Connect with us

Alternative News

Professor Explains Why He Believes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Make Sense

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?

Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.

advertisement - learn more

Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.

The Theory Of Evolution

The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.

One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.

He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”

advertisement - learn more

From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.

The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)

The Genesis Of New Life Forms

His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.

The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Intelligent Design

More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Diving Into Proteins

Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues

Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.

Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.

The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution

Not long ago I wrote about a  recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.

“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)

There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:

With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.

The response?

Near silence.

The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.

Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.

This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’

I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.

The Takeaway

The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.

Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Prince Harry: “I Will Not Be Bullied Into Playing A Game That Killed My Mom”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Last week Prince Harry and Meaghan Markle announced that they would be stepping down from their royal duties, and ultimately their life as royals.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do so many view powerful figures like the Royal's as gods? Is it time to end this type of perception?

Last week Prince Harry and Meaghan Markle announced that they would be stepping down from their royal duties, and ultimately their life as royals. This is pretty huge news. In regards to what prompted this decision there is certainly a lot we could speculate over, perhaps they want to distance themselves from the royal family because of the recent scandal involving Uncle Prince Andrew and the allegations against him being involved in child sex trafficking, maybe they simply want to get out of the public eye, or perhaps they see how the monarchy has already started to crumble and want to get out while they can.

Whatever the reason may be, it certainly seems to validate the massive shift in consciousness that is currently taking place on our planet and perhaps throughout the entire Universe. Some people have already been calling for the abolishment of the British monarchy after the Queen passes away, as many feel this system is very archaic in this day and age.

On The Surface

It was reported that the Queen had no idea of Harry and Meaghan’s decision before it was announced, and inside sources have told reporters that the “monarchy has never been seen in such a bad state.” (source)

Longtime friend of Prince Harry, JJ Chalmers, made an insightful comment during an interview on BBC’s The One on January 10th, stating that he feels Harry likely made this decision in order to “protect his family” and was simply attempting to put his family first and do what was right for them. The details regarding what Harry might be wanting to “protect his family” from weren’t disclosed.

A video that has gained a lot of popularity on social media over the past week or so, being retweeted over 70,000 times since being posted on January 8th, is an interview of Harry himself discussing the need to protect his family.

In another clip from that same interview we can clearly hear Harry saying that, “I will not be bullied into playing the same game that killed my mom.”

How’s The Queen Taking The News?

This past Monday, January 13th a meeting took place to address Harry’s decision. According to CNN.com,

The highly unusual meeting was called after the couple’s bombshell announcement last week that they wished to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family. The Queen was joined at the summit by Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry, while Meghan was due to have dialed in from Canada.

After a crisis meeting of senior royals at the Queen’s Sandringham estate north of London, the Queen said she had agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan could split their time between the UK and Canada but that “complex matters” would have to be resolved. The monarch said she had ordered final plans to be drawn up in the next few days.

In a statement after the meeting, the Queen said the family would have preferred the couple to “remain full-time working members of the royal family,” but that they “respect and understand” Prince Harry and Meghan’s “wish to live a more independent life.”

The Queen said the family had “very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family” during the meeting, adding that they are “entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family.”

There were “complex matters for my family to resolve,” and no final agreement had been reached, particularly over Harry and Meghan’s desire to become “financially independent.”

“There is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” the Queen said in the statement.

Going A Bit Deeper

When we look at what happened to “the game that killed William and Harry’s mum,” she was harassed relentlessly by the media, and ultimately ended in a fatal car crash. However, there is a lot of controversy behind this official story. Many believe that Princess Diana was against the monarchy in some ways and was attempting to break free from it’s clutches and even potentially expose some of their secrets, and thus believe that her death was no accident, but rather that she was silenced by being taken out by the Royal family.

Are Harry and Meaghan stepping away because they refuse to continue to be harassed by paparazzi, or are they making a bold statement and declaring their values by taking a stance that shows that they no longer wish to be affiliated with or support the Royal family? Could this signify the beginning of the end for the British monarchy? Only time will tell.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The US Navy Says Sharing UFO Footage & Documents Could ‘Cause Grave Damage to National Security’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The US Navy recently released a statement claiming that more disclosure regarding a 2004 UFO incident in the form of video footage and documentation would be a big threat to national security.

  • Reflect On:

    The mainstream media has long used false information, or real information, and shaped the narrative to suit a particular agenda that serves the interests of their funders. Are we seeing the same thing here?

