Connect with us

Opinion

Study: Governments Should Be Testing 5G & Proving It’s Safe Before Exposing Humanity To It

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in 2019 is one of many to point out that appropriate safety testing is needed and should be required before 5G technology is rolled out.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do some mainstream media outlets ridicule the idea that 5G technology may be harmful to human health when there is an abundance of peer-reviewed literature emphasizing the need for further study?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The push for 5G forges on regardless of any safety testing. The mainstream continues to tout the idea that no science shows dangers associated with 5G radiation, but there are also no studies to show that it is safe. The truth is, there are medical and health experts who have been raising their concerns with regards to 5G technology, and human exposure to electromagnetic frequencies for quite some time. I’ve published multiple articles expressing these concerns. For example, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician, a former medical school assistant professor, and academic with more than two decades in the field gave her testimony regarding electromagnetic radiation and 5G in Michigan, after an industry sponsored 5G wireless infrastructure legislation recently passed through the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee with a vote of 15 to 4. You can watch that and read more about that here.

advertisement - learn more

Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” emphasizes that:

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

These concerns are also hitting the mainstream, one recent example of mainstream awareness is an article published in the blog section of Scientific American titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe” written by Joel M. Moskowitz.

So, it’s not like awareness is not getting out there, a few months ago, a number of doctors, scientists and activists sent a National 5G Resolution letter to President Trump, requesting a moratorium on 5G technology until the potential hazards for human health have been appropriately investigated. The Electromagnetic Safety Alliance and Environmental Health Trust coordinated gathering signatories for this 5G Resolution.

The Environmental Health Trust is actually a great place to access more of the science on this topic if you’re interested in learning more.

advertisement - learn more

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump recently signed into law a pair of bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act. You can read more about that here.

Despite all of the concerns being raised, the international body in charge of setting limits on exposure to radiation, The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), A Germany-based scientific body that assesses the health risks of this kind of thing, is claiming that 5G radiation is completely safe.

Dr. Eric van Rongen, the ICNIRP chair, said:

“We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease. The guidelines have been developed after a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process. They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects due to [electromagnetic field] exposure in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range.” (source)

The question is, why is there so much conflicting information, with some scientific bodies claiming that it’s safe, and others claiming that it’s not? Clearly, there are some issues here.

An article written in Forbes states “Fortunately, science already tells us that 5G almost certainly poses no danger to humans. Unless you value unfounded conspiracies over bona fide science.”

Why would they refer to such concerns being published by doctors and scientists in peer-reviewed literature as “conspiracy theories?” Why do they constantly use the ridicule factor instead of simply sharing both sides from a place of neutrality? Why is this “conspiracy theory” narrative constantly used within the mainstream instead of actually addressing the concerns that many scientists and health experts are having?

Perhaps this conflict comes as a result of corporate influence?  Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed (. Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

One major theme of the study is the absence of science proving that this technology is safe.

With this absence of human evidence, governments must require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents, whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past few years.

How can science like this be deemed a conspiracy theory? If it is, why are scientists allowed to publish it after going through a rigorous peer-reviewed process in an esteemed scientific journal?

At the end of the day, many doctors and scientists are concerned about the rollout of 5G technology, and the already existing levels of unnatural radiation that humanity is exposed to. Clearly, there are biological effects, but some studies point out that conclusions can’t be made. For example, a study published in The International Journal of Environmental Health titled “5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz” pointed out that,

The majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range. The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.

This particular study was even funded by Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, and again, it emphasizes that “no -in-depth” conclusions can be drawn.

If this is true, as some studies argue it’s not and certain conclusions can be drawn, then shouldn’t we wait until “in-depth” conclusions can be drawn that guarantee our safety? Something to think about.

