Connect with us

Alternative News

Epidemiologist At Yale Provides Testimony On Hydroxychloroquine For Treating COVID-19

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health provides evidence-based testimony at a US Senate hearing on early outpatient HCQ treatment for high-risk Covid-19 patients.

  • Reflect On:

    Why have such treatments been ridiculed when so many papers, doctors, and experts stand behind them? Why have low cost treatments that show more effectiveness than the vaccine, according to Risch, never seen the light of day?

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.

We are living in a day in age where social media “fact-checkers” are patrolling the internet calling into question information, science, opinion and testimony from countless amounts of doctors and scientists, as well as independent media outlets who source this information, simply because it opposes the information that we are getting from the World Health Organization(WHO) for example, or other government health authorities. One great example to illustrate this point is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug, according to many, that can help treat COVID-19 patients.

advertisement - learn more

This idea has been a common theme throughout the pandemic, which begs the question, if it’s true, why wasn’t the drug administered and made available for doctors to use and treat COVID patients during this pandemic? Why was it ridiculed by mainstream media and why did Facebook fact-checkers claim that Hydroxychloroquine was not useful, and possibly dangerous? Facebook fact checker Health Feedback, for example, states that there is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine can cure or prevent COVID-19.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

Testimony from Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health is one of many, who in my opinion seem to represent a large majority, says otherwise. He provided an evidence based presentation for safe early outpatient HCQ treatment for high-risk Covid-19 patients to reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

Risch’s thoughts and publications about this have, been subjected to criticism. For example, a paper published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where Risch is on the editorial board, does just that. It also outlines how many papers have agreed with Risch.

His recent testimony to the Senate can be found below.

Senators and colleagues: thank you for convening this hearing. We all understand the endemic disease that we are facing, that we have to face it head-on and not hide from it hoping that it will go away. I want to give you my perspective.

advertisement - learn more

In May of this year I observed that results of studies of a drug suggested to treat Covid, hydroxychloroquine, were being misrepresented by what I thought at the time was sloppy reporting. We have heard from Dr. McCullough how Covid disease progresses in phases, from viral replication, to florid pneumonia to multi-organ attack. Viral replication is an outpatient condition, but the pneumonia that fills the lungs with immune-system debris is hospitalizable and potentially life-threatening. We have also heard how each phase, each pathologic aspect of the disease, has to have its own specific treatments that apply to its own biologic mechanisms. Thus, I was frankly astounded that studies of hospital treatments were being represented as applying to outpatients, in violation of what I learned in medical school about how to treat patients.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

I reiterate: we are considering the evidence for early treatment of high-risk outpatients to prevent hospitalization and mortality. That is it. Treatment starting in the first five days or so after the onset of symptoms. Treatment of older patients or patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, immune-system diseases, survivors of cancer etc. These are the people most likely to die from Covid, and they are the people most needing protection. I have sought to obtain reports of every study of every medication pertaining to early treatment of high-risk outpatients. I monitor the literature daily. And what I have found is actually quite remarkable. What I have observed is that while there have been positive reports about a number of drugs, every study of outpatient use of one drug, hydroxychloroquine, with or without accompanying agents, has shown substantial benefit in reducing risks of hospitalization and mortality.

These studies break down into two major types. The first is double-blinded, randomized controlled trials, and the second is non-randomized but still controlled trials. You have heard from various government and scientific personalities that randomized controlled trials provide the strongest form of evidence. Many of these people have also claimed that randomized trials provide the only trustworthy form of evidence. There is some truth in these assertions, but there is also lots of falsehood. We know for example that the great majority of drugs used to treat heart diseases were established with non-randomized trials. Cholesterol-lowering drugs were in widespread use before randomized trials were ever done. Azithromycin, the most commonly used antibiotic in children, was not established by randomized trials. The idea that only randomized trials provide trustworthy evidence is a simplistic notion that may sound good in theory, but the comparison between randomized and non-randomized trials is something that has actually been extensively studied in the medical literature. I am an epidemiologist because even though I love biological theories, I develop them all the time to study how nature works, but it is from the human empirical data that we learn how indeed nature works.

