- The Facts:
A team using the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment, or CHIME, has announced the detection of 13 new radio signals from space, including an especially rare repeating burst. Only one other repeating fast radio burst was known to exist.
- Reflect On:
Could this be from alien life in our galaxy or distant galaxies? Do we not already have evidence of ET life based on the extensive testimonies and declassified documents?
Astronomers have once against detected a set of strange signals coming from a distant galaxy 1.5 billion light years away. The signals have been picked up by a telescope in Canada, and the nature and precise origin of the radio waves is completely unknown.
Scientists recorded 13 fast radio bursts, commonly known as FRBs, these are essentially extremely powerful energetic emissions that can be measured by the technology we have produced here on Earth. These blasts only last a few milliseconds on average, which makes the need for computer analysis of them necessary in order to make any sense of them. While we are unsure of where exactly these signals come from, scientists have been cataloging them for quite some time now, but a lot is still unknown.
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with Franco DeNicola to explore how we can overcome fears and uncertainty during this time. This episode includes some helpful exercises as well. Click here to listen!
What makes this recent detection so special is the fact that among the 13 FBRs was a very unusual repeating signal that came from the same source, approximately 1.5 billion light years away. Such a repeating signal has only been reported once before, which makes this particular detection more mysterious, and quite historical.
Knowing that there is another suggests that there could be more out there. And with more repeaters and more sources available to study, we maybe be able to understand these cosmic puzzles – where they’re from and what causes them.” (source)
The detection came from the CHIME observatory in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley, which consists of four 100-metre-long, semi-cylindrical antennas, which scan the entire northern sky each day.
“We have discovered a second repeater and its properties are very similar to the first repeater, this tells us more about the properties of repeaters as a population ” said Shriharsh Tendulkar of McGill University, Canada.
“This tells us more about the properties of repeaters as a population.”
Again, this is only the second time a “repeater” has been found, and although we don’t really know what that means, Tedulkar emphasized that the structure of this repeater is very similar to the previous one, the only other one to be detected.
The team has published their new findings in the journal Nature.
Right now, the next step is for the researchers is to understand whether the repeating FBRs and single FBRs are from different sources. Where do they come from? What objects are they coming from? Are they related in some sort of way to each other?
We are trying to figure these things out, so that’s really exciting
By the sounds of it, obviously scientists have no clue where these are coming from at this point, and what exactly is sending them, but that’s all part of the fun.
There is a lot of fun in the not knowing. You keep adding more information, but as in all sciences, whenever you solve on mystery, it always opens up three more. – Shami Chatterjee, a senior researcher at the Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science who was not involved in the latest discoveries
The radio waves get twisted as they travel through space and can scatter or be absorbed by gas and plasma. The team believes that all 13 bursts likely originated from dense, turbulent regions inside of their host galaxies, particularly areas with a lot of violent activity, such as near dense supernova remnants or close to black holes.
Could They Be Alien?
There is also the possibility that perhaps, these could be signs of extraterrestrial life, but this is common with any-type of mainstream science article contemplating the idea, they completely ignore the fact that there is already “abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been visited us for a very long time.” – Dr. Brian O’Leary, Ex NASA Astronaut and Princeton physics professor. (Source)
“There is another way, whether it’s wormholes, or warping space, there’s got to be a way to generate energy so that you can pull it out of the vacuum, and the fact that they’re [extraterrestrials] here shows us that they found a way.” (source) – Jack Kasher, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Nebraska.
Whether these signals do or do not originate from extraterrestrial life, in my opinion, is irrelevant when talking about the alien subject. We already know they exist and have been in contact with them, the question is why do we still explore these signals as somehow pertaining to alien life when the more fascinating fact is that they already exist and we know that?
If you want to read more of our articles pertaining to the UFO/extraterrestrial subject, you can visit the disclosure section of our website, here.
As human beings, we are born curious, it’s simply in our nature. From the moment of our first breath, we become explorers and discoverers, full of curiosity and wonder. This natural state also represents humanity, and throughout history, all we have done is explore and discover.
Unfortunately today, things have changed. We are no longer living in an environment that’s conducive to what we are naturally built to do. Instead of following our hearts and curiosity, we are all put on the same path, into the same system, and encouraged to become “a productive member of society” by entering into the workforce in order to pay bills and put food on the table.
