- The Facts:
The mainstream media recently ran a news cycle admitting that UFOs are real and that government agencies have known about it for a very long time.
- Reflect On:
This admission brings up many nuances and discussions that are important for reflection. One thing is clear however, we are living in inspiring and changing times, but we must also continue to nurture our intuition and critical thinking.
Before you begin...
A sign of change? Feelings of frustration? Ulterior motives? These are all ideas that have been coming to the mind of those who have been well aware of the factual reality that UFOs are in fact real, verifiable for at least the last 3 or 4 decades. Denied, ridiculed and made out to be crazy, those who knew now see the mainstream media talking in the plenty about UFOs and are wondering why.
People’s newsfeed have been exploding with UFO headlines for the past 3 or 4 days. I’m not talking about one or two articles here and there, I’m talking about seeing headline after headline to the point where you can’t ignore the fact that someone is going to come up to you and finally say “hey did you see that thing about how UFOs are now real?”
--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
Have a look at just a few I got, all published 3 days ago, from one quick Google search:
UFOs Are Real, But Don’t Assume They’re Alien Spaceships – Space.com
Former US Defense official: We know UFOs are real – here’s why that’s concerning – Fox News
UFOs Exist And Everyone Needs To Adjust To That Fact – Washington Post
When Two Navy Pilots Saw a UFO Shaped ‘Like a Giant Tic Tac’ – The Daily Beast
I don’t think anyone will complain about these admissions, in fact, I feel most welcome it, but there is some nuance to this discussion that is very helpful to understand, especially for those that might be a bit newer to the subject.
Feelings of Frustration
Some people in the UFO community who have been well aware that UFOs are real for the last 20 or 30 years are perhaps going to feel frustrated as now the public decides to listen and take the subject seriously because the mainstream media, who has given no reason for people to trust them, has finally admitted this to be true. This comes after years of denial and making fun of the subject. This is an understandable feeling, and one worthy of processing, but there is something to be inspired about here and getting stuck in this feeling simply won’t serve us for too long.
As Space.com puts it, “Aliens shouldn’t be the default explanation for weird stuff in the sky.” And this is true, the conversation truly is about asking who is manning these craft? They have been around, studied and have been widely documented by government and intelligence agencies for years, but all this hidden from the public.
Why now? Why is there finally admission? Perhaps it’s time humanity finally hears the truth… en masse. Perhaps this is about controlling a narrative that has slowly been getting ‘out of control’ due to the rise of independent media. Millions of people tune into the truth and insight of independent media like us here at Collective Evolution, perhaps those who kept such a tight seal on the UFO/ET subject are now attempting to once again gain the upper hand on how the UFO/ET narrative is told.
Why is that important? Think of it this way, for years and years now, the truth has already been out there in media, just not in the mainstream. Thousands and thousands of declassified government documents have evidently shown UFOs are real, and that has been very clear. But there is one other thing to consider: many documents, military and government whistleblowers also have disclosed that they know some of these craft are manned by ETs. In fact, they are aware that multiple races have been interacting with humanity.
“…with absolute certainty, that four species, four different species, at least, have been visiting this planet for thousands of years. . . . There’s been a lot more activity in the last few decades, since we invented the atomic bomb, and they are very concerned about that, and the fact that we might use it again, because the whole cosmos is a unity and it affects not just us but other people in the cosmos,” – Paul Hellyer, Former Canadian Minister of Defense (source)
For this knowledge to come out would mean not only would there be UFO admission but an admission of ETs. This, however, isn’t happening. Instead, we have been given only a tiny piece to the puzzle, thus controlling the narrative, controlling the disclosure of something everyone has the right to know. Why?
Well, the implications of this knowledge go deep and leave no aspect of humanity untouched. We’re talking changes to core belief systems, religions, and so forth. We’re talking changes to the very robotic nature by which we go about daily life. Not to mention getting into the technological questions that come when we begin to ask how these crafts move and do the maneuvers they do. Can you say free energy? Kicking fossil fuel, wind and solar industries out the window for technology the government has known exists for many decades now.
There is no other way but to say this bluntly: admission of intelligence behind these crafts is too big a threat to the enslaving infrastructures we have, and thus it’s important to control the narrative.
A Sign of Change
Perhaps the most inspiring aspect of this conversation is that we truly can be saying to ourselves “things are changing, perceptions are changing, our minds are opening up.” Which is a good thing.
