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?

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.

-->Listened to our latest podcast episode yet? Joe speaks with Franco DeNicola to explore how we can overcome fears and uncertainty during this time. This episode includes some helpful exercises as well. Click here to listen!

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

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

A Sad Day For Truth & Journalism As Donald Trump Fails To Pardon Julian Assange

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks' Julian Assange in the final hours of his presidency.

  • Reflect On:

    What does it say about our world of those who expose immoral and unethical actions by powerful people and institutions are locked up, censored, silenced, tortured and ridiculed?

What Happened: In a slew of pardons and commutations issued during the final hours of his presidency, Donald Trump did not pardon Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently posted a tweet from former Maine State senator, Eric Brakey, that reads as follows: “The Failure to pardon Assange, Snowden and Ulbricht is a great final act of cowardice and submission to the Deep State.” Deep state refers to the influence and sway that various powerful people, corporations, financial institutions and more have on political policy and decision making around the world. These days many people believe that America, for example, no longer represents a democracy but rather a ‘corporatocracy’ so to speak.

Snowden also reacted to the development by tweeting that he was “not at all disappointed to go unpardoned by a man who has never known a love he had not paid for. But what supporters of his remain must never forgive that this simpering creature failed to pardon truth-tellers in far more desperate circumstances.”

When it comes to Julian Assange, we are talking about a man who exposed a number of immoral and unethical actions by several governments. Wikileaks exposed, in great detail, the corruption that plagues these ‘institutions’ as well as the corruption that lives amongst dozens of powerful corporations that control almost every aspect of our lives, from food, to health, to energy resources and more.

In response to the leaks made by Assange, and other people like Snowden for example, the US government’s classic response was and still is that by leaking the information they did, they put America in harm’s way. They often say this citing the fact that they leaked classified information.

Today classified information doesn’t seem to be classified for national security purposes. Instead, “national security” seems to be commonly cited in order to justify the concealment of information that threatens various corporate, financial and political Agendas.

JFK warned the citizenry about “an announced need for increased security” that would be “seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” This is what’s happening today.

When it comes to Julian Assange I like to share a hard-hitting quote that always comes to mind every time I write about him. It comes from Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.

Why This Is Important/Final Thoughts: The silencing and straight ridicule of truth and/or information that again, threatens various political, corporate, financial and elite agendas is commonplace today. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, today we have a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t, deciding for the user what they are allowed to see and what they aren’t allowed to see. Censorship of people like Assange and organizations like Wikileaks has really ramped up. Independent media outlets, (like Collective Evolution), and what seems to be thousands of scientists, doctors, journalists, academics and people who simply present information, evidence and opinions that go against the grain are having their social media accounts removed. This is why we here at Collective Evolution are encouraging all of our followers to join our Telegram account. It’s a censorship free platform.

Assange has been subjected to extremely inhumane conditions and torture. What’s happening with him is not only sad, but it’s truly alarming and what’s even more concerning is that many people don’t have any idea about it. He is being completely ignored by the mainstream media and whenever they do cover it, they do so with the perception that he actually did something wrong. Did he?  They’ve run an absolute smear campaign on him.

I came across an interesting post by activist Greg Bean. In it, he brings up Johannes Gutenberg, the man who first introduced the printing press to the world.

He writes about how that single act created a free press, which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech, and how the two are “inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech.”

Gutenberg’s invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2nd millennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses. Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.

The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin’s dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.

WikiLeaks’ threat to the powerful was recognised and every effort was, and is, being made to criminalise anonymous leaking, which would be akin to criminalizing Gutenberg’s printing press, but there is not much chance this criminalisation will succeed.

I suggest you read the full piece as it makes some very interesting points.

For the latest updates on Julian Assange, we strongly recommend following them on Instagram. You can also check out their website as well. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Is Mainstream “UFO Disclosure” A “Psyop” For A “False Flag” Alien Invasion? – I Doubt It

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Mainstream UFO disclosure is taking off and the subject is no longer taboo. There's a common narrative in the field suggesting that because mainstream media is presenting the topic the way they now are, the phenomenon represents nothing but lies.

  • Reflect On:

    Does mainstream media cover real events and attempt to manipulate the perception of the masses regarding such events? Are there powerful groups of people out there who want to control the narrative when it comes to the topic of UFOs?

