Tag Archives: Arjun Walia

Finland Reports Zero COVID Deaths In Children Throughout Entire Pandemic

ARJUN WALIA
APRIL 18, 2022

According to a March 2022 report released by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Finland has shown that there have been zero COVID deaths in young people throughout the entire pandemic. Only 26 percent of children ages 5-11 and 80 percent of children ages 12-17 have received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine. Children under 12 were never masked and only 9 percent of children ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

This data correlates with other data across the globe. Children are at the lowest risk from COVID, at least not anymore at risk from other common viruses like the flu, many of which are actually some type of coronavirus.

Help Support Our FOIA Efforts: Our team is in a back and forth with our government to get access to specific COVID documents that may show government tried to hide treatment options in favor of vaccination campaigns. Help us with clerical and legal fees to obtain these documents by donating today. Click here to Donate.

Despite these facts, the power of natural immunity has been completely ignored throughout the pandemic, and a proper discussion with regards to the catastrophic harmful consequences of ineffective mandates and interventions has not been had.

Below are a few examples of correlating data.

A study published at the end of 2021 provided the following numbers regarding kids and COVID in Germany:

  • For healthy kids, the risk of going to the hospital is 51 per 100,000
  • For healthy kids, the risk of going to the ICU is 8 per 100,000
  • For healthy kids, the risk of death is 3 per 1,000,000 with no deaths reported in kids older than 5
  • Kids 5 to 11 have a lower risk than kids <5 and adolescents 12 to 17
  • Kids 5 to 11 have a risk of going to the ICU of 2 in 100,000; 0 died

Early on in the pandemic Jonas F. Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute, published research showing that out of nearly 2 million school children, zero died from COVID despite no lockdowns, school closings or mask mandates during the first wave of the pandemic. After he published his research he was bombarded with an onslaught of intimidating commentsAs a result Ludvigsson quit his research which led the Swedish government to strengthen their laws on academic freedom.

study from July 2021 by John P.A. Ioannidis concluded that your chances of dying from COVID if you are infected with it, in the following age groups is:

0-19 = 0.0027%
20-29 = 0.014%
30-39 = 0.031%
40-49 = 0.082%
50-59 = 0.27%
60-69 = 0.59%
70+ = 2.4%

Even during thes Delta wave, the American Academy of Pediatrics confirmed that while the Delta variant is infecting more children, it is not causing increased disease severity. They also found that 0.1-1.9% of their child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalizations, and 0.00-0.03% of all child COVID-19 case resulted in death.

We already know that the majority of people at risk from COVID are those with multiple other underlying health issues. In the United States, approximately 95 percent of people who have died with COVID have had an average of four other underlying causes listed on their death certificates. In England and Wales, only 6,183 in the region can be attributed solely to COVID from the beginning of 2020 up until the end of Sept 2021

From Dec 2020-Jan 2022 only 10% of children 0-18 hospitalized with COVID actually had severe COVID. 56% were incidental infections. This gives more context to “COVID hospitalizations” as does the fact that throughout the pandemic, many “COVID hospitalizations” weren’t actually hospitalizations for COVID.

Furthermore, large observational population studies show that children are poor COVID-19 spreaders. This includes studies from Ireland, Iceland, Italy, France, and Australia. For a link to a more complete reference list, see Washington University Pediatric & Adolescent Ambulatory Research Consortium.

We used mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns, school closures, and more that created a catastrophic mess for not only children, but everybody. Lockdowns have been ineffective and have killed more people than COVID itself. Furthermore, the vaccines have failed to stop the spread of COVID, and if children and younger people have a near 100 percent chance of survival and staying out of the hospital, why would vaccines be mandated for them? What about all of the serious vaccine adverse reactions that have resulted from COVID products? What has happened here? Deaths have even been reported as a result of COVID vaccines. What about the harms of prolonged mask wearing?

Why have legacy media and government affiliated scientists ridiculed these sentiments throughout the entire pandemic? Why have they been ignored and not considered when it comes to health policy?