A list of Annual Reports by telecommunication companies clearly shows how companies warn their shareholders but not residents living near cell antennas. Read more here. They are already facing numerous lawsuits.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, this begs the question, do we really live in a democracy? If 5G came down to a vote from the people within that country, it’s hard to believe the vote would pass. Today, we seem to be living in a time where governments and big corporations can enforce measures upon us that we do not desire, or in this case, impose measures upon us that have not yet been proved to be safe. This is one of many examples of why people continue to lose trust in governments as well as federal health regulatory agencies. Furthermore, there seems to be a large bias within the mainstream media, almost ridiculing the idea

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Opinion

Opinion | Which Is More Dangerous: Mainstream Media or The Spike Protein?

Avatar

Published

on

By

10 minute read
By MattLphotography

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    It's known that SARS-COV2 poses very little risk to healthy children. Mainstream media continues to urge universal & immediate vaccination of this group claiming the vaccine is safe, while ignoring data that points to grave danger of the vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    When will large mainstream media sources be held accountable for unbalanced reporting? Who will hold them accountable?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Last week CE published this piece that demonstrated the obvious spin The Washington Post used to mislead their readers about the status of the unvaccinated, claiming that their rates of infection, death and hospitalization are significantly higher than vaccinated individuals when in fact they never measured these rates. In this article I will once again focus on the Washington Post and their lack of journalistic integrity. This time their propaganda is more egregious because they are targeting the largest pool of unvaccinated individuals: children.

The Washington Post urges the vaccination of adolescents

On May 10, 2021 the Washington Post published this article titled “FDA authorizes Pfizer Coronavirus vaccine for adolescents 12 to 15 years old”. The article begins with a quote from Kawsar R. Talaat, an assistant professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who says,  “A vaccine gives them an extra layer of protection and allows them to go back to being kids.” 

This is a fascinating statement. Obviously kids were never not kids during the pandemic. Dr. Talaat is essentially saying that in order to be allowed to enjoy their youth kids must be vaccinated. However the restrictions that have been imposed upon their activity were never based on sound data. Asymptomatic spread could never be quantified or even confirmed. Mask mandates have been empirically demonstrated to have no effect on transmissibility or incidence of infection. The only things preventing kids from going back to being kids are the mandates that remain unsupported by any evidentiary arguments–not their vaccination status.

This statement was then further supported in the article:

”Robert W. Frenck Jr., the researcher who led [an] adolescent trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who said the study was designed to test whether it triggered immune responses, not whether it prevented disease. But because of the number of children who became ill in the placebo arm of the trial, it also became evident the vaccine offered robust protection. He finishes by stating ‘That really points out how much covid there is in the adolescent community.’”

Dr. Frenck admits that the study he conducted was not designed to tell whether the vaccine prevented disease but whether children in the study developed antibodies. The point he is trying to make is that there is a lot of disease in the adolescent community. How much? In his study 16 out of approximately 1150 unvaccinated kids got Covid, all of whom recovered. That is an absolute risk of 1.4%. Compare that to the risk of getting the flu in a flu season: 8%. 

The article goes on to claim that the mortality of COVID is greater than the flu in children. The Post correctly states that of the 581,000 deaths from Covid only 300 adolescents have perished from the disease, an admittedly extremely small percentage but tragic nonetheless. However they state that this number is greater than the number of adolescents that die from the flu which justifies universal vaccinations. The article cites this paper from the CDC that they claim confirms this statistic. In it the CDC states that 188 children died from the flu in the 2017-18 season, indeed less than 300. However the paper then states that “CDC estimates the actual number was closer to 600”. We have caught the Post in what can be fairly called a lie that is being used to make their case that the threat of the disease justifies prevention through vaccination.

Vaccination Risks and what we know about the “Spike Protein”

Every medical intervention has a risk/benefit relationship that must be examined closely. The Washington Post never once addresses the potential risk of the vaccine in children. Despite mainstream media’s dogged refusal to pursue any research into potential harm of the Covid vaccines, some very troubling information has recently surfaced if one is willing to look beyond headlines and CDC reports. Unlike the Washington Post, I will also examine the risk aspect of the vaccine with a look at the role of the infamous “spike” protein.

As is well known, the Spike protein on the SARS-COV2 virus is what allows it to enter a human cell and infect it. It is also the target protein of the mRNA “vaccines” that use a novel approach to teach our immune systems to recognize it by stimulating our own cells to produce this protein ourselves, hopefully triggering our immune system to produce antibodies against it.