And we have huge amounts of empirical data to show that randomized trials and their corresponding non-randomized trials give the same answers. Dr. Tom Frieden, previously Director of the CDC, in 2017 wrote an extensive essay in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that non-randomized trials can provide fully compelling evidence, especially when they are done carefully to account for reasons why patients received the drugs, and importantly, when circumstances are such that the cost of waiting for randomized trials involves major sickness and mortality as we have been experiencing this year. But Dr. Frieden’s essay, as authoritative as it is, provides only snapshots of the empirical evidence for his observations. The real evidence comes from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses done by the Cochrane Library Consortium, a British international organization formed to organize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions. The Cochrane investigators examined what involve tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found that the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions. This is the real evidence about why good non-randomized trials comprise evidence every bit as important as randomized trials. Large amounts of consistent empirical data are the evidence, not plausible but simplistic assumptions, no matter who says them.

So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.

About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil; 199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226 nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled trials that have been published.

Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.

We have spent the last six months with formal government policies and warnings against early outpatient treatment, with large government investments in vaccines and expensive new treatments yet to be proven and almost no support of inexpensive but useful medications, and a quarter of a million Americans have died from this mismanaged approach. Even with newly promising vaccines, we have almost no information about how they will perform in older and high-risk patients, in whom respiratory virus vaccines are known to have weak efficacy; it will be a number of months before they become widely available; and we don’t know how long vaccine immunity will last, or even if the vaccines will work for the newly increasing mutant strains of the virus. As I have said on many occasions, the evidence for benefit of hydroxychloroquine used early in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong, and the evidence against harm is also equally strong. This body of evidence dramatically outweighs the risk/benefit evidence for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies or the difficult to use bamlanivimab that the FDA has approved for emergency use authorizations while denying the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. This egregious double standard for hydroxychloroquine needs to be overturned immediately and its emergency use authorization application approved. This is how we will get on the road to early outpatient treatment and the major curtailment of mortality. Thank you.

Why This Is Important: The thoughts shared above have been a common theme throughout this pandemic. For example, Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19. In an interview with KABC-TV, Cardillo stated:

Every patients I’ve prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free…So, clinically I am seeing a resolution…We have to be cautious and mindful that we don’t prescribe it for patients who have COVID who are well, he said. “It should be reserved for people who are really sick, in hospital or at home very sick, who need that medication. Otherwise we’re going to blow through our supply for patients that take it regularly for other disease processes.”

According to Cardillo, it’s the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine that does the job. “[Hydroxychloroquine] opens the zinc channel” allowing the zinc to enter the cell, which then “blocks the replication of cellular machinery.”

This was also hinted to by the testimony from the Yale professor.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a board-certified family practitioner in New York, said in a video interview that a cocktail of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc Sulfate and Azithromycin are showing phenomenal results with 900 coronavirus patients treated.(source)

These are just a few examples out of many. The issue is that these opinions and this type of evidence and testimony was blocked and censored by various social media outlets, and deemed “fake news.”

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. –  Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH

This has also recently been emphasized by Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

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. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

Concluding Remarks: We are at a point in time where decisions made by the government, which are supposedly done in our best interests, are completely influenced by powerful corporations that seem to dictate government policy in some sort of way. This has been a problem for quite some time, and combined with big tech this ‘medical industrial complex’ is able to influence the thoughts, minds, perception and overall consciousness of the masses when it comes to COVID and various other topics.

Do governments really execute the will of the people? When will we draw the line? Is it really justifiable for people who don’t get vaccinated to lose their rights and freedoms they were accustomed to prior to the pandemic? Why are so many doctors and scientists who oppose these measures being censored and unacknowledged?

COVID-19, just like 9/11, is forcing more people to ask questions about how our world really operates and whether or not governments actually execute the will of the people.

At the end of the day we have to ask, why are controversial topics so poorly covered and ridiculed by mainstream media? Why do so many of us have so much trouble looking at new information, especially information that contradicts what we believe and have been made to believe? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and effective if we are clam, centered within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?

