Connect with us

Alternative News

The Fox Owns the Henhouse—When Public Safety is Governed by Private Profit

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by By José Solís, Ph.D. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    Do our federal health regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies really put health before profit? Judging by the evidence, profit comes first.

 

advertisement - learn more

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

― Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451

A couple of days ago I stumbled upon a radio interview where the topic was safety and government oversight. I had tuned in at the exact moment when the interviewee said the following:

Well, my experience of 30 years in Washington, D.C. is the same Ronald Reagan had – you know, trust but verify. And when bad things happen, you need to verify if what he is saying is correct. I certainly question that there’s not a cozy relationship. All anyone has to do is look at the revolving door in Washington, D.C., and this agency and the industry to realize that there is a cozy relationship. Now the question is, is that cozy relationship having an adverse impact on the safety decisions being made?

The American public would be surprised, and maybe even concerned, if they knew how widespread the practice of self-regulation was.

advertisement - learn more

Before I could ascertain what they were discussing in the interview, my mind began to race. Could it be clean water, Round Up pesticide lawsuits, climate change, vaccine safety, the opioid crisis? My question was quickly answered. The forum was an interview on National Public Radio(NPR) with former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman, James Hall, on the investigation into the recent tragedy of two Boeing 737 MAX airline crashes.  Upon a rewind of the interview, I kept hearing references to “revolving doors” and “cozy relationships.”

David Greene, host of the show, asked,

But are you saying there are documents that Boeing has showing that they’re – that the company and, potentially the FAA, knew that there were some problems, some of the very problems that may have caused these accidents, and that they certified the aircraft anyway?

Mr. Hall responded,

…the process that we presently have is a self-certification process by the manufacturer of the safety of the aircraft… what has happened is that these decisions have been made in commissions and rulemakings dominated by the industry in Washington, D.C.

As reported by NPR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) left the safety testing of the plane to the manufacturing company (Boeing) and that this practice could be found “a lot” in the federal government. James Goodwin of the Center for Progressive Reform stated, “The American public would be surprised, and maybe even concerned, if they knew how widespread the practice of self-regulation was.” I wondered what implications this example might carry for aviation safety, agriculture, vaccine safety, and generally for the future of government oversight and scientific inquiry.

Toward the end of the interview, Mr. Greene from NPR stated that recently he had asked FAA head, Dan Elwell, some of the same questions. In one answer, Mr. Elwell responded, “the FAA is an agency that is based on data, and they very much make their decisions, including keeping those planes in the air, based on data.” Dan Elwell, is a former Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association, representing the most powerful aerospace industry companies. There remain some very tough questions to be answered by the manufacturers of the airline industry, like Boeing, and the “cozy relationship” it and other industry members enjoy with the government agencies responsible for regulating its operations and overseeing its compliance with public safety. But, let’s move on from that thread of public air safety and pause for an overview of the opioid crisis facing the United States.

Public air safety to the opioid crisis

Earlier in March, the 13th to be precise, I saved a copy of the transcript from an interview between David Greene and Brian Mann, an NPR associate, who has been following developments in some of the lawsuits around the nation’s opioid crisis. In its introduction to the interview NPR reported,

The opioid epidemic claimed 70,000 lives in 2017. To put that in perspective, that is more than the number of people who died annually at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. And the pharmaceutical industry is going to spend much of this year answering some hard questions. Many blame pharma for our country’s opioid crisis. And this year, big drug makers, as well as pharmacy chains, are facing more than 1,500 lawsuits filed by state and local governments. Billions of dollars are at stake, and so are reputations. Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, CVS – those are just some of the companies targeted in these lawsuits.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Greene: I mean that there are internal company documents that are being made public, and some of them have been controversial, you’ve been finding.