The truth is, we have much greater potential than that, and as a collective we can create a human experience where everybody can truly thrive. Just imagine what we’d do if we chose to provide everybody with their basic needs, and if we unhooked ourselves from the dependency of a very small group of people and the corporations they run. What if we used a model of cooperation, and love and instead of being taught to compete in the game of ‘survival of the fittest.’
Many still don’t see how this is possible, or how a moneyless/workless society is possible, but if it was achieved, we would go back to what we naturally do, explore and discover.
Today, the gifts of exploration and discovery have been replaced with limitation and brainwashing. Fortunately, humanity is waking up. It’s quite clear that there’s a massive shift in consciousness taking place right now, and we are becoming more aware of is not only happening right in front of us in our world, but how much potential we actually have. If you don’ think the world can change, it simply means your mind and perception is limited to one small viewpoint.
The search for extraterrestrial life perhaps represents our desire to discover and explore. Space is the next frontier, and most likely not the final one. The realization that we are not alone leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, and it will allow us to learn more about ourselves, as well as the nature of reality, human consciousness, the soul, and much more.
These radio signal detections do nothing but open the minds of the masses even more, in what seems to be a speedy process to acclimatize the human mind to the idea that there is much more out here than just us.
How Effective is the Covid-19 Vaccine?
- The Facts:
The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment, but there are important questions to be asked about this claim.
- Reflect On:
Why are medical professionals who simply ask questions and engage in scientific debate being subjected to censorship and ridicule for doing so?
Are you going to decline the Covid-19 vaccine if it is offered to you? Why or why not? No matter how certain you are in your reasoning there will no doubt be someone else who feels exactly the opposite to you and will be just as certain of their position. We trust different sources of information, we have had different experiences with vaccines and we have different impressions of the threat of SARS-COV2 to us and our species.
I would suggest that those in the “vaccine cautionary” community would decline the vaccine based on their ideas around its potential risks. On the other hand, supporters of the vaccine are more likely to focus on its potential benefits. The debate has largely been centered around the disagreement people have about the risks. In this essay I will consider the uncertainty I and others have about its benefits.
Is the Medical Community biased about the Vaccine?
As a contributor to Collective Evolution I am well aware of the “cautionary” perspective on vaccinations and CDC directives. As a physician, I have a reasonable understanding of how those in the medical community regard the “best of what modern science has to offer”. I am part of a Physician group on social media where doctors can seek advice from each other around all matters Covid-19, from interesting cases to rare side effects to how to address special concerns raised by patients. It has been alarming to realize how unilateral the support of vaccination is in this community.
I mean no disrespect to my medical colleagues. Many of those in this community have seen their patients die from this very real virus. They have had to struggle with the divergent directives coming from the CDC. They have had to work through many weeks where Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was in short supply as their hospital wards rapidly reached capacity and overflowed. Now that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have met minimum requirements for efficacy under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), they are faced with yet another impediment to getting themselves and their patients through this pandemic: growing skepticism around the vaccine coming from the very same people they are endeavoring to help. Their frustration around the situation is understandable, but is it biasing them?
Before consenting to any intervention it is important to understand its relative risks and benefits. As I mentioned earlier, there has been much concern in the “vaccine cautionary” sphere about side-effects and deaths. Here I will take a closer look at what we know about the benefits of the vaccine based on Pfizer-Biontech’s briefing document to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. How confident can we be in the efficacy of the vaccine? Has the manufacturer done its due diligence in its analysis and in being transparent? These are the central questions that need to be answered.
Understanding False Positives and Negatives
There has been a lot of discussion about the rate of “false-positives” with regard to the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for confirming infection with SARS-COV2. The PCR test can return a positive result even if only trace fragments of the virus are present. Fragments of the virus on a nasal swab is not necessarily representative of an active infection or transmissibility. Moreover the sensitivity of this test is dependent on the number of amplification cycles, or the cycle threshold (Ct), used. The Ct is not standardized. It is not unreasonable to say that there will be a percentage of people who test positive that do not have the disease. Nevertheless, without a better test we as the public must treat all positive PCR tests as an indication of an infection. We must assume the test is right. The rate of false positives, whatever it is, is directly proportional to the overestimation of the prevalence of the disease.