I have long discussed that the importance of the ET conversation truly lies in consciousness. The fact that humanity’s curiosity about ETs has grown immensely in recent years has an underlying conversation about consciousness that cannot be avoided. I wrote about this in detail in an article titled Why Humanity Is So Obsessed With Finding Aliens Right Now.
To summarize it, we are in a deep search for what we know to be true within ourselves, and that search will expand our way of being and living immensely. It will also help evolve us out of this destructive state we are collectively in.
The core to this conversation is that yes, things are changing enough to the point where the mainstream media and authoritative aspects of our societal infrastructures, like government and mainstream media, must begin to widely admit the reality of subjects like this, but also we must be critical in our thinking about how narratives are trying to be controlled here.
The conversation does not have to stop at UFOs however. Some feel recent admissions are to pave the way for revealing the US’ space force that has already been created, this may be partly true, but we must also look at the discussion of ETs and what we ALREADY know about them.
To learn more about what we do know, check out the following:
Once again, it’s an inspiring time. A time where we are opening up to greater conversations and nothing can slow them down. The question is, will we actively, presently and with awareness learn from our past of trusting mainstream media and government to give us the truth they have hidden for years? Or will we seek to become self-responsible and find this information on our own as independent communities?
I highly recommend checking out the video below as I discuss why this is a conversation of consciousness and breaking through the limits of our society and being more than anything else.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
New Footage of “Transmedium” Sphere (UFO) Disappearing Into The Ocean From The U.S. Navy
- The Facts:
The US Navy photographed and filmed “spherical” shaped UFOs that seem to be capable of travelling not only in air, but underwater also. Footage of one of these objects has been leaked.
- Reflect On:
Can we rely on government to give us an accurate depiction of what these objects may represent or what they actually know? Should this be a citizens initiative? Has government manipulated our perception of major global issues? Will this be different?
Before you begin...
Footage filmed (video below) in the CIC (Combat Information Center) of the USS Omaha on July 15th 2019 off the coast of San Diego depicting an unidentified flying object (UFO) has made its way into the pubic domain. It’s one of several incidents when U.S. warships were what seems to be continuously observed by multiple objects of unknown origin. One video and multiple images have been released of these particular incidents, and the Pentagon confirmed these leaks that are apparently being investigated by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF).
The Pentagon has also confirmed this particular video to be authentic as well.
The Debrief reached out to the Pentagon about the newly leaked video asking whether it could be confirmed as authentic, and whether it was obtained by Navy personnel aboard the USS Omaha. “I can confirm that the video was taken by Navy personnel, and that the UAPTF included it in their ongoing examinations,” said Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough in an email response.
This particular video is the second one that has been leaked, the first one mentioned above shows triangular or “pyramid” shaped UFOs flying near the military vessels, again, the footage was confirmed to originate from Navy personnel. They did not release anymore information about the incident.
In the new video below, we see a small spherical object hovering, changing direction, flying above the ocean and also capable of “flying” underwater it seems, hence the term “transmedium.” Navy submarines searched for the object but did not recover anything. This object was filmed using Night Vision and FLIR technologies, and was also tracked on military radar. It was released and published by investigative filmmaker Jeremy Corbell.
One thing that’s important to stress is the fact that military encounters with UFOs is not a new phenomenon, in fact it dates back decades.
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), at 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. -General Nathan Twining, U.S. Air Force, 1947. (source)
Common themes among these objects, based on our research here at Collective Evolution, seem to be evasive maneuvers as well as the capability to travel at speeds and perform maneuvers that no known man made piece of machinery can. It’s not uncommon for these “vehicles” to enter and exit our oceans, and what seems to be materializing and dematerializing, starting and stopping on a dime, splitting into multiple objects and much more. In one incident released by the U.S. Navy in 2016, the pilot described one of the objects descending from 60,000 feet and stopping right above the ocean surface, instantaneously.
Critical equipment failure, like radar and weapons systems going offline, also seems to be common in various instances of documented encounters with military aircraft. Here’s one example from Iran in 1976 when military jets attempted to fire on one of these objects. At that exact moment, their weapons and electronic systems were “paralyzed.” How could the occupants or “controllers” of these objects know the exact moment they would be fired upon?