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

Alternative News

Most Diabetic, Heart Disease & Alzheimer’s Deaths Categorized As “Covid” Deaths (UK)

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    According to professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford Dr. Carl Heneghan , who is also an emergency GP, most diabetic, heart disease & alzheimer's deaths were categorized as COVID deaths.

  • Reflect On:

    How many deaths have actually been a result of COVID? Why is this pandemic surrounded with so much controversy? Why does mainstream media fail at having appropriate conversations about 'controversial' evidence/opinions?

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.

 Dr. Carl Heneghan has an interesting view on the pandemic, not only is he a professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, he also works Saturday shifts as an emergency GP. This allows him to see healthcare from both the academic perspective as well as the healthcare experience, more specifically, it allows him to see COVID from both perspectives.

What Happened: In a recent article he wrote for The Spectator, he writes the following,

It’s hard to imagine, let alone measures, the side effects of lockdowns. The risk with the government’s ‘fear’ messaging is that people become so worried about burdening the NHS that they avoid seeking medical help. Or by the time they do so, it can be too late. The big rise in at-home deaths (still ongoing) points to that. You will be familiar with the Covid death toll, updated in the papers every day. But did you know that since the pandemic, we’ve had 28,200 more deaths among diabetics that we’d normally expect? That’s not the kind of figure they show on a graph at No. 10 press conference. For people with heart disease, it’s 17,100. For dementia and Alzheimer’s, it’s 22,800. Most were categorised as Covid deaths: people can die with multiple conditions, so they can fall into more than one of these categories. It’s a complicated picture. But that’s the problem in assessing lockdown. you need to do a balance of risks.

Evidence-based medicine might sound like a tautology — what kind of medicine isn’t based on evidence? I’m afraid that you’d be surprised. Massive decisions are often taken on misleading, low-quality evidence. We see this all the time. In the last pandemic, the swine flu outbreak of 2009, I did some work asking why the government spent £500 million on Tamiflu: then hailed as a wonder drug. In fact, it proved to have a very limited effect. The debate then had many of the same cast of characters as today: Jonathan Van-Tam, Neil Ferguson and others. The big difference this time is the influence of social media, whose viciousness is something to behold. It’s easy to see why academics would self-censor and stay away from the debate, especially if it means challenging a consensus.

This is something that’s been a concern since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, a report published during the first wave in the British Medical Journal  titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom, as a result of the new coronavirus, may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May.

According to the data, COVID-19, at the time of publication, only accounted for 10,000 of the 30,000 excess deaths that have been recorded in senior care facilities during the height of the pandemic. The article quotes British Health officials stating that these unexplained deaths may have occurred because quarantine measures have prevented seniors from accessing the health care that they need.

Fast forward to more recent research regarding lockdowns, and these concerns have grown. Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and came to the conclusion that at least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID. You can read more about that here.

These are just a few of many examples. You can read more about the hypothesized “catastrophic” impacts of lockdown, here.

When it comes to what he mentions about academics shying away from debate, especially if their research goes against the grain, we’ve a seen a lot of that too. Here’s a great example you can read about from Sweden regarding zero deaths of school children during the first wave despite no masks mandates or lockdown measures. Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on COVID-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he has discovered.

Why This Is Important: Heneghan’s words are something that many people have been concerned about when it comes to the deaths that are attributed to COVID-19. How many of them are actually a result of COVID? The truth seems to be that we don’t really know. But one thing we do know is that total death toll caused by COVID doesn’t seem to be quite accurate.

Ontario (Canada) Public Health has a page on their website titled “How Ontario is responding to COVID-19.” On it, they clearly state that deaths are being marked as COVID deaths and are being included in the COVID death count regardless of whether or not COVID actually contributed to or caused the death. They state the following:

Any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death…”

This statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller:

As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.

In late June 2020, Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Public Health tweeted that:

“Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”

It’s not just in Canada where we’ve seen these types of statements being made, it’s all over the world. There are multiple examples from the United States that we’ve covered since the start of the pandemic.

