CE founder Joe Martino recently sat down to discuss this question with Bruce Fenton, a multidisciplinary scientific researcher, explorer and author, on The CE Podcast. Bruce lays out his fascinating research into an ancient aboriginal story discussing humanity’s origins, and three key pieces of scientific anomalies that lend evidence to support the validity of the story. In the podcast you’ll learn about a one hundred year old australite mystery, the evidence for a multiple impact asteroid attack, and human genetic evidence all that tell an intriguing story about where we might have come from. The podcast is titled “Exogenesis: Were Humans Made By Extraterrestrials?” You can listen to it here.

Complementary Research

Francis Crick (8 June 1916 — 28 July 2004), an English scientist who was most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 alongside James D. Watson, had a theory called directed panspermia, explaining that:

“organisms were deliberately transmitted to earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.”  (source, 1976)

Not long ago 33 scientists published a paper stating that Octopuses may have arrived on Earth as “extraterrestrial imports.”

The discussion of “where did we come come from” is one that can be controversial and emotional for some of us. While experiencing emotion is not inherently a bad thing, it can cause us to become stuck in our beliefs and as a result we fail to explore new and emerging ideas with a sense of curiosity and inquiry. In many cases, this means setting aside evidence that may very well have some validity.

Over the past decade alone I’ve made it a point to always question what I believe, and I’m always open to new information that renders what I believe false, or information that at least makes me question what I think I know. That being said, it’s hard to arrive at any sort of truth these days, especially in a day and age where our perception of major issues, events and topics seem to be heavily influenced and manipulated by a variety of factors. We are indeed in a sense-making crisis as a culture.

We must  ask ourselves, how often do we hold onto our beliefs even when new information and evidence is presented which counteracts these beliefs? New information that challenges the accepted framework of knowledge and/or thinking has always been shunned, disregarded and ridiculed by “intellectual authorities.” Are we open to changing this habit?

When it comes to the origins of humanity, being a “truth seeker” myself I can tell you I’ve come across a plethora of credible information and evidence suggesting the origins of humanity are not as we’ve been made to believe. There are many issues with the theory of evolution, for example, and based on everything I’ve researched over the years, there is more evidence suggesting the two overwhelming beliefs of today, have some serious flaws. It can also be confusing, because what many refer to as “God” also seems to have different definitions attached to it by different people. I’ve also learned that much of what we perceive as our physical material reality is not actually physical, and much of what makes up our reality is made up of and birthed out of non-physical phenomenon. Perhaps all “matter” originates from that source? I don’t know. What’s intriguing to me is that all of us seem to have within us a moral code, some sort of spark, whether dormant or not, of “goodness.” We are all connected in more ways than one.

With that said, we invite you to explore this podcast with an open mind and sense of curiosity. When it comes to new theories, it’s common for culture to label people as “crazy” for even asking questions and exploring topics that don’t fit the frame but we are in an incredible time in human history where our minds and ideas are opening up very rapidly. The idea that “extraterrestrials” had something to do with the origin of life on this planet, in my opinion, seems to be quite plausible.

What Happened: According to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as of today (February 20th, 2021) 929 deaths, 316 permanent disabilities and more than 15,000 adverse events have been reported from people after taking the COVID-19 vaccine. This mainly represents reports that are coming in from the United States. The data shows that 799 of the deaths were reported in the U.S., and that about one-third of those deaths occurred within 48 hours of the individual receiving the vaccination. You can look it up for yourself and/or see the screenshot below. I have not looked up, or attempted to look up reports from countries outside of the U.S.

Many articles have been using VAERS to claim that the COVID-19 vaccine is causing deaths & injuries, but according to Facebook Fact Checker Health Feedback, the adverse events attributed to the COVID-19 don’t demonstrate a causal relationship between the vaccine and the adverse events. They do acknowledge, however, that VAERS records adverse events occurring after vaccination.