As far as what these objects are, where they come from, why all of a sudden the mainstream is legitimizing this topic after years of secrecy and ridicule, it’s impact on human consciousness and more, we’ve had these discussions and speculations quite a bit. You can access our article archive on the topic here if interested. There are a lot of articles we’ve published that go more in depth than this one.
We’ve been covering this topic since our inception in 2009, and one thing we believe is that it’s OK to speculate and discuss possibilities. Relying on mainstream media as well as government to constantly tell us what something is doesn’t seem to be, in our opinion, the most intelligent thing to do. Years of lies, propaganda (perception manipulation) on various global issues make it clear that independent investigation into this issue is quite important. We must ask ourselves, why does information and evidence need to come from the government for it to be confirmed as real? What does this tell us about ourselves and the influence these “institutions” may have over human consciousness? That being said, it’s great to see more legitimacy pertaining to this topic emerge into the public domain. So far,what we’ve seen is great.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Fully Vaccinated Individuals Are Testing Positive For The Coronavirus: More Examples Emerge
- The Facts:
Multiple reports around the globe are showing that fully vaccinated individuals are still testing positive for COVID.
- Reflect On:
How safe and effective are the vaccines?
Before you begin...
What Happened: News of fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID seem to be making headlines everywhere. For example, six people who tested positive in a Sydney hotel quarantine had already been fully vaccinated. According to data from NSW Health’s weekly COVID-19 surveillance report, between April 10 and May 1, six people in quarantine who reported being fully vaccinated were among the 150 overseas cases recorded. One had received a one-shot vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson, and the remaining cases had received both doses of a two-shot vaccine, such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Moderna. University of Sydney epidemiologist Dr. Fiona Stanaway said, given no COVID-19 vaccine is 100 percent effective, it was to be expected that some people who have been vaccinated test positive.
The New York Yankees recently announced that they had two coaches and one support staff member test positive for COVID despite all of them being fully vaccinated. In Seychelles, East Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that on Tuesday it was reviewing coronavirus data in the region after the health ministry said more than a third of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in the past week had been fully vaccinated.
These are a few of many examples, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise as people have been warned throughout the pandemic that the full dosage of COVID vaccines will not be 100 percent effective. Canada’s Chief Public Health officer Teresa Tam, for example, recently reminded Canadians on Saturday that even those who are fully vaccinated are susceptible to COVID. She did say, however, that the risk of asymptomatic transmission is far lower for anyone who is fully vaccinated, but how much lower? What about asymptomatic individuals who are not vaccinated?
According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University’s School of Medicine,
The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.
Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household. (source)
Something to think about.
It’s hard to say. In the United States, for example, the CDC makes it quite clear that “there will be a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19” and that “symptomatic breakthrough cases will occur, even though the vaccines are working as expected. Asymptomatic infections among vaccinated people also will occur.”
But the concern here is the fact that the CDC recently announced the following,
As previously announced, CDC is transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. That change in reporting will begin on May 14, 2021. In preparation for that transition, the number of reported breakthrough cases will not be updated on May 7, 2021.
This means that people who get infected with COVID after being vaccinated will not be reported unless they are hospitalized or died. It begs the question, how can any appropriate data in the United States, for example, be collected regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine if those who test positive and have had the vaccine are not being reported?
It is a bit confusing, because the CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold. A common occurrence when using this test is a Ct value greater than 35, which makes the probability of “false positives” quite high. Why are they all of a sudden specifying a Ct value for vaccinated individuals? You can read more about that, in depth, here.
Why This Is Important: Prior to the rollout of these vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers claimed to have observed a 95 percent success rate. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, published a paper titled “Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data.” Even today, there is still not enough data to tell how effective the vaccine is.
A paper recently published by Dr. Ronald B. Brown, School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, outlines how Pfizer and Moderna did not report absolute risk reduction numbers, and only reported relative risk reduction numbers.
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
Brown’s paper also cites Doshi’s paper which makes the same point, “As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making, so why wouldn’t it be reported? (source)
Omitting absolute risk reduction findings in public health and clinical reports of vaccine efficacy is an example of outcome reporting bias. which ignores unfavorable outcomes and misleads the public’s impression and scientific understanding of a treatment efficacy and benefits…Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.” – Brown
Furthermore, there are a variety of other factors that may be responsible for a drop in cases that we are likely to see in combination with the rollout of these vaccines. One of those factors is previous infection, as there is evidence suggesting that previous infection is more efficient than the vaccine when it comes to creating immunity.