For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic:

If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.

Also during the first wave, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had to announce a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths due to complaints that it inflated the numbers.

As you can see, we’ve struggled to find an accurate way to go about tallying COVID deaths since the start, creating more fear and hysteria around total numbers that are plastered constantly in front of citizens by news stations. That being said, a lot of people who are dying of COVID do have co-morbidities as well. But as the professor says, “it’s a complicated picture” and hard to figure out, and probably something we will never figure out.

There’s been a lot of “fear mongering” by governments and mainstream media, and some believe that lockdowns and masks are simply being used as a psychological tool to keep that fear constant, which in turn makes it easier to control people and make them comply.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of experts in the field who are pointing to the fact that yes, COVID is dangerous, but it does not at all warrant the measures that are being taken, especially when the virus has a 99.95 percent survival rate for people over the age of 70. There are better ways to protect the vulnerable without creating even more chaos that lockdown measures have created, and are creating throughout this pandemic.

That said, it’s also important to note that some calls for lockdown measures are focused on stopping hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. Why do some places with very restrictions see no hospital capacity issues? Why do some places with a lot of restrictions see hospital capacity issues? Why do we also see the opposite for both in some areas? These questions appear to be unanswered still. That being said. Hospitals have always been overwhelmed. This is not a new phenomenon.

The main issue here is not who is right or wrong, it’s the censorship of data, science, and opinions of experts in the field. The censorship that has occurred during this pandemic has been unprecedented.

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. –  Dr. Kamran Abbasi, recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal (source)

This censorship alone has been an excellent catalyst for people to question what we are constantly hearing from mainstream media, government, and political scientists. Any type of information that calls into question the recommendations or the information we are receiving from our government seems to be subjected to this type of censorship. Mainstream media has done a great job at not acknowledging many aspects of this pandemic, like clinically proven treatments other than a vaccine, and therefore the masses are completely unaware of it.

Is this what we would call ethical? When trying to explain this to a friend or family member, the fact that they are not aware of these other pieces of information, because they may be avid mainstream news watchers, has them in disbelief and perhaps even sometimes labelling such assertions as a “conspiracy theory.” This Brings me to my next point.

The Takeaway: As I’ve said in a number of articles before, society is failing to have conversations about “controversial” topics and viewpoints. This is in large part due to the fact that mainstream media does such a poor job at covering these viewpoints let alone acknowledging them. The fact that big media has such a stranglehold over the minds of many is also very concerning, because we are living in a time where independent research may be more useful. There seems to be massive conflicts of interest within mainstream media, and the fact that healthy conversation and debate is being shut down by mainstream media contributes to the fact that we can’t even have normal conversations about controversial topics in our everyday lives.

Why does this happen? Why can’t we see the perspective of another? To be honest, I still sometimes struggle with this. When it comes to COVID, things clearly aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, and as I’ve said many times before when things aren’t clear, and when government mandates oppose the will of so many people, it reaches a point where they become authoritarian and overreaching.

In such circumstances I believe governments should simply be making recommendations and explaining why certain actions might be important, and then leave it to the people to decide for themselves what measures they’d like to take, if any. What do you think? One thing is for certain, COVID has been a catalyst for more and more people to question the world we live in, and why we live the way that we do.

To help make sense of what’s happening in our society today, we have released a course on overcoming bias and improving critical thinking. It’s an 8 module course and you can learn more about it here.

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

Alternative News

F18 Navy Pilot Uses His iPhone To Take A Picture of UFOs: Pentagon Confirms

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Last year, many media outlets reported on supposed leaked UFO photographs captured by the rear-seat weapons system officer of an F/A-18 fighter jet. The Pentagon has recently confirmed that the pictures are indeed authentic.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on governments and mainstream media to properly disclose what they know about the subject? Will there be an attempt to manipulate our perception of the phenomenon? Should this be something citizens look into for themselves?

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.

