Connect with us

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Avatar

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

advertisement - learn more

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

-->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!

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


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.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

A Sad Day For Truth & Journalism As Donald Trump Fails To Pardon Julian Assange

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks' Julian Assange in the final hours of his presidency.

  • Reflect On:

    What does it say about our world of those who expose immoral and unethical actions by powerful people and institutions are locked up, censored, silenced, tortured and ridiculed?

What Happened: In a slew of pardons and commutations issued during the final hours of his presidency, Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently posted a tweet from former Maine State senator, Eric Brakey, that reads as follows: “The Failure to pardon Assange, Snowden and Ulbricht is a great final act of cowardice and submission to the Deep State.” Deep state refers to the influence and sway that various powerful people, corporations, financial institutions and more have on political policy and decision making around the world. These days many people believe that America, for example, no longer represents a democracy but rather a ‘corporatocracy’ so to speak.

Snowden also reacted to the development by tweeting that he was “not at all disappointed to go unpardoned by a man who has never known a love he had not paid for. But what supporters of his remain must never forgive that this simpering creature failed to pardon truth-tellers in far more desperate circumstances.”

When it comes to Julian Assange, we are talking about a man who exposed a number of immoral and unethical actions by several governments. Wikileaks exposed, in great detail, the corruption that plagues these ‘institutions’ as well as the corruption that lives amongst dozens of powerful corporations that control almost every aspect of our lives, from food, to health, to energy resources and more.

In response to the leaks made by Assange, and other people like Snowden for example, the US government’s classic response was and still is that by leaking the information they did, they put America in harm’s way. They often say this citing the fact that they leaked classified information.

Today classified information doesn’t seem to be classified for national security purposes. Instead, “national security” seems to be commonly cited in order to justify the concealment of information that threatens various corporate, financial and political Agendas.

JFK warned the citizenry about “an announced need for increased security” that would be “seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” This is what’s happening today.

When it comes to Julian Assange I like to share a hard-hitting quote that always comes to mind every time I write about him. It comes from Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.

Why This Is Important/Final Thoughts: The silencing and straight ridicule of truth and/or information that again, threatens various political, corporate, financial and elite agendas is commonplace today. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, today we have a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t, deciding for the user what they are allowed to see and what they aren’t allowed to see. Censorship of people like Assange and organizations like Wikileaks has really ramped up. Independent media outlets, (like Collective Evolution), and what seems to be thousands of scientists, doctors, journalists, academics and people who simply present information, evidence and opinions that go against the grain are having their social media accounts removed. This is why we here at Collective Evolution are encouraging all of our followers to join our Telegram account. It’s a censorship free platform.

Assange has been subjected to extremely inhumane conditions and torture. What’s happening with him is not only sad, but it’s truly alarming and what’s even more concerning is that many people don’t have any idea about it. He is being completely ignored by the mainstream media and whenever they do cover it, they do so with the perception that he actually did something wrong. Did he?  They’ve run an absolute smear campaign on him.

I came across an interesting post by activist Greg Bean. In it, he brings up Johannes Gutenberg, the man who first introduced the printing press to the world.

He writes about how that single act created a free press, which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech, and how the two are “inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech.”

Gutenberg’s invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2nd millennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses. Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.

The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin’s dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.

WikiLeaks’ threat to the powerful was recognised and every effort was, and is, being made to criminalise anonymous leaking, which would be akin to criminalizing Gutenberg’s printing press, but there is not much chance this criminalisation will succeed.

I suggest you read the full piece as it makes some very interesting points.

For the latest updates on Julian Assange, we strongly recommend following them on Instagram. You can also check out their website as well. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Is Mainstream “UFO Disclosure” A “Psyop” For A “False Flag” Alien Invasion? – I Doubt It

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Mainstream UFO disclosure is taking off and the subject is no longer taboo. There's a common narrative in the field suggesting that because mainstream media is presenting the topic the way they now are, the phenomenon represents nothing but lies.

  • Reflect On:

    Does mainstream media cover real events and attempt to manipulate the perception of the masses regarding such events? Are there powerful groups of people out there who want to control the narrative when it comes to the topic of UFOs?

Collective Evolution has been covering the UFO/extraterrestrial (see UFO article archive here) phenomenon since our inception in 2009, and one common theme we’ve come across many times in the “truther” community, for lack of a better word, is the idea that some very powerful people are planning to stage a “false flag” alien invasion and that this subject is full of deception. This article will discuss the possibility and plausibility of a “false flag” alien invasion as well as the claim that mainstream UFO disclosure represents nothing but deception.

Is Mainstream UFO Disclosure Deception? As many of you reading this probably already know, the UFO topic has been and is being completely legitimized within the mainstream. The subject is no longer taboo, and institutions like the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and multiple governments around the world have admitted that these objects are real. Not only that, but collectively they’ve released millions of pages of previously classified documents detailing the reality of the phenomenon. These documents include radar tracking data, high ranking military testimony, stories of unknown objects that have been retrieved, photographic evidence and much more. We’re talking about objects performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of aerodynamics that can perform maneuvers no known aircraft is capable of performing. Video footage of unidentified objects have also been released by multiple governments, and coverage from CNN and the New York Times, for example, also further this point.

So is this all some sort of great deception? If you believe it to be I ask you this, why would governments and intelligence agencies around the world, for decades, completely ridicule this topic and encourage people to view it as a “conspiracy theory?” Why would they deny the phenomenon for so long? The same organizations who are now giving a tremendous amount of legitimacy to the topic are the same ones who, according to former CIA director Roscoe Hillenkoetter, initiated an “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy.” If you want to deceive a population and make them believe UFOs are real you don’t use ridicule and constantly tell the population that these objects are not real. Furthermore, you don’t push the idea that those who believe in UFOs are crackpots. If you wanted to deceive the public about UFOs this would be completely counterproductive.

The statement by Hillenkoetter is quite easy to see if one goes back and studies the literature and lore surrounding ufology and the way it’s been covered by mainstream media for decades. This ridicule campaign has also been corroborated by multiple “insiders” with backgrounds within intelligence. Richard Doty, a former member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, for example, claimed that his job was to actually spread disinformation within the UFO community, making it more difficult for anybody within these communities to arrive at any kind of truth.

Despite these ridicule efforts by intelligence agencies and governments, the evidence suggesting these objects are indeed and were real, in my opinion, has been quite evident for a very long time. It’s a shame that for something to be legitimized in the minds of the masses it must be covered in a certain way by mainstream media outlets. This is still a big problem on our planet and it’s a concern that mainstream media can have such an influence on human consciousness.

So Why So Much Mainstream Media Coverage All of a Sudden? If It’s Not Deception, What Is It? In my opinion, the idea that these objects are real became so obvious that mainstream media had no choice but to jump on the train, so to speak. Not only do we have all of the evidence mentioned above, but perhaps the best piece of evidence are people’s own personal experiences. My own experience with UFOs for example has fueled my interest in the topic for quite some time now, and it seems that the next step to take is to listen to people who (claim to) have had experiences.

There is a lingering idea out there I often come across, and that’s the idea that anything mainstream media covers must be and is completely false and represents deception. I do understand this perception given the fact that mainstream media, in my opinion, has largely been a mouthpiece for the corporate and political establishment. I’ve written in depth about why I feel this way before, and presented whistleblower testimony as well as documents that’ve been released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing the very close connection these media outlets have to governments, intelligence agencies and big powerful corporations.

My observation over the years has been that mainstream media does indeed cover real events and stories but is in many cases constantly engaged in manipulating the perception of the masses for such events. We see this all the time with geopolitical issues, like major terrorist attacks for example. On one hand you will have Western media blaming a terrorist organization like ISIS, and on the other you will have foreign media claiming it was a “false flag” attack perpetuated by the West. This would mean that Western governments, or factions of it, would be funding terrorist organizations, arming them or in some cases creating events and carrying out attacks and blaming it on a terrorist organization. In turn, this would allow them to justify the invasion of a foreign country under the guise of good will for ulterior motives.

Could we be seeing the same thing with the topic of UFOs? Are there people who gain gain from narrative control and perception manipulation? Is mainstream media coverage of UFOs an attempt to control our perception of the phenomenon? Is this more likely the explanation rather than an elite group of people completely fabricating the phenomenon? Having been a researcher of the subject for more than fifteen years, I can tell you that the topic is extremely vast and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. It opens pandora’s box and it becomes extremely complex as more and more questions continue to emerge. What we receive from mainstream media and/or government/government affiliated agencies will no doubt be a sanitized version of truth in my opinion. We cannot make the mistake of characterizing the behaviour of these objects based on the selected few cases that will be released into the public and beamed out by mainstream media. We cannot allow our perception of the phenomenon to be given to us by government or mainstream media. As with most other topics it’s important to do our own research and investigation instead of relying on information from what seems to be such unreliable sources.

An Unnecessary Threat Narrative? A False Flag Alien Event? One thing I’ve noticed so far with regard to mainstream UFO disclosure, and I am sure others have as well, is “threat” narrative. The idea that these objects represent a possible threat and are therefore a big time national security issue that deserves serious attention. Having studied this topic for a number of years, one thing remains quite obvious as I am sure is the same for other researchers in the field, and that’s the fact that the behaviour of these objects has never really constituted a threat. There’s nothing they have really done, at least in the majority of cases, that represents the justification of the threat assumption. These objects are constantly performing evasive maneuvers to avoid our air-craft, and furthermore they’ve been documented not only for decades, but for thousands of years. If some type of threat was imminent, it would probably have already happened by now, no?

I want to draw your attention to a recent statement made by Dr. Jacques Vallee on the Joe Rogan show.

We have to stop reacting to intrusions by UFOs as a threat, I mean that’s the whole thing behind this new task force, as much as I respect, you know, the task force, my colleagues and I want to cooperate with them to the extent that we can bring information or resources to what they do. But there is more, this is not, should not be looked at specifically as a threat…With the phenomenon that we observe if they wanted to blow up those F18s they would do it. Obviously that’s not what it’s all about, and this idea of just labelling it all as a threat because it’s unknown, that’s the wrong idea.

Vallee is an astrophysicist and a computer scientist.   The subject of UFOs first attracted his attention as an astronomer in Paris. He subsequently became a close associate of Project Blue Book’s J. Allen Hynek and has written several books on the UFO enigma. He is currently a venture capitalist living in San Francisco. Vallée co-developed the first computerized map of Mars for NASA in 1963. He later worked on the network information center for the ARPANET, a precursor to the modern Internet, as a staff engineer of SRI International’s Augmentation Research Center under Douglas Engelbart. He’s clearly a very intelligent man who knows a lot about the phenomenon, and someone who I as a fellow, younger UFO researcher have been following for a long time.

With this quote above, he shares the feelings I’ve been putting out in written form for many years, that perceiving the activity of these objects as a threat is the wrong way to go. It’s interesting because through his work he’s also brought awareness to the disinformation campaign that surrounds this subject, something I’ve also covered for many years and touched upon earlier in this article.

In his book, “Forbidden Science 4” for example, Valle explains how he came into possession of documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. Again that’s one of multiple examples.

It goes to show how complicated this issue is and how hard it can be to arrive to any type of truth and draw conclusions.

The “task force” he mentions in the quote above refers to To The Stars Academy, who is working with the US Department of Defense, and has been for quite some time, to disclose the reality of the UFO phenomenon to the public. The military jets he refers to comes from an encounter released by this organization in cooperation with the Pentagon. Again, it’s important to ask why a threat narrative may exist. Is it to receive more funding? To profit off of the UFO topic in some sort of way? To profit off of and gain control and access to technologies that may be better off in the hands of the public?

If there’s one thing I can tell you, and I am sure Vallee and many others would do the same, stories from the public as well as many other ‘high ranking’ people regarding this phenomenon are littered with positive stories about benevolent beings who are concerned about the direction we (the human race) are heading. This is quite commonplace and does corroborate with the activity these objects (UFOs) demonstrate in many ways. That being said, it’s important to mention that the field also has stories about with appears to be malevolent stories.  In either case there is an overwhelming amount of corroboration from supposed experiencers.

Related CE Article: A Question About Extraterrestrials On Everybody’s Mind: Are They A Threat?

False Flag Alien Invasion? What about the idea of a false flag alien invasion? Personally, I believe this would be extremely hard to pull off and I don’t think the resources and cooperation that would be required to pull off such an event exist. Sure, there’s no doubt that a false flag staged event could be plausible, especially given the fact that it seems  governments and “the powers that be” have had access to this technology for decades. This would involve a few objects, or perhaps just one in my opinion and it would be covered by media outlets worldwide. Again, according to Vallee as mentioned above, the CIA was staging alien abductions in Central America. Is a false flag alien invasion a possibility? Sure. I would argue however that it’s not a probability. The only “false flag” type of event that would happen with UFOs, I believe, and is possibly currently happening is mainstream media simply attaching a threat narrative to the phenomenon using already existing footage and evidence that’s been released to the public.

Many decades ago Wernher Von Brauns mentor Hermann Oberth, the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that “flying saucers are real” and that “they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” He wrote these words in “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World”, The American  Weekly, Oct 24, 1954. At the time, academics like Oberth were well aware of the UFO phenomenon.

Apparently, Braun was the one who first warned of a false flag alien invasion. This was expressed by Carol Rosin. Rosin was the first female corporate manager of Fairchild Industries. A space and missile defence consultant who has worked with various corporations, government departments, and intelligence communities, she worked closely with Wernher Von Braun shortly before his death, specifically on the subject of space-based weapons. This claim is corroborated by Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, as expressed in a Wikileaks dump a few years ago.

According to Rosin, a threat narrative would be attached to the UFO phenomenon for the purpose of building space based weapons.

And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We’re going to have to build space based weapons against aliens,’ and all of it, he said, is a lie.

The Takeaway: As I said before and have said many times, this topic is extremely complex and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. At the very least it forces humanity to expand its consciousness and consider truths and possibilities that were never considered before. Based on my research and experience, the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not so much about “them” as it is about “us” and our relationship with the planet and all life that resides on it.

If anything, I believe the more we explore this topic the more it will coincide with more people questioning the way we live on this planet, why we live the way we do and what exactly it is that is preventing us from thriving. One thing is for certain, humanity has the potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive.

We have the solutions, that’s not the problem, the issue seems to be the consciousness behind these solutions and innovations. Do we use groundbreaking technology, for example, to profit, gain more power and build weaponry? Or do we use it for the good of the whole? Are our systems set up to put people, compassion, understanding and empathy first, or are we still ruled by greed, the lust for power, control and other factors that dominate the ego. Perhaps the topic can help us understand a little more about ourselves and what we are, because we still have so much to discover.

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The CIA Hired Remote Viewers To Obtain Information About Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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?

Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.

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

 

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!