Connect with us

Alternative News

Here’s Why More Than 35 Countries Have Banned Genetically Modified Crops From Their Country

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The global resistance against Genetically Modified Crops is growing at an exponential rate. A few years ago, you were almost ridiculed for suggesting that GM foods could be a problem, and now scientists and researchers are presenting information that has 19 new countries joining an already long list of nations to completely ban, or have severe restrictions on, GMOs — as well as the pesticides that go with them.

advertisement - learn more

These countries will not allow genetically modified crops to be grown in their country. The opt-out countries are requesting that biotechnology companies exclude their territories from GMO seed sales, and some countries, according to RT news, are simply putting things to a halt until more research is conducted.

--> Read: A rare mineral can remove harmful toxins & heavy metals with just 30 seconds a day. Click here to learn more.

For those of you who do not know, GMO crops have had their DNA artificially altered, which is a process that would not happen in nature. This is done by introducing genes from a completely different species in order to boost the plant’s resistance to pests or herbicides, or create some other desired effect.

“By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.” 

– Geneticist David Suzuki (source)

Again, we are talking about more than three dozen countries. That’s more than half of the countries within the European Union, some of which include: Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Poland, and Belgium. The magnitude of this resistance cannot be ignored.

advertisement - learn more

Here is a current list of countries  that have banned the growth of these crops. Other countries not on the list have restrictions on them, and some still allow the import of these crops. But the trend seems to be a complete ban as the years move on. It’s a complicated issue, especially when you ponder the fact that science has now been heavily politicized. More on that later in the article.

Health/Environmental Concerns Mixed With Scientific Fraud

So why are these countries doing this? Two of the main reasons have to do with environmental and health-related concerns. Alongside all of these troubles (according to Reuters), some countries simply want to take time to do proper research — flying in the face of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) decree that GMOs are completely safe. There are many who disagree with this assertion.

“As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe.”

– Jane Goodall (source)

The quote above from Goodall comes from Steven M. Druker who, in 1996, did something very few Americans were doing then — learn the facts about the massive venture to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply. The problem of unawareness still exists today, but it’s getting much better thanks to activists like Druker.

Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. In 2015 he published a book on the lawsuit. In the book, Druker provides details of his experience, and he’s also released the documents on his website showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws present in the FDA’s policy.

It’s called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

The book has some very impressive reviews. For example, David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”

Stephen Naylor, Ph.D., CEO and Chariman of Mai Health Inc., an individual who spent 10 years as a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and pharmacology, stated that Druker’s “meticulously documented, well crafted, and spell binding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us.” 

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and professor emeritus of genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

In publishing his book and filing this lawsuit, Druker exposed how the agency covered up the warnings of its own scientists about the risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered these foods onto the market in violation of federal law.

It’s also noteworthy to mention that Druker has actually served on the food safety panels at conferences held by the National Research council and the FDA, presented lectures at numerous universities, met with government officials throughout the world, and conferred at the White House Executive Offices with a task force of President Clinton’s Council on Environmental Quality.

You can also check out his website, where he has published key FDA documents revealing hazards of genetically engineered foods and the flaws with how the agency made its policy. 

Let’s not forget all of the science cited by these other countries.

A great example is a study that was published in the journal Evironmental Sciences Europe. The WHO has never cited any long term studies that prove the safety of GMOs. When a study was finally conducted, it found severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, in rats fed GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup — levels that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. The rats also developed large cancer tumours.(source)

Other studies have found instances of adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues. They also determined that no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods have been established. Many studies have emphasized that more scientific effort is needed in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods. (source)(source)

Studies have also linked GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs. (source)

Here’s what Irina Ermakova, VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, said last year when Russia was mulling over the decision to ban GMOs:

It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped…. [We] should stop it from spreading.  (source)

Keep in mind that we are talking about GM crops, which are sprayed with billions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year. These chemicals have been linked to a number of diseases, ranging from autism, to cancer, to Alzheimer’s disease and more.

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.” 

– October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

A new study published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September examined US government databases, and researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a “correlation analysis” on a total of 22 different diseases.

Researchers reached an alarming conclusion:

These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow.” (source)

Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but using the Bradford Hill criteria, it’s easy to see why so many scientists/countries are opposing GMOs.

The shift toward organic food is strong and growing; it’s what consumers are demanding. After all, who wants pesticides accumulating in their body, especially ones that have been incontrovertibly linked to several diseases?