Health Feedback highlights the following point:

Both COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were thoroughly reviewed for safety and efficacy before approval. The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) enables the public and healthcare providers to report adverse events that occur after they received a vaccine. While VAERS serves as an early warning system for potential problems with vaccines, determining whether there is a causal link requires further investigation into these reports. VAERS data only tells us that an adverse event might have occurred after vaccination; on its own it cannot prove that vaccines caused the adverse event.

VAERS themselves makes this point clear by stating:

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) cause the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after (the) vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

Keep in mind that approximately 40 million Americans have had at least one COVID shot thus far.

The VAERS data can also be perceived from another perspective. There is no proof showing that the vaccine did not cause the adverse events. The reports coming into VAERS are from people who believe the vaccine is indeed responsible for the adverse event. There are, as I’ve written about many times before, other important factors that have been noted about VAERS. For example, according to some, like this U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, VAERS is estimated to capture an estimated one percent of vaccine injuries, or at least reports by those who believe to be injured by a vaccine, because the majority of them are believed to be unreported. It’s not clear how many health professionals let alone people are even aware of VAERS.

VAERS has come under fire multiple times, a critic familiar with VAERS’  bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

It’s also noteworthy to mention that, when it comes to vaccine injury In the United States, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)  has paid out more than $4 billion dollars due to vaccine injuries. Since 2015, the program has paid out an average total of $216 million to an average of 615 claimants each year. Furthermore, those injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency.”

lyson Kelvin, a virologist and assistant professor at Dalhousie University, who is currently working on COVID-19 vaccines with VIDO-InterVac, told Global News that “there’s a difference between “adverse events following immunization” and adverse events “directly related to a vaccine…Just because it’s an adverse event, doesn’t mean it’s directly related to the vaccine. It just means that it happened after someone got a vaccination… In Norway’s case, we’re talking about adverse events following immunization.”

Below is a screen shot from of the DATA:

When it comes to science and determining whether or not a vaccine is the direct cause of an injury, there doesn’t seem to be, in my opinion appropriate systems in place to investigate this. Furthermore, the VICP protects pharmaceutical companies from any liability with regards to vaccine injuries. Vaccines are a liability free product.

The scientific method in general is quick to point out that correlation does not mean causation, but again, in some cases correlation may actually mean causation. The Bradford Hill Criteria is one of the most cited concepts in health research and are still upheld as valid tools for aiding causal inference. You can look more into that too see how it all works if interested.

Another factor one must consider, also, is the politicization of science. Kamran Abbas is a doctor, recent former executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine, and the medical industrial complex.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science…The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.

According to Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal. 

“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.”

It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is quite high in some places when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, and with vaccines in general.  The Washington Post reported this week that nearly a third of military personnel are opting out of the vaccines, and ESPN reported that top NBA players are reluctant to promote the vaccine.

A survey conducted at Chicago’s Loretto Hospital shows that only 40 percent of healthcare workers will not take the COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available to them. Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.

At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, 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, among many others.

Drene Keyes, described as a “gifted singer and grandmother of six,” found herself unable to breathe and began vomiting within a couple hours of being vaccinated, according to media reports. She was rushed to Riverside Tappahannock Hospital, where doctors administered an EpiPen, CPR and oxygen. Keyes’ daughter, Lisa Jones, told WKTR:  “They tried to remove fluid from her lungs. They called it ‘flash pulmonary edema,’ and doctors told me that it can be caused by anaphylaxis. The doctor told me that often during anaphylaxis, chemicals are released inside of a person’s body and can cause this to happen.”

Heidi Neckelmann, the wife of Dr. Gregory Michael from California, said that in her mind, her 56-year-old husband’s death was “100% linked” to the vaccine.  Now, at least one doctor has come forward publicly to say he also believes the vaccine caused Michael to develop acute idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), the disorder that killed him. According to the New York Times: “Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann’s description, ‘I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.’“‘This is going to be very rare,’ said Dr. Spivak, an emeritus professor of medicine. But he added, ‘It happened and it could happen again.’