Collective Evolution has been covering the UFO/extraterrestrial (see UFO article archive here) phenomenon since our inception in 2009, and one common theme we’ve come across many times in the “truther” community, for lack of a better word, is the idea that some very powerful people are planning to stage a “false flag” alien invasion and that this subject is full of deception. This article will discuss the possibility and plausibility of a “false flag” alien invasion as well as the claim that mainstream UFO disclosure represents nothing but deception.

Is Mainstream UFO Disclosure Deception? As many of you reading this probably already know, the UFO topic has been and is being completely legitimized within the mainstream. The subject is no longer taboo, and institutions like the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and multiple governments around the world have admitted that these objects are real. Not only that, but collectively they’ve released millions of pages of previously classified documents detailing the reality of the phenomenon. These documents include radar tracking data, high ranking military testimony, stories of unknown objects that have been retrieved, photographic evidence and much more. We’re talking about objects performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of aerodynamics that can perform maneuvers no known aircraft is capable of performing. Video footage of unidentified objects have also been released by multiple governments, and coverage from CNN and the New York Times, for example, also further this point.

So is this all some sort of great deception? If you believe it to be I ask you this, why would governments and intelligence agencies around the world, for decades, completely ridicule this topic and encourage people to view it as a “conspiracy theory?” Why would they deny the phenomenon for so long? The same organizations who are now giving a tremendous amount of legitimacy to the topic are the same ones who, according to former CIA director Roscoe Hillenkoetter, initiated an “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy.” If you want to deceive a population and make them believe UFOs are real you don’t use ridicule and constantly tell the population that these objects are not real. Furthermore, you don’t push the idea that those who believe in UFOs are crackpots. If you wanted to deceive the public about UFOs this would be completely counterproductive.

The statement by Hillenkoetter is quite easy to see if one goes back and studies the literature and lore surrounding ufology and the way it’s been covered by mainstream media for decades. This ridicule campaign has also been corroborated by multiple “insiders” with backgrounds within intelligence. Richard Doty, a former member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, for example, claimed that his job was to actually spread disinformation within the UFO community, making it more difficult for anybody within these communities to arrive at any kind of truth.

Despite these ridicule efforts by intelligence agencies and governments, the evidence suggesting these objects are indeed and were real, in my opinion, has been quite evident for a very long time. It’s a shame that for something to be legitimized in the minds of the masses it must be covered in a certain way by mainstream media outlets. This is still a big problem on our planet and it’s a concern that mainstream media can have such an influence on human consciousness.

So Why So Much Mainstream Media Coverage All of a Sudden? If It’s Not Deception, What Is It? In my opinion, the idea that these objects are real became so obvious that mainstream media had no choice but to jump on the train, so to speak. Not only do we have all of the evidence mentioned above, but perhaps the best piece of evidence are people’s own personal experiences. My own experience with UFOs for example has fueled my interest in the topic for quite some time now, and it seems that the next step to take is to listen to people who (claim to) have had experiences.

There is a lingering idea out there I often come across, and that’s the idea that anything mainstream media covers must be and is completely false and represents deception. I do understand this perception given the fact that mainstream media, in my opinion, has largely been a mouthpiece for the corporate and political establishment. I’ve written in depth about why I feel this way before, and presented whistleblower testimony as well as documents that’ve been released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing the very close connection these media outlets have to governments, intelligence agencies and big powerful corporations.

My observation over the years has been that mainstream media does indeed cover real events and stories but is in many cases constantly engaged in manipulating the perception of the masses for such events. We see this all the time with geopolitical issues, like major terrorist attacks for example. On one hand you will have Western media blaming a terrorist organization like ISIS, and on the other you will have foreign media claiming it was a “false flag” attack perpetuated by the West. This would mean that Western governments, or factions of it, would be funding terrorist organizations, arming them or in some cases creating events and carrying out attacks and blaming it on a terrorist organization. In turn, this would allow them to justify the invasion of a foreign country under the guise of good will for ulterior motives.