For example, a recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults by 90%.  (source)

Another study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, indicated that among individuals eating similar amounts of vegetables and fruits, the ones who reported eating organic produce had significantly lower OP pesticide exposure than those who normally consume conventionally grown produce. You can read more about that here.

These chemicals are manufactured by big bio-tech corporations like Monsanto, and the fact that they’ve been caught lying doesn’t help their credibility one bit. For example, a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. (source)  Roundup was also (finally) linked to cancer recently by the WHO, although a number of scientists had already provided tremendous amounts of proof for this:

“There is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans. A US EPA report and several more recent positive results conclude that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.” (source)

Political Agendas?

Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. There is fact that previously classified secret government documents exist which show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds. If information about our food needs to be concealed from the public domain, then something has gone seriously wrong with the food industry. It’s great to have an organization like WikiLeaks shed some light into a world that’s been hidden from us for so many years.

The cables reveal that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations., and that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

A non-profit consumer protection group called Food & Water Watch published a report showing the details of the partnership between the federal government and a number of biotech companies who have pushed their GMO products on multiple countries for a number of years:

In the past decade, the United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State Department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.

Agricultural development is essential for the developing world to foster sustainable economies, enhance food security to combat global hunger and increase resiliency to climate change. Addressing these challenges will require diverse strategies that emphasize sustainable, productive approaches that are directed by countries in the developing world.

The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Here is one cable (out of many) from Morocco.

Here is a 2008 cable that summarizes a French documentary called “The World According to Monsanto,” which attacks the U.S. biotech industry and the fact that Monsanto and the U.S. Government constantly swap employees and positions.

This is just one example that clearly shows how giant corporations essentially dictate government policy. These food corporations are responsible for pushing independent agriculturists out of business. They control the world’s seed supply, forcing farmers to become dependent on their seed. Monsanto and corporations like it have created patented GMO seeds and are preventing farmers from seed saving and sharing, resulting in a dependence on their genetically modified product.

Between 2007 and 2009, the State Department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,’ directing every diplomatic post worldwide to “pursue an active biotech agenda” that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocates for pro-biotech policies and laws.” (source)

“The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy. This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing US foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide. This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder.”

– Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive (source)

One of the most revealing cables is from 2007, and it looks at French efforts to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. Here is a cable that shows Craig Stapleton, former ambassador to France under the Bush administration, asking Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

The U.S. government was not only working for the biotech industry. They were also threatening other governments who did not comply. Think about that for a moment. Over the years, the United States government and Monsanto have collectively pushed their GMO agenda upon the rest of the world. Why? Do you really think it is to help feed the world? This could easily be achieved if we came together and pooled our resources. The entire planet could have access to organic food and it could be done for free.

A Shift in Consciousness Encompasses Everything

It’s quite amazing to see what has happened over the past ten years alone. The birth of social media networks has brought forth a wealth of new information in the form of alternative media. While there may be many “fake news” sites out there, there are also many valid information sources that have created awareness and sourced their work properly. They shared information that mainstream media would not share. After all, mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations, and also heavily influenced by government and corporate agendas.

Our world has been drenched in secrecy, and more people are having a hard time trusting mainstream media networks. It’s simply best to let people decide for themselves and examine the sources for themselves, rather than having somebody on television telling the world “what is.”

The fact that billions of people every year were accessing information about corporate and government fraud, and information that is not always presented to the world, just goes to show how big this shift in consciousness is. New ideas are being presented that challenge old beliefs, and more people are starting to question the world around them and the entire human experience.

What are we really doing here? A lot of people see a clear need for change, and recognize that if we continue to follow our ways with regards to politics, finance, health, environment, education, and more, we’re not really going forward.

Our souls are craving a new human experience, and creating awareness about several aspects of that human experience, like GMOs, for example, plays a key role in changing it. So when it comes to GMOs, vote with your dollar!

Don’t let “fake news” labels determine your truth. Don’t let someone else make your decisions for you. Examine the sources for yourself, think critically, and make your own decisions. We do not need another entity, like Snopes, telling us what is and what isn’t. It’s time to think for ourselves, and stop letting the government, corporations, and politicians do it for us.

We can’t continue to put change in their hands; we have to put it in our own.