Heidi made a Facebook post about the incident:

The love of my life, my husband Gregory Michael MD an obstetrician that had his office in Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach Died the day before yesterday due to a strong reaction to the COVID vaccine. He was a very healthy 56 year old, loved by everyone in the community, delivered hundreds of healthy babies and worked tireless through the pandemic . He was vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine at MSMC on December 18, 3 days later he saw a strong set of petechiae on his feet and hands which made him seek attention at the emergency room at MSMC…read the full post HERE.

Approximately one month ago, Norway registered a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who had their first COVID-19 vaccine. As a result, the country changed which groups to target in national inoculation programs.  Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”  Bloomberg Reported that the “Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.” So, there seemed to be some conflicting information there as well, one piece of information stating that the vaccine was linked, and the other stating that it wasn’t, both from the same source.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist were all the initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. They recently announced that they are strongly in favour of voluntary COVID-19 vaccination.

It doesn’t seem like governments are going to mandate the vaccine. What instead seems to be the case is that private businesses and institutions may do so. For example, certain airlines may not allow people to travel unless they’ve had the shot. Some restaurant, entertainment facilities and other places of businesses might follow suit. Certain employers may require their employees to take the shot. All of this of course raises a number of legal and ethical concerns. We will just have to wait and see what happens. In all circumstances, I do believe the COVID vaccine should always remain voluntary, especially when it’s quite unclear if they can even reduce the risk of transmission and infection, and there does seem to be a number of concerns being raised with the vaccine.

Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal published a piece in the Journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed “95% Effective” COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. You can access that here.

A few other papers have raised concerns as well, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

 COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

Again, these are a few of multiple examples, I just wanted to provide some context. All of this warrants freedom of choice, does it not?

The Takeaway:  One thing that seems to be quite evident, in my opinion, is the fact that mainstream media and the “mainstream” in general is failing at having proper conversations around controversial topics, like vaccines, for example. Instead of using terms like “Anti-Vax conspiracy theorist, as well as ridicule, it would be great if mainstream media advocates actually addressed the concerns being raised by those who are concerned about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Should private institutions/companies have the right to mandate this vaccine for people and employees? When it comes to vaccines, should freedom of choice remain? Why is only one perspective presented by mainstream media?

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

Animal testing is extremely heartbreaking. All beings in my opinion, are intelligent, emotional, and have the ability to feel deeply. All life on this planet is so similar in so many ways. These days, living life forms are bred for experimentation and consumption, this not only harms the being in what some would perceive as an extreme act of cruelty, but in many cases it’s harming the integrity of our planet when it comes to environmental issues and human health as well. This is why I am always very conflicted when presenting information that’s discovered through some type of ‘testing’ that’s done on another being. There are other ways scientists can conduct studies without the use of live life forms.

The last time I was conflicted about sharing this type of information was when scientists injected aluminum into animals, mimicking the childhood vaccine schedule, to see what the difference between injected and ingested aluminum was and where it ends up in the body. You can read more about that topic here.

Theodora Capaldo is president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Founded in 1895, NEAVS is a Boston-based, national animal advocacy organization dedicated to ending the use of animals in research, testing and science education. Through research, outreach, education, legislation, and policy change, NEAVS advocates for replacing animals with modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely and scientifically superior. It’s one of many organizations bringing alternatives to light. It’s a big time bioethics issue, and I just wanted to mention this before getting into the subject matter at hand.

What Happened: This may be old information to some, but I recently came across it. In 2018 a team of researchers successfully transplanted memories in snails by transferring a form of genetic information called RNA from one snail into another. The snails were trained to develop a response to a mild electric shock to their tails, after these shocks were administered the snails’ defensive withdrawal reflex – where the snails contract or curl up to protect themselves from harm – became more pronounced. Yes, again, this is extremely cruel, the thought of inflicting any type of pain or fear response in another living being is heartbreaking. But that’s just my opinion.

The snails exhibited a defensive contraction lasting about 50 seconds. The researchers extracted RNA from the nervous systems of the snails that had been shocked and injected the material into the snails that had not been shocked. RNA’s main role, from what we know (and there is a lot that we don’t know) is to serve as a messenger inside of cells, it carries protein-making instructions from DNA. When the RNA was injected into the unshocked snails, the snails also had the same type of response as shocked snails for an extended period of time after a soft touch, something they weren’t doing before. They were reacting to something that had never even happened to them. Control snails that received injections of RNA from snails that had not received shocks did not exhibit a response for as long.