Here I would like to discuss the significance of “false-negatives”. These are people who get a negative PCR result but may still be infected. The rate of false negatives is directly proportional to the underestimation of disease prevalence. This aspect of the inaccuracy of our primary diagnostic test gets relatively little attention for practical reasons. If you are suffering symptoms consistent with Covid-19 but have a negative PCR test we assume that you have Covid-19 anyway. In other words, if someone is symptomatic we assume that the test is wrong, i.e. that it is a false-negative, and necessary measures are taken. We quarantine and isolate until we feel healthy again whether we have Covid-19 or not.
Because we are in the midst of a pandemic we have no choice but to make these assumptions. We are responding appropriately given the limitations of the test. Because of the assumptions we are forced to make, we are exaggerating the prevalence of the disease and our response to it to some extent. It is the nature of the situation we are in.
How do we know that the Vaccine is 95% effective?
With this in mind I would like to discuss an article published in the opinion section of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that ran earlier this month. The author, Peter Doshi (PhD), takes a rigorous look at the results reported by Pfizer regarding the efficacy of their mRNA vaccine. The success of their vaccine has been widely publicized to be 95%. Where exactly does this figure come from?
During the four weeks of observation (three weeks between 1st and 2nd dose followed by 7 days), 162 participants who received the placebo expressed symptoms of Covid-19 and tested positive by PCR. Compare that with only 8 in the group that received their experimental vaccine. The chance of getting Covid 19 after receiving the vaccine was about 20 times lower than if you got the placebo. This is the basis of the claim that their vaccine was 95% effective, well over the 50% threshold required for Emergency Use Authorization that allows their product to be deployed despite the fact that the two-year Phase III trial is still 20 months from completion.
How did Pfizer handle study participants in the “Suspected Covid-19” group?
It is less commonly known that of the nearly 38,000 participants in the Pfizer study, 3,410 fell into a group labeled “suspected Covid-19”. These are people who developed symptoms consistent with disease but tested negative by PCR. 1,594 of those in this group received the vaccine and 1,816 received the placebo. It should be quite clear that how we regard this much bigger group of symptomatic participants will have an enormous impact on the true efficacy of the vaccine. In other words, if we assume that the PCR test was accurate in all of these people and that they didn’t have Covid-19 and developed symptoms from another virus, the flu for example, then the vaccine would in fact be 95% effective as reported. On the other hand, if the PCR test was wrong every time and they all in fact had Covid-19, the efficacy of the vaccine would be much different: 1602 (1594 + 8) in the vaccine wing vs. 1978 (1816 + 162) in the placebo wing results in a vaccine efficacy of only 19%.
The PCR test (like any test) can be wrong some of the time and right some of the time. The true efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine can only be calculated if we know how many symptomatic people in each wing had Covid-19 despite testing negative. It is likely that the percentage of false negatives are different in each arm. As the FDA briefing document on the Pfizer study and the BMJ piece correctly note, there should be fewer false negatives in the vaccine group. Why? It is because there is a greater chance of developing Covid-19 symptoms after receiving the vaccine compared to getting a placebo. Reactogenicity, or the acute response of the body to the vaccine, is common. Most of the acute inflammatory reaction to the vaccine occurs in the first seven days after receiving the vaccine. Looking more closely at the data, 409 patients in the vaccine group developed symptoms in the first seven days after inoculation. Compare this to 287 in the placebo group. If we assume that any participant who expressed symptoms in the first seven days must be suffering from the side effects of the vaccine or the placebo and not a new Covid-19 infection, the efficacy of the vaccine is still only 29%.
How important is this matter of the 3,412 “suspected Covid-19” participants? Let us say hypothetically that we as a nation decide to vaccinate our entire population with the Pfizer vaccine assuming that it has a 95% efficacy in preventing the disease. We can predict that within a month about 6.3% people will develop Covid-like symptoms from something other than vaccine reactogenicity or the disease itself. This is based on the number of participants who became symptomatic (from something other than reactogenicity) despite getting the vaccine and tested negative (1,185) divided by the total number who got the vaccine (18,801) = 0.063. With a population of 300 million we would expect roughly 19 million people to develop symptoms of Covid from something other than SARS-COV2 within a month. We can agree that we must be extremely confident in our assumptions about whether these 19 million people have the disease or not. Why would we assume they all don’t have Covid-19 when the vaccine trial itself considered them to be “suspected” of having it?