Could we be seeing the same thing with the topic of UFOs? Are there people who gain gain from narrative control and perception manipulation? Is mainstream media coverage of UFOs an attempt to control our perception of the phenomenon? Is this more likely the explanation rather than an elite group of people completely fabricating the phenomenon? Having been a researcher of the subject for more than fifteen years, I can tell you that the topic is extremely vast and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. It opens pandora’s box and it becomes extremely complex as more and more questions continue to emerge. What we receive from mainstream media and/or government/government affiliated agencies will no doubt be a sanitized version of truth in my opinion. We cannot make the mistake of characterizing the behaviour of these objects based on the selected few cases that will be released into the public and beamed out by mainstream media. We cannot allow our perception of the phenomenon to be given to us by government or mainstream media. As with most other topics it’s important to do our own research and investigation instead of relying on information from what seems to be such unreliable sources.

An Unnecessary Threat Narrative? A False Flag Alien Event? One thing I’ve noticed so far with regard to mainstream UFO disclosure, and I am sure others have as well, is “threat” narrative. The idea that these objects represent a possible threat and are therefore a big time national security issue that deserves serious attention. Having studied this topic for a number of years, one thing remains quite obvious as I am sure is the same for other researchers in the field, and that’s the fact that the behaviour of these objects has never really constituted a threat. There’s nothing they have really done, at least in the majority of cases, that represents the justification of the threat assumption. These objects are constantly performing evasive maneuvers to avoid our air-craft, and furthermore they’ve been documented not only for decades, but for thousands of years. If some type of threat was imminent, it would probably have already happened by now, no?

I want to draw your attention to a recent statement made by Dr. Jacques Vallee on the Joe Rogan show.

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.

Vallee is an astrophysicist and a computer scientist.   The subject of UFOs first attracted his attention as an astronomer in Paris. He subsequently became a close associate of Project Blue Book’s J. Allen Hynek and has written several books on the UFO enigma. He is currently a venture capitalist living in San Francisco. Vallée co-developed the first computerized map of Mars for NASA in 1963. He later worked on the network information center for the ARPANET, a precursor to the modern Internet, as a staff engineer of SRI International’s Augmentation Research Center under Douglas Engelbart. He’s clearly a very intelligent man who knows a lot about the phenomenon, and someone who I as a fellow, younger UFO researcher have been following for a long time.

With this quote above, he shares the feelings I’ve been putting out in written form for many years, that perceiving the activity of these objects as a threat is the wrong way to go. It’s interesting because through his work he’s also brought awareness to the disinformation campaign that surrounds this subject, something I’ve also covered for many years and touched upon earlier in this article.

In his book, “Forbidden Science 4” for example, Valle explains how he came into possession of documents showing that forced “UFO abductions” were conducted by the CIA as psychological warfare experiments. Again that’s one of multiple examples.

It goes to show how complicated this issue is and how hard it can be to arrive to any type of truth and draw conclusions.

The “task force” he mentions in the quote above refers to To The Stars Academy, who is working with the US Department of Defense, and has been for quite some time, to disclose the reality of the UFO phenomenon to the public. The military jets he refers to comes from an encounter released by this organization in cooperation with the Pentagon. Again, it’s important to ask why a threat narrative may exist. Is it to receive more funding? To profit off of the UFO topic in some sort of way? To profit off of and gain control and access to technologies that may be better off in the hands of the public?

If there’s one thing I can tell you, and I am sure Vallee and many others would do the same, stories from the public as well as many other ‘high ranking’ people regarding this phenomenon are littered with positive stories about benevolent beings who are concerned about the direction we (the human race) are heading. This is quite commonplace and does corroborate with the activity these objects (UFOs) demonstrate in many ways. That being said, it’s important to mention that the field also has stories about with appears to be malevolent stories.  In either case there is an overwhelming amount of corroboration from supposed experiencers.

Related CE Article: A Question About Extraterrestrials On Everybody’s Mind: Are They A Threat?

False Flag Alien Invasion? What about the idea of a false flag alien invasion? Personally, I believe this would be extremely hard to pull off and I don’t think the resources and cooperation that would be required to pull off such an event exist. Sure, there’s no doubt that a false flag staged event could be plausible, especially given the fact that it seems  governments and “the powers that be” have had access to this technology for decades. This would involve a few objects, or perhaps just one in my opinion and it would be covered by media outlets worldwide. Again, according to Vallee as mentioned above, the CIA was staging alien abductions in Central America. Is a false flag alien invasion a possibility? Sure. I would argue however that it’s not a probability. The only “false flag” type of event that would happen with UFOs, I believe, and is possibly currently happening is mainstream media simply attaching a threat narrative to the phenomenon using already existing footage and evidence that’s been released to the public.