All of these facts beg the question, was COVID used and politically weaponized by those who put profit and their desire for total population control? Or have the interventions and measures that were and have been put in place really from a place of good will? It seems many of these interventions may even be considered for the next pandemic, which is something that’s already being discussed by the likes of Bill Gates and others.

Cancer Linked Glyphosate Discovered In All Tested Children’s Foods Made From Oats


ARJUN WALIA

APRIL 5, 2022

Significant levels of the weed killing chemical glyphosate have been found in all oat derived samples that were sampled by the Environmental Working Group (EGW), a public health organization.

The report, released in 2018, was published by Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., senior science advisor and Alexis Temkin, Ph.D, Toxicologist. They explain,

Help Support Our FOIA Efforts: Our team is in a back and forth with our government to get access to specific COVID documents that may show government tried to hide treatment options in favor of vaccination campaigns. Help us with clerical and legal fees to obtain these documents by donating today. Click here to Donate.

“Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. The weedkiller, produced by Bayer-Monsanto, was detected in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in a new round of testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group.”

The tests detected glyphosate in all 28 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats. All but two of the 28 samples had levels of glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark of 160 parts per billion, or ppb.

According to EWG,

“Products tested by Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco include 10 samples of different types of General Mills’ Cheerios and 18 samples of different Quaker brand products from PepsiCo, including instant oatmeal, breakfast cereal and snack bars. The highest level of glyphosate found by the lab was 2,837 ppb in Quaker Oatmeal Squares breakfast cereal, nearly 18 times higher than EWG’s children’s health benchmark.”

You can view the complete results of the tests and each product tested, here.

In April of 2018, internal emails obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that scientists found glyphosate on a wide range of commonly consumed food, to the point that they were finding it difficult to identify a food without the chemical on it.

Although Quaker and General Mills have said there is no cause for concern given their products meet the legal standards, there is a plethora of literature suggesting no amount of ingested glyphosate is safe.

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides…Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.”

R Mesnage (et al., Biomedical Research International, 2014, article ID: 179691

These particular findings by EWG came after a landmark decision in a San Francisco court that ordered Monsanto (now Bayer) to pay $289 million in damages to Dewayne Johnson, who at the time was a 46 year old former school groundskeeper. The jury found that the Roundup weedkiller caused Johnson’s cancer and that it had failed to warn him about the health risks of exposure.

In 2020, the New York Times reported the that the company dished out $10 billion to cover approximately 95,000 cases.

This is why the EWG and other health conscious groups advocate for organic foods. Tests have consistently shown a significant reduction in harmful substances, like glyphosate, in organic food. In many cases, no traces of these substances can be found in organic food, but in some cases they are.

In 2019, a study published in the journal Environmental Research found that an organic diet significantly reduced the pesticide levels in children and adults. Their urine was used to measure pesticide levels and in just one week pesticide levels dropped 60 percent. Other studies have found a 90 percent reduction.

The most significant drops occurred in a class of nerve agent pesticides called organophosphates. This class includes chlorpyrifos, a highly toxic pesticide linked to increased rates of autism, learning disabilities and reduced IQ in children. Organophosphates are so harmful to children’s developing brains that scientists have called for a full ban.

study published in the British Journal of Nutrition outlines a significant difference in nutritional content when it comes to organic food compared to non-organic food.

Many substances we now spray on our food were  initially developed as nerve gases for chemical warfare. They are linked to a wide variety of diseases, from cancer, to alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, liver diseases and several others.

This is why it’s not surprising that a eating organic foods free from pesticides is strongly correlated with a dramatic reduction in the risk of cancer, according to a study published in 2018 in an American Medical Association journal. The observational study led by a team of French government scientists tracked the diets of nearly 69,000 people. Four years later, those who consumed the most organic foods were 25 percent less likely to develop cancer. Of course, there are many limitations to the study and other factors that could play a role as to why the organic group experienced less instances of cancer.

