Censorship After Facebook Whistleblower Comes Forward



Senator Questions Mark Zuckerberg On Censorship After Facebook Whistleblower Comes Forward
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

The amount of censorship of information taking place on the internet today is truly staggering. It seems that any type of information which threatens the status quo or any information exposing wrong-doings of or threatens the interests of governments and big corporations is subjected to censorship. When it comes to COVID-19, for example, we’ve seen a large majority of doctors and scientists all over the world being censored by social media giants simply because their information and opinion opposes the World Health Organization and recommendations that governments are making. Not only are these voices silenced and completely unacknowledged by mainstream media, they are also heavily ridiculed.

In our opinion what’s taken place and happened to not only us, but to other platforms as well, has been very illegal, unethical and immoral. It’s happened on an even larger scale with Julian Assange, for example. To think that someone who has exposed war crimes and other wrongdoings of multiple governments and big corporations is currently fighting for his life is very disheartening. What does this say about the world we live in, when those who expose crimes, immoral and unethical actions by powerful entities are locked up? It’s easy to feel quite powerless in the face of Big Tech censorship, they can basically censor any piece of content they please and not only that, they can provide a new “fact-checked” article that tells a completely different story, and then spread it as if it were truth.

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour… – Edward Snowden (source) (More on Snowden’s thoughts here)

Below is a clip from a recent Judiciary Committee Hearing, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gets grilled by Sen. Josh Hawley about whether or not his company collaborates with Google and Twitter to censor information. Hawley brings up the fact that he was contacted by a Facebook whistleblower, and goes into more detail about questions about censorship that Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to have an answer for.

Final Thoughts: At the end of the day, censorship of information only seems to have more people questioning what’s going on. If information is clearly false, why does it need to be “fact-checked” and censored? Why is there, as I’ve said before, a digital authoritarian Orwellian fact checker going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t? Should people not have the right to examine information for themselves and determine what they wish to believe? Why are Big Tech companies working so closely with governments to control the narrative and shape our perception about what’s really going on?

Why do we hold on to ideas even when new evidence tells us it’s time to question them? What state of being identified so strongly with ideas of the mind that we think those ideas are our identity and that there is no other possibility? Why do we become so polarized in our beliefs, be it about COVID or even politics? Why can’t we all come together and have appropriate discussions instead of having Big Tech companies regulate information in the way they do, and literally have us on one side or the other?

This article (Senator Questions Mark Zuckerberg On Censorship After Facebook Whistleblower Comes Forward) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Trending Now


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

You have Successfully Subscribed!