 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Senior D.O.D Official Says UFOs “Are Demonic & We Shouldn’t Be Pursuing Them”

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The former director of the Pentagon's UFO program recently gave an interview to the NY Post. The discussion was about the UFO phenomenon, and how the topic is quite vast and may change humanities perception of reality in cultural and religious ways.

  • Reflect On:

    Why have governments kept the phenomenon a secret? Why ridicule it for so many years, and then start talking about it? Who decides whether or not humanity is ready to look into and deal with this very real phenomenon?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Lue Elizondo is a former intelligence officer with the Department of Defense, and former director of AATIP, the Pentagon’s previous UFO program, from 2010-2017. No, it is not Lue who believes UFOs are demonic, he instead tells a story of someone else within government who had this belief.

Elizondo, along with his colleague Christopher Mellon, the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Steve Justice, a recently retired Director of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Skunkworks when they all began speaking publicly about the UFO phenomenon in 2017. In doing so they joined many others with verified high ranking backgrounds from within government who publicly comment on the subject, voicing their concerns that the phenomenon is real and that the public has a right to know about it.

From the perspective of a citizen, ‘why have UFOs been kept secret?’ is a difficult question to answer. Yes, there is the possibility that there are corporate and financial elite interests tied to this phenomenon, who would like to capitalize on it, and/or influence the perception of citizens regarding the phenomenon for ulterior motives. But perhaps that’s not true, it’s not something we hear about from all whistleblowers who have come forward. So what is going on? It’s difficult to know, and only a small group of people seem to control the secrecy around the subject.

A common theme seems to be that, one large reason for the secrecy is perhaps the implications it has on culture and religion. Multiple whistleblowers over the years have told us that governments know that the phenomenon is controlled by non human intelligence.

At the 15 minute mark of an interview with The NY Post, Elizondo speaks about a meeting he had with a senior Department of Defense official who told him that there are people within government who do not want information about the subject to get out due to their (the officials) philosophical and religious belief systems.

I remember the conversation very well, um, this is a person I respected tremendously, very very senior person…He told me he said…”We already know what it is.” I said OK sir, so it’s ours? And he said no, that’s not what I’m saying. And he said, he asked me point black “have you read your bible lately?” And I wasn’t quite sure where he was going with that and I said…where are you going with this? And he said “well then you know that these are demonic and we should not be pursuing them.”…He wasn’t kidding, that’s exactly how he felt…

Lue then goes on to emphasize that “no matter what it is, we need to figure it out.”

There was a time when the church wouldn’t even look through the telescope of Galileo because it conflicted with their narrative…This is something we have been dealing with for a long time…Imagine the first person that decided to get on a boat and sail over the horizon, right, and there’s discussion of sea monsters and krakens that will devour you and destroy your boat. And yet, we did it anyways, we did sail and explored the world and it turns out, you know, 500 years later yeah there really are sea monsters except for we call them the great squid of the pacific and we call them great white sharks and whales…Now they’re just a part of nature they have a scientific name. But, you know, those sea monsters still exist, they’re there, we just learned to understand them and maybe this is the same thing maybe this is just yet another expedition over the horizon in which we’re going to realize what we thought were monsters are really just neighbours.

Be sure to check out the full interview here if interested.

This begs the question. Is humanity ready for the disclosure? Regardless of the answer, it’s happening. Personally, I believe we are and I do not like the idea of high ranking officials who are guided by their belief systems dictating what these objects represent. I do not feel comfortable with a small group of people determining whether or not humanity is ready for such exploration. Why should they decide?

Throughout history we continually go through paradigm shifting moments, and every time we deny them and shy away from them as a way of holding on to beliefs. Is this human nature? Or something we can overcome with awareness? The UFO subject and its disclosure of it at the mainstream level represents just that, a paradigm shifting moment that calls into question what we thought we knew about nature of our reality.

Are we open to it?

Here’s another great quote from Dr. Eric Davis that may provide some insight as well. Davis, a renowned astrophysicist who worked with the Pentagon UFO program stated that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency, as recently as March 2020 about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.”