Mann: Purdue executives, for example, can be seen secretly acknowledging that their prescription opioids were far more addictive and dangerous than they were telling doctors. At the same time, company directives kept pushing sales, pushing the salespeople incredibly hard to get more opioids into the hands of vulnerable people, including seniors and military veterans….We’ve also learned that Purdue Pharma executives developed a secret plan they called Project Tango, which they allegedly hoped might help them profit again from the growing wave of opioid addiction. The idea here was to sell addiction treatment services to some of the same people addicted to products like their own OxyContin… Which means for more than a decade, no one in the wider public knew how serious the allegations against Purdue and these other drug companies were. But this time, states and cities suing these companies seem eager to sort of pull back the curtain… the drug industry has fought these disclosures at every turn. They describe the information in these documents as proprietary, basically arguing its corporate property. But as more and more information comes out, it’s making people angry.

On a related topic, Mr. Mann expressed:

But according to the drug company’s own documents, firms including Johnson & Johnson pushed unscientific theories about drug addiction. They did so allegedly to convince doctors to prescribe even more opioids after patients showed signs of dependency. David Armstrong, the reporter with ProPublica, says this kind of disclosure is making it harder for the industry to protect its image.

… ‘tobacco science;’ i.e. Science done on behalf of an interest defending its profits, like the science conducted by a cigarette company showing that cigarettes are safe.

Government agency collusion

Government agency collusion with different industries, to me, represented nothing short of corruption. I was reminded of the tobacco industry and how the Phillip Morris tobacco company organized its Boca Raton Action Plan in 1988, in an effort to “diffuse and re-orient” the voices and initiatives of those fighting tobacco in favor of public health. Also, how the World Health Organization (WHO) itself colluded with legal experts and doctors in the United States in favor of the tobacco industry and against public health. From this fiasco was coined the expression “tobacco science;” i.e. “Science” done on behalf of an interest defending its profits, like the science conducted by a cigarette company showing that cigarettes are safe.

And speaking of the WHO, I was also reminded of the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) “pandemic.” In the spring of 2010, the Council of Europe was investigating the role of the WHO in declaring the H1N1 pandemic. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist who at one time was head of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe, expressed concerns that the contracts for the vaccine were mostly confidential arrangements between the WHO, individual member states and the companies producing the vaccine. In fact, numerous countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, entered into contracts with the vaccine manufacturing companies prior to the WHO’s declaration of an H1N1 pandemic. The contracts obligated these countries to purchase swine flu vaccinations under one condition: that the WHO issue a pandemic flu alert.

…undermined by the transformation of the relationship between scientists at universities, private industries with their scientists and the ‘cozy relationships’ that exist between the two

Transformed relationships

In his farewell speech to the citizenry, U. S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower poignantly expressed his concern regarding the future of science and its partnership with government, and government with industry, when he said:

…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

I kept wondering about the revolving doors, the collusion, industrial interests, and the science that was supposed to provide a foundation upon which to rest our confidence, our trust. How did we get here? The short answer, and quite possibly the simplest, might be the privatization of knowledge, or as some have called it, the “selling of science.” Or, maybe it’s the troubled matrimony of science and technology, where an applied and economic gain becomes the foundational rationale for present and future scientific endeavor. Such an environment raises serious questions as to the future of knowledge, the advancement of the sciences, and potential impacts on our economic, social, and public health.

Aristotle reminded us that “knowledge is virtue.” It has a value unto itself; a purpose that serves no particular master other than the rational development of inquiry and respective methods for the development of that knowledge. Here resided the principles of the classic universities, places where questions were explored, answered, and questioned again. This was the meaning of science – never settled – but forever moving toward a better, safer, healthier, and more advanced state of human affairs. But what happens to science when the scientist is tied to private industry, where the principle objective of private industry is defined by its stockholders interests, investments, and profits, where the same industry that manufactures the product for profit is also the industry responsible for generating the science determining the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of its product?

In his book, Science in the Private Interest, Dr. Sheldon Krimsky writes,

The responsibility of the scientist begins with discovery and ends with commercial applications. Universities exist mainly to provide labor for industry and to help industry turn knowledge into technology; technology into productivity; and productivity into profits.

