A Call for Completeness, Independence, and Ethical Stewardship in Actuarial Science

 

SOA Consideration - April 2026

Prepared by Sheena Alexandra

The Ethical Actuary Project

​

Preamble

In Response To UN Agenda 2030 - SDG & ESG Goals "The Pack For The Future" we, the community of actuaries and risk professionals, stand at a pivotal moment. The unanimous adoption of the Pact for the Future by 193 UN member states on 22 September 2024 has formally embedded actuarial tools—long-term forecasting, risk modeling, intergenerational analysis, and sustainability metrics—into the operational architecture of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Even as national governments adjust funding or rhetoric, the framework continues to advance through non-governmental channels, standards bodies, and aligned organizations.
 

Actuaries are no longer peripheral observers; we have become active architects of policy outcomes that will shape infrastructure, insurance markets, household costs, and societal resilience for decades to come.

With this influence comes profound responsibility. Our models do not merely describe reality—they help construct it. Therefore, the completeness, transparency, and ethical integrity of the data and assumptions we use must be beyond reproach.

This Manifesto is not a rejection of progress or sustainability. It is a principled demand that actuarial science remain grounded in the fullest possible understanding of reality, free from institutional blind spots and undue external influence.

THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL ACTUARIAL STEWARDSHIP
 

1. Completeness of Inquiry

Actuarial models must incorporate all materially relevant domains of scientific knowledge, even those that are emerging, disputed, or currently underrepresented in mainstream discourse.

Independence and Objectivity
 

Professional independence is non-negotiable. Actuaries must retain the ability to question assumptions, test alternative scenarios, and disclose uncertainty without institutional or political pressure.
 

  2. Transparency in Decision Boundaries

Where models rely on simplified assumptions or exclude certain variables, those boundaries must be explicitly documented and stress-tested.

Human Oversight as Design Requirement

No predictive system should operate without clear human accountability. Delegation to algorithms must never become abdication of ethical responsibility.
 

  3. Service to Humanity First

Our ultimate duty is to the long-term well-being of individuals, families, and communities—not to any single policy agenda or institutional narrative.

Key Areas Requiring Expanded Scrutiny
 

INCLUDE ALL KNOWN DATA - BOTH MAINSTREAM & CONSIDERED 'FRINGE'

To uphold these principles, the following domains must be integrated into actuarial risk frameworks with transparency and rigor:

 

• KNOWN DATA #1: Atmospheric Intervention & Geo-Engineering

#chemtrail #patents

Ongoing research into: as solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, and related technologies introduces second- and third-order risks to climate models, agriculture, public health, and ecological stability.

These interventions must be explicitly modeled as potential variables rather than assumed absent.
 

• KNOWN DATA #2: Deep-Earth Water Systems (“Primary Water”)

#primarywater

Scientific evidence confirms the existence of vast water reserves in the Earth’s mantle and crustal layers.

Long-term water scarcity and resource projections should account for these non-surface sources rather than relying solely on conventional hydrological models.
 

• KNOWN DATA #3: Foundational Energy Frameworks

#aether #universalfield #tesla #quantumphysics

Modern physics recognizes measurable quantum fields and energy fluctuations in what was once considered “empty” space.

Emerging understandings of vacuum energy and field theory warrant inclusion in long-term energy transition and sustainability modeling.

These are not fringe claims-they are documented areas of active scientific inquiry. Their exclusion from mainstream actuarial models creates systemic blind spots that undermine the credibility of the forecasts we produce.

​

• KNOWN DATA #4: AI Governance and Actuarial Oversight

#AiGovernance #Technocracy #Technocratic

From an Ethical Actuary perspective, it is essential to incorporate AI governance into modern insurance modeling, particularly as predictive analytics, underwriting, and claims processing become increasingly automated. In addition to traditional oversight bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, actuaries should align with frameworks developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and international guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These frameworks emphasize transparency, accountability, bias mitigation, and auditability in AI systems. As AI increasingly influences risk scoring and claims outcomes, ethical actuarial practice requires that models be explainable, regularly validated against real-world data, and monitored for unintended consequences that could negatively impact policyholders. This ensures that technological advancement does not outpace governance, and that consumer protections remain central to actuarial decision-making.
 