I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better then a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know. – Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine physician based in the United States
Vaccine expert and Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorff recently tweeted that, “After having protected themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated Zoomers now want Vaccine Passports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.”
There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”
With all of this said, there is also evidence suggesting that the vaccines are indeed working. 22 renowned scientists published an article titled “The vaccine worked, we can safely lift lockdown.” It was pertaining to the United Kingdom. Many of these scientists have also been quite vocal about their belief that not everybody needs to be vaccinated, and the fact that this is indeed the message we are being bombarded with is suspicious given the fact that this messaging does not, as one of the Professors, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University explains, does not align with the science. All this is expressed by her, and others, while maintaining their belief that the vaccine can be used as a great tool for focused protection, on those who are vulnerable and who need it the most.
In the article, they explain,
It is time to recognize that, in our substantially vaccinated population, Covid-19 will take its place among the 30 or so respiratory viral diseases with which humans have historically co-existed. This has been explicitly accepted in a number of recent statements by the Chief Medical Officer. For most vaccinated and other low-risk people, Covid-19 is now a mild endemic infection, likely to recur in seasonal waves which renew immunity without significantly stressing the NHS.
Covid-19 no longer requires exceptional measures of control in everyday life, especially where there have been no evaluations and little credible evidence of benefit. Measures to reduce or discourage social interaction are extremely damaging to the mental health of citizens; to the education of children and young people; to people with disabilities; to new entrants to the workforce; and to the spontaneous personal connections from which innovation and enterprise emerge. The DfE recommendations on face covering and social distancing in schools should never have been extended beyond Easter and should cease no later than 17 May. Mandatory face coverings, physical distancing and mass community testing should cease no later than 21 June along with other controls and impositions. All consideration of immunity documentation should cease.
The Takeaway: Regardless of how effective the vaccine is at preventing the spread of COVID, and more, there are a number of valid scientific reasons why freedom of choice and informed consent should always remain. A number of “pro-vaccine” scientists who believe and point to the idea that these vaccines are indeed working are also pointing out that they believe mandatory vaccines for travel, employment, and school are unscientific and unethical. If this vaccine was completely safe and effective, travel mandates, for example wouldn’t be needed, everybody would be rushing to get one. Do we really want to give governments the power to implement health mandates when it goes against the will of so many people, doctors, and scientists? Is it not enough to simply promote and recommend people receive the vaccine instead of using measures to coerce the entire population to do so? Why are certain viewpoints, opinions, research and evidence of so many experts in the field being completely ignored and in some cases ridiculed if they oppose the common narrative we receive from governments and mainstream media?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Improper Amounts of Aluminum Discovered In Multiple Childhood Vaccines
- The Facts:
A team of aluminum experts at Keele University has found that multiple childhood vaccines contain significantly more or less aluminum than what is listed on product labels. They have filed a petition with the FDA in an attempt to resolve this issue.
- Reflect On:
What are the consequences of misleading or incorrect product information, like vaccines, listed on the product label? Should these labels not be completely accurate?
Before you begin...
The aluminium adjuvant that’s used in multiple childhood vaccines has come under the scrutiny of multiple scientists from around the world over the past couple of years. It’s been discovered that a number of these vaccines have far more or far less aluminum adjuvant than listed on their FDA approved product labels, and as a result two formal petitions (access them here and here) were filed with the FDA on May 4th and May 6th of this year.
The petitions demand that the agency do its job and assure that vaccine manufacturers are disclosing accurate information about the amount of aluminum adjuvant that’s actually present in their childhood vaccines. You can access the most recent legal update, here.
A team of the world’s foremost experts in aluminum toxicology, led by Christopher Exley (initiator of the petition), a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry for the last 29 years with more than 200 published peer reviewed articles regarding aluminum, made this discovery. Six vaccine products contained statistically significant greater amounts of aluminum (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13, and Vaqta) and four childhood vaccines were found to contain a statistically significant lower quantity of aluminum adjuvant than what is outlined on the label for these products (Infanrix, Kinrix, Pediarix, and Synflorix.
This discovery was published in The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology where researchers point to the fact that since aluminum is a known toxin in humans and specifically a neurotoxin, it’s content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety.