There are so many leaks coming out regarding UFOs right now that it’s difficult to cover and keep up with. Many of these leaks are hitting mainstream media, but not all of them, and it seems over the past five years or so, there is a story put out by mainstream media that has been attracting the attention of the masses. That story centered on the New York Times publishing a piece about three videos released by the Pentagon of US Navy UFO encounters, where objects performed maneuvers no known man-made piece of machinery are capable of, defying our understanding of physics and aerodynamics.

In one of these encounters, the object descended from 60,000 feet in the air to near ocean level, and began hovering – all in a span of milliseconds. That same object could also appear in other locations in what seemed to be instantaneous transport, all  while apparently being able to predict the future location of the Navy pilot.

Not long ago the New York Times also broke a story of retrievals involving “off world vehicles.” When I came across this it reminded me of former Apollo 14 mission astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s statement, “yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.”

Keep in mind, there are thousands of these encounters that have been released via de-classified documentation over the past few decades, it’s only this instance from the Navy that got any real mainstream media coverage.

Another common theme within this phenomenon seems to be the loss of critical electrical instrumentation of military jets, like the inability to fire their weapon, or the air radar going haywire, for example. Here’s a case from Iran you can read about that provides a good example of that.

What Happened: For the past couple of years, the U.S. Department of Defense’s “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force” (or UAPTF) has been busy briefing lawmakers, Intelligence Community stakeholders, and the highest levels of the U.S. military on encounters with what they say are mysterious airborne objects that defy conventional explanations.

A supposed leak was brought to my attention when it was tweeted by Christopher Mellon, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. It came in the form of multiple videos and pictures taken by Navy personnel. You can access the video in this article if you’d like to see the video footage. Below are some pictures an F18 pilot snapped with his iPHONE.

According to a recent article by The Debrief,

“The Pentagon has confirmed that U.S. Navy personnel captured several leaked images and a video depicting unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, involving incidents being investigated currently by the Department of Defense’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough told the The Debrief in an email.”

John Greenwald, who runs the popular government document archive The Black Vault, also confirmed the videos were authentic via a statement from Susan Gough. He also conducted an interesting interview with Ex CIA Director James Woolsey.

Here are a couple of the pictures, captured by the rear-seat weapons system officer of an F/A-18 fighter jet.

The object in the first photo, now referred to as the “Acorn,” and two other newly leaked images depicting unusual aerial objects, were published by KLAS Las Vegas investigative journalist George Knapp on April 6, 2021. The other two images, described by Knapp as “the metallic blimp” and “sphere,” were all reportedly captured within a period of 30 minutes on the same day. The other object in the second photo looks like a translucent sphere.  

You can refer to the cover photo (above) for a close up of that specific object you see there in the first photo.

Below is a picture taken by two Royal Canadian Air Force pilots on August 27th, 1956, above Fort MacLeod, Alberta, Canada. (“Physical Evidence Related To UFO Reports” – The Sturrock Panel Report – Electromagnetic Effects) (source) (source)

The pilots were flying in a formation of four F86 Sabre jet aircraft. One of the pilots described the phenomenon as a “bright light which was sharply defined as disk-shaped,” that looked like “a shiny silver dollar sitting horizontal.” Another pilot managed to photograph the object, as you can see below.

Then there are pictures that can expand the mind a little more, also still open to interpretation. The picture below comes from Norman Bergrun, a scientist and engineer who was part of NASA’s voyager program. He worked at NASA for decades at the Ames Research Centre. He also worked at Lockheed Martin where he managed the Polaris missile tests. The picture comes from the Voyager mission in 1980. That mission was tasked with photographing Saturn, its rings and its moons.

What is the picture of? It’s a “luminous source,” that comes from Bergrun’s Book, “The Ringmakers of Saturn.” According to Bergrun, there are several large craft “proliferating” out around Saturn and its moons. His book goes into much greater detail. According to him, extraterrestrial craft, even craft of this magnitude, are a certainty.