There is perhaps no other topic that used to be considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ that’s now taken extremely seriously within the mainstream, like the topic of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), also sometimes referred to Unidentified Ariel Phenomenon (UAP’s). This is in large part due to the fact that official, declassified documents and footage have been released from a number of intelligence agencies and military organizations, on a global scale. Furthermore, all of it’s complimented by statements from high ranking military personnel, ex-astronauts, and many more.

An incident that really blew this subject open in the United States occurred in 2004, where several Navy pilots that were stationed aboard the USS Nimitz encountered a “Tic-Tac-Shaped” UFO. To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science (TTSA) headed by Tom Delonge alongside several ex-high ranking intelligence personnell, like Christopher Mellon who served 30 years in the federal government and was Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997  to 2002, obtained the video from the United States Navy, which the Navy later verified was real.  He has published detailed articles for outlets like The Hill as well as The Washington Post emphasizing the reality and seriousness of this subject. He is one of several to do so

Here’s one of the videos of the object, here’s another, and here’s one more of other instances that they’ve obtained.

The 2004 incident was beamed by the New York times, and high ranking people, like Louis Elizondo who headed a an “Ariel Threat Identification Program” at the Pentagon (he’s also part of the TTSA) stated that he believed these objects are extraterrestrial. He also made the point to emphasize that we should not get caught up in this particular 2004 incident, as there are many. He told VICE that “people should not be surprised by the revelation that other videos exist and at greater length.”

More news has come out regarding the 2004 incident, at it’s in response to a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that was filed for more video footage and documents regarding the incident. The footage and documents that were released of the incident don’t show the entire video, and don’t make up all of the documents. A spokesperson from the Navy’s Office of Intelligence (ONI) confirmed that the agency posses at least one classified video pertaining to this incident.

According to an ONI  spokesperson, sharing the information with the public “would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States.”

advertisement - learn more

The ONI also admitted to possessing at least one video of unknown length, classified as “secret” by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). ONI didn’t reveal whether this footage is the same 1-minute video that was leaked online in 2007 and widely released by The New York Times in 2017. However, in November 2019, several naval officers who witnessed the incident aboard the Nimitz told Popular Mechanics that they had seen a much longer video of the encounter that was between 8 and 10 minutes long. These original recordings were promptly collected and erased by “unknown individuals” who arrived on the ship by helicopter shortly after the incident, one officer said. (source)

In the 2004 incident, the object in question was performing maneuvers and flying at speeds that no known air craft on Earth can perform.

Grave Damage To National Security?? Seriously??

One thing that seems to rub me the wrong way about mainstream UFO disclosure is what seems to be a constant ‘threat narrative.’ This is a phenomenon that dates back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Cases have ben documented for a very, very long time. If there was some sort of ‘extraterrestrial threat’ or a threat to national security by these objects, wouldn’t some type of ‘event’ have already taken place by now?

Based on my research, and the research of many other UFO researchers around the world, the majority of documented UFO incidents around the world have shown no sign of a threat. Sure, they may be intrusive, but there these objects have not behaved in any way that has been indicative of threat. That being said, this does not mean that footage of these objets performing in a way that represents a threat doesn’t exist, but based on what we have now, 99.99 percent of these cases, in my opinion, do not display behaviour that is at all indicative of a threat.

In fact, not only do these objects not display characteristics of hostility, they are documented performing predominantly evasive manures, making multiple efforts to avoid our air-craft. For example, Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer said that these objects commonly take “corrective measures to avoid our aircraft,” and that our military tends to “shoot first and ask questions after.” (source)  Don’t forget four star General Nathan Twinning, who stated in a declassified intelligence document decades ago that,

“The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly air-craft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically, or remotely.” (source)

With all of this being said, it’s understandable how, from our current level of consciousness that these objects would be seen as a threat, especially from a military and intelligence perspective. For example, when a UFO is tracked on radar, military air-craft are usually sent out to take a closer look. There are many documented cases that show electronic systems within the military jet go down, they don’t work.  For example, here’s an interesting case from Iran via a declassified NSA document:

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.

 UFOs in close proximity to nuclear missile facilities have also been associated with the complete shut-down and deactivation of nuclear missiles. So that’s interesting.

The issue is, is the threat narrative being pushed by the mainstream for some sort of ulterior motive, the same way we’ve seen the mainstream push the war on terror ? Are we being lied to again? To be honest, it’s hard to believe anything that comes from mainstream media these days, and many people have lost their trust in these networks. Truth is not synonymous with mainstream media, so what makes the UFO topic any different? Are they trying to control the narrative?

What’s curious to me is why all of a sudden do a select group of people get to publish serious pieces on the subject in mainstream media outlets while a number of ‘credible’ people as well as UFO researchers have been doing this for years, yet continue to go largely ignored by the mainstream media? These are all important questions to ask?