It’s as if we transferred a memory. – Professor, Integrative Biology and Physiology, Neurobiology at UCLA (source)

The researchers also showed that Aplysia sensory neurons in Petri dishes that had been shocked were more excitable if they were exposed to RNA from the shocked snails. Exposure to RNA from snails that had never been shocked did not cause the cells to become more excitable.

The results, said Glanzman, suggest that memories may be stored within the nucleus of neurons, where RNA is synthesized and can act on DNA to turn genes on and off. He said he thoughts memory storage involved these epigenetic changes – changes in the activity of genes and not in the DNA sequences that make up those genes – that are mediated by RNA (source)

It’s also interesting to note that Michael Levin at Tufts has replicated McConnell’s experiments on headless worms under more controlled settings.

Glanzman said one of McConnell’s students, Al Jacobson, demonstrated the transfer of memories between flatworms via RNA injections, coincidentally while an assistant professor at UCLA. The work was published in Nature in 1966 but Jacobsen never received tenure, perhaps because of doubts about his findings. The experiment was, however, replicated in rats shortly afterward. (source)

Another example,

Steve Ramirez, a 24-year-old doctoral student at the time, placed the mouse in a small metal box with a black plastic floor. Instead of curiously sniffing around, though, the animal instantly froze in terror, recalling the experience of receiving a foot shock in that same box. It was a textbook fear response, and if anything, the mouse’s posture was more rigid than Ramirez had expected. Its memory of the trauma must have been quite vivid.

Which was amazing, because the memory was bogus: The mouse had never received an electric shock in that box. Rather, it was reacting to a false memory that Ramirez and his MIT colleague Xu Liu had planted in its brain. (source)

What Does This Tell Us? Can Living Organisms Transfer Memory?  Yes, we already know that living organisms can transfer memory. For example, a Nature Neuroscience study published several years ago shows mice trained to avoid a smell passed their aversion on to their children as well as their grandchildren. This study dealt with phobia and anxiety research, as the animals were trained to fear a smell similar to cherry blossom. The researchers then looked at the mice’s sperm and found that the section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was much more active in the sperm. As a result, the offspring were “extremely sensitive” to cherry blossom and would avoid the scent despite never having experienced it in their lives. “The experience of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations,” the report concluded.

Research has since showed that ‘memories’ and behaviours may actually be passed down 14 generations.

This is very important, and it suggests that a number of ‘memories’ can be passed down from our previous generations, including fear, anxiety, trauma, perhaps susceptibility to substances like alcohol for example, and much more. This opens up a wide plethora of discussions when it comes to human behaviour in general.

What’s more important to recognize is that what’s encoded into our DNA and into our genes also has the ability to be changed using the power of our own mind. There is a lot of evidence emerging suggesting that thoughts, feelings and emotions can change our DNA. This also corroborates with the research posted above given the fact that emotions, like fear, are used. So my question is, what happens when the organism overcomes that fear, and does not react in the same way? What happens when it makes a conscious choice to perceive events in a different manner?

Imagine what love, peace and other “positive” emotions can do. If we can code fear, anxiety and trauma into our DNA and pass them on, can an organsm change that by changing themselves within and training themselves to experience more “joyful” type of experiences and/or mind/heart state?  Scientists have shown how the feeling of gratitude, for example, can literally change the structure of the human brain.

According to the HeartMath Institute,

The power of intentional thoughts and emotions goes beyond theory at the HeartMath Institute. In a study, researchers have tested this idea and proven its veracity.

HeartMath researchers have gone so far as to show that physical aspects of DNA strands could be influenced by human intention. The article, Modulation of DNA Conformation by Heart-Focused Intention – McCraty, Atkinson, Tomasino, 2003 – describes experiments that achieved such results.