There is another extreme possibility. If all of the vaccinated participants who were suspected of Covid-19 truly did not have the disease and all of the unvaccinated (placebo) participants who were suspect did have the disease we would have a true miracle vaccine. Why? It would mean that only 8 people got the disease in the vaccinated group compared to 1978 in the placebo group. This would mean that the vaccine was approximately 99.6% effective.
Pfizer either did not do or report additional testing that would have helped
The real issue here is that we shouldn’t be guessing about such important numbers. What do you suppose Pfizer did, knowing that this larger pool of symptomatic participants could have an enormous impact on the estimation of their vaccine’s efficacy? In my opinion, they should have tested everyone who developed symptoms for antibody titers to help quantify the percentage of false negative PCR tests. If a participant felt like they were coming down with Covid-19 but had a negative PCR test, it seems clear that performing an antibody test would have offered a great deal of clarity. This was either not done or not reported.
We must be careful when interpreting the power of a vaccine safety and efficacy study. Although tens of thousands of people were enrolled in the study, the only meaningful numbers have to do with those that contracted the disease during the period of observation. This is the only way to assess the efficacy of the vaccine. When Pfizer only considers participants that became symptomatic and tested positive we only have a group of 170 cases to cross compare.
The 3,410 people who became symptomatic but tested negative during the four weeks of observation would represent a much larger set of cohorts and would amplify the power of the study 20 fold if infection could be confirmed or ruled out through additional testing. In other words, the 3,410 symptomatic people should be the ones that Pfizer were hoping would emerge when they enrolled 37,000+ individuals in their study. I find this lapse in diligence suspicious and at the very least inexplicable, especially in light of the latitude they are granted under the EUA. The fact of the matter is that we do not know if this was done. Pfizer, per their own protocol, will not make this data available until the trial is completed 20 months from now.
Why didn’t Pfizer look harder?
This forces us to ask some sobering questions. If Pfizer is required (or has agreed) to make all data available in two years, would they have conducted antibody tests on the “suspected Covid” group? If those results told a different story it would be quite damning, if not now, eventually. Their product would not be permitted for use under the EUA if a 50% efficacy requirement could not be met. On the other hand, if antibody tests were conducted and the results confirmed the impressive efficacy of the vaccine, why wouldn’t they have made the data available right now?
It should be clear that if Pfizer’s primary goal was to obtain approval under the EUA they would have had little incentive to do further testing to confirm their product’s efficacy. Why would they take the risk of seeking more information on 3,400 participants that could potentially overturn their results that were based on only 170 outcomes? This is where we must be very careful in our assessment of the situation. If you believe Pfizer and vaccine manufacturers are only out for profits it would be easy to conclude that they are being manipulative. If you believe that these corporations are seeking to improve public health and safety you may grant them a lot of latitude here. To be truly objective we must ask if they have been scientific in their approach.
At the very least I feel that they have not been diligent, and their position hints at disingenuousness: Pfizer didn’t mention this group of participants in their 92 page report or in their publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. This group was only mentioned in two paragraphs of a 53 page briefing to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA submitted December 10, 2020. The FDA, an agency of the department of Health and Human Services that ostensibly serves to protect the public by ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products and medical devices, continues to remain silent around this issue.
The Take Away
The 95% efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is widely touted by the media and the medical establishment. Why didn’t Pfizer test or report the testing of an enormously important group of participants in their trial? We can predict that without these additional tests deploying the vaccine will not change our behavior nor our attitude to this pandemic.
The CIA Hired Remote Viewers To Obtain Information About Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth
- The Facts:
Reasonable evidence suggests that the CIA hired "remote viewers" to find out information about extraterrestrials visiting our planet, their intentions, and also potential extraterrestrial bases that exist on Earth.
- Reflect On:
The UFO phenomenon is no longer taboo. The reality of it has gone mainstream and so to has the extraterrestrial hypothesis. What are the implications of exploring this topic? Can we really trust Government for any accurate information?