There are so many examples of products approved for mass use that should not have been approved. There are countless examples of corruption and collusion between governments, federal health regulatory agencies and the companies that manufacture these products. Science that has called into question their safety has long been ignored, while industry science that claims these products are completely safe and harmless to human health as well as the environment as been used for their approval.

Over the years employees from health agencies, like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC), have been emphasizing this as well. For example, in 2016 group of more than a dozen senior scientists lodged an ethics complaint alleging the federal agency is being influenced by corporate and political interestsThey called themselves SPIDER. Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research.

They stated,

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimated and presse to do things they now are not right.

We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

It’s good to see that glyphosate is now being banned in multiple countries and cities. For example, as of Jan. 1, 2022, the sale and domestic use of 39 pesticides, for a total of more than 100 separate products, have been illegal in the city of Montreal. This includes products that contain glyphosate.

In 2021, Bayer announced that they will stop selling Roundup for residential use in 2023 in the U.S. Home and Garden Market.

It’s unfortunate that we had to wait decades for these initiatives for something that has been seemingly obvious for a long time. How many other products out there can you think of that are clearly harmful for human and environmental health that have been approved by governments? Billions of pounds of glyphosate have been sprayed across our planet. What type of intelligent species would do such a thing?

While The Political Elite Play War Games, People Are Dying & Being Displaced

ARJUN WALIA
FEBRUARY 26th, 2022

Anytime geopolitical issues escalate into full-blown war, it can be a terrifying situation for onlookers and those who become the sacrifice of the political elite. War and conflict is something necessary for the military industrial complex to thrive.

While bullets are flying and bombs are dropping, legacy media outlets typically use a tremendous amount of propaganda to sway public perception with regards to what’s really happening. We’ve seen this in the past with conflicts in the Middle East. Countries have been completely destroyed, with tens of millions of innocent people either losing their lives or forced to flee their homeland in search of a new life. All of this was done under the guise of good will, while countries claiming to be going after terrorist groups like ISIS, for example, were caught funding, arming and in many ways, creating them.

The US alone has displaced between 38 and 60 million people across eight countries since 2001. Keep this in mind the next time you hear US government officials pledge to defend “international law,” “human rights,” or “sovereignty and territorial integrity” abroad, or any government for that matter.

When international conflict arises on such a scale to the point where people fear the use of nuclear weapons or the beginning of World War 3, finger pointing begins and the citizenry becomes divided, not united. When this happens, is it necessary to try and decipher what’s really going on?

I would argue yes, because you can’t solve a problem without properly identifying the real issue. Legacy media has long been unreliable for serving the public in this way. Often times their work does the complete opposite – make people more confused. That being said, a part of me would also argue no, because politics has become such a large cesspool of corruption that nearly all ‘political elite’ can be implicated in atrocities and human rights abuses. In this case, perhaps both Russia and Ukraine.

But imagine a country that is self sufficient that wasn’t taking part in the globalised world as we know it. What if ‘the powers that be’ decided they wanted to take it over for no reason. What is this country supposed to do? What other options would it have? What if the invading countries create lies & propaganda to justify what they are doing, because their own citizens would not stand for such a reckless act of aggression and power grabbing? What can counter this?

What’s unfortunate about these ‘political games’ and war mongering is that innocent people are always the ones to suffer and not the political elite. If nuclear war was to begin, these elites would be sitting cosy in their massive and highly advanced “bunkers” while the citizens of the world suffer.

I published an article yesterday that goes deep into a discussion about what’s happening with Russia and Ukraine. Even after that, I’m still confused. It’s become near impossible to trust legacy media, and presenting multiple perspectives, especially ones that legacy media continues to ignore, is vital to even attempt to understand what’s really happening.

But I ask myself, again, is this even necessary? I’ve grown tired of trying to present views that the masses in the western world seem to condemn, yet I feel it’s necessary to present a holistic view of a conflict given the fact that we are so inundated with propaganda and a one sided perspective. The greatest tool used against the population is the manipulation of human consciousness via information warfare. It’s become nearly impossible to decipher what’s really happening.