• KNOWN DATA #5: Environmental and Dietary Risk Factors in Insurance Modeling 

​#GMO #monsanto 

Ethical actuarial analysis must also account for environmental and lifestyle variables that significantly influence long-term health outcomes and insurance claims. While regulatory bodies maintain that approved genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe based on current evidence, there is ongoing scientific discussion regarding long-term exposure and its interaction with highly processed food consumption. A substantial and widely accepted body of epidemiological research links diets high in ultra-processed foods to increased risks of chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and metabolic dysfunction. These conditions directly impact morbidity, mortality, and claims frequency across insurance portfolios. Accordingly, actuaries should adopt a holistic and evidence-based approach that differentiates between whole-food dietary patterns and processed food exposure, integrating credible long-term health data into pricing and reserving assumptions. This approach supports more accurate risk assessment while reinforcing the ethical obligation to reflect real-world determinants of health in consumer-facing financial products.
 

• KNOWN DATA #6: Critical evaluation of (VAERS), peer-reviewed studies, insurance mortality data, and emerging clinical observations.

#diedsuddenly

Died Suddenly / Sudden Cardiac Events

1. VAERS: 223x higher heart-related reports vs. all prior vaccines.

2. Young males (12-29): 70-106 myocarditis cases per million doses (JAMA 2021-22).

3. Excess deaths: 40%+ in some cohorts (OneAmerica 2021-22); “sudden” clusters (athletes, young adults) hit headlines—movie made because signals were too loud to ignore.

Cancer

1. No direct “vax-caused cancer” spike proven—yet oncologists (e.g., Dr. Angus Dalgleish) report turbo-charged cases: stage 3-4 in months, not years.

2. UK: Cancer diagnoses up 20-30% in under-50s (2022-25, NHS data).

3. US: Excess cancer mortality ~15-20% above baseline in 2022-23 (CDC).

4. Spike-protein theories: Some studies show immune suppression + DNA repair disruption—unproven, but enough noise for whistleblowers.

Strokes

1. Ischemic strokes: VAERS reports up 300-500% in 2021-22 (mostly mRNA).

2. UK: Stroke admissions +12% in 2021-23 (NHS).

3. Young adults (under 50): 25-30% higher risk post-shot (2023 Lancet).

4. Clotting links: J&J/AstraZeneca had TTS (thrombosis), but mRNA also showed micro-clots in autopsies.
    

Other Known Side Effects

1. Neurological: Bell’s palsy +200% (VAERS), Guillain-Barré up 3-5x.

2. Autoimmune: Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis flares reported 150-200% higher.

3. Fertility: Miscarriage rates +20-30% in some cohorts (2022-23 studies), sperm counts down 20% (2024 meta).

4. Long-term: Chronic fatigue, brain fog—millions self-report.

​

• KNOWN DATA #7: The Pandemic Agreement (2025)

The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted on 20 May 2025. It establishes a new framework for international cooperation on future pandemics, including the PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing) system and provisions for equity in access to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. Although still pending full ratification and detailed Annexes, this agreement signals renewed global coordination on health emergencies. Actuaries must incorporate potential impacts on morbidity, mortality, supply chains, and liability into their risk models, rather than assuming future events will follow past official narratives.

​

• KNOWN DATA #8: CDC Funding Sources and Influence

​The CDC receives billions in taxpayer appropriations while its separate CDC Foundation accepts substantial private funding, including from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. These funding streams raise legitimate questions about data independence and completeness, particularly regarding vaccine-related signals and mortality data. Actuaries must evaluate and disclose the potential influence of such private funding on the sources they rely upon for long-term risk modeling.

​

• KNOWN DATA #9: Agenda 2030 and Its Eugenic Roots

Agenda 2030 and its predecessor Agenda 21 promote “sustainable population dynamics” and resource management. While presented as environmental and developmental goals, these frameworks trace back to earlier eugenics-influenced thinking on population control and quality over quantity. This rebranded approach continues through health, education, and family planning initiatives. Actuaries, as stewards of long-term forecasting, must acknowledge this historical and ideological context when modeling sustainability, equity, and demographic risks, rather than treating these goals as purely neutral or benevolent.

 

• KNOWN DATA #10: The Dutch Civil Proceedings – Evidence of Deliberate Harm and the Need for Actuarial Scrutiny

In July 2023, Dutch lawyer Peter Stassen initiated civil tort proceedings in Eindhoven on behalf of seven plaintiffs who suffered serious injuries from COVID-19 injections, one of whom has since passed away. The core argument is that COVID-19 was not a naturally occurring disease but a planned “project” explicitly described in Klaus Schwab’s book COVID-19: The Great Reset, and that the injections themselves were not vaccines but bioweapons used to execute this project.