What Dr. Krimsky refers to as “public interest science as a model of knowledge for human welfare,” has been redefined, or more crudely speaking, undermined by the transformation of the relationship between scientists at universities, private industries with their scientists, and the “cozy relationships” that exist between the two. In the book To Profit or Not To Profit, authors Walter Powell and Jason Owens-Smith state,

The changes underway at universities are the result of multiple forces: a transformation in of the nature policymakers and key constituents. These trends are so potent that there is little chance for reversing them-nor necessarily a rationale for doing so.

These changes have been referred to as characteristic of the scientist as entrepreneur, or parts of what Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie explore in their book Academic Capitalism. In it, they write:

We would expect that faculty as professionals participating in academic capitalism would begin to move away from values such as altruism and public service, toward market values.

Under he current science-to-market model, government oversight of any number of products, from airplanes, to drugs, to tobacco, and more, continues to demonstrate a complacency that favors market-driven profits over public safety.

The transformation of science and scientists

The transformation of science and scientists that are lured into and seek financial support from private industry for any number of research-to-market projects has become an all too familiar scenario with potentially devastating consequences.

Most recently, the parents of one of the victims of the Egyptian Boeing airline, filed suit against Boeing and the Rosemont airline parts manufacturing industry. Reuters report states that:

Thursday’s complaint accuses Boeing of putting “profits over safety” and said the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration must also be held accountable for certifying the 737 MAX.

However, reports Reuters: “Legal experts say these cases face high hurdles since government officials and agencies are generally immune from civil lawsuits.”

Under the current science-to-market model, government oversight of any number of products, from airplanes, to drugs, to tobacco, and more, continues to demonstrate a complacency that favors market-driven profits over public safety. This reality should alarm anyone and all. What if, as some of the legal experts above claim, a U.S. citizen has no right to hold industry responsible for assurances of safety because those industries are tied to government agencies, or because those agencies derive profits or “benefits” from the “cozy relationships?” If you believe that the FAA and the FDA need to come clean regarding the “revolving door” and “cozy relationships” that experts have indicated exist between both agencies and private industry, why would we not consider the same for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

Arguably, a profoundly vivid parallel is seen in the policies and practices of mandatory vaccination and informed consent. Over the many years studying vaccination theory and practice, I discovered a disturbing similar pattern – the “revolving door” between the CDC and private pharmaceutical manufacturing companies, the conflicts of interest where different committees and their members are given waivers protecting conflicts of interest, payoffs to doctors for administering vaccines, fast-tracking of vaccines and safety studies with no use of double-blind placebo studies, and the very “cozy relationship” between members of Congress, “big pharma,” the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

If you believe that the FAA and the FDA need to come clean regarding the “revolving door” and “cozy relationships” that experts have indicated exists between both agencies and private industry, why would we not consider the same for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). For years families had been suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries their children suffered at the hands of vaccines. Threatening to discontinue vaccine production, the vaccine manufacturers asked for government assurances that their products would go forward unhindered. The 1986 law took all liability away from the manufacturers of vaccines, making it impossible to sue the industry. The same law stipulated that every two years the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would submit a report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety. It was during this time that the numbers and doses of vaccines began a dramatic increase.

In 2017 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a suit before the U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 27, 2018, HHS admitted the following before the court:

The [Department]’s searches for records did not locate any records responsive to your request. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Immediate Office of the Secretary (IOS) conducted a thorough search of its document tracking systems. The department also conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant indexes of HHS secretarial correspondence records maintained at Federal record centers that remain in the custody of HHS. These searches did not locate records responsive to your request, or indications that records responsive to your request and in the custody of HHS are located at Federal record centers.

Today in the United States, political, medical, and mass media leadership, infused by the interests of vaccine manufacturers, are currently engaged in a massive campaign to silence dialogue, ban books and websites, avoid debates, and impose that vaccines become mandatory for all with no respect to informed consent, religious beliefs, medical conditions, or personal conscience. Writing on a recent measles outbreak in Rockland County, New York, Celeste McGovern remarks,

People, like those in Rockland County, don’t avoid vaccines because they are misled by “fake” news and Facebook – but because of the real stories of corporate greed and political cover-up and vaccine-injured children that are shared on those platforms. The data bears them out. There are millions of them.