People may be divided in their views of what’s happening, but seem to be united in one thing: we don’t want war and conflict, we are tired of watching innocent people suffer, lose their lives and homes due to the continuation of politics by other means (war).

Some of us seem to want to create a human experience where everybody can thrive. And humanity has so much potential to do this. But politics, big business and corruption continue to plague mother earth to the point where I wonder, what role is government really playing in our world?

Some argue the world would be in chaos if government as we know it did not exist. But what do you call what’s happening today?

Why do we keep relying on governments to make change? Why do we continue asking them? Why do we allow them to participate in such atrocities and how can we change it?

I don’t have the answers, but I know keeping my mouth shut isn’t part of the solution. Day by day efforts to silence those who expose the destructive actions of various governments continue to grow. These days, if you present information, evidence and even opinions that call into question what your government is doing, you are censored, ridiculed, and may even be labelled a terrorist or an enemy of the state.

Just look at what’s happened with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange.

A favourite quote of mine when referring to what’s happening with Assange comes from Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and has served as UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

“How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.”

Nils Melzer

No matter what our beliefs are, I’m sure everyone can agree that aggression such as war does not sit right, and there is no justification for it. Pointing fingers and claiming one side is “good” and the other is “bad” seems to be useless. War should simply not be an option, no matter what.

Is it enough for us to simply understand the ‘truth’ behind what’s happening in these wars? Or are we being asked to inquire about larger questions? Why do wars really happen? Who is behind them? What stories within our worldview uphold the idea of “mine” and “yours” that cause us to fight over things? Are we truly separated? Or are we actually connected in a way many of us have forgotten, and perhaps a return to those ways of thinking will help birth a new world and an end to this type of conflict?

“It is our earth, not yours or mine or his. We are meant to live on it, helping each other, not destroying each other. This is not some romantic nonsense but the actual fact. But man has divided the earth, hoping thereby that in the particular he is going to find happiness, security, a sense of abiding comfort. Until a radical change takes place and we wipe out all nationalities, all ideologies, all religious divisions, and establish a global relationship – psychologically first, inwardly before organizing the outer – we shall go on with wars. If you harm others, if you kill others, whether in anger or by organized murder which is called war, you, who are the rest of humanity, not a separate human being fighting the rest of mankind, are destroying yourself.”


Jiddu Krishnamurti

Natural Covid Immunity Discovered in Unvaccinated Adults up to 20 Months after Infection

ARJUN WALIA
FEBRUARY 11th, 2022

A new JAMA study published on Feb 3, 2022 titled “Prevalence and Durability of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among Unvaccinated US Adults by History of COVID-19” has found evidence of natural immunity to COVID in unvaccinated healthy US adults up to 20 months after confirmed COVID-19 infection. It will be interesting to see studies examining natural immunity years down the road to see if it lasts beyond this point.

One of the authors, Dr. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins, recently tweeted the following.

Yes, science regarding natural immunity throughout this entire pandemic has been ignored and not included in health policy. It’s even been censored. I recently published an article about a paper published by nine academics from various institutions explaining how government health authorities, legacy media and politicians have completely misled the public when it comes to the science of COVID. This includes natural immunity.

This particular study regarding natural immunity found evidence of natural immunity in unvaccinated healthy US adults up to 20 months after confirmed COVID-19 infection.

The authors used three equal sized sample groups. Including a group who reported a test-confirmed COVID-19 infection (“COVID-confirmed”), a group that believed they had COVID-19 but were never tested (“COVID-unconfirmed”), and a group that did not believe they ever had COVID-19 and never tested positive (“no-COVID”).

These groups were invited to undergo antibody testing at LabCorp facilities nationwide.

Among 295 reported COVID-confirmed participated, 293 of them (99%) tested positive for antibodies up to 20 months after a reported COVID diagnosis. Among 275 reported COVID-unconfirmed participants, 152 (55%) tested positive for antibodies, and among 246 reported no-COVID cases, 11% of them tested positive for antibodies.