What Happened: A paper published one year after the declassification of the CIA/Stanford remote viewing program in the Journal of Scientific Exploration by one of the programs co-founders, Hal Puthoff, shows how successful the program was and how many individuals demonstrated “high-quality remote viewing.” It was repeatable and used multiple times for intelligence collection purposes. Years later there is good reason to believe it was also used by the CIA to obtain information about extraterrestrials that are visiting Earth.
This seems quite evident for multiple reasons. One is the fact that multiple army/CIA remote viewers have a heavy interest in the extraterrestrial phenomenon. Ingo Swann, for example, writes about this in his book “Penetration: The Question of Human and Extraterrestrial Telepathy.”
Pat Price, described as one of Stanford’s most successful remote viewers alongside Swann is known for viewing, according to him, four different alien bases that are, apparently, located on our planet. You can read more about that specific story here. This claim is also corroborated by a very interesting CIA document I recently came across sifting through the declassified literature on the remote viewing program. The document shows that the agency, using an unnamed viewer, also attempted to view, as the document clearly states, the headquarters of the “Galactic Federation.” This apparently represents an alliance of extraterrestrials. You can read more about that specific story here.
Furthermore, Lyn Buchanan, also one of the army remote viewers, claims, as multiple others within the program have, that he was tasked to find out information on multiple extraterrestrial groups that were/are visiting the planet. He was tasked to find out, through remote viewing, what their intentions were/are. You can read more about that story here.
CE Founder Joe Martino and myself recently sat down to discuss this topic and much more, in great detail. Below is a brief clip of the discussion, and you can listen to the entire discussion for free, here. If you want to watch instead of just listen to it in full or simply support our work and help us continue to do what we do, you can become a CETV member and watch here.
Intuition Is A “Superpower” Representing One of The Highest Forms of Intelligence
- The Facts:
A number of experiments have shown that human intuition is quite real and in some cases can be measurable.
- Reflect On:
How often do you use your intuition when it comes to decision making in your life? How often do you trust your gut instinct and follow your heart?
Mainstream science has been catching on to the fact that non-physical aspects of the human being are not only real, but they can be grown and developed into powerful tools for personal development and use. Non physical phenomena, like intuition, remote viewing, telepathy, and precognition (to name a few) for example, have been studied at the highest levels of government for decades. Various nations have poured millions if not billions of dollars into these programs for with demonstrated repeated success, but despite this fact these findings remain heavily unacknowledged, ridiculed, “classified” and in many cases chucked in the “pseudoscience” bucket.
It’s understandable, new information and discoveries have always been heavily opposed and “scoffed” at by intellectual authorities, especially if these discoveries don’t fit within the accepted framework of knowledge. There’s a general tendency to dismiss ideas that go against the grain and conflict what we’ve previously convinced ourselves is truth.
So, what exactly is intuition? A good way to describe it is a gut feeling, a sense, or a feeling about something. It’s arriving to some sort of truth about something, an event or experience without using any type of analytic reasoning. Intuition has been measured, which is why the US Office of Naval Research (ONR) admitted to developing methods to develop and measure this phenomenon for their soldiers.
We have to understand what gives rise to this so-called ‘sixth sense,’ says Peter Squire, a program officer in ONR’s Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and Combating Terrorism department. Today’s Navy scientists place less emphasis on trying to understand the phenomena theoretically and more on using technology to examine the mysterious process, which Navy scientists assure the public is not based on superstition. “If the researchers understand the process, there may be ways to accelerate it — and possibly spread the powers of intuition throughout military units,” says Dr. Squire. The Pentagon’s focus is to maximize the power of the sixth sense for operational use.
As mentioned before, many interesting abilities that go beyond the conscious mind and utilize what some would call metaphysical aspects have long been used by governments and intelligence agencies. Perhaps one day the human race will use these abilities for progress and to better the human experience. It’s like technology, do we use it for the good of humanity or do we use it to build more powerful and destructive bombs and weaponry? This is why we here at Collective Evolution always emphasize that humanity needs a shift in consciousness. Our discoveries and developments don’t really matter, it’s more so the consciousness behind those discoveries that do. This is why we believe that the greatest and most potent form of change comes from within.