How is it possible that censorship becomes a principal upon which public policy and social interaction are defined in a democracy? Will the violation of the right to informed consent become the new paradigm applied to air travel, medications, vaccination, food and more?

The very thought that censorship would become an instrument of intimidation, humiliation, a threat, and a practice violating human rights, should make anyone shiver. But maybe more importantly, the unbridled and crass censorship we are witnessing today on the topic of mandatory vaccination, its effectiveness and safety, should leave us asking: How is it possible that censorship becomes a principal upon which public policy and social interaction are defined in a democracy? Will the violation of the right to informed consent become the new paradigm applied to air travel, medications, vaccination, food, and more?

Personally, and professionally, I see nothing edifying and positive coming from the censorship of those that question. Boeing has explaining to do, as does the FAA. Furthermore, Johnson & JohnsonPurdueCVS and the FDA, owe the people an explanation. Likewise, the HHS, CDC, and pharma owe the people many explanations about the safety of vaccines.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Dogs Can Detect Lung Cancer With 97 Percent Accuracy

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Early detection provides the best opportunity for lung cancer survival; however, lung cancer is difficult to detect early because symptoms do not often appear until later stages. Dogs were able to help solve that issue.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we use animals for experiments? Unless they are willing and have a loving home and are provided for, animals should never be used as lab rats or for scientific purposes. What makes us think we have the right to do that?

Animals are a precious gift to humanity, and we have so many lessons to learn from them. If you were an empathetic, benevolent alien looking down on planet Earth, no doubt you’d be heartbroken at and terrified of the way we treat animals. We slaughter them by the billions, destroy their homes, experiment on them, and worse. That being said, the ‘good’ side of humanity loves animals, and there are a lot of activist efforts out there that are speaking up for those who do not have a voice, not to mention the ever growing movement promoting a plant-based diet. We are making progress.

Another important point regarding animals is the fact that we know so little about them. We think we know, but the truth is we don’t know, and there is so much more to discover, especially with regards to certain abilities they may possess like clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, and other types of extra-sensory perception that human beings may have dormant within them as well.

I recently came across a study regarding three beagles successfully showing that they are capable of identifying lung cancer by scent, which is the first step in identifying specific biomarkers for the disease. The researchers hypothesized that their abilities may lead to the development of a new type of cancer screening method that is fairly inexpensive. Although we still need more research on the factors in our environment that are causing cancer in the first place, this is still great to see.

However, it’s only great if these animals are not being used solely for the purpose of study and are living happy and healthy lives because, as you may not know, beagles are the dogs most commonly used for scientific experiments, which are cruel and inhumane. At the end of the day, animals should not be used for such purposes. They are here as our companions, as part of our human family.

These dogs were able to tell the difference between blood serum samples that were taken from patients with malignant lung cancer and health controls with, as the study points out, 97 percent accuracy. The double blind study was published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

Thomas Quinn, the lead author of the study and professor at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, said, “We’re using the dogs to sort through the layers of scent until we identify the tell-tale biomarkers. There is still a great deal of work ahead, but we’re making good progress.”

advertisement - learn more

Again, I can’t help but wonder: Do these dogs have families? Are they being loved and cared for? Or are they simply being used for lab experiments? The thought of that is heartbreaking, and it makes me not even want to support or write about a study like this, but I couldn’t find any details about the lives of the dogs.

It sounds like they are simply ‘lab rats,’ given the description of the study, but again, we don’t know. They were led into a room with blood serum samples at nose level. Some samples came from patients with non-small cell lung cancer; others were drawn from healthy controls. After sniffing a sample, the dogs sat down to indicate a positive finding for cancer or moved on if none was detected.