I think there’s a lot of evidence that the government has known, but the problem is, it’s so outside the realm of human comprehension that they can’t deal with it on a legislative basis, they can’t deal with it on a military, operational basis, they can’t can’t deal with it on the basis of a presidential policy. (source)

Being a researcher in the field for more than 15 years, stories of “beings” associated with these objects range from what can be perceived as very benevolent, to malevolent. There are all kinds of stories out there, some which have very interesting corroborations among multiple supposed “experiencers.” Perhaps all of these objects are not from “one” place or the “same” species, perhaps we have been visited by intelligent life from other galaxies universes, dimensions? Perhaps some are interplanetary? There is so much of our “reality” that we cannot perceive with our senses, perhaps they exist here, on Earth, but in these other realms we cannot perceive with our senses? The topic is quite vast and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched.

The latest program disclosed by the U.S. Defense Department is the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF). The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, is currently leading that program UAPTF.

In the NY Post interview Elizondo explains many things, and something that’s not novel. One of them is that the Navy, as well as other military branches, have encountered these objects on “a daily basis.” Prior to the “mainstream” UFO disclosure we’ve seen in the past couple of years, this was already quite evident. There are tens and thousands of pages of declassified documents describing military encounters with UFOs. These documents contain radar tracking data, pictures and now videos that have been released, as well as testimony from the pilots involved. This is nothing new, although it may be new in the public eye, it’s been something that’s been happening since man was able to take flight.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disk, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft….The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), and the actions which much be considered evaise when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of these objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely – General Nathan Twining, 1947.

The phenomenon has also been documented in the printing press in times of antiquity, prior to the time of modern day technology. It’s even seen in historical pieces of artwork. It’s safe to say that the phenomenon has been observed for a very long time – yet only now are we taking it seriously.

It’s quite clear that governments around the world have been studying this phenomenon while keeping humanity in the dark about what they’ve discovered. Intelligence agencies in the US are set to disclose what they know about the phenomenon very soon, but any information beyond what is already known among many ufologists is not to be expected. It’s safe to assume that a wealth of information will still be kept “classified” for “national security” purposes. I put “national security” in quotations because, in my opinion, I feel in many cases ‘national security’ has become and umbrella term to justify the concealment of information due to it’s implications on the human belief and culture, or to protect corporate and perhaps “elitist” agendas. Perhaps I’m wrong?

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it….And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. – JFK

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

CDC Specifies PCR Test Cycle Threshold For Vaccinated Individuals: What Does This Mean?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 17 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC is and will be collecting samples from COVID tests of vaccinated individuals to try and determine if the virus can breakthrough the protection of the vaccine. In doing so the CDC has specified a cycle threshold for PCR tests.

  • Reflect On:

    Why a cycle threshold suddenly? Why not one prior to the rollout of vaccines? How many false positives have we seen as a result of no prior cycle threshold? Will PCR tests of the unvaccinated have this new cycle threshold?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The CDC is monitoring COVID-19 “vaccine breakthrough” cases at the moment. This means that those who are fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine can still become infected. According to the CDC, “a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will get sick and some may be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.”

Throughout this pandemic, the tests used to identify “positive” COVID-19 cases has been the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which can detect the virus in nasal swabs (RT-PCR). The PCR test is not actually designed to identify active infectious disease, instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.  PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.

The CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold.

According to Public Health Ontario,

The cycle threshold (Ct) value is the actual number of cycles it takes for the PCR test to detect the virus. It indicates an estimate of how much virus was likely in the sample to start with – not the actual amount. If the virus is found in a low number of cycles (Ct value under 30), it means that the virus was easier to find in sample and that the sample started out with a large amount of the virus. Think about it like the zoom button on your computer, if you only have to zoom in a little (zoom at 110%), it means that item was big to start with. If you have to zoom a lot (zoom at 180%), it means that the item was small to start with.

Why This Is Important: It’s been difficult to find what PCR Ct value tests have been using during this pandemic, and it’s important because at a value at 35 or more for example, an individual is more likely to test “positive” when they are not infected and/or do not even have the ability to transmit. This is commonly known as a “false positive.”

There are multiple studies showing that the number of “cycles” performed by PCR to amplify the genetic sample is directly correlated with infectiousness. The more cycles needed to get positivity from a sample, the less viral replication, or “positivity” for lack of a better word, the sample shows.

For example, an article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. The cycle number is associated with the chances of infectiousness, yet this has never really been available to the patient nor the public. Most people don’t even know about it. The study examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. Cultured basically refers to the ability of the sample to find the virus and determine an infection.