Dr. Judith Orloff, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA told Forbes that, “In my my private practice, I work with women executives who come to me to develop their intuition. They see it as a ‘superpower’ to use in all decisions at work as well as a guide for how to be good leaders and organizers” According to Dr. Orloff, scientists believe intuition operates through the entire right side of our brain, the brain’s hippocampus and through our gut (digestive system has neurons as well).
Alexandra Mysoor, the writer of the Forbes article goes on to explain:
When the neurotransmitters (chemical messengers) in your gut fire up, you may be feeling either “butterflies” or queasy sensations. Pay attention to those. It’s no accident we use the term intuition and gut feeling interchangeably because science has now shown us that our gut has a brain of its own, a second brain so to speak. In fact, our gut has an entire network of neurotransmitters called the enteric nervous system.
The body is truly an amazing puzzle, and we probably haven’t moved beyond the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discovering what we are actually capable of. For example, a study (meta analysis) in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding precognition. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to an event that has yet to occur. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured in the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.
Pretty cool, isn’t it? Another article written for Forbes written by Bruce Kasanoff by explains,
Intuition, argues Gerd Gigerenzer, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, is less about suddenly “knowing” the right answer and more about instinctively understanding what information is unimportant and can thus be discarded.
Gigerenzer, author of the book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, says that he is both intuitive and rational. “In my scientific work, I have hunches. I can’t explain always why I think a certain path is the right way, but I need to trust it and go ahead. I also have the ability to check these hunches and find out what they are about. That’s the science part. Now, in private life, I rely on instinct. For instance, when I first met my wife, I didn’t do computations. Nor did she.”
A paper published in 2008 by Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) explains,
Intuition is widely regarded as a key source of inspiration in medical diagnosis, technological innovation,business decisions, artistic achievement, and scientific discovery. Based upon an analysis of the lives of numerous scientific icons, Root-Bernstein concluded that “Virtually without exception, the greatest mathematicians and scientists assert that the development of this pictorial, visual, kinesthetic, or generally sensual algorithm (associated with intuition) is the basis for scientific thinking. But what is intuition? Given its central role in advancing science and civilization, one might expect that this topic has been a keen subject of inquiry, especially within academic psychology, for many decades. Surprisingly, until recently it has been studiously ignored. This may be because the quasi-magical, non-rational nature of intuition presents an embarrassing challenge to science, which prides itself on the power of rational knowing. Intuitive knowledge does not appear to function like the methodical interferences associated with rational thought.It arises “in a flash,” or “out of the blue,” sometimes with correct answers to thorny scientific and technical problems, elegant solutions to complex mathematical theorems, and complete scores for intricate musical compositions.
The Institute of HeartMath alongside Radin conducted an interesting experiment a few years ago. They explain,
Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.
Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.
The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.
The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.
How mind-altering is that?
Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”
This study showed that the heart, alongside the brain, has some sort of intuitive intelligence.
The Takeaway: We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings. It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn from this information it can help us better ourselves and others.
We live our lives constantly thinking and analyzing, we grow up in school memorizing and we are not really taught anything about our feelings, emotions and intuition. Imagine the difference it would make in our individual and collective lives if we grew up learning how to trust our intuition, how to follow it and what it is? It begs the question, how many of us truly follow our heart? We seem to be thrust into a system that encourages us to find the best job and really think about our future. There’s nothing wrong with that but we have to ask ourselves, what impact does it have on us mentally if we do not follow our heart, our intuition? Are we seeing a big rise in drug use, depression and other mental issues because society forces us to in a direction we really don’t desire to go? Are we unhappy because we are not engaging in things that our heart desires to engage in? Are we not doing enough of what we love? Something to think about. Never ignore the voice of your gut, your heart, your intuition. It’s always telling us something and it’s time we ‘listen.’ This applies to all experiences, from deciphering information and truth to determining what path it is you want to take in life.
Strange, Round & Perfectly Symmetrical ‘Object’ Discovered Off The Coast Of Greece
A strange, mysterious and perfectly round object has been revealed via Google Earth (satellite maps), right off the coast of...
500 Year Old Map Was Discovered That Shatters The “Official” History Of The Planet
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will...