Connect with us

Alternative News

Humanity Has Become One Massive Genetic Experiment: What Everyone Should Know About GMOs

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.

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

advertisement - learn more

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

-->Watch a free sneak peek of our new course: Our latest course focuses on how to improve your critical thinking and become more aware of bias. Click here to check it out!

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

advertisement - learn more

“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. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

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.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

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. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for 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.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

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

Another EX-CIA Director Comments on UFOs & Shares A “Paranormal” Story

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ex CIA Director James Woolsey comments on the reality of the UFO phenomenon and shares a story about an aircraft being stopped in mid-air at 40,000 feet.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications of the masses becoming aware of such phenomena?

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.

For anybody who has heavily researched the evidence behind “paranormal phenomenon”, it’s common that hearing about other paranormal phenomenon is simply “normal.” After all, the evidence does suggest paranormal events happen all the time, culture simply hasn’t caught up to realizing how normal these events are. Those who recognize how normal these events are include scientifically minded people, like Dr. Jessica Utts, former Chair of the Department of Statistics and professor at the University of California, Irvine.

“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls…And so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked.”  (source)

That was her take on remote viewing, a phenomenon where people are trained to view details about places and objects from a position very far away. This illustrates the non local nature of our consciousness. The remote viewing studies Utts is talking about are incredibly rigorous and yielded repeatable results time and time again.

When it comes to numerous experiments at the quantum level, consciousness has been shown to have some sort effect on physical/material reality as well. There are also topics such as precognition, telepathy and more examples of mind/matter interaction, like “distant healing” which are quite intriguing.

What I find the most intriguing are the examples of people with “special” abilities. I came across much of this documentation via the CIA’s electronic reading room. Examples of children and people with psychokentic ability, able to “break through spatial barriers” by teleporting small objects in small containers from one location to another, perform “paranormal writing” and more, all done under controlled double blind conditions.

When it comes to the topic of UFOs, they’re going mainstream with extreme legitimacy as well. This has many people concerned that mainstream media and government disclosure will result in perception manipulation regarding the phenomenon. Many long time researchers feel we will get a sanitized version of disclosure. That is to say, many key details will be left out purposefully, yet the government will claim all has been told.

Having studied the subject for approximately 15 years now, I can tell you that the phenomenon is quite vast and touches upon all aspects of humanity. There is a lot to the UFO story that I don’t think people will ever hear about from governments and intelligence agencies. If you want to go through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here

The former Director of the CIA, John Brennan (2013-2017) was recently asked about the UFO phenomenon and expressed his belief that we may be dealing with some other form of life.

He stated the following:

I think some of the phenomenon we may be seeing continues to be, um, unexplained, and um, might in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that, um, we don’t yet understand, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say, um, constitutes a different from of life.  (source)

James Woolsey, another retired CIA director 1993-1995 also spoke up on the subject an interview with John Greenwald, founder of The Black Vault, a resource for declassified documents pertaining to UFO related phenomenon.

In the interview he describes an interesting paranormal event that happened to a plane that was “frozen” and stopped in the air at 40,000 feet. He also makes a number of comments about the UFO phenomenon.

“…A friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at 40,000 feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft. What was going on? I don’t know, does anybody know? We’ll have to look into it. There have just been enough things like that that have occurred…”

Why This Is Important: Paranormal phenomenon and the study of parapsychology has the potential to create a major paradigm change for humanity. In fact, it’s happening right now, we’re living in it and part of this phenomenon involves non material science. I believe this field represents the next scientific revolution and will push humanity to open up to a broader view regarding the nature of reality, who we are and how we relate to our universe. There is still so much we have to discover.

The UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not even the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to learn, and it is my hope that the phenomenon itself somehow sparks humanity to ask itself deeper questions about the human experience and why we live the way we do, when we have the potential to do so much better and create a planet where all life can truly thrive.

Again, it is also my belief that mainstream media and government may try and shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, as they do with so many other topics.