This could be interpreted as,

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” (source)

According to Stanford Medical Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, PCR samples with a cycle count over 35 is a common lab occurrence. This means that if during this pandemic this was the case, the number of false positives could have been over 90 percent, meaning the vast majority of positive cases weren’t really positive. It means the number of positive “cases” were not an accurate picture of how many people were actually infectious and capable of transmitting the virus. This was and still remains a concern, because “cases” all over the world are being used to set health policy.

Bhattacharya explains in his article,

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness. Other states should emulate Florida in requiring laboratories to report cycle times to providers and to public health officials so they can provide better advice to patients and make more nuanced decisions about mandatory quarantine orders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) didn’t properly address this issue, it seems, until nearly a year into the pandemic, when they put a notice on their website. They did however already make it clear that WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. That being said, I still couldn’t find what cycle threshold was being used in any part of the world, you would think this type of information wouldn’t be so hard to find?

An article published in September of 2020 in Sciencemag also brings up this issue and explains it quite well:

Ever since the coronavirus pandemic began, battles have raged over testing: Which tests should be given, to whom, and how often? Now, epidemiologists and public health experts are opening a new debate. They say testing centers should report not just whether a person is positive, but also a number known as the cycle threshold (CT) value, which indicates how much virus an infected person harbors.

Advocates point to new research indicating that CT values could help doctors flag patients at high risk for serious disease. Recent findings also suggest the numbers could help officials determine who is infectious and should therefore be isolated and have their contacts tracked down. CT value is an imperfect measure, advocates concede. But whether to add it to test results “is one of the most pressing questions out there,” says Michael Mina, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Standard tests identify SARS-CoV-2 infections by isolating and amplifying viral RNA using a procedure known as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which relies on multiple cycles of amplification to produce a detectable amount of RNA. The CT value is the number of cycles necessary to spot the virus; PCR machines stop running at that point. If a positive signal isn’t seen after 37 to 40 cycles, the test is negative. But samples that turn out positive can start out with vastly different amounts of virus, for which the CT value provides an inverse measure. A test that registers a positive result after 12 rounds, for a CT value of 12, starts out with more than 10 million times as much viral genetic material as a sample with a CT value of 35.

But the same sample can give different CT values on different testing machines, and different swabs from the same person can give different results. “The CT value isn’t an absolute scale,” says Marta Gaglia, a virologist at Tufts University. That makes many clinicians wary, Mina says. “Clinicians are cautious by nature,” Mina says. “They say, ‘If we can’t rely on it, it’s not reliable.’” In an August letter in Clinical Infectious Diseases, members of the College of American Pathologists urged caution in interpreting CT values.

Nevertheless, Mina, Gaglia, and others argue that knowing whether CT values are high or low can be highly informative. “Even with all the imperfections, knowing the viral load can be extremely powerful,” Mina says.

Early studies showed that patients in the first days of infection have CT values below 30, and often below 20, indicating a high level of virus; as the body clears the coronavirus, CT values rise gradually. More recent studies have shown that a higher viral load can profoundly impact a person’s contagiousness and reflect the severity of disease.

They are now specifying CT values for vaccinated individuals. It’s nice to see that the CDC is specifying cycle threshold, as mentioned above, for vaccinated individuals. It simply makes the detection of “positive” cases much more accurate and, as explained above, the chances of a false positive far are less when doing so. But the concern is, the testing of vaccinated individuals with this cycle threshold is less likely to reveal false positives, yet prior to the rollout of the vaccine there is reason to believe that the cycle threshold was 35 or higher, as mentioned earlier in the article. Why all of a sudden change it for vaccinated individuals? Does this mean that those who are unvaccinated will still be tested at a cycle threshold that is more likely return a false positive? Does this mean that unvaccinated individuals are likely to test positive more so than vaccinated ones, not as a result of the test but rather the cycle threshold used?

It’s interesting to think about how simple adjustments of the PCR test could either increase positive cases, or decrease them. This has been an issue for quite some time. For example, earlier on in the pandemic a Portuguese appeals court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals was unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus and as a result the decision was overturned.

Here’s study showing that recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive for COVID-19  repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such.

This concern was also raised in an article published in The Lancet medical journal titled “Clarifying the evidence of SARS-CoC-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19.” 

In the Lancet article, the authors explain that most people infected with COVID are contagious for approximately one week, and that “specimens are generally not found to contain culture-positive (potentially contagious) virus beyond day 9 after the onset of symptoms, with most transmission occurring before day 5.” They go on to explain:

This timing fits with the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.