We know that vaccine efficacy wanes between 4-6 months, so to see high levels of antibodies in some people up to 20 months after infection is quite encouraging.

Another recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine had similar results. According to their research, the effectiveness of a prior COVID infection in preventing reinfection is, for Alpha: 90.2% Beta: 85.7% Delta: 92.0% Omicron: 56.0%.

Natural infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) elicits strong protection against reinfection with the B.1.1.7 (alpha), 1,2 B.1.351 (beta(,1 and B.1.617.2 (delta) 3 variants.

I emailed one of the authors, Dr. Laith Jamal Abu Raddad with a question regarding the duration of the immunity. He responded,

Hello Arjun,

Thank you for your interest in our study. We have been following people for >18 months, and so far natural immunity remains strong with little waning, apart from the drop in protection against Omicron. Our studies continue for us to see how long this will last. My guess natural immunity protection will wane against infection over-time, but slowly over few years. However, natural immunity against severe COVID-19 will last substantially longer, perhaps even for a lifetime (as we see for other common cold coronaviruses.)

There are now well over 130 studies (including a recent CDC study) attesting to the power of natural immunity, which goes far beyond just antibodies. Natural immunity provides a robust level of protection, and even those who do not test positive for COVID antibodies can still have protection. The absence of specific antibodies does not mean an absence of immune memory. We cannot forget the contribution of B cells and T cells to immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains

ARJUN WALIA
JANUARY 14, 2022

  • The Facts: A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has now been downloaded more than 1 million times.
  • Reflect On: Why is it taboo to present science that calls into question and threatens the safety profile of certain medicines? Can science be openly practiced today with the enormous control the industry has over federal health regulatory agencies as well as academia?

In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University Christopher Exley, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissues of people with autism.

Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.

Help Support Our FOI Efforts: We are holding the Canadian government accountable by submitting Freedom of Information requests demanding transparency on COVID policy decisions as we know science is not on the side of policy. Help us fund these efforts by donating today. Click here to Donate.

It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. Below is an Instagram post Exley shared in 2020, but he has since deleted his account.

Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:

-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)

-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.

Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.

-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).

-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).

-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)

-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.

Following up this paper, Exely  published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

A paper where Exely was lead author, published in Nature titled “Aluminium in human brain tissue from donors without neurodegenerative disease: A comparison with Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis and autism” shows aluminum content in brain tissue of patients with these diseases is significantly higher than healthy controls.

In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was the following,

We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.

The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty second mark. Here he address whether or not there’s a difference between ingested aluminum and injected aluminum.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ju4-lKwQ4ak?feature=oembed

Is there a difference between ingested aluminum and injected aluminum?

There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it may not exit the body and instead travel to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.

This is key.

Dr. Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada explains,

When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system.

study published in BioMed Central (also cited in the study above)in 2013 found more cause for concern:

Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection. Both fluorescent materials injected into muscle translocated to draining lymph nodes (DLNs) and thereafter were detected associated with phagocytes in blood and spleen. Particles linearly accumulated in the brain up to the six-month endpoint; they were first found in perivascular CD11b+ cells and then in microglia and other neural cells. DLN ablation dramatically reduced the biodistribution. Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier. Loss/gain-of-function experiments consistently implicated CCL2 in systemic diffusion of Al-Rho particles captured by monocyte-lineage cells and in their subsequent neurodelivery. Stereotactic particle injection pointed out brain retention as a factor of progressive particle accumulation…

The study went on to conclude that “continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe.”

These authors followed up and published a study in 2015 that emphasized:

Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.

Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.

These days, science is not science, and the industry has a big influence on what science gets attention, and what science remains unacknowledged. We’ve seen this happen with COVID, for example. Cardiologist and NHS consultant Dr. Aseem Malhotra appeared on GBN News speaking about an American Heart Association study. The study found an increase risk of heart problems after COVID vaccinations. He mentions that another study found the same issue, but the researchers won’t publish it in fear of losing funding from drug companies.