For example, an individual holding three DNA samples was directed to generate heart coherence – a beneficial state of mental, emotional and physical balance and harmony – with the aid of a HeartMath technique that utilizes heart breathing and intentional positive emotions. The individual succeeded, as instructed, to intentionally and simultaneously unwind two of the DNA samples to different extents and leave the third unchanged.

“The results provide experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that aspects of the DNA molecule can be altered through intentionality,” the article states. “The data indicate that when individuals are in a heart-focused, loving state and in a more coherent mode of physiological functioning, they have a greater ability to alter the conformation of DNA.

“Individuals capable of generating high ratios of heart coherence were able to alter DNA conformation according to their intention. … Control group participants showed low ratios of heart coherence and were unable to intentionally alter the conformation of DNA.”

As far as memory goes, perhaps they are not even completely a product of our physical make-up? Who is to say that human consciousness, for example, resides in the brain? Perhaps there is a non-physical aspect, or a place we cannot perceive with our senses where memories and experiences are stored. After all, memories themselves, despite having physical characteristics as exemplified in this study, are in a sense themself non physical things. DNA has also been shown to have some non-physical aspects, you can read about one of many examples here.

The mind-body connection is also gaining traction,  As Garth Cook from Scientific American points out:

A growing body of scientific research suggests that our mind can play an important role in healing our body — or in staying healthy in the first place. . . There are now several lines of research suggesting that our mental perception of the world constantly informs and guides our immune system in a way that makes us better able to respond to future threats. That was a sort of ‘aha’ moment for me — where the idea of an entwined mind and body suddenly made more scientific sense than an ephemeral consciousness that’s somehow separated from our physical selves.

The mind body connection suggests that we can change our biology through belief, which suggests we can break the cycle of ‘negative’ aspects we’ve inherited through epigenetics. These types of interventions require a shift in human consciousness, a shift in perception.

Suggested reading: The Biology of Belief.

When it comes to learning about the mind-body connection and its relationship to our health, it can be difficult to choose a starting place amongst the vast and growing body of research; one of the best places to start, however, is the placebo effect, which demonstrates that the mind can create physiological changes in the body. Neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti explains:

There isn’t just one placebo effect, but many. Placebo painkillers can trigger the release of natural pain-relieving chemicals called endorphins. Patients with Parkinson’s disease respond to placebos with a flood of dopamine. Fake oxygen, given to someone at altitude, has been shown to cut levels of neurotransmitters called prostaglandins (which dilate blood vessels, among other things, and are responsible for many of the symptoms of altitude sickness.

This goes to show that based on our thoughts alone and how we perceive our environment, we can alter our biology.

Then there is the the idea that thoughts and human intention can alter physical systems. If thoughts can alter physical systems imagine what they can do to our own biology as well as the body of another. For more information this, you can read the publication titled “Distant Healing Intention Therapies: An Overview of the Scientific Evidence.”

There are also multiple credible reports of mind/matter interaction beyond the quantum scale, where we already know it exists. You read about one example here.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, the evidence showing that our ‘memories’ can be transferred down many generations is quite strong. What seems to be left out of the mainstream conversation is the importance of our perceptions. Our environment, yes, plays a key role in shaping our biology, but we can begin to counteract the effect of our environment, especially if it is ‘negative,’ by changing our perception of that environment. We are not bound by the genetics we inherit from our ancestors, we can actively change them. If mice are trained to fear the smell of a certain substance, for example, yes their offspring also fear it but they are not doomed to that destiny. The mouse that can expand its consciousness, think, and realize that there is no reason to be afraid is the one that then changes their DNA.

The science of human consciousness, also known as non material science, is advancing quite rapidly, and it goes to show that if more of us can operate, or at least make an effort to operate from a place of peace within we can truly make the world a better place as well as transform our biology. The term “change comes from within” comes in many forms. If you look at the modern history of the human race, although there are many beautiful aspects and memories, there is also a lot of trauma. As a human collective we still have a lot of work to do on ourselves, and I believe we are currently going through that process and I believe it’s being triggered by the fact that more people are having a big change in how they perceive their environment.