Another paper of interest for readers might be this one, titled The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. It also outlines the concerns being raised.
The petition states,
These deviations from the products’ labels are extremely concerning. Doses with more than the approved amount of aluminum adjuvant raise serious safety concerns, and doses with less than the approved amount raise questions regarding efficacy. Indeed, aluminum adjuvant is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate various autoimmune conditions….These deviations also render the products and manufacturers not in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations, requiring immediate action from the FDA.
The Petitions therefore demand that the FDA immediately and publicly release documentation sufficient to establish that the aluminum content in each vaccine at issue is consistent with the amount provided in its labeling and that the FDA pause distribution of the vaccines at issue until it has done so.
Nothing can be more important than the safety of vaccines injected into babies.
Exley and his work is supported by many scientists from around the world, yet he is facing a potential set back with regards to continuing his research on aluminum and disease. One hundred scientists came together and recently wrote a letter of support, stating,
We are writing to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.
You can read more about what’s going on with regards to this situation, and access the correspondence that’s happened between Keele University (Exley’s employer), Exley, and the academics who support his work, here.
Exley has provided his own comment on the petition that reads as follows,
Once these data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines were known to me I asked myself about their absolute significance. What were the data witnessing. Sloppy processing by manufacturers? If so then why weren’t these issues flagged up by internal auditing of the products? Do manufacturers not actually measure the final content of aluminium in their vaccines? It looks that way. If they do not are they still assuming that the information they give on the patient information leaflet is accurate? Presumably they are as this amount of aluminium per dose of vaccine has been extensively researched and optimised by the manufacturer to give the antibody titre necessary for the vaccine to be effective. Since the vaccine is wholly ineffective in the absence of the aluminium adjuvant then the amount of aluminium adjuvant injected into the infant must be tightly controlled in providing a safe and effective vaccine. Isn’t that correct?
How can vaccine manufacturers be so complacent about such a critical issue? Is there a darker side to all of this? It may or it may not be true that manufacturers carefully optimise the aluminium content of infant vaccines. However, how often do manufacturers monitor the efficacy of their vaccine in receiving infants? How do they know that the data they must have for their clinical trials is reproduced in real time vaccinations in infants. Simply, how do they know that their vaccine works against its target disease? Do they even care? These data on the aluminium content of infant vaccines suggest very strongly that from the moment the vaccine is aliquoted to its vial ready for subsequent administration to an infant the manufacturer has no interest in whether it is either effective or safe.
No one is monitoring the former and vaccine manufacturers have no responsibility for the latter. Vaccine manufacturers are businesses first and foremost, it is not up to them to make sure that their products are safe and effective. It is the responsibility of the FDA and the FDA is clearly neglecting this responsibility as is the European Medicines Agency. A cartel of neglect and complacency that puts infants all of the world at risk, not only from the disease the vaccine is meant to be effective against but critically from the injection of an unknown amount of a known neurotoxin into vulnerable infants.
I know that many of you have given me your support in a myriad of ways and I am eternally thankful. You may be interested to know that the ‘academic’ Aluminium Family has also played a part and you can read all about this through this link. If you have any questions or comments about this please direct them to Professor Romain Gherardi (RKG75@protonmail.com) who kindly instigated this effort on my behalf.
The Takeaway: The politicization of science has become quite a large issue these days. In my opinion, science that seems to support a narrative that is in favour of certain government and/or corporate interests is heavily promoted and explored, while science that calls these narratives into question is heavily scrutinized, censored and unacknowledged within the mainstream.
If science is raising a cause for concern, especially regarding something like aluminum toxicity that is so prevalent in our lives today, why can’t we as a society embrace, support, and acknowledge the study of it openly and collectively? What is going on here? You might imagine that everybody would support research like the kind Exley and his team are doing, as it only seeks to make a healthier world. Then again, it may not be in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies and their business model.
Isn’t human health and ‘doing no harm’ the key oath public health is interested in upholding? The implications of science should not impede progression of health, but rather accelerate it.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
33 Scientists Publish Paper Suggesting Octopuses Arrived As “Extraterrestrial Imports” To Earth
First of all, this is a big discussion. Did life originate in the stars? Many people seem to think so,...
‘Be Careful Because Some Things That Are Termed A Conspiracy Are True’ – Edward Snowden
(Join us on Telegram here) Russell Brand recently conducted an interview with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and released the first...