Something to think about.

The Metaphysics of Politics & The Manipulation of Human Consciousness

 Arjun Walia
August 16th, 2020

CE founder Joe MartinoDulce Ruby and I have decided to sit down once a week and have a conversation about various topics, sharing our thoughts and how each of us are feeling. In our latest episode we decided to talk about the metaphysics of politics and how it effects our psyche.

All three of us have gone down the rabbit hole when it comes to big politics. For me, I was first introduced to deception within politics through examining various topics, one of the first being ‘false flag terrorism’ as well as the strong connections that governments have with mainstream media outlets. When I came across a declassified document that states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’” I really started looking into it more and realized this is still happening.

The information I was coming across even corroborated with multiple award winning journalists.

I eventually came to the conclusion that the prime purpose of big politics and big media (which go hand in hand) is simply to manipulate human consciousness and shape our perception of major events which allows these powerful people to justify actions they like to take, usually to gain even more control over the human race. I found out that the ones who propose the solution to global issues are usually the ones creating these problems as well, intentionally in order to justify the actions they like to take under the guise of good will. Julian Assange exposed much of this, along with other war crimes and immoral/unethical actions of governments and big corporations. Why is he in jail facing 175 years?

In the second half of the episode we talk about genetically modified mosquitoes, because the US Environmental Protection Agency just approved the release of nearly one billion GM mosquitoes in Florida and Texas. To access the second part, you can sign up for your free trial at CETV. It’s a platform we created to allow us to continue doing our work. As a result of a massive amount of censorship and demonetization from social media platforms and Google, its the only way we can try to stay alive and do what we do. Thank you for your support!

Opinion: Can We Expect Peace Between Nations When Our Most Basic Relationships Fail?

Arjun Walia
August 6, 2020

To say that I’m sick of politics is like a chemo patient saying he feels under the weather. I’m dying here. I’ve pondered wearing earplugs to muffle the pundits. I’ve considered using Google glasses to program “Trump” and “Democrats” and “Republicans” out of my visual spectrum.

Because there’s one issue that must come before politics…

It’s marriage.

Our romantic relationships are the basic unit of civilization. Men and women have children and build families, which make up neighbourhoods, communities, cities, states, and nations. Basic logic, right?

And it takes civilized people to make a civilization. So how can we expect to have peaceful nations when our most basic relationships are downright crude? We have missions to Mars and particle colliders that are rumoured to open portals to new dimensions. But, when it comes to love… we’re dragging our knuckles on a flat Earth.

Our version of love is a cycle of insecurity

We can’t stand to be alone. But rather than learning to love our lives and find meaning alone, we place impossible standards for fulfillment on our lovers. We get a little security, and a lot of pleasure. But when the chemicals wear off, we’re left with the truth: We don’t know anything about our lovers.

And when we do get to know each other, we hate what we find. Then we split. But each split tears a thread in the fabric of our society, because family is our foundation.

We can thrust ourselves into heady political conversations, and pretend that our red (or blue) rage is going to build a better world. But those political solutions aren’t addressing the root cause of our pain. We just need to fix how we love first.

Foundations of love

Foundations are, well, foundational to success. So we pave them for our houses, we practice scales before learning a difficult piece of music, and we learn the fundamentals of math before going on to algebra and calculus. We know that we need a strong foundation for successful relationships, too. But who actually takes the time to build one?

Loving responsibly is hard. It seems outdated or religiously nonsensical by today’s standards (getting to know someone inside and out before you take them to bed?), but if you don’t have a strong foundation, you’ve got a house of cards. Just like every one of my previous relationships.

From age 12 I trained myself to objectify women by watching porn. And until my early twenties, I was more concerned about my next sexual fix than my career. I hooked up with girlfriends not because I wanted to love them with all my heart, but because they were my key to security and satisfaction — which I got, for a time. But the net result was an increasingly lonely, unfulfilled, and depressed version of me.