Many decades ago, the mentor of Wernher Von Braun, Hermann Oberth (both seen in the picture above), the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that “flying saucers are real” and that “they are space ships from another solar system.” He went on to say that “I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” He wrote these words in “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World”, The American  Weekly, Oct 24, 1954

According to a paper published in the Journal History and Technology titled Extraterrestrial encounters: UFOs, science and the quest for transcendence, 1947–1972,

At the Internationaler UFO/IFO-Kongress, hosted in Wiesbaden and organized by Karl Keit (1907-2001), credulous UFO-impresario and president of the Deutsche UFO/IFO-Studiengemeinschaft (DUIST), Oberth repeated claims first made in 1954 that he was no longer willing to exclude the possibility that UFOs could indeed be of extraterrestrial origin. Having examined all existing arguments, Oberth proclaimed in front of ‘many hundreds of people who apparently believe that the Earth has been visited by emissaries from outer space,’ as The Times wrote, that he was now convinced that flying saucers were ‘very real,’ and carrying visitors from outer space.

Oberth later repeated that ‘the UFOs are a kind of sentinel, here simply to observe and report; because a humankind which is as gifted as inventors and researchers as we are, yet has remained politically and morally on our stage of development, constitutes a threat to the entire cosmos.’

Perhaps he’s right? Perhaps there are multiple groups observing? Perhaps some are concerned for multiple reasons? The UFO/extraterrestrial topic is a deep one, and endless discussions and questions can emerge from it, especially when discussing the benevolent/malevolent narratives.

If you’d like to go deeper and comb through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here.

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

Chris Sky Enters Big Chain Stores Without Mask & Films It: His Version Of Non-Compliance

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Chris Sky, a social media 'influencer' has gained a lot of attention lately due to the fact that he is demonstrating non-compliance when it comes to the various covid measures that are being put in place.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large group of people, who see issue with governmental measures, taking action to stop them? Does it show we don't agree on our collective approach? Does it show we don't agree on the threat level of COVID-19?

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.

Is non-compliance a solution? Of course it is, what other way can a citizenry function against what are perceived to be tyrannical authoritarian measures that are imposed on them? What’s so difficult about non compliance today when it comes to COVID-19 is that we have a population that’s completely separated on what’s happening.

On one hand, you have a large group of people who believe that COVID is extremely dangerous, this includes a number of people, doctors scientists and journalists. On the other hand you also have a large group of people, doctors, scientists who believe that the measures being used to combat COVID are not warranted given the fact that it has a 99.95 percent recovery rate, and strong protection from antibodies.

Of course, death is not always the key concern, overloading hospitals and ICUs is a key detail, however, places who have not introduced lockdowns don’t seem to be having a problem with overloaded hospitals, why? Perhaps we don’t know the answer, but it’s something to consider. After all, we are repeating waves of lockdowns over and over and yet the ‘problem’ is not going away, why?

Part of what separates the two camps seems to be the amount of censorship that journalists, doctors and scientists are receiving for presenting peer-reviewed science, information, data and opinions that, in many ways, completely contradicts what we are being told by our governments and mainstream media.

There are countless examples of censorship. For example, A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that:

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

It was published by Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute. He received so much backlash and hatred for his discovery that he has now quit his work on COVID.

Even the (at the time) executive editor of the British Medical Journal published a piece explaining how:

“science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. There are many examples, especially when it comes to “alternative treatments.”

Why is it that a government scientist, or a scientist who ‘agrees with the narrative’ gets all of the attention and virality they want, but when some of the world’s leading experts in the field share data and science contradicting this information they are censored? Mainstream media is a major source of information for people. It’s one reason why so many people, including healthcare professionals, are completely unaware of important information pertaining to the pandemic when it comes to al’ things covid such as  the vaccine, as well as the effectiveness of masks and more.

Lockdowns are another great example, despite a wealth of science and data showing that lockdowns do nothing to stop the spread of covid and may actually kill more people than covid, not many people are aware of this perspective. When the mainstream does address, it, they simply label it as a “conspiracy” and as a result, mainstream media watchers repeat this rhetoric, especially when you try and have a conversation with them. At the end of the day things aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, which strongly suggests, in my opinion, that people should be able to free to choose what they would like to do and that governments should be making recommendations, not mandates.