I go deeper in an article I recently published, which you can read below if you’re interested:

Do UFOs Represent Some Sort of Threat? Or Is This Just Government Propaganda? 

The Takeaway

This is a subject that’s full of truth, but also full of disinformation. At the end of the day, it’s curious as to why mainstream media has control over the narrative and never addresses incidents and facts that’ve been uncovered by academics and researchers for decades. And why now? This is a topic that truly leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, it has large implications, especially for human consciousness. That being said, we have a lot of work to do down here on planet Earth to get our ‘stuff’ together, but this topic is no doubt always interesting to explore, and can assist one in expanding their consciousness.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Scientists Share Facts About Vaccines At World Health Organization Conference For Vaccine Safety

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are so many people fighting against each other? Why are there "pro-vax" and "anti-vax" groups? Are these terms not useless? Do they prevent us from having discussions that need to be had and moving forward appropriately?

According to organizations like the American Medical Association as well as the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy among people, parents, and, as mentioned by scientists at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit, health professionals and scientists continues to increase. This is no secret, as vaccines have become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health security.

The issue of vaccine hesitancy is no secret, for example, one study (of many) published in the journal EbioMedicine 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 (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the 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 behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At the conference, this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also 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, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

advertisement - learn more

She also brought up her belief that safety studies are incomplete, and that to continue to refer people to the same old science on safety is not adequately addressing their new concerns because better studies need to be done. Furthermore, she recommended that doctors and professionals forego name-calling with ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax”. She recommended encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety. After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. After all, that’s just good science, and it’s in everyone’s best interest.

Another interesting point that caught my attention was brought up by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization. He brought up the topic of vaccine adjuvants like thimerosal or aluminum, for example. In certain vaccines, without these adjuvants the vaccine simply doesn’t work. Dr. Friede mentioned that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. He mentioned aluminum specifically.

He showed concern given the fact that “without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.”

He also stated that,

When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so, but when we add them it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on ‘how do you develop vaccines’ and ‘how do you make vaccines’ and the first lesson is, while you are making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety, and lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.

Furthermore, he criticized the assumption that if an adjuvant like aluminum appears to be safe for one vaccine, that it should be not be presumed to be safe for other vaccines. Dr. Friede said that current safety surveillance is quite effective at determining immediate effects (such as immediate injury to the arm at the injection site), but not as effective in identifying “systemic” long term adverse events.

When I heard him mention lesson two, that “if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety,” it instantly reminded me of aluminum because it’s an adjuvant used in multiple vaccines like the HPV vaccine, for example, but has no history of safety.

A study published as far back as 2011 in Current Medical Chemistry makes this quite clear, emphasizing that,

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)

The key sentence here is that “their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor.” Based on what Dr. Friede said at the conference, it really makes you think.

A study published in BMC Med in 2015 found that “Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.”

This brings me to another point made at the conference by many scientists in attendance, which was that according to some of them, vaccines seem to lack the appropriate safety testing. This is another big reason why people are so confused and have voiced their concerns about safety, as mentioned above by Professor Larson.

Marion Gruber, PhD and Director of the FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review, questioned the scope of vaccine safety surveillance and monitoring during pre-licensing vaccine trials as well during the conference.

One source of confusion might be that ‘high-ranking’ health authorities sometimes making conflicting statements. For example, Soumya Swaminathan, MD and Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, stated at the conference,

I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear cut answers when people ask questions about deaths that have occurred due to particular vaccines… One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly is happening, what the cause of deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation at that level and therefore there’s less and less trust then in the system.

Prior to this statement, in a promotional video released just days before the conference began, she stated that “we have vaccine safety systems, robust vaccine safety systems.”

She completely contradicted herself.

If you’d like access to the entire conference, you can do so at the World Health Organization’s website.

The Takeaway

The scientific community should never stop questioning, especially when it comes to medication. Based on the information that’s come out at this conference, it’s quite clear that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the development of vaccines and vaccine safety overall. Discussion is always encouraging, as long as it’s peaceful and facts are presented like they were at this conference. It’s better to understand the reasons why a lot of people are hesitant about vaccination and appropriately respond, instead of simply using ridicule and hatred because that’s never effective and both parties cannot move forward that way. At the end of the day, scientists should never cease to question.

Improve Your Energy, Sleep & Clarity!

Discover how Conscious Breathing can improve your life in just 10 days through our guided conscious breathing challenge!

Get access to daily videos, guided meditations, and community support to master conscious breathing basics. Release stress, activate heart coherence, improve digestion, sleep better and more!

Sign Up For The Challenge Here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!