This means that 50-75 percent of the time, just because an individual is PCR positive does not mean they have the virus or can transmit, and this is for what seems to be someone who most likely had positive. This is not referring to false positives.

Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.

They explain:

However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

An article published in the British Medical Journal explains:

It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood. In a recent systematic review, no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. However, cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.

Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling. Mass testing risks the harmful diversion of scarce resources. A further concern is the use of inadequately evaluated tests as screening tools in healthy populations.

The UK’s testing strategy needs to be reset in line with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ recommendation that “Prioritizing rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area.”

This doesn’t mean the test isn’t useful, but there are clearly concerns. I have emailed the CDC  asking them if there was a specific cycle threshold that was being used during this pandemic, prior to the rollout of the vaccine. I also asked if they will be changing the recommended threshold for unvaccinated individuals being tested.

The below comes from an anonymous source, but clams 40-45 cycles are typically used in the UK. Again, as Bhattacharya says above, in the US it seems to be 35 and above.

Corroborating Information: The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe stated earlier in the pandemic that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent 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. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

An article written by Robert Hagen, MD for MedPage Today explains the issues with COVID testing as well, especially when it comes to results, false positives and symptomatic people compared to asymptomatic people. This article also goes in depth as to why false positives will be, and probably are very high. It’s called, “What’s Wrong With Covid Case Counts?”

22 researchers put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives. This also made a lot of noise.

Elon Musk revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something “bogus” is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.

Doing tests from several different labs, same time of day, administered by RN & am requesting N1 gene PCR cycle threshold. There is no official standard for PCR testing. Not sure people realize this. – Musk (source)

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

The list of these concerns and examples go on and on, yet it’s something the everyday person often has no idea about as it’s not brought up within the mainstream media or discussion. There are those who believe it’s accurate, and there are those who don’t and also evidence that goes both ways. This in of itself shows we need better testing tools to detect people who have the virus and those capable of spreading it.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, these questions and concerns that have been brought up by many in the field have not really been appropriately addressed within mainstream discussion. Most people believe that PCR testing is sound and adequate in identifying people who are infected and also have the ability to transmit COVID, but this simply isn’t true and it’s very significant because “cases” are being used to set public health policy.

There’s a chance that COVID may not be as infectious as the numbers indicate, and this does not mean that it’s not serious and that people aren’t at risk, it simply calls into question the measures that we’ve taken which have caused harm.

Discussing the harms of these measures is being labelled as nonsense within the mainstream. For example, anything that calls into question lockdowns as a means for helping to stop the transmission of the virus for is labelled as “anti-lockdown.” World renowned scientists have been censored and ridiculed and pushed into silence. PCR tests are the basis of initiatives like vaccine passports as well.

An example I often use is of  Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on covid-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he discovered. He published data showing that no school children in Sweden died of COVID during the first wave despite no mask and lockdown measures. You can read more about that story here.

It’s unfortunate that the mainstream can’t have these conversations regarding information, opinion and evidence that contradicts the official narrative. This type of information always seems to be labelled as “anti-something”, and as a result of mainstream media ridiculing something, a large portion of the citizenry does the same. There are discussions to be had that are simply not being had, and no time or attention is being paid to experts in the field providing a perspective that opposes what our government is telling us. Why?

As a result of mass censorship, the COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to question what exactly is happening on our planet. Are things really as we are told? Does government and the wealthy “1 percent” really act in ways that best serve humanity, especially in a time of crisis? Are they interested in our well being as a number one priority, or something else? Can we have appropriate conversations with people who disagree with us? Can we get along regardless of what we believe is happening?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

UFO “Crash Retrievals” Hits The Mainstream Discussion, What’s Going On?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 12 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent article in published in the New Yorker brings up the topic of UFO crash retrievals. This article summarizes what was said by a former U.S. senator, and much more.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is so much information about this topic, and many others concealed from the public, is it really about "national security" or is there another reason for all of the secrecy?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A recently published article in The New Yorker written by Gideon Lewis-Kraus, previously a writer-at-large for the New York Times Magazine, goes quite in-depth into the UFO phenomenon. It’s always great when the topic attains more “legitimacy” within the mainstream, but it’s unfortunate that something has to be presented in this fashion for it to receive legitimacy.