What Happened: Below is a video of Chris Sky, in conjunction with BlockTalkTO, entering into various stores showing how he chooses non compliance when it comes to mask wearing. To be clear, Chris Sky is demonstrating an example of how some might choose to not comply with these COVID measures, we say this because many have criticized him for his approach and tone with store workers. That said, it would certainly be difficult to remain calm and cool in tense situations like this.

Chris makes it quite clear to workers that he is not breaking any laws and is choosing to push back against the loss of his rights. As you will see below, not everyone in the store will agree with his approach and the nature by which he handles his encounters. Which brings up the question, how else could this situation be approached? Can it even be approached without tensions running high?

You can check out his Instagram account to see his multiple encounters at the Toronto airport showing and explaining that one doesn’t have to comply and that one supposedly can’t get in trouble for not complying.

Why This Is Important: As tensions rise due to such a deep level of division and confusion, many notice the mental health effects of this reality. Since it’s not customary in our mainstream culture to have tools of physiological regulation, we tend to lack the capacity to do much more than simply survive day to day. We might avoid looking at information that might challenge narratives that are effortless to receive –  like that of mainstream media.

As a society, we are failing to have appropriate conversations about ‘controversial’ topics. Even information that is backed by a tremendous amount of evidence, if it conflicts with what one believes, it doesn’t really register. This happens to all of us on both “sides.”

For example, The COVID pandemic is bringing a stark reality into question that suggests governments may be withholding clinically proven effective treatments for COVID, contributing to the needless deaths, all while favoring the rollout of a highly profitable vaccine. Many people can see this and begin asking questions about intentions of leaders. While at the same time, many could not fathom the possibility that governments would do such a thing, and so it’s labelled a conspiracy and the topic is avoided entirely – regardless of looking at the evidence. Can you see the division this could create?

The Takeaway: So, what are we to do when we are forced into measures that may not be in our best interests? In my opinion, given the fact that so many agree with them, and so many don’t, it seems freedom of choice is the best answer. The challenge is, when governments claim that the solutions require very large numbers of the population to be involved for them to work, say 80% – 100%, do we really have a choice? Is it our duty to comply for the safety of all? Perhaps in a highly dangerous situation, but the point being made by many professionals is that COVID is not that dangerous situation, and most don’t recognize this possibility due to unfair coverage by mass media.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (Propaganda)

This is why non compliance, in a peaceful manner, is such a revolutionary act and always will be. Which is why we must couple non compliance with sound reasoning. To this point, it’s hard to say that COVID is as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and many places around the world have no locked down and their hospitals are fine. Why is this the case?

Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. Chris Sky is inviting us to have controversial conversations in his own way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.

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

Leaked Videos & Pictures of ‘Pyramid Shaped UFOs’ Above U.S. Navy Destroyer Ship

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Filmmaker Jeremy Corbell has obtained unclassified slides and videos of UFO encounters with a Navy destroyer showing what appear to be triangle or pyramid shaped UFOs

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications for humanity if we are being visited and have been visited for a long time by life from elsewhere?

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.

What Happened: A few years ago, the Pentagon released video footage of a military encounter of UFOs with Navy fighter pilots, the Navy has since confirmed the authenticity of the videos and the pilots involved in the encounter have gone on record speaking about their experience, as have hundreds of other military pilots from around the world who have experienced the same thing. Last year, the Navy released even more official documentation with regards to recent incidents with unidentified aircraft encounters. This recent slew of bizarre events in 2019 remain unexplained according to a recent statement by the Chief of Naval Operations.

So what’s the latest news regarding these incidents? According to filmmaker Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, who became more well known in the field due to his recent documentary on supposed UFO whistleblower Bob Lazar,

On May 1st 2020 a classified briefing was generated about the UFO / UAP presence, via the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Those familiar with the briefing articulated to me that the goal was to de-stigmatize the UAP problem and to promote more intelligence collection regarding UAP incursions and encounters with active military deployments. This UAP briefing was a build-on to a previous ONI briefing, generated October 18th 2019. Both were distributed across a wide range of intelligence networking platforms (such as SIPRNet, JWICS and various Intelink systems).