“Samples from 10 donors (6 women and 4 men) were used in the testing phase. Their ages ranged from 26 to 80 years (mean, 58.2 years). The samples from female donors (mean age, 64 years) came from 3 black women, 2 white women, and 1 Hispanic woman. The samples from male donors (mean age, 49.5 years) came from 2 black men, 1 white man, and 1 man of mixed race. Canine No. 1 indicated a positive sample on 10 of the 10 cancer samples and 1 of the 40 control samples during his test runs. Canine No. 2 indicated a positive sample on 10 of the 10 cancer samples and 0 of the 40 control samples during her test runs. Canine No. 3 indicated a positive sample on 9 of the 10 cancer samples and 2 of the 40 control samples during her test runs. (From study).”

A Few Words About Cancer

I often become frustrated at the bombardment of “cancer awareness” advertisements, or when I see the Heart & Stroke Foundation serving processed meats at their fund raisers. In many cases, the companies raising money for cancer research are putting out products that are causing the problem in the first place. Why do we constantly raise money for cancer research and become so emotional and “patriotic” about ‘finding a cure’ and ‘fighting cancer’ without ever acknowledging the causes of cancer? Why do we see advertisements of cancer patients fighting cancer in order to entice us into donating? Why do people proudly fight cancer and go through conventional treatments without ever being aware of alternative, more successful and effective treatments? What is going on here?

When it comes to cancer awareness, all of us should really be tweeting and posting about environmental pesticides, electromagnetic radiation, processes foods and meat, unhealthy lifestyles, sugar, emotional baggage, trauma, stress, and several other factors that are clearly causing cancer.

Why is it that there are only a couple of accepted treatments for cancer that oncologists are legally able to recommend?

There are so many head-scratchers when it comes to cancer, and any cancer awareness efforts should be bombarded with ‘f**ck glyphosate,’ and things of that nature. That would be REAL cancer awareness.

The Takeaway

Animals are not to be used as experiments, but I wanted to present this info simply because, as I mentioned earlier, there are so many amazing, good, positive things about them. Their abilities go far beyond what we know, and when it comes to dogs in particular, they are nothing but of service to others. If you have a dog, you know what I am talking about, and in many cases they already know things about you and your biology that you may not be aware of, unless you are really in tune with them.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Missing 411 – Examining Unexplained Disappearances In The Wilderness of North America

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Missing 411: The Hunted is a film that explores the strange disappearances that are happening all over the North American wilderness. Investigations into these disappearances have yielded some very strange and almost paranormal findings.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many missing persons cases, especially in National Parks, why doesn't the National Parks Service initiate a proper investigation? Why is there so much secrecy, hesitation and unacknowledgement surrounding this topic?

I bet you didn’t know that there is an unexplained phenomenon linked to how people are going missing in National parks in the United States. This phenomenon is actually quite common, and there are countless missing cases where absolutely no trace of the person has been found. In other cases, people’s belongings were eerily found weeks after search parties completed their work, in tidy as if people literally melted off the face of the earth – all found in areas that had been completely searched.

Yes, it’s popular National parks that are notorious for these disappearances, but despite the fact that many people have gone missing, the National Parks Service does not keep a record of missing persons.

A number of people have investigated this phenomenon, and perhaps the most prominent is David Paulides, a retired officer from the San Jose, CA, Police Department. Since retirement, he has spent the majority of his time researching missing person cases, and writing about them through several published books. Recently, he as released a film called Missing 411: The Hunted, which dives deeper into this wildly fascinating subject using specific examples and cases that they examine.

The Government Involved In Missing Persons?

Paulides does not speculate much about these missing persons, but one disturbing thought he shares is the idea that the government, or some faction of government agencies, may be hiding information regarding these people. They are denying and failing to properly acknowledge the fact that there is something truly strange and disturbing happening which is mysterious on its own.

You would think that given how often this type of thing occurs, there would be some type of public disclosure and awareness campaign.

Paulides’ interest in this topic actually came from conversations he had with off-duty park rangers. That’s how he found out that there was a plethora of disappearances in National parks without any sort of explanation. In the film, he also hints to the fact that the National Parks Service doesn’t put in enough effort with regards to investigating this type of thing.

advertisement - learn more

Let’s be clear, it’s not just disappearances without a trace happening, but rather some have occurred under very weird circumstances. In the film, you see examples of park rangers showing Paulides things recurring discoveries of neatly placed clothes of those who went missing – in areas that had already been searched.