The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA who grant them authorization to deploy their product have made an enormous assumption: the virus is dangerous, but the spike protein is not. It is becoming clear that this assumption does not hold true. In this short article published on April 30, 2021 (11 days before the WP published their article) Salk News summarizes one of several scientific publications that demonstrate the danger of the spike protein:

“The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

‘A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.'”

The takeaway from these statements is that Covid-19 is a vascular disease more than just a respiratory illness. This was suspected very early on in the pandemic when many people were injured by bleeding, clots, strokes and organ failure. The authors were able to establish its mechanism by an elegant experiment. They designed a “pseudovirus”, one that had the SARS-COV2 spike protein on its surface but without any viral RNA in it. The pseudovirus damaged the lungs and pulmonary vasculature in animal models. They then isolated the molecular pathway by which spike proteins alter the metabolism of vascular endothelial cells causing injury. Conclusion: the spike protein itself causes harm in animal models.

Though we cannot definitively assert, from this study alone, that the spike protein is directly responsible for injury in humans, we must avail ourselves of the reality that this may take a very long time to prove definitively. If it is shown that an intervention is dangerous to animals there is no justification in assuming that it will be safe in a human being. That is why we use animal models in medical research to begin with.

“Fact Checkers” are Taking Notice

As expected, such statements are getting a lot of attention in the media. PolitiFact quickly responded with two articles (one here) “debunking” the theory that spike proteins are dangerous to humans. They quote Dr. Walter Orenstein (associate director of Emory University’s Emory Vaccine Center) and Dr. Paul Offit (director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) who both summarize that they are not aware of any evidence around the danger of spike proteins. Neither, however commented on the study presented in this essay.

PolitiFact also noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) called the spike protein “harmless”. Once again, PolitiFact accepted their blanket statement without asking the CDC for their opinion of the evidence cited here. PolitiFact declined to query the CDC for a different explanation of why hospitalized Covid-19 patients commonly expressed systemic disease often with vascular and clotting disorders.

The Danger of an mRNA vaccine that generates spike proteins

If the spike protein is pathogenic, i.e. capable of causing disease, how do we know that when we create antibodies to it we will be completely protected from it? We don’t. How do we know that every person inoculated will mount an antibody response to them? We don’t. This should be sounding alarms in every institution charged with public health. Why? With traditional vaccines there is very little risk, if any, of contracting disease from the vaccine. For example, if a person inoculated with a Hepatitis B vaccine does not mount an immunological response they do not end up getting Hepatitis B.

The situation we may be in is much more concerning. These mRNA vaccines, if they work as intended, are in fact introducing the disease-inducing component of the virus into our bodies. As with most biological processes there will be a wide distribution of responses to the vaccine from people who have little or no side-effects to others who suffer devastating injury. Is that what we are seeing now? Yes it is. 

The vaccines migrate throughout the body after injection

More recently, more disturbing information is coming to light. Bioavailability studies of the vaccine were not made public prior to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). A Pfizer bioavailability study, obtained through the FOIA from a Japanese regulatory agency by a group of international scientists, demonstrates where the vaccine may go once it has been injected into the muscle tissue of our shoulder. Table 2.6.5.5B in this study indicates that the very same Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) used in the Pfizer vaccine begin to redistribute throughout the bodies of mice. Within 15 minutes after inoculation LNPs show up in the brain, liver, gastrointestinal tract, heart, lungs and especially in the ovaries and spleen. We can infer that where the LNPs go so do the mRNA that codes for spike protein. That was the purpose behind doing this study. We can also safely say that Pfizer and the other Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers never intended for their product to migrate so far from the site of inoculation.

This story is still evolving, however these studies and recently released bioavailability reports help to explain the clinical picture of Covid-19 with its broad effects on the body that are not limited to the respiratory system. Furthermore it may substantiate the numerous reports of injury following vaccinations like strokes, blood clots, bleeding, “brain fog”, Bell’s Palsy, etc.