By the end of my last relationship, I seriously considered taking my own life. What was I doing wrong? After picking up reflective habits like journaling and meditation, I figured it out.

I wasn’t fulfilled alone. I was bored alone. And I was unsuccessful alone. But in my mind, relationships were magical things that would wash all the bad stuff away and make me happy — kind of like a drug. In reality, for each desire that I lacked on my own, like joy, or security, I was strangling my relationships with conditions.

I’d “love” a girl until I was no longer joyful with her, or until she bored me. Then, for each condition that she failed to meet — no one can be perfect 100% of the time — I withdrew my love from her, bit by bit. The withdrawals happened on her side, too.

By the end of my relationships, whether they were six-month flings or two-year engagements, the end was predictably uncivil. We abused each other with our language. We cheated on each other, and betrayed each other’s trust. We blamed each other on and on for what the other had failed to do. Almost sounds like our relationships with other countries…

But the real failure was in choosing each other as romantic partners. It was in pursuing love without getting to know each other’s values and character traits first — before we built a foundation. We gambled on placing our faith in each other. And, like most people, we lost. Big time.

Rather than castrating myself, or settling for an endless string of heartaches — somebody shoot me — I worked on the foundation of my next relationship. I worked on me.

I learned to lean into my insecurity

Instead of running for another girl when I got lonely, I leaned into my insecurity and learned more about me. I developed a prayer life and a relationship with God. And I stuck to my new habits of journaling and meditation.

Through mindfulness, I channeled my sexual desire into my goals and self improvement. I felt the urge to ogle gorgeous women, of course, and at 27, their beauty moves me now more than ever. But I trained myself to move in a positive direction, to express healthy emotions at a woman’s beauty — like gratitude, inspiration, and awe — instead of imagining how she could please me.

Then I took it a step further.

I disciplined myself to think of a woman’s future husband. Would he respect me for the way I was thinking about her? And then I’d think of my future wife. If I couldn’t expect myself to view other wives with dignity and respect, how could I expect that of other men in looking at mine?

In my new way of thinking, I shed my selfish ways and became a man — and a neighbour, and a lover. A year into the habit I became independent for the first time in my life. I discovered my writing career and found success in it. And I became a role model for other people.

My dramatic life change happened because I figured out how to harness my sexual desire in an uplifting way. And in learning how to love civilly, I became a functioning part of civilization. *But people still call me out for not voting…

How you can love civilly

The way we think about each other determines how we act: civil, or uncivil. So you’ve got to train yourself to think respectful and positive thoughts — especially when it comes to beautiful men and women.

No matter how much we hope, the magical love chemicals can’t erase reality: We either love each other with respect, or we don’t. And if we don’t, our relationships will degrade, and our families will degrade. And as our broken relationships pick up steam down the social gradient, our communities degrade, and our cities degrade. And if the cycle of uncivil romance continues, states and nations will degrade as well. It’s basic logic.

So, you can talk about what these morons in office are doing to feel important and keep you occupied… or you can do something that actually makes a difference. You can learn to love like a human-fucking-being. Pardon my crude language.

Learn to love for the long term. Build faith in yourself. Quit porn and casual sex. Become so joyful and inspired by your own life that you couldn’t imagine expecting anyone else to be responsible for your happiness. Channel your sexual desire into your highest self. Use those urges to remind yourself of the things you haven’t done yet to become the person you want to be. Direct that energy into a future you would admire, and a person you’d be proud of.

And when you’ve changed the way you live and think, you’ll change the way you love. You’ll love civilly.

By your example, you’ll inspire others to take the harder path and to love civilly themselves. And when enough people do that… I won’t ever have to hear another political pundit for as long as I shall live. And I’ll thank you.

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

Arjun Walia
July 10, 2020

  • The Facts: John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.
  • Reflect On: Are all of the measures we are being forced to take actually about the virus, or about something else? Why have we never done this for more dangerous respiratory viruses that circle the globe? What’s going on here?

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…