Are the Skies Portending Inevitable changes? A Recap of the remarkable last month

Last month the U.S. was graced with a total solar eclipse. Astrologers say this event signals big changes. Are they coming to pass right now? (Audio track included)

This weekend we who live in the temperate climates are being treated to a cosmic spectacle from massive solar storms. The Northern Lights were visible as far south as Florida. I spoke to a ham radio enthusiast who told me that communication has been impossible since these massive storms erupted 93 million miles away from us.

Last month the moon cast a shadow that raced across the U.S. on a Monday afternoon allowing millions to witness a astronomical event called totality. Astrologers tell us solar eclipses signal a shift in our thinking. Says this astrologer:

“Eclipses by nature and astrology are times of the unexpected times of change. They'll show you where in your life you've been holding on to something that is past its prime, trying to force something to go in a direction it's not supposed to…”

The afternoon before the April 8th eclipse I spoke with Joe Martino (Founder of Collective Evolution and ThePulse.one) and David Helfrich (attorney and former political consultant to Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson) on the Collective Evolution podcast. We mused about the possibility that the upcoming celestial event would herald a shift in the way we are interpreting information collectively:

Here we are a month later and I am astounded by what I am seeing.

1) An NPR insider Critiques the News Organization he has worked for for 25 years.

Uri Berliner, an award winning reporter and senior editor for NPR attempted to explain how NPR has lost America’s trust in an article published on April 9th, the day after the eclipse.

This was an expose that I never thought I would ever read. He offered three examples of how NPR made inexcusable mistakes over the last few years:

1. NPR was relentless in their coverage of RussiaGate, leading their listeners and readers to believe that Robert Muller’s investigation into allegations that Russia and Trump colluded in the 2016 presidential election would be confirmed. Despite taking three years and using the full breadth of his massive legal authority, Muller was not able to find anything actionable. NPR never acknowledged that they jumped the gun.

2. On the other hand, NPR never offered their audience any objective coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, despite the since validated evidence that our sitting President used his influence when he was second in command to influence his son’s corrupt business dealings with foreign entities.

3. NPR still is blind to the overwhelming evidence that the virus which shut down the world for two years emerged from a lab and was likely the product of taxpayer funded Gain of Function research.

As I wrote earlier, Berliner noted that NPR still hasn’t acknowledged their mistakes. He resigned soon after NPR suspended him without pay.

Two weeks later, Kelly McBride, NPR’s public editor, attempted to refute Berliner’s critique and respond to a movement to defund the public radio organization sparked by his open letter on an “On the Media” podcast.

Unsurprisingly, the segment begins with a excerpts of conservative media salivating over the public radio turncoat’s criticism. What better way to consolidate support for NPR before actually addressing Berliner’s concerns? Here’s how McBride responded to his points:

1. Just because Muller couldn’t find any evidence of crime, that doesn’t mean Trump didn’t do anything wrong (?!)

2. NPR should have covered the Hunter Biden story earlier. (In other words, Berliner was correct)

3. There were a “thousand” other stories to cover during the pandemic. Besides, nobody else was covering the lab leak hypothesis, so what’s the big deal (??!!)

The New York Times Acknowledges that vaccine injuries could exist

Pulitzer Prize winning Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli recently wrote an article titled “Thousands believe they have been injured by the Covid Vaccine. Is Anyone Listening?”. Could there be a better title for an article that was a textbook example of a limited hangout and a masterclass in gaslighting rolled up into one?

Mandavilli and her editors saw no reason to back up any of their absurd ideations. Why only thousands when millions reported injuries? How did one of her subjects know that the brain damage she suffered was from contamination and not the product?

Perhaps the most ridiculous was the claim that health authorities cannot talk about real vaccine harms because that would result in the rise of antivax misinformation. Imagine going to a doctor who refuses to tell you about the risk of harm of a medical therapy because you might get the wrong idea and tell others about it?

Nevertheless, rabid Times readers were incensed that their gold standard for “All The News That’s Fit to print” would go so far as to even hint that intelligent people have reasons to believe that they have been harmed by Covid “vaccines”.

Former CNN Anchor, Chris Cuomo, does a 180 without admitting fault

Chris Cuomo is brother to former NY State Governor, Andrew Cuomo, who rose to hero status early in the pandemic when he publicly demanded President Trump give his state 30,000 ventilators to prepare for an inevitable apex of critically ill Covid-19 patients. Of course things played out differently for NY State residents and Governor Cuomo himself.

The ventilators were never needed and mechanical ventilation was eventually found to be deadly to Covid patients. One year later Governor Cuomo left office amidst multiple sexual harassment charges which were confirmed by an independent investigation.

Andrew’s younger brother, Chris Cuomo, a former anchor for CNN, is no stranger to controversy either. 2021 was a tough year for the Cuomo brothers. CNN first suspended and eventually fired Cuomo, citing violations of ethics and standards of journalism because of his conflict of interest while advising his brother how to respond to the flurry of allegations around his conduct. Allegations of sexual harassment against Chris Cuomo surfaced in subsequent months as well.

While at CNN, Cuomo anchored segments that called his audience to shame the vaccine hesitant and reject any notion that Covid could be treated with cheap, repurposed medications like Ivermectin.