The spike protein is toxic. The vaccine induces our cells to make spike proteins. The vaccine spreads throughout the body after injection. Until another unifying explanation is found we must assume that these vaccines are potentially far more dangerous than anticipated.

A call to halt vaccinations in the UK

In this advisory letter to Dr. June Raine, chief executive of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the UK’s FDA), Dr. Tess Lawrie, the director of an evidence based medicine consulting firm, urges the director to halt the vaccination program in that country after an extensive review of the UK’s adverse reaction data was conducted.

The Takeaway

We know, through the CDC’s own data, that Covid-19 vaccines provide almost no benefit to children and adolescents. The danger of vaccination is yet to be fully understood or quantified. In my opinion, the medical community, the FDA and CDC have no reasonable argument to encourage parents to vaccinate their children at this point. The Washington Post has once again demonstrated sloppy research standards, unbalanced reporting and lack of integrity. In this case adolescents, who are among the least vulnerable to the virus, may be harmed from The Post’s inability or unwillingness to uphold basic journalistic principles.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dear Canadian Parents: Will You Give Informed Consent For Your Child To Get The Covid-19 Injection?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Dear Canadian Parent, with the recent announcement from Health Canada in May 2021 that children 12 and older have been cleared to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, you are now faced with a highly consequential decision: whether or not to consent to your child getting this injection.

And, I think you will agree, this decision cannot be justified as a simple continuation of the regular schedule of childhood vaccines, for several reasons:

1. This product is not a traditional ‘vaccine,’ because by definition vaccines use the actual virus (dead or weakened) to stimulate the production of antibodies that will fight off future infections. This product is actually an experimental mRNA gene manipulator, in that it forces our cells to make a new protein to trigger an immune response which, allegedly, will then trigger our body to produce antibodies that will supposedly protect us from this virus.

2. Not only do manufacturers have complete immunity from prosecution if this injection causes bodily harm or death to your child, Canada has not yet set up a vaccine injury compensation program for victims of injury.

3. A thorough risk/benefit analysis for giving this product to your child, who statistically has a 99.96% recovery rate from the disease, has not been established by Health Canada or any other agency promoting this product.

This product is the first ever “vaccine” in the world to have purportedly been developed and approved within less than 2 years. It has not had to follow the legally mandated safety protocols, which involve years of testing and trials, because it has been cleared for ’emergency use only.’ Aside from mounting evidence of short-term injury and death, its mid-term and long-term effects are absolutely impossible to determine.

Now far be it from me, dear parent, to tell you what choice to make. You are the one who bears the full weight of responsibility for providing consent on behalf of your child. My only urging, and the point of this letter, is that such consent be informed. The argument that your child will ‘have to’ get the vaccine, so you might as well do it sooner than later, does not hold water. It is well established in Canadian law that Canadians have personal sovereignty with regards to what is put into their bodies. You remain responsible for making an informed decision on behalf of your child.

I became informed about vaccines just before my son was born in 2014. I had real trepidation and ambivalence about the vaccine issue, and whether or not I would be comfortable with my son receiving vaccines. I had heard arguments on both sides, but hadn’t looked into it in depth. I decided to read a book from each side of the argument, ‘The Vaccine Book’ by Robert Sears, and ‘Dissolving Illusions’ by Suzanne Humphreys. Once I had read these two books, and had done some follow-up research, my mind was made up for life.

If you are starting your research today it is even easier to find information, even though one side of the argument is being subjected to growing censorship. My belief is that, in order to make an informed decision, it is important to look deeply into both sides of the argument. The notion that these Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ are safe and effective is being promoted by mainstream media, the big social media companies, the government and the medical establishment. So you have ample avenues to investigate that side of the story. The place I would start you off to find information about vaccines being potentially harmful and ineffective is Vaccine Choice Canada, which has long established itself as an alternative to the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety, and can lead you to other sources of information as well.

I am not suggesting you should trust one side or the other when it comes to your child’s health and well-being. I am suggesting that you have the courage to trust yourself, and rely on the discernment of your own logic and intuition, to the best of your ability.