The defendants include the State of the Netherlands and 16 key executors from the political, pharmaceutical, media, and business sectors, among them Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Bill Gates contested the jurisdiction of the Dutch court, but on 16 October 2024 the court ruled that it does have jurisdiction over him. The substantive proceedings are now advancing toward an oral hearing on the merits. A parallel preliminary evidence request for three additional injured clients seeks to hear five highly qualified experts (including Dr. Maité Latipova and Katherine Watt) who are prepared to testify that the injections are bioweapons, not vaccines. An oral hearing on this request took place on 9 July 2025, and an appeal was filed on 15 September 2025 (referred to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 16 October 2025). Strikingly, the Dutch government launched a new COVID-19 injection campaign on the very same day the appeal was filed (15 September 2025).
 

These proceedings represent one of the most significant legal challenges to date, presenting over 150 exhibits and demanding judicial truth-finding on whether the harm was deliberate. The Rechterbrecht Foundation, which supports the cases, has been unable to secure sufficient funding, making the fight extremely difficult. For actuaries, this case is critical: if the injections are proven to be bioweapons causing widespread morbidity and mortality, the entire foundation of current mortality tables, longevity forecasts, and smart-city risk models built on official CDC and government data becomes fundamentally flawed. Actuaries have a professional duty to examine this evidence rather than rely solely on potentially compromised institutional data. The exclusion of such known signals from actuarial modeling raises serious ethical questions about the completeness and integrity of the forecasts that are shaping our future.

​

A CALL FOR TURTH AND TRANSPARENCY

​

For an Ethical Actuary operating in the United States, and our united collective world, through the United Nations - it is essential that risk modeling, insurance forecasting, and claims analysis are grounded not only in traditional regulatory oversight bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but also incorporate broader data surveillance systems, actuarial standards, and independent reporting channels to ensure transparency, accuracy, and consumer protection.

 

This includes critical evaluation of datasets such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), peer-reviewed studies, insurance mortality data, and emerging clinical observations. Between 2021 and 2026, reported signals have included elevated rates of myocarditis in younger males, increased reporting of neurological and autoimmune conditions, stroke incidence fluctuations, and observed excess mortality in certain insured populations, alongside debated trends in cancer progression and fertility outcomes.

 

While causation in many cases remains under active scientific review and is often confounded by concurrent COVID-19 infection or other variables, the scale and consistency of some signals necessitate rigorous actuarial scrutiny. Ethical practice therefore demands that actuaries align with professional standards set by bodies such as the American Academy of Actuaries and the Actuarial Standards Board, while also advocating for expanded regulatory frameworks that integrate multidisciplinary evidence streams. This ensures that pricing, reserving, and risk assumptions fully reflect real-world uncertainty, protect policyholders, and uphold the profession’s duty of care in the face of evolving public health data.

Bottom line: Not all “proven” causation—officials blame COVID infection. But the signals? Massive. Enough for a movie, lawsuits, and actuaries to start pricing it. 

 

CALL TO ACTION TO THE SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES (SOA)
 

We respectfully request that the SOA:

​

• Issue a formal position paper addressing the actuarial profession’s role in the implementation of the Pact for the Future and the UN Agenda 2030 SDG & ESG Goals.

• Establish an expanded ethical review process that explicitly includes underrepresented scientific domains in long-term risk modeling.

• Provide greater transparency regarding any collaborations, consultations, or alignments between the SOA and international UN governing bodies or (NGO) non-governmental organizations.

• Publish clear professional guidance on maintaining independence and ethical integrity when institutional directives intersect with actuarial work.

 

Proposal: The Ethical Actuary Manifesto

​​

To turn these principles into practical reality, I propose the immediate development and publication of a living Ethical Actuary Manifesto.

This document will be served as both a professional standard and give access to the AESOP Platform - a practitioner toolbox for actuaries navigating the complex intersection of technical rigor, ethical stewardship, and global policy integration that will be required as we navigate the next few years and beyond 2030.

​

I am personally prepared to lead this initiative through AESOP -the private, practitioner-focused platform I've created and is already established as the ethical decision-support system for actuaries and risk professionals.

​

The AESOP Platform provides the structured environment needed to develop boundary practices, stress-test assumptions, and maintain independence while serving the public interest.
 

VISIONARY UPGRADE IN SCIENCE

​

Actuaries are the stewards of humanity’s long-term foresight. 
 

If we accept this role, we must also accept the duty to ensure our models reflect the fullest possible picture of reality-complete, transparent, and ethically grounded.
 

The future is not yet written. Our models help write it. Let us write it with courage, completeness, and unwavering integrity.

Respectfully submitted for consideration by the Society of Actuaries.

​

The Ethical Actuary & The AESOP Platform - Enrol Here