The article mentions the topic of UFO crash retrievals, which is the idea that governments have, in this case the U.S. government, recovered debris from crashed UFOs. It mentions Harry Reid, a retired American attorney and politician who served as a United States Senator in Nevada from 1987 to 2017. Reid has been quite active in trying to get congress and others within the government to look into this issue more in order to bring it out into the public domain.

We already know that the Pentagon has, and has had, programs to study the phenomenon. This is a matter of public record. The agency disclosed to the public is called  “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force”, but remember that the United States has a history of government agencies existing in secret for years. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, its existence was hidden until the mid 1960’s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely secret for 30 years.

According to the article, Reid states that he,

“was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials, […] And I tried to get, as I recall, a classified approval by the Pentagon to have me go look at the stuff. They would not approve that. I don’t know what all the numbers were, what kind of classification it was, but they would not give that to me.”

Kraus reached out to Lockheed but there was no response.

Speaking of Lockheed, Steve Justice, a recently retired Director of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Skunkworks, has also alluded to the idea that this type of technology is real. He has been quite outspoken about the “black budget” world, and crafts that can mimic the capabilities that are observed in unidentified aerial phenomenon by, as he once said, employing a driver system that alters the space-time metric. He once stated:

“We have glimpses of how the physics of this works, but we need to harvest technologies from the Science Division to realize the capability.” (source)

I saw him state this during a livestream as well, when he was with To The Stars Academy. He has since left this organization.

His statement is  another way of saying that these technologies exist within the “science division”, wherever that may be.

This is an idea that has been given credibility by many “high ranking” people from within various governments. For example, Apollo 13 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell once told the world that “Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” He is seen making these statements in this documentary.

Eric W. Davis, a renowned astrophysicist who worked with the Pentagon UFO program stated that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency, as recently as March 2020 about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.” Christopher Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997 to 2002 has confirmed that he was  present during this testimony. He himself has been quite outspoken about the phenomenon over the past few years.  Dr. David Clarke, an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University who was also the curator for The National Archives UFO Project from 2008–2013, came across some interesting documents suggesting that the UK was desperate to capture UFO technology. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian defence minister claimed that the protocol when military jets were scrambled to intercept a UFO was to “shoot first and ask questions after.”

These are simply a few of many examples that lend credibility to how government has viewed UFOs over the decades. Interestingly, the most viewed document in the FBI archive is about a supposed crash of three UFOs that contained bodies inside.

Have governments done anything with this technology? 

Documents obtained by The Drive show that revolutionary technology that has the capability to alter space-time may actually be “operable”, according to Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy, seen in the picture above. You can read more about that story here.

What about the supposed bodies? How did these objects crash? Were they brought down by us? I hope not, but given the nature of our race it’s not unlikely to assume that we would be more of a threat to life in the cosmos than an extraterrestrial space faring race would be to us, but that’s just me speculating. I don’t know. What I do find interesting about the phenomenon is that most of the examples that are available in the public domain show that they perform evasive maneuvers.

This has been emphasized by many, like Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer in 2008General Nathan Twining in the 1940’s, and more recently Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades now.

In my research I haven’t really come across anything that is indicative of a threat, so I hope mainstream coverage and government disclosure doesn’t take it there. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate “national security” concerns, but to take the stance that these objects represent a threat doesn’t seem to be evidence based in my opinion.

Why This Is Important

Mainstream UFO disclosure can be confusing. For example, why is the military witness testimony of certain pilots involved in a UFO incident that was released and confirmed by the Pentagon a few years ago credible and worthy of mainstream coverage, but the testimony of a high ranking Air Force Colonel, like Ross Dedrickson, not brought up at all?

Is this because Dedrickson claimed to have knowledge about extraterrestrials and what they are concerned about? Is this going too far for people? Again, who dictates and determines “what is too much” for people to handle? Why determines what is credible and not credible? Is it because there is no data about ETs? Or is it because data about ETs has been withheld, just as data about UFOs were withheld?

When UFOs were ridiculed, there was a lot of “evidence” for their existence. There is a lot of “evidence” for the idea that some of these objects are not human in origin, but again, a lot of people still have “feelings” about taking it there.

Will we ever get the entire truth?

Kraus states in his article that,

The government may or may not care about the resolution of the U.F.O enigma. But in throwing up its hands and granting that there are things it simply cannot figure out, it has relaxed its grip on the taboo. For many, this has been a comfort.