“The ranger described to me, if you were standing straight up and you just had your pants on and you melted directly into your pants… that’s what it looked like to him. The pants were laying on the ground in a very neat pile,” Paulides said.

Paulides has investigated cases not only involving adults, but also many young children vanishing instantaneously from their guardians’ sides in a short period of time, which makes them seem undeniably paranormal.

One of the places I’ve investigated myself where people have also had strange experiences regarding missing persons is a place called Brown Mountain, North Carolina. There are a number of similar overlaps to what is explored in Missing 411.

You can watch Missing 411: The Hunted here. Or check out the trailer below.

Check out the trailer for Missing 411: The Hunted

Watch the film here.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

U.S. Government Has Debris/Material From UFOs Says High Ranking Government Official

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Luis Elizondo, a former high ranking Department of Defence official and part of the TTSA academy recently confirmed that the US government has in their possession material from a UFO craft.

  • Reflect On:

    Those new to this may be surprised, but for researchers in this field it's not. We have enough evidence suggesting that some of these craft are extraterrestrial, so how much does the 'government know,' what about the ET beings? Who knows what?

For those who have been into the UFOlogy subject for a very long time, all of the disclosure of UFOs within mainstream media should come as no surprise. This type of presentation from mainstream media is a complete 180 degree flip flop from years past, where what we saw mostly was shaming and ridiculing of the subject. Despite the fact that “everything” seems to be in a “process of investigation both in the United States and in Spain, as well as the rest of the world” (General Carlos Castro Cavero, 1979, source), in the past, what we saw was “an official campaign of ridicule and secrecy,” as Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter told the New York Times decades ago. (source)

So, why all of the serious mainstream attention all of a sudden? Could there be some sort of deception planned? We must always think critically about any topic that the mainstream chooses to cover, and how they cover it. We must do so because, since the inception of Operation Mockingbird, a US government program headed by the CIA to control the perception of the masses through mainstream media, multiple award-winning mainstream media journalists have come out and ‘blown the whistle,’ claiming that these outlets are still mouthpieces for intelligence agencies, governments, corporations, and elitist groups. You can see some examples and read more about that here. We’ve been spoon-fed lies for years, so why would it be any different with the topic of UFOs?

The point I’d like to hammer home, however, is that we are dealing with a very real phenomenon. And that is made evident by the amount of witness testimonies, video and photo proof, concealment of information, and ridicule from media that we’ve seen for decades. Just like 9/11 was real, and just like war is real, the explanations behind these events in history always seem to be manipulated for some sort of ulterior motive. That’s important to keep in mind here. Are they going to try and spin a very real phenomenon into some sort of threat?

When it comes to this topic, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. From science to technology and much more, everything changes when the masses are confronted with the realization that we are not alone, and that we have been visited. There are many who, what, where, why and when’s to be answered, and these answers, I assure you, will not come from mainstream media. But right now, it seems we are in the age of disclosure, as the media is finally acknowledging that these things are real.

Not only are they real, but as Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell once said, “yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” You can view a clip of him saying that here.

Having been a UFO researcher for a very long time, coming across information suggesting that crash retrieval programs are real is nothing new. But to have something like this leak out into the mainstream is quite significant, and this happened recently on Fox News when Louis Elizondo was interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence.

advertisement - learn more

He was also the director of the Pentagon’s AATIP program, which stands for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. This program was recently disclosed by the Pentagon as a program to study UFOs. I can tell you, it’s not the only program related to UFOs, and these programs could be taking in trillions of dollars. But AATIP was the program that was disclosed and blasted out by mainstream media not long ago.

On May 31st, Carlson asked him: “Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the US government on this question, that the US government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?

Elizondo replied: “I do. Yes.”

Carlson then asked: “You think the US government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?”

Elizondo replied: “Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement), I really can’t go into a lot more detail than that.”