Many decades ago Wernher Von Brauns mentor Hermann Oberth, 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. 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. At the time, academics like Oberth were well aware of the UFO phenomenon.

Apparently, Braun was the one who first warned of a false flag alien invasion. This was expressed by Carol Rosin. Rosin was the first female corporate manager of Fairchild Industries. A space and missile defence consultant who has worked with various corporations, government departments, and intelligence communities, she worked closely with Wernher Von Braun shortly before his death, specifically on the subject of space-based weapons. This claim is corroborated by Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, as expressed in a Wikileaks dump a few years ago.

According to Rosin, a threat narrative would be attached to the UFO phenomenon for the purpose of building space based weapons.

And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We’re going to have to build space based weapons against aliens,’ and all of it, he said, is a lie.

The Takeaway: As I said before and have said many times, this topic is extremely complex and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. At the very least it forces humanity to expand its consciousness and consider truths and possibilities that were never considered before. Based on my research and experience, the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not so much about “them” as it is about “us” and our relationship with the planet and all life that resides on it.

If anything, I believe the more we explore this topic the more it will coincide with more people questioning the way we live on this planet, why we live the way we do and what exactly it is that is preventing us from thriving. One thing is for certain, humanity has the potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive.

We have the solutions, that’s not the problem, the issue seems to be the consciousness behind these solutions and innovations. Do we use groundbreaking technology, for example, to profit, gain more power and build weaponry? Or do we use it for the good of the whole? Are our systems set up to put people, compassion, understanding and empathy first, or are we still ruled by greed, the lust for power, control and other factors that dominate the ego. Perhaps the topic can help us understand a little more about ourselves and what we are, because we still have so much to discover.

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The CIA Hired Remote Viewers To Obtain Information About Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Reasonable evidence suggests that the CIA hired "remote viewers" to find out information about extraterrestrials visiting our planet, their intentions, and also potential extraterrestrial bases that exist on Earth.

  • Reflect On:

    The UFO phenomenon is no longer taboo. The reality of it has gone mainstream and so to has the extraterrestrial hypothesis. What are the implications of exploring this topic? Can we really trust Government for any accurate information?

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

What Happened: A paper published one year after the declassification of the CIA/Stanford remote viewing program in the Journal of Scientific Exploration by one of the programs co-founders, Hal Puthoff, shows how successful the program was and how many individuals demonstrated “high-quality remote viewing.” It was repeatable and used multiple times for intelligence collection purposes. Years later there is good reason to believe it was also used by the CIA to obtain information about extraterrestrials that are visiting Earth.

This seems quite evident for multiple reasons. One is the fact that multiple army/CIA remote viewers have a heavy interest in the extraterrestrial phenomenon. Ingo Swann, for example, writes about this in his book “Penetration: The Question of Human and Extraterrestrial Telepathy.”

Pat Price, described as one of Stanford’s most successful remote viewers alongside Swann is known for viewing, according to him, four different alien bases that are, apparently, located on our planet. You can read more about that specific story here. This claim is also corroborated by a very interesting CIA document I recently came across sifting through the declassified literature on the remote viewing program. The document shows that the agency, using an unnamed viewer, also attempted to view, as the document clearly states, the headquarters of the “Galactic Federation.” This apparently represents an alliance of extraterrestrials.  You can read more about that specific story here.

Furthermore, Lyn Buchanan, also one of the army remote viewers, claims, as multiple others within the program have, that he was tasked to find out information on multiple extraterrestrial groups that were/are visiting the planet. He was tasked to find out, through remote viewing, what their intentions were/are.  You can read more about that story here.

CE Founder Joe Martino and myself recently sat down to discuss this topic and much more, in great detail. Below is a brief clip of the discussion, and you can listen to the entire discussion for free, here.   If you want to watch instead of just listen to it in full or simply support our work and help us continue to do what we do, you can become a CETV member and watch here

 

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!