Do your important research of both sides with an open mind, and don’t just accept surface opinions. Follow to where (or whether) these opinions are substantiated by fact, evidence, actual studies, statistics, and take note of the credentials of experts testimony. Only once you look deeply into both sides will you be able to make an informed choice and a decision you can live with.

It is important to note that in Ontario, the government believes there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination. The notion that they have the legal right to enforce this has been refuted by constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati. Nonetheless, they have started setting up clinics where children aged 12 and over are being invited to consent for themselves to get the Covid-19 injection, and, as happened at Toronto’s city hall on May 23rd, ice cream was being offered as an extra incentive for young participants. If you still believe you should trust the government and the medical establishment to make your decisions for you, I don’t know what more I need to say.

But if, dear parent, you at least agree with me that your child should only get the Covid-19 injection after you have made that informed choice on their behalf, you may need to have a conversation with your child to protect them from the growing risk that the government is trying to lure them into getting the Covid-19 injection without your knowing.

The Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’ is still sworn to by all doctors and nurses who are physically performing the injections. It makes me wonder whether those who are performing injections on self-consenting children as young as 12 understand the full weight of that oath. We are living in a time, dear parent, where more than ever we need to re-establish ourselves, in our own minds as well as in the public consciousness, as the legal and conscientious guardians of our beloved children.

Richard Enos, Ontario parent

This letter was originally published on my website daocoaching.com

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Exopolitics

Obama Says UFOs Are Real & We Don’t Know What They Are: Is This True?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Barack Obama, along with recent mainstream media coverage, recently emphasized that UFOs, or UAPs are real and that the U.S. government does not know what they are.

  • Reflect On:

    When UFOs were a "conspiracy", the evidence for their existence was strong, yet it was still not accepted. Did you know that the evidence showing UFOs may originate from a non-human life form is also quite strong?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

UFOs have gone “mainstream” in a big way. The U.S. Navy has released multiple videos and pictures of “unidentified aerial phenomenon” (UAPs) as they call it, and the Pentagon has verified this footage to be authentic. It’s unfortunate that footage has to be released and confirmed “authentic” by the Department of Defense for it to be credible in the public eye. This alone shows how reliant humanity has become on these institutions and organizations.

It’s also the reason why humanity’s perception of major global events and controversial topics is open to manipulation. It’s no secret that governments, through their relationship with mainstream media, have attempted to manipulate the perception of the masses on a wide range of issues for “national security” purposes, as they claim. It’s unfortunate that there is simply not enough trust in governments or mainstream media institutions to provide a correct and accurate analysis of major issues. That being said, it’s great to see the phenomenon being legitimized within the mainstream.

The question is, why would mainstream media actively engage in ridiculing this topic, deeming it a “conspiracy,” for so many years yet now all of a sudden take it so seriously? It’s not like the UAP encounters released into the mainstream are anything new, military encounters with UFOs have been happening for decades. Here’s one of many examples.

Just as there was evidence for the existence of UFOs when they were a considered a conspiracy theory, there is ample evidence suggesting that these objects are not made by humans, at least some of them. This it’s suspicious when someone like Barack Obama goes The Late Show and says that the US government doesn’t know that it’s unknown what these objects are.

We know that governments and military agencies have been studying the phenomenon for at least 70 years. Perhaps “high ranking” individuals are simply adhering to their national security oaths? Perhaps they are simply regurgitating what they’ve been told to say from people who are “in the know.”

What is true, and I’m actually being serious here, is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. Barrack Obama

Next month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense will be required to provide the intelligence and armed services committees of Congress with an unclassified report on UAPs, but it’s safe to say that what is actually known about the phenomenon within these circles will remain classified. What we do get from this report will be nothing new to those who have been studying the phenomenon for years.

Evidence suggests otherwise, that it is actually known what some of these objects are, but it depends on your definition of evidence.  Whether it’s examples of, as Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell said, “crashed craft and bodies recovered”, civilian experiences, and even high ranking military personnel sharing what they apparently know, testimony like this never seems to make its way into the public domain. If you’re interested in reading more about UFO crash retrievals, you can do so here.