It’s great to see and know that this topic is no longer taboo to discuss. But again, it’s unfortunate that there seems to be a “mainstream culture”, for lack of a better word, that dictates what can be spoken about still. Why does this culture get to decide when something is taboo or not? Furthermore, if governments and intelligence agencies come out and say “this is what we know” can we really trust them at this point? Is it really all they know? Is releasing some information a way to stop the conversation about it, or at least limit it?

For example, when a program or information is declassified, how can we be so certain that that’s all there is to it? Is more information concealed for national security purposes, or other purposes? What implications might that secrecy still have?

Media and government manipulation is something citizens always have be be wary of. A CIA document pertaining to media and government relationship 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,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” [the agency has] “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

Let’s not forget about operation Mockingbird.

Although it is a document outlining their desire to become more open and transparent, the deception outlined by various whistleblowers and pieces of evidence requires us to read between the lines and recognize that the relationships shared between intelligence agencies and our sources of information are not always warranted and pose inherent conflicts of interest.

Herein lies the problem: What is “national security,” and who determines that definition? JFK bravely told the world that the:

“dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. […] there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

What are the justifications for UFO secrecy?

Don’t get me wrong, I am quite convinced that there are many people within government, normal people like you and me, who simply want to know what this phenomenon is all about and are passionate about truth and transparency. It’s a complicated topic that’s been drenched in secrecy for years. As far as why this secrecy has occurred is an entirely different discussion. Perhaps this campaign of secrecy was done with the best of intentions? Perhaps not? Perhaps it is and was a mix of both? I don’t know, but there’s nothing wrong with discussing and speculating, especially in a time when speculation and opinion are being condemned in multiple fields.

I also believe there are other reasons for secrecy that go beyond “it’s too much for the people to handle” and that “it’s a national security issue.” These reasons may go into protecting certain interests, like profits of the energy industry among others. Based on my research, any type of technology that can release humanity’s dependence on big corporations is somehow always kept on the back-burner, at least until it can be monopolized and put out in a way that benefits those who control it.

UFO technology could perhaps collapse the entire economy and our way of life as we know it by offering new modes of energy generation that, as Tesla once said, use the “wheelwork of nature.” Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe there are ways to provide abundance to all without requiring us to work within our current demanding lifestyles? Perhaps we don’t have to be dependant on money?

Reasons like this are sometimes hard for people to examine. It can be scary for some to even contemplate the idea of a government or powerful set of people who are actively taking measures to prevent humanity from thriving. Perhaps that is a conspiracy theory? Perhaps it’s not. I do believe there is enough information and evidence to at least have that conversation, and I think it’s an important one to have and consider.

But as you could note by my above statements, the UFO topic has the potential to change how we live our day to day lives in society due to what abundance it could provide for the average person. While this is not obvious when exploring the subject, this has been one of the drivers of our passionate research over the years.

The Takeaway

As I’ve said many times, I don’t think we will ever get anything significant from government disclosure than what’s already known about the phenomenon among researchers who have been studying it for decades. So don’t get your hopes up. Perhaps the fact that these objects are real is all we will get, but who knows?

Is this an issue where the citizenry has to take initiative to find out more? Why is the idea, for example, of trying to make contact with these objects in a citizen initiated way taboo or “crazy” within the mainstream? If we want to find out more about this topic, perhaps we have to try and do so ourselves? Why is it that when government tries to find out, it’s “official” but when citizens try and do it, it’s a “cult?”

Are human beings at a point in our culture where we are capable of exploring this topic without labelling phenomenon as “demonic” or “angelic.” Can’t we just accept that there may be other consciousness’ in the universe that takes on a similar, but different physical form? The discussion of what these objects are seems to be the next step, and it’s being had, but it’s taken decades for the topic to exit the “taboo” realm, how long will it take for the implications of the phenomenon and deeper questions that it leads to, to be considered no longer taboo?

It leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, it goes into consciousness, physics, the nature of our society, history, other dimensions and more, but many people within this community don’t want to go there until it is “confirmed” by a “credible” source. This in my opinion is a problem.

Some sources the masses rely on as “credible” are more manipulative than credible, and that’s something we have to come to terms with. It’s OK to speculate. Perhaps our definition of “evidence” needs to change in order to go above and beyond the limitations of “science.”

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!