Why It’s Important: Again, videos and pictures locked up within the black budget world seem to be a reality, and it makes one wonder what type of video footage and photographs are being concealed from the public. For example, a document obtained via the CIA’s electronic reading room outlines an examination of the UFO phenomenon that took place more than a decade ago between Chinese & Russian researchers. It states,

Scientists of the PRC and the Soviet Far East have begun a joint study of UFO’s. The first meeting of ufologists of the two countries has ended in the small maritime townlet of Dalnegorsk. The Soviet and Chinese specialists on anomalous phenomena have mapped out a program for investigating incidents that are already known and have also arranged to directly exchange video and photographic materials on new similar phenomena.

I do not believe that the masses will ever be told what exactly has been discovered about these objects from government sources, and we will simply receive a “sanitized” version of “disclosure”, one that perhaps does not represent the phenomenon well. The sources of government and mainstream media have always attempted to manipulate our perception of major topics and events.

The idea of a “threat” has been a common theme in mainstream UFO disclosure discussions, this is quite concerning to many researchers in the field given the fact that the behaviour of these objects are not indicative of any type of threat. They’ve always performed evasive maneuvers to avoid our own aircraft. This has been emphasized by many, like Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer in 2008, General Nathan Twining in the 1940’s, and more recently Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades now.

According to the Task Force mentioned above:

The Department of Defense established the UAPTF to improve its understanding of, and gain insight into, the nature and origins of UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalog UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Another recent quote is from Renowned UFO researcher, scientist, mathematician, and astrophysicist Dr. Jacques Vallée touches upon this concern.

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

The mainstream media and government are quickly gaining a reputation for manipulating the consciousness of the masses with regards to a number of topics, why would UFOs be any different? You can read more about that discussion here and here.

The Takeaway: The main takeaway from this article can be that we may not want to rely solely on governments, mainstream media and intelligence agencies to provide us with information about the UFO phenomenon. This goes with all things. Mainstream media has long been able to “control” the perception of the masses, effectively telling us when we’re allowed to explore certain topics culturally, and when we’re not. Just look at the UFO subject, 6 years ago it was ridiculed, once mainstream culture spoke of it, it was all of a sudden acceptable. Why?

Most of us now simply rely on our T.V. for information without doing our own research, and this leaves us open to large amounts of perception manipulation on a topic.

Having researched this topic for more than 15 years, I can tell you that the phenomenon is vast and, as I say in virtually all my articles on the subject, it has huge implications and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. These sightings have been documented for thousands of years in many different forms, and just as there was evidence for the existence of UFOs when they were considered a “conspiracy theory,” now, I can tell you there is very strong evidence, based on my research, that these objects do not originate from any human being on planet Earth.

This is a major paradigm shifting topic that can help expand human consciousness and change the way we look at ourselves, the cosmos, and the nature of reality. Ultimately, in some unexplainable way I believe the phenomenon can be a great catalyst to help us look within, observe ourselves, and ask ourselves why we live the way we do and do the things we do when we have the potential to do so much better and create a human experience where everybody can thrive.

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

Alternative News

Another EX-CIA Director Comments on UFOs & Shares A “Paranormal” Story

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ex CIA Director James Woolsey comments on the reality of the UFO phenomenon and shares a story about an aircraft being stopped in mid-air at 40,000 feet.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications of the masses becoming aware of such phenomena?

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.

For anybody who has heavily researched the evidence behind “paranormal phenomenon”, it’s common that hearing about other paranormal phenomenon is simply “normal.” After all, the evidence does suggest paranormal events happen all the time, culture simply hasn’t caught up to realizing how normal these events are. Those who recognize how normal these events are include scientifically minded people, like Dr. Jessica Utts, former Chair of the Department of Statistics and professor at the University of California, Irvine.

“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls…And so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked.”  (source)

That was her take on remote viewing, a phenomenon where people are trained to view details about places and objects from a position very far away. This illustrates the non local nature of our consciousness. The remote viewing studies Utts is talking about are incredibly rigorous and yielded repeatable results time and time again.

When it comes to numerous experiments at the quantum level, consciousness has been shown to have some sort effect on physical/material reality as well. There are also topics such as precognition, telepathy and more examples of mind/matter interaction, like “distant healing” which are quite intriguing.