This last week, independent journalist, Patrick Bet-David, host of the popular PBD podcast interviewed Chris Cuomo. In the interview Cuomo admitted that he has been suffering from health issues since he contracted Covid back in the spring of 2020. He now says:

• The vaccinate/don’t vaccinate debate was unnecessarily politicized throughout the pandemic

• He believes his health issues stemmed from Covid and not the Covid vaccine

• He is being treated with Ivermectin, a medicine that he previously reported was ineffective and potentially dangerous

• He doesn’t fault himself because clinicians who knew the drug was safe remained silent

• He begrudgingly admitted that Joe Rogan was right about Ivermectin

• He feels there was overwhelming evidence that the vaccines had significant benefit in preventing serious outcomes

• He does not believe he needs to apologize for being wrong because he did all he could to report what was known at the time

Like the NY Times article, his comments are drawing outrage from both sides of the issue. Covid vaccine proponents are miffed because Cuomo states that he was wrong about Ivermectin and more importantly does not know if the vaccines were of benefit in the long run.

A quick survey of viewer comments tells us that vaccine skeptics and pandemic response critics are understandably furious. Why didn’t he talk to the experts who risked their careers and reputations to bring attention to the potential dangers of a mass vaccination campaign using a product with no long term safety data? If he now admits that we cannot know what the long-term detriments of the shots are, why was he so sure they were safe three years ago? Because that’s what he was told? That’s ridiculous. Nobody could know if the shots were authorized after only a six week period of observation.

Beyond that, not every clinician was silent about our ability to treat Covid-19 cheaply and safely either.

Nobody expects that a journalist with no scientific or medical training should be right about the science. Journalists are expected to report on all sides of an issue and not simply treat official positions as gospel. He failed miserably in his duty as a journalist but still maintains that he doesn’t have to apologize for his role in deepening the divide, steering people away from treatments that he is now using and shaming people for eschewing a vaccine that he admits has unknown harm.

Jimmy Dore summed it up quite well here:

Peter Daszak found guilty of obstructing Covid origins investigation

Daszak is one of, if not the central figure(s) in the Covid origins debate. Independent researchers and investigators had early on pointed out the role of Daszak’s organization, EcoHealth Alliance in doing Gain of Function research in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Four years later a congressional subcommittee now finally impelled him to appear to answer some hard questions.

Ultimately the subcommittee was unable to conclude that the SARS-COV2 virus responsible for the pandemic was a product of his research, however they were dispositive in their conclusion. Wrote subcommittee chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) in a letter to Jeffrey Sturchio, a businessman and healthcare nonprofit executive considered to be Daszak’s publicist:

“The Select Subcommittee has documents suggesting Dr. Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth, has been deliberately delaying and obstructing this investigation, and that he has employed you as a communications consultant to potentially further this obstruction.”

The origin of the virus may never be settled, but the public is finally starting to understand that there is a lot of smoke around this issue. Wenstrup continued:

“When considering the clearly bad faith and dilatory motivations Dr. Daszak proudly shared with his colleagues, this response letter, on which we suspect you advised EcoHealth, it is imperative upon the Select Subcommittee to evaluate whether Dr. Daszak has obstructed this investigation in other ways.”

Daszak’s role in obfuscating the facts around this matter go back to the early months of 2020 when he coauthored this letter in The Lancet where he states:

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Whether or not Daszak believed or still believes this to be the truth can never be proven, however such a statement appearing in a scientific publication draws suspicion that both Daszak and The Lancet are part of a potential cover up from the beginning. Since when does the most venerated medical journal in the world use or publish pejoratives like “conspiracy theories”?

I would be remiss in not mentioning Igor Chudov’s take on Daszak’s character (the title had me laughing and crying at the same time):

Drunken Student Stole Madonna Statue's Head, Later Killed 6 Million People with a Deadly Virus He Designed

Select Subcommittee questions Science Editor-in-Chief

Holden Thorp, PhD appeared in front of the same panel in the last month to answer what amounted to nothing but a series of softball questions. Details of his appearance can be found here.

Thorp found his way to his powerful role in guiding scientific discourse just a couple of months prior to Event 201, the prescient symposium sponsored by Johns Hopkins University and Bill Gates which predicted the emergence of a respiratory borne pathogen that would lead to a global pandemic as well as a coordinated antivax movement requiring the “management” of news coverage to combat it.

Thorp is a chemist who admitted that he is unfamiliar with the Cochrane Library, what is considered the gold standard around medical evidence. Nevertheless he repeatedly used his position to publish a number of editorial pieces condemning qualified voices that questioned both the zoonotic origins hypothesis and vaccine safety and efficacy.

Notably absent were the Editors-in-Chief of Nature Medicine and The Lancet. Both publications are at the center of controversy regarding scientific integrity of published material.

Jimmy Dore interviews Dr. Meryl Nass

The NPR, NYTimes, Chris Cuomo, Peter Daszak and Holden Thorp stories barely scratch the surface of deep problems with journalism, science and the pandemic. But it’s a start and something I thought I might never witness, let alone within a month of each other.

As the public is slowly becoming acquainted with the misinformation they were fed for the the last four years by the sources that warned them to not fall for misinformation, the real threat looms ahead.

Nass and her Door To Freedom organization has made incredible strides in the last few months to alert legislators here and around the world of a power grab launched by the World Health Organization to control future pandemic responses.

So far Nass and her supporters have convinced 49 Senators and 22 State Attorneys General to demand that the Biden Administration reject the W.H.O. Pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations which call for biodefense (i.e. bioterrorism) research to be distributed in all nation signatories, rapid deployment of mRNA vaccines, minimal compensation for injured vaccinees, redistribution of resources per WHO mandates and standardized definitions of “mis/disinformation”.

Dore treated his 1.35 million subscribers to a succinct and shocking summary of what the W.H.O. is up to through his own deep dives and commentary from Dr. Nass here:

This is another big breakthrough for Medical Freedom advocates. Please watch and share.

Is the dam starting to break? What are your thoughts? Please leave your comments. And Happy Mother’s Day!