I was able to obtain information regarding these and other UAP related briefings – as well as – two unclassified slides and some of the most intriguing military captured UAP footage I have ever seen.

The context surrounding this content is important to understand – as its evidentiary value is best demonstrated through the lens of provenance. I want you to understand why this new evidence is worth your full attention – if it’s not inherently obvious to you.

Mystery Wire has also confirmed this leak, and has recently published more photos that’ve been taken by Navy pilots. I came across this video from a tweet recently tweet by Christopher Mellon, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Why This Is Important: Gone are the days when UFOs were considered a conspiracy theory. We are talking objects performing maneuvers that no known aircraft can perform that defy our understanding of aerodynamics and physics. Today in the mainstream they are referred to as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP), and multiple governments have, including most recently the U.S. government, released video footage, pictures, and millions of pages of previously classified documents pertaining to military encounters with these objects. This topic has been seriously covered in the New York Times, and CNN among other “mainstream” media outlets.

Reports and incidents of “crashed craft” have also gone mainstream.

This has us here at Collective Evolution quite concerned, as we do believe there is a strong possibility for mainstream media to take a real phenomenon and manipulate the masses perception around it, as they do and have done with so many other topics. You can read more about that concern, here.

The UFO phenomenon can be a complicated one to understand. Collective Evolution has been diving into the topic in depth since our inception in 2009. If you’d like to access our article archive on the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon, you can click here.

This field is no doubt filled with deception, hoaxes and misinformation, despite the fact that we are dealing with what appears to be a very real phenomenon. It can be hard to sift through all of the information that’s out there and determine what’s false and what may be real. The very fact that intelligence agencies have spread disinformation across this field, for years, is a testament to that.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, why does mainstream media all of a sudden present this topic seriously? Why don’t they give any air time to researchers in the field who have been diving in depth into this topic for decades? Are they trying to control our perception of the phenomenon? Will they present the phenomenon in a manner and light that is not truly indicative of the truth? For example, many believe this onslaught of legitimacy given to the topic as of late within the mainstream will be used to present the phenomenon as a “threat” for ulterior motives. Painting the issue with a threat narrative would be very suspicious, given the fact that the behaviour of these objects do not seem threatening at all, but rather evasive and curious, if anything.

According to Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades, in 50 percent of the cases he’s come across, the objects appear to come within the vicinity of our aircraft, performing fascinating maneuvers and demonstrating what appears to be curiosity. He mentions that the phenomenon seems to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid our aircraft as to not create any sort of potential for a collision. When I saw this part of the interview, it reminded me of the following quote from General Nathan Twining in 1947.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), and the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.” (source)

The quote below comes from Renowned UFO researcher, scientist, mathematician, and astrophysicist Dr. Jacques Vallée who recently made an appearance on the Joe Rogan show to discuss the UFO phenomenon. The F18s he’s referring to come from the encounter released by the Pentagon a few years ago that shows Navy pilots attempting to intercept a UFO, also mentioned at the beginning of the article.

We have to stop reacting to intrusions by UFOs as a threat…there is more…this should not be looked at specifically as a threat…With the phenomenon that we observe if they wanted to blow up those F18s they would do it. Obviously that’s not what it’s all about, and this idea of just labelling it all as a threat because it’s unknown, that’s the wrong idea. (source)

The Takeaway: This topic has huge implications. I’ve said it a million times before, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. Just as there was evidence for the fact that UFOs were real when the topic was considered a “conspiracy theory” there is, in my opinion, abundant evidence suggesting that some of these objects originate from some other type of life.

“There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases – perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies – for which there is no explanation…We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to.”  Margaret Mead (“UFOs – Visitors from Outer Space?,” Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

What are the implications of humanity coming to terms with the idea or fact that we are being visited and have been visited by life from elsewhere for quite some time?

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!