What I find the most intriguing are the examples of people with “special” abilities. I came across much of this documentation via the CIA’s electronic reading room. Examples of children and people with psychokentic ability, able to “break through spatial barriers” by teleporting small objects in small containers from one location to another, perform “paranormal writing” and more, all done under controlled double blind conditions.

When it comes to the topic of UFOs, they’re going mainstream with extreme legitimacy as well. This has many people concerned that mainstream media and government disclosure will result in perception manipulation regarding the phenomenon. Many long time researchers feel we will get a sanitized version of disclosure. That is to say, many key details will be left out purposefully, yet the government will claim all has been told.

Having studied the subject for approximately 15 years now, I can tell you that the phenomenon is quite vast and touches upon all aspects of humanity. There is a lot to the UFO story that I don’t think people will ever hear about from governments and intelligence agencies. If you want to go through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here

The former Director of the CIA, John Brennan (2013-2017) was recently asked about the UFO phenomenon and expressed his belief that we may be dealing with some other form of life.

He stated the following:

I think some of the phenomenon we may be seeing continues to be, um, unexplained, and um, might in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that, um, we don’t yet understand, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say, um, constitutes a different from of life.  (source)

James Woolsey, another retired CIA director 1993-1995 also spoke up on the subject an interview with John Greenwald, founder of The Black Vault, a resource for declassified documents pertaining to UFO related phenomenon.

In the interview he describes an interesting paranormal event that happened to a plane that was “frozen” and stopped in the air at 40,000 feet. He also makes a number of comments about the UFO phenomenon.

“…A friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at 40,000 feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft. What was going on? I don’t know, does anybody know? We’ll have to look into it. There have just been enough things like that that have occurred…”

Why This Is Important: Paranormal phenomenon and the study of parapsychology has the potential to create a major paradigm change for humanity. In fact, it’s happening right now, we’re living in it and part of this phenomenon involves non material science. I believe this field represents the next scientific revolution and will push humanity to open up to a broader view regarding the nature of reality, who we are and how we relate to our universe. There is still so much we have to discover.

The UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not even the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to learn, and it is my hope that the phenomenon itself somehow sparks humanity to ask itself deeper questions about the human experience and why we live the way we do, when we have the potential to do so much better and create a planet where all life can truly thrive.

Again, it is also my belief that mainstream media and government may try and shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, as they do with so many other topics.

Many decades ago, the mentor of Wernher Von Braun, Hermann Oberth (both seen in the picture above), the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that “flying saucers are real” and that “they are space ships from another solar system.” He went on to say that “I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” He wrote these words in “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World”, The American  Weekly, Oct 24, 1954

According to a paper published in the Journal History and Technology titled Extraterrestrial encounters: UFOs, science and the quest for transcendence, 1947–1972,

At the Internationaler UFO/IFO-Kongress, hosted in Wiesbaden and organized by Karl Keit (1907-2001), credulous UFO-impresario and president of the Deutsche UFO/IFO-Studiengemeinschaft (DUIST), Oberth repeated claims first made in 1954 that he was no longer willing to exclude the possibility that UFOs could indeed be of extraterrestrial origin. Having examined all existing arguments, Oberth proclaimed in front of ‘many hundreds of people who apparently believe that the Earth has been visited by emissaries from outer space,’ as The Times wrote, that he was now convinced that flying saucers were ‘very real,’ and carrying visitors from outer space.

Oberth later repeated that ‘the UFOs are a kind of sentinel, here simply to observe and report; because a humankind which is as gifted as inventors and researchers as we are, yet has remained politically and morally on our stage of development, constitutes a threat to the entire cosmos.’

Perhaps he’s right? Perhaps there are multiple groups observing? Perhaps some are concerned for multiple reasons? The UFO/extraterrestrial topic is a deep one, and endless discussions and questions can emerge from it, especially when discussing the benevolent/malevolent narratives.

If you’d like to go deeper and comb through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here.

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!