Connect with us

Alternative News

Large Meta Analysis: Mask Wearing May Lead To Health “Consequences In Many Medical Fields”

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently published meta-analysis examined potential health consequences of extended mask use and determined that there are multiple concerns and possible health consequences that can arise as a result.

  • Reflect On:

    Are masks as safe as we've been made to believe? Why are concerns always ignored and in some cases ridiculed? Can they stop the spread of COVID? All of this is discussed within the article.

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.

What Happened: A large meta analysis recently published in the Journal Environmental Research and Public Health titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” looked at 65 studies pertaining to prolonged mask wearing to examine whether or not there may be