Sure, military pilots and and political figures are now able and willing to talk about the phenomenon, but this is nothing new. Why is it that those who go deeper  are unacknowledged within the mainstream? Why is it that those who go in depth into the implications on human consciousness, or perhaps supposed evidence that these objects do indeed originate from another non-human intelligence, are never acknowledged properly within the mainstream? Why can’t we take the discussion to the next level and speculate?

What makes one person’s testimony who remains on the “safe” side, simply going as far as saying that these objects are real, more credible than another person’s testimony, of equal or higher rank, going into a deeper discussion into the question and intentions of the intelligence behind the “unidentified” objects? Why do we keep saying “we don’t know” when really, there is more than enough information and testimony out there to have an intelligent discussion and/or speculation? Is it because we have video and pictures of these objects from the government and not pictures of other intelligent life forms? I could see how that may play a role, but again, the testimony from “credible” sources is curious to say the least when they continually express that nobody knows what these objects are. I don’t believe that to be true.

For example, in his very last interview before his death, conducted by director James Fox, Colonel Robert Friend, who from 1958-1962 was a director of Project Blue Book, suggests the U.S. Air Force knew what these objects were. He didn’t quite say what, but it seems as if he was implying that they were extraterrestrial. Mitchell, mentioned above, has done the same.

Colonel Ross dedrickson served the with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1950-1958, his stint there included contract administration duties at Nevada test sites, Pacific Nuclear Test Area west of Hawaii, nuclear weapon manufacturing and quality assurance in Albuquerque, and inspection of nuclear and non-nuclear facilities throughout the country. He retired from the air force in 1962. According to him, various people within the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force Space Command were well aware of the fact that some of these objects are, according to him, extraterrestrial, and that they are concerned about the preservation of our planet.

Now, there are plenty of benevolent, and what seem to be in some cases malevolent stories associated with this phenomenon and non-human intelligence, and that’s where the discussion needs to go in my opinion. Unfortunately humans want to put everything into a box and label it. This phenomenon is quite large, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and goes into quantum physics, consciousness, multiple dimensions, and much much more.

Dr. Norman Bergrun, renowned NASA/Ames research scientist, has also shared the same type of information regarding non-human intelligence, implying that it’s already known that this intelligence is behind the phenomenon.

Despite these examples, and they are a few of many, there is good reason to believe that we are being lied to by mainstream media and governments when they state that they don’t know what these objects are. Sure, there are probably a lot of unknowns that remain, but why they seem to be lying is a different story and discussion. Again, individuals who share this perspective may simply be sharing what they are told, and others may be under non-disclosure agreements and national security oaths that may not be able to go past stating that these objects are real. Perhaps they are sharing what they can, which is great.

My concern is this, by mainstream media and governments are sharing that that they don’t know what these objects are and staying firm in this stance, they can simply continue to keep their secrets as they have done for decades and continue doing whatever it is they do in the black budget world.  It’s another way of saying “here, this is all we know, satisfied?” “National security” in my opinion has become an umbrella term to justify the secrecy of information due to the fact that its disclosure may threaten various corporate, financial and other elite interests, but I don’t know.

Secondly, by sharing that they don’t know what these objects are sets up the government, in the public eye, to find out. The Pentagon has created a new program to study this phenomenon, and they now have, through this program, the ability to relay to the public what exactly they find out and discover. As I said in the beginning, does this give them the ability to paint a perception of the phenomenon that is not accurate or indicative of it’s behaviour? That remains to be seen. If one thing is certain, to me at least, the behaviour of these objects, which have clearly been around a very long time, is not indicative  of any type of threat.

Sure, there may be some perceived air-safety issues and perhaps other issues with regards to approaching these craft, like radiation and what not, but as far as their behaviour goes, for the most part they perform evasive manevuers to avoid our own aircraft. They’ve been observed doing this for decades. In my opinion, based on my research, they are curious and playful when engaging with our air-craft, they clearly do not want to shoot them down like we do.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!