Again, I am sharing this because it’s going mainstream. I’ve written about extraterrestrial technology before.

You can view a clip of this exchange from Fox News here.

A Little More Information About Supposed UFO technology

The most recent information making its way around the UFO community comes in the form of a recently leaked document, which includes notes taken by legendary scientist Dr. Eric Davis during a meeting he had with Admiral Thomas Ray Wilson, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, regarding extraterrestrial space crafts. This meeting concerned a discussion Wilson had with Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, which Mitchell publicly confirmed a few years ago. This is interesting because this leaked document just came out a few months ago.

You can view those documents and read more about that story, and see that clip of Edgar Mitchell confirming the meeting, here. It’s a really good one illustrating how this topic goes well beyond the government.

Dr. Davis is a very well-known scientist and quite the legend. For many years, he was a member of the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (owned by Robert Bigelow) and was the Chief Science Officer of EarthTech Int’l, Inc. and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas. He is now the Owner/Chief Executive/Chief Scientist of Warp Drive Metrics, which consults and contracts for the Department of Defense. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Early Universe, Cosmology and Strings Group at the Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research at Baylor University in Waco, TX.

The leaked notes from Davis expose the fact that the U.S. Government has in its possession UFO technology that was not made by humans, but by extraterrestrial beings from another planet.

Davis also recently made remarks on the comments made by Elizondo in his interview with Tucker Carlson, stating that,

“Luis Elizondo’s very brief answer to Tucker Carlson’s question about whether the US government is in possession of recovered crashed and landed UFO technology hardware is 1,000 % accurate. My national security NDAs prevent me from adding any further comment on this.”

The source for this quote comes from a very well-known researcher in the field, James Iandoli, who reached out to Davis after his comments on Fox and posted the response on his twitter account.

When talking about the crash retrieval of UFOs, I always like to quote former Canadian Defence Minister, Paul Hellyer, when he said that the protocol is to “shoot first and ask questions after.”

It’s not just the U.S. government either, this is probably something multiple nations have within their possession.

Dr. David Clarke is an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University in England. He was also the curator for The National Archives UFO project from 2008–13, and regularly comments in national and international media on UFOs.

These documents reveal how the RAF expressed great interest in finding UFOs to help come up with new and innovative ways to become their enemies during the Cold War. Apparently, they were gathering evidence that other nations had collected this technology.

You can read more about that story here.

A classic example would be the CIA keeping tabs on developments in Germany, as explained in this document, which looked into “a German news paper” that “recently published an interview with George Klein, famous engineer and aircraft expert, describing the experimental construction of ‘flying saucers’ carried out by him from 1941 to 1945.” 

Here’s another document that goes on to mention an experiment described by Klein:

The “flying saucer” reached an altitude of 12,400 meters within 3 minutes and a speed of 2,200 kilometers per hour. Klein emphasized that in accordance with German plans, the speed of these “saucers” would reach 4,000 kilometers per hour. One difficulty, according to Klein, was the problem of obtaining the materials to be used for the construction of the “saucers,” but even this had been solved by German engineers toward the end of 1945, and construction on the objects was scheduled to begin, Klein added.

You can read more about that here.

There are too many examples, it’s not just limited to the Roswell incident. Here’s an article I wrote recently about another story regarding a crashed extraterrestrial craft that exists within the lore of UFOlogy:

Before Roswell: The 1941 Cape Girardeau, Missouri UFO Crash With Extraterrestrial Bodies

The truth is literally out there.

The Takeaway

UFO and extraterrestrial visitation isn’t a bad thing, as it does not seem to be ‘deceptive.’ It is, however, a very real reality. The only plausible possibility for any ‘deception’ to occur would be with regards to the official explanation of ‘them,’ why they are here and if they represent some sort of threat or not. The fact that multiple powerful people and the governments they seem to puppeteer have been trying desperately to keep a lid on this information for a very long time is a hint to that.

How much do governments, and those who sit above them, really know about UFOs and extraterrestrials, anyways?

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod