- The Facts:
Dr. Patrick Moore is a founding member of Greenpeace and has been a leading environmental activist around the world for a very long time. In the video below he shares his thoughts on the climate change/global warming phenomenon.
- Reflect On:
Why is one side of this debate constantly ridiculed by mainstream media instead of their points being addressed and countered appropriately? Why are so many experts in the field shut down and never given a voice?
Mainstream media outlets and political organizations have been predicting doom and gloom, what seems to be end of the world type of scenarios when they bring up the topic of global warming and climate change. This type of perception is something humanity has been experiencing for decades, just take a look at this press release from 1989, which explained how United Nations officials predicted that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000, it’s just one of many examples.
Furthermore, anybody who seems to question the official narrative of this issue that’s constantly pushed by mainstream media is made out to be a fool, and ridicule shortly ensues. Climate scientists have been ridiculed for even sharing their research and opinions suggesting that a doom and gloom scenario is not real, and that the issue of climate change is quite complex, and that man’s CO2 output is not playing the role that most have been made to believe it plays.
-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with journalist Derrick Broze about the need for journalistic standards, Qanon, and agorism. Click here to listen!
Science itself has become sort of a slight irrelevance….Stories have been promoted over the last 25-30 years and they have completely re-directed the science. But more to the point they’ve also followed Eisenhower’s warning, that fundamentally as the state monopolizes the support of science it calls the shots. And so you have the scientists on the one hand, you know, on both sides, presenting I would say not particularly alarming scenarios, but then you have the body politic presenting something that does not by in large have the support of science about, you know, the end of the planet. But resting assured, the science won’t complain…I don’t think any field survives this degree of corruption without loosing if nothing else its self respect. In terms of climate science…it’s set back the field probably a few generations. I mean, it forced it into a channel that was not describing most of past climate change. So instead of trying to figure out how the Earth behaved, the field was co-opted into a situation where it was supposed to support a paradigm that the government wanted, or that the environmental movement wanted. Hard to disentangle the two, also, because the environmental movement itself has become highly political. – Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. (source)
Based on my research, there are many academics, researchers and environmental activists who are not buying the official narrative that’s been dished out by politicians for a very long time now. We are told that the majority of climate scientists agree, but that doesn’t seem to be the case as, again, there are many who are emphasizing that C02 is not really a dominant factor, and that there are a myriad of other considerations when it comes to the climate of Earth one must consider. Why are they doing this? Clearly, the ‘science is not settled.’
We Need To Clean Up Our Planet, Big Time
Our planet is no doubt in need of great environmental care. Species extinction, deforestation and pollution are at an all time high. The air quality on planet Earth is embarrassing, and our planet needs a big time clean up/restoration attempt. All of these are not due to CO2, but rather due to industry, the dumping of toxic waste, pesticides, and much more. These are what we should be focusing on, not a carbon tax. What’s even more frustrating is that it’s not a matter of finding solutions, they’re already there, it’s a matter of overcoming elitist agendas, human greed and ego. It seems that a carbon tax is simply being used to put more profit into the hands of the global elite. Imagine if we spent as much time coming up with ways to clean up our oceans, develop new energy technology, stoping deforestation and animal agriculture, passing laws that make packaging without biodegradable substances illegal, and much more rather than simply focusing on C02. A lot more would get done. I go more in depth on C02 and why I believe it should not be the main focus when it comes to environmental awareness.
Again, just to reiterate, we are big time environmental activists, but we simply feel the important issues are not given as much attention as the intention behind C02 reduction is not to benefit the planet, but to benefit rich people who really have no concern for our planet.
Below is a video of Dr. Patrick Moore explaining some of his thoughts on the phenomenon. Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
People like Patrick are often criticized by the mainstream media. As I do with everyone else, I suggest you listen to what is being said, look it up, and focus on the information instead of character assassination attempts.
That being said, Moore also claimed that Glyphosate was completely safe and not harmful to humans. This is something we completely disagree with, he also seems to be a supporter of Genetically Modified Foods, something we do not support either. In fact, it was surprising to me to look into what he’s said about these two topics, and quite a head scratcher. In fact, we wrote about his ,what now clearly appear to be false/misinformed, comments on Glyphosate when he made them. You can read that article here.
We clearly do not agree with Moore on many topics, like the ones listed above, but that doesn’t mean he is working for corporations, or is completely misinformed. There is a division of opinion on a myriad of topics today, and again, it’s best to look at what’s being said and fact checking it ourselves instead of simply reverting to character assassination. When we looked and examined his comments on Glyphosate and GMO foods, we found them to be false. When we look at his comments regarding climate change, we find them to be valid or at least worthy of consideration. We completely disregard judgement and simply examine the claims being made, something we encourage more people to do. One thing is for certain, our right to explore and examine information openly and freely should not be taken away and censored.
Thoughts About Greta Thunberg
I took a lot of information that I compiled in a recent article I wrote regarding Greta Thunberg, titled Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make A Killing off It, and pasted it below. But I didn’t go into Greta, who seems to be a good hearted young activist who really cares about the planet. If you want to go more in-depth, I suggest you read the article linked above as the information below is already in it, and a little more.
My Thoughts About CO2
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural and beneficial constituent of the atmosphere. By volume percentage, 99% of dry air is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Most of the rest is argon (0.93%), with carbon dioxide amounting to only 0.04%, but slowly increasing. Even smaller amounts of other gases, neon, helium, methane etc., make up the remainder.
Atmospheric CO2 is a key to life on earth, this is because plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor,
Water vapor, clouds and carbon dioxide hinder the escape of thermal radiation to space and allow the earth’s surface to be warm enough for life. Without this “greenhouse warming,” most of the oceans would be frozen. Increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 from fuel combustion will slightly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Observations indicate that every doubling of the CO2 concentration will increase the earth’s surface temperature by 1 to 2 C, and perhaps less. The warming is so small that the resulting longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity from additional CO2 will be of great benefit to life on earth. (source)
The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.
The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that C02 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in the thousands of ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.
“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)
CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?
“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg
William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:
n every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)
He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”
In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.
Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)
Another quote stressing this point:
Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)
A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.
According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:
The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)
In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:
Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:
- “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
- “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
- “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:
- “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:
How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)
Climate Change Is Big Business
In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.
The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. (source)
The ‘Green New Deal (The Sunrise Movement) is already being adopted in the US, 104 members of Congress, and three of the four frontrunners for the Democratic nomination next year have endorsed it. The legislation promises to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and gives the government large amounts of control over healthcare, wealth redistribution, transport, food production and housing. This movement has it’s roots in the financial elite, a bunch of neoliberal think-tanks and financiers.
Formed by French President Emanuel Macron and investment corporation BlackRock capital last year, the Climate Finance Partnership sees government-funded carbon reduction as a “flagship blended capital investment vehicle.” Salivating at potential profits in the world’s “developing and emerging markets,” the partnership calls for the “unlocking” of pension funds and government money to finance green industry in the developing world. Only instead of calling our planet’s situation a “climate emergency,” they call it “the climate opportunity.”
The Blended Finance Action Taskforce – comprised of 50 financial giants including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi – is even more explicit, calling for a “layer of government and philanthropic capital,” as there are “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors…across three regions including Latin America, Asia, and Africa.”
Put simply, financial giants want your pensions and your taxes to support their investments half a world away. Greta Thunberg and The Climate Emergency Movement are paralyzing you with fear, and knowingly or unknowingly aiding the interests of the world’s mega-rich. (source)
This isn’t about the planet, it’s about money, period. Climate change is no different than using ‘the war on terror’ to create patriotism and to drive the population into accepting measures that hurt them, not benefit them. These ‘fear’ narratives are completely fake. We saw the same thing with Al-Qaeda:
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” (source)
In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.
What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.
Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?
There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa (source)
You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.
What About The Other Side of The Coin?
A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.
A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’
But is this true? Do “97 percent of scientists” really agree as is so often promoted by the mainstream media?
“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.
This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.
Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.
A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.
The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.
We are not denying climate change, we are simply presenting the evidence showing that climate change has been happening for a long time, and that human CO2 output doesn’t seem to play a significant role at all, and that this is simply being used for profit, control, and to take more ‘power’ away from the people and put it into the hands of politicians and the global financial elite.
This is not about the planet.
We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.
Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.
If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.
While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.
Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.
Another Lawsuit Against Merck Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Life-Changing Disability
- The Facts:
Another lawsuit has been filed alleging severe injury and disability as a result of the HPV vaccine. This time it's on behalf of teenager Michael Colbath alleging that his debilitating injuries were caused by the HPV Vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why are those who raise concerns always considered "anti-vax conspiracy theorists" and ridiculed? Should freedom of choice always remain when it comes to vaccines?
Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be on Facebook.
What Happened: Another lawsuit has been filed against Merck for allegedly causing another life-changing disability. As lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains, “Before he got the Gardasil (human papillomavirus) vaccine, our client Michael Colbath was a superlative athlete and scholar. A happy, healthy and active boy. In the months following his first injection, exhaustion and extreme fatigue forced Michael away from the sports and hobbies that had been centerpieces of his life. He had trouble staying awake during the school day. After his second Gardasil injection, Michael developed severe foot pain in both feet, so severe that he needed crutches to attend school. He had trouble waking up in the morning and getting out of bed.”
He goes on to explain:
As his symptoms worsened, multiple physicians and specialists treated him for migraine headaches; body pains and muscle aches; chronic fatigue; hypersomnolence (sleeping 15-22 hours in a 24-hour period), sleep drunkenness, unrefreshing sleep; excessive sweating, lightheadedness, and tachycardia; tunnel vision on standing; difficulty with concentration and memory; confusion and brain fog; intermittent or episodic paralysis, numbness; and stomach pains.
Michael’s post-Gardasil injuries and diagnoses, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), idiopathic hypersomnia (IH), myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME / CFS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and gastroparesis, kept him from his passions, sports and hobbies. He missed most of high school and only his formidable self-discipline allowed him to complete his school work at home — he could not walk or move unassisted, he earned his Eagle Scout award using a knee scooter.
If Mrs. Colbath had known that Gardasil could create these health issues, she never would have allowed him to receive it.
This is the fifth Gardasil lawsuit Baum Hedlund and I have filed against Merck challenging the company’s dangerous and defective HPV vaccine for causing severe and life changing injuries. In addition to Mike’s case filed this week, we have filed cases on behalf of Sahara Walker of Wisconsin, Zach Otto of Colorado and Julia Balasco of Rhode Island. While each case is unique, they share common threads: All of our clients were happy, healthy, bright, active kids with unlimited potential until they received the Gardasil HPV vaccine. We look forward to getting these cases in front of a jury as soon as possible.
Kennedy and his team are currently engaged in five lawsuits regarding injury as a result of the HPV vaccine. I recently wrote about Sahara Walker, a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries after receiving the vaccine. You can read more about that here.
How Necessary Is The Gardasil Vaccine? The HPV vaccine is heavily marketed as a preventer of cervical cancer, but many studies have called this assumption into question. For example, in a recent study published in The Royal Society of Medicine, researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
Another interesting thing to note about HPV infections is when it comes to women in particular, approximately 70 percent of those who get an infection will clear it all by themselves within the first year, you don’t even have to detect it. Keep in mind that only a handful of HPV infections can actually lead to cancer. Within two years, approximately 90 percent of these infections will clear all by themselves. By three years, 10 percent of that original group will still have an HPV infection, and 5 percent of this 10 percent will have progressed into what are known as a precancerous lesion. There are three types of precancerous lesions, CIN1, which requires no treatment, C1N2 and the most severe, CIN3.
So now you have that small group (the remaining 5 percent)…who have precancerous lesions and now let’s look at that moving into invasive carcinoma. What we know then is that amongst women with CIN3 lesions, it takes five years for about twenty percent of them to become invasive carcinomas. That’s a pretty slow process. It takes about thirty years for forty percent of them to become invasive cervical carcinomas. – Dr. Diane Harper, one of a select few specialists in OB/GYN (in the world) who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved.
In a study published in Autoimmunity Reviews, the authors note that “The decision to vaccinate with the HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease, in 95 percent of the infections; and the other 5 percent are detectable and treatable in the precancerous state.”
This is why cervical cancer is usually diagnosed among the elderly, because it takes a long time to develop. This means that one has a very long time to treat pre-cancerous lesions that have the potential to develop into full blown cancer.
Not only is the efficacy of the vaccine called into question by many researchers, the supposed protection it provides, if any, only lasts a few years. Ask yourself, how likely is it for your 11 year old daughter/son to develop an HPV infection that will lead to cancer in a few decades, before she’s/he’s even done high school? The main cause of HPV infections is sexual intercourse.
Harper told CBS a few years ago that “the benefits (of the vaccine) to public health is noting, there is no reduction in cervical cancer.” She also emphasized that parents “must know that deaths occured” and that not all deaths have been reported. This information is accurate, we know this in the United States, for example, because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It stems from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act, which protects pharmaceutical companies from liability and uses tax-dollars to pay for vaccine injuries. Multiple countries have a program like this in place, and the United States has now paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. The main takeaway is that the FDA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is estimated to capture only 1 percent of vaccine injuries.
A study published in 2013 in Current Pharmaceutical Design carried out a review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that,
HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.
For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).
We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.
Not long ago researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology looked at 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three HPV vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines.
Mary Holland, a former a professor on the faculties of Columbia Law School and the New York University School of Law for the past eighteen years who taught courses on human rights, recently retired as the Director of the NYU Graduate Lawyering Program. She co-authored a book titled “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed.”
The HPV Vaccine on Trial is a shocking tale, chronicling the global efforts to sell and compel this alleged miracle. The book opens with the vaccine’s invention, winds through its regulatory labyrinths, details the crushing denial and dismissal of reported harms and deaths, and uncovers the enormous profits pharma and inventors have reaped. Authors Holland, Mack Rosenberg, and Iorio drill down into the clinical trial data, government approvals, advertising, and personal accounts of egregious injuries that have followed in countries as far-flung as Japan, Australia, Colombia, India, Ireland, the U.K. and Denmark. The authors have written an unprecedented exposé about this vaunted vaccine.
Written in plain language, the book is for everyone concerned – parents, patients, doctors, nurses, scientists, healthcare organizations, government officials, and schools. Ultimately, this book is not just about the HPV vaccine, but about how industry, government, and medical authorities may be putting the world’s children in harm’s way.
A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. Since then it’s now known that vaccine hesitancy is rising among many doctors, scientists, academics and people of all backgrounds and professions. The question to ask is, why?
At a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having stated,
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.
A study published in the journal EbioMedicine as far back as 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
A Typical Response From Merck For A Supposed Vaccine Injury? A 14-year-old boy named Christopher Bunch passed away more than a year ago, and the mother and father claimed that it was as a result of the HPV vaccine. His mother started a petition over a year ago claiming that her son “died as a direct result of the HPV vaccine.”
The father of the boy, Elijah Eugene Mendoza-Bunch, wrote this via his Facebook page, in January of 2020.
So back on December 11th 2019 I sent an email to CEO Ken Frazier of Merck song to speak with him about the HPV VACCINE and how it killed my son and how it is destroying lives. Well here we are January 25th (the day I got it in the mail) and this is the response from Merck….
As you can see, the letter states that,
“The safety and efficacy of our HPV vaccines have been established in a clinical development program that started more than 20 years ago and involved more than 49,000 individuals. Safety has continued to be evaluated after approval in multiple studies in several million people, in long-term follow up studies and through our extensive ongoing pharmacovigilance monitoring program in place throughout the world. Multiple independent scientific organizations and major regulatory and public health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly evaluated the safety of HPV vaccines. The results of these evaluations continue to be reassuring
Is Aluminum a Concern? The HPV vaccine does use an aluminum adjuvant, something that’s come under fire over the past few years. You can read and learn more about that here.
The Takeaway: This isn’t even the tip of the iceberg, there are many papers published in various journals over the past decade pointing out the same thing. There are also many published studies and papers that claim the vaccine is completely safe and very effective. This is why it can be a confusing topic to look into and why we believe that informed consent in place of an HPV vaccine mandate for children should be in place.
What do you think? One thing is for certain, people should be free to engage in conversations about controversial topics. This is one thing the mainstream fails to do, and always seems to deem the type of information presented in this article as a result of “anti vax conspiracy theorists.” Instead of using ridicule, it would be great if the concerns being raised about vaccine safety were actually spoken about openly and transparently, and most importantly, actually acknowledged and addressed.
Do we really want to live in a world where we can’t talk to each other? Why do we have such a hard time seeing from the perspective of another and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do? Do we really want to create a world where we are forced into certain actions by our government at the threat of losing certain rights and privileges?A world where we are so polarized? Should people not be free to do what they want with their body, especially if the evidence to suggest that they are harming others if they don’t is weak and unsubstantiated?
When it comes to vaccines specifically, a quote from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University, provides some good insight into what I am referring to.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.
Telegram Passes 500 Million Users As People Seek Facebook & Twitter (Big Tech) Alternatives
- The Facts:
Messaging app Telegram has now surpassed 500 million users after more big names/pages flock to the platform due to censorship by Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter.
- Reflect On:
Do we really want to live in a world where freedom of speech is limited even if it's not causing any harm? Should we not have the freedom to access information and decide for ourselves what it is we choose to believe?
Telegram is a social media platform, currently known as a messaging app, that now has more than 500 million users worldwide. Telegram founder Pavel Durov recently confirmed the fact on his personal Telegram channel (@Durov).
Here at Collective Evolution we’ve experienced a tremendous amount of censorship from Big Tech platforms like Facebook, for example. We’ve been working in the field of “alternative media” since 2009. We have since grown our Facebook page to well over 5 million followers, and for years we’ve been subjected to algorithm changes, Facebook “fake news” strikes that are clearly unwarranted, and much more. Most recently, Founder Joe Martino and Myself had our own personal Facebook pages completely deleted with no explanation.
We have been dealing with and coming to terms with the fact that we just don’t know how much longer our Collective Evolution Facebook page will be around or how much longer will have access to it, and this is why we are transitioning our followers over to our recently made Telegram account.
All of this censorship has also resulted in a very significant demonetization. What we do here at Collective Evolution is being threatened, and has been threatened for quite some time. We want to keep doing what we do but sometimes worry that we cannot produce the means necessary to do what we do. This is why we started CETV.
CETV is our own platform and our attempt to move away from dependance on Big Tech. If you’re interested in helping us continuing our work, you can support us by joining there. It’s what is now barely helping us to continue to do what we do, conduct interviews, create personal development courses, write articles, attempt to expand human consciousness, inspire change from within and more. CETV is in its beginning stages, it’s still growing and we are still trying to improve it. We hope you join us there.
Last but not least, and perhaps one of the most important ways you can keep up to date with what we are doing, apart from CETV, is by joining our email list.
It’s not only Collective Evolution that has been subjected to extreme censorship. Doctors, scientists, various academics, peer reviewed science, journalists and more have and all are experiencing the same thing. There is a digital authoritarian “‘Orwellian” fact-checker going around the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Any information, opinion, or piece of evidence that seems to go against the grain or threaten the status quo seems to be subjected to this nowadays.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernays, Propaganda 1928
Encounters With Star People: Three Native Indians Describe An Encounter Of The “First Kind”
- The Facts:
Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People, and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. This article shares one of many.
- Reflect On:
Are we alone? If not, what are the implications when the public becomes fully aware of this? How will it change the way we look at the nature of reality and how we live here, and why we live the way we do?
Dr. Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a Professor Emeritus at Montana State University who is Cherokee/Choctaw has been researching the Star People and collecting encounters between them and Native Indians for many years. In her book, “Encounters With Star People, Untold Stories of American Indians” she details many of these stories, and explains how her fascination with Star People came from stories told to her by her older relatives, like her grandmother, when she was a child. Be sure to visit her website to find out more about her work.
I’ve been reading the book for quite some time now and I find myself having a great deal of trouble actually finishing it because everytime I come across a new story, I want to share it with our readers. I’ve written multiple articles that take excerpts from her book. So far I’ve written about a story she shared regarding an elder who told her about a ship that crashed on his reservation. You can read that story here. I wrote about another elder who shared a story of a petrified alien heart, which he claimed belonged to the Star People, and you can read that one here. I’ve written one about an elder who claimed to have been told that humans were one of four violent species in the universe, you can read that here. I wrote about a fascinating story regarding a man who had an encounter during an Alaskan blizzard, you can read that here, and another one where a gentlemen was told “not to be afraid.” You can read that here.
This particular story comes from three American Indians who are military veterans. All three of them were stationed together at an Air Force base when this event occurred. An encounter of the “first kind” refers to a UFO sighting in close proximity.
Clarke knew Arlan 15 years before he told her his story. She describes how they first met while he served on the interview committee established by her school (Montana State University) in the hiring of a new faculty position that would recruit American Indian students and teach in the College of Education. Arlan was on the hiring committee, and after Clarke was hired she stayed in contact with him and became part of his extended family,
He frequently stopped by my office at the University on his monthly trip to Helena to meet with the governor’s liaison on Indian Affairs. On one such visit, we sat in my office discussing tribal politics, when I noticed he was staring at the poster hanging on the wall. It pictured a UFO with words underneath it that read, “I believe.” “Do you believe?” he asked, pointing to the poster. “I do,” I replied. “I believe too,” he began.”
“When I was in the service, I was in the Air Force, most indians join the army, but I joined the Air Force. One night the whole base was on alert. An unidentified object appeared on radar. It was headed straight for the base. Several jet fighters scrambled in pursuit. They returned but the base remained on alert. That meant we were all in full combat uniform and dispersed around the perimeters.”
This story corroborates with information that has now been declassified by multiple governments and intelligence agencies around the world. It’s a well known fact than when a UFO, or as they are termed within the mainstream now, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon” (UAP) is tracked on radar, the military scrambles jets to take a closer look. One (out of thousands of similar cases) great example comes from a case I’ve shared a number of times. This incident occurred on the night of September 18th, 1976. A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and NSA report describes the encounter in detail. Furthermore, both of the pilots involved discussed the event years later.
Residents of the city (Tehran, Iran) noticed a big bright object in the sky. The airport traffic controller also noticed, “it was an intensely bright object that was not supposed to be there.” The Iranian Air Force was contacted and they dispatched two F-4 fighter jets to check out the object.
Both of the F-4 interceptor pilots reported seeing the object visually, it was also tracked on their airborne radar. Both planes experienced critical instrumentation and electronics go offline at a distance of twenty-five miles from the object. Here is an excerpt from the report:
“As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nautical miles it lost all instrumentation and communications. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications. Another brightly lighted object came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F4. ”
Back to the story. I just wanted to provide a brief example.
Around 2 a.m., a spacecraft appeared. It hovered over the base for a good 30 minutes. There were windows where you could see shadows moving, like someone walking around. We all stood there, our rifles ready to fire. The order never came. The UFO just hovered there, not moving, not making a sound. One foolish airman broke rank and ran in the direction of the craft, shouting and waving his rifle in the air. A beam of light shot out of the craft. He was frozen on the spot. When the light retracted, he fell on his face. A few seconds later, the craft flew away. Two hours later, we were called together and told it was a test and ordered not to talk about the event. I never did. I kept it a secret until this moment.”
“Why now” Clarke asked.
It’s that poster. That craft looked identical to the one we saw that night. “After the incident, did you ever talk to your buddies about it?” I asked. I never did. Within hours of the sighting, I was transferred to a different base. My friends were transferred out the same day. We were given 12 hours to prepare for our transfers. There was a lot of paperwork. We didn’t have much time to talk about the transfers or about the UFO. Some of us exchanged home addresses, but you know how it is when you’re 18. You think you’ll write, but you never do. I never saw or heard from any of those guys again.
Arlan did however know the names and addresses of the men when they were enlisted, and through that Clarke was able to track them down for a chat. Keep in mind this incident occurred decades ago.
Clarke asked Max about the UFO incident.
Yes, I remember. The brass told us never to talk about it. In fact, they said if we did talk, they would come after us. They told us we had witnessed a top-secret test to determine how we would react under unusual and stressful situations. I never believed them. It was a barefaced lie, and they thought we were so inexperienced and dumb that we would buy into anything…They said it was an experimental craft. It was all lies. Not even the big boys knew what that craft was or where it originated. They were shaking in their boots and the last thing they wanted was for the word to get out.
The idea that this could be some sort of experimental craft/technology that the military possesses is not so far fetched. There are documents, for example, that show the U.K. was “desperate” to get their hands on UFO technology. There are interesting statements from interesting people, like Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell who once said that “yes, there have been crashed craft and bodies recovered.” Even an article in the New York Times from last year covered the story about retrievals of “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth” in a serious manner. (You can read more about “mainstream UFO disclosure” here.) In his book, “Forbidden Science 4,” Dr. Jacques Vallee explains how he came in possession documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. I obtained a document from the CIA’s electronic reading room that details a story about a famous German Engineer, George Klein, describing his experience with “Flying Saucer” technology in Germany, claiming that it’s been operational since 1941.
The point is there is a lot of information out there suggesting that governments, or even more powerful institutions have had and do have this type of capability.
But for some reason, I do believe Max in this case. Despite all of the evidence that we have suggesting some of this technology is in our possession, UFO lore is littered with stories like this from military bases and nuclear weapons facilities.
Arlan, Hank and me – we were sent to protect the entrance to the base. We took our positions and waited for an unknown enemy. We must have been there for over an hour. I was cold and my teeth were chattering. That’s when it happened. The craft came out of nowhere. Not a sound. Suddenly it just appeared hovering silently over the base. We didn’t know what to do. We are all nervous as hell. Our commanding officer told us not to fire, but to be ready to respond if something happened. This one guy, I don’t know if he lost his mind or what, went running toward the craft shooting. A light came out of the craft and he was stopped in his tracks for just a moment as though he was paralyzed, and then he dropped to the ground unconscious. A few moments later, the craft moved silently upward and disappeared into the night.”
A couple of years later, after I re-enlisted, I ran into one of the medics who was on-duty at the hospital that night when the UFO appeared. He told me that the guy was burned all over this face and body. He said he heard a doctor say it was radiation. He said they kept him in a sleep-induced coma for a while, and then they just let nature take its course. He died within a month of the incident.”
This is interesting and it also corroborates with other incidents out there. Stefan Michalak, for example, was involved in a UFO incident in Manitoba, Canada. It’s known the “Falcon Lake Incident” and is quite famous among Canadian UFO researchers. Stefan also suffered severe burns from the crafts he encountered.
According to Stefan’s son, Stan Michalak, who co-authored a book detailing his father’s encounter titled When They Appeared: “I recalled seeing him in bed. He didn’t look good at all. He looked pale, haggard. . . .When I walked into the bedroom there was a huge stink in the room, like a real horrible aroma of sulphur and burnt motor. It was all around and it was coming out of his pores. It was bad.”
Below. you can see the burn marks left from the encounter. Stefan is of many who have had this type of ‘evidence’ left on their body after an alleged encounter. Below is a sketch done by Stefan of the craft he encountered. You can read more about this story here.
Clarke asks Max to describe the craft.
It was huge. Bigger than anything I had ever seen. It just hung there in the sky. Like it was suspended on strings. It made no sound. I would say it was probably about 50 or 60 feet around. Maybe 25-to-35 feet tall. There were windows but you couldn’t see through them. Very small windows but only a dull light emitted from them. The craft was gray metal, perfectly smooth. No angles. Just a perfect circle. It was dark but all the lights at the base were on so we had a good view. I couldn’t see any seams on the craft. That was unusual. It was like it was one piece or there was a skin stretched over it to make it look that way. I saw blue and white lights when it hovered over the base. There were reddish-orange flashing lights that came on as it moved away. It flew upward at first and then disappeared into the night sky within seconds.”
We saw them in Vietnam sometimes. Frequently we would see several at a time, but they never came close. They just flew over, sometimes, in formation. It was like they were observing the war. The pilots talked among themselves. Those of us who worked on the planes heard their conversations. The pilots were concerned about the UFOs. At first they thought they were some kind of communist aircraft sent to scare us out of Vietnam. There were stories of jets that crashed when they pursued them, but most pilots knew what we all knew: these craft were not from this planet. We were no match for them.
Clake goes on to find the third man, Hank, and he tells the exact same story as Max and Arlan. If you want to read more stories like this, make sure you check out the book. The link is at the top of this article.
The Takeaway: I’ve said it many before, so I apologize if this is a repeat for you but I’ll say it again, the ET phenomenon truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and greatly expands human consciousness and the way we perceive ourselves, the cosmos, and the nature of reality. Just think of all that would change when we consider not only the existence of off-world civilizations but also the technology they use to get here. Perhaps other races use their technology for discovery, advancement, service to others and more instead of simply using it to profit in some way, or use it to make weaponry like we do? I don’t know. At the end of the day what we need more on our planet is to question the way we live here, what we are doing here and why we live the way we do when we have so much potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive. The question of “are we alone” is a big one, but thousands of other questions will come forth when we realize, for sure, that we’re not and that we are being visited and have been visited for quite some time.
Cover Photo Credit: Billy Meier. Supposed authentic picture of a UFO he captured.
Encounters With Star People: Three Native Indians Describe An Encounter Of The “First Kind”
Follow me on Instagram here. Make sure you follow Collective Evolution on Telegram as we have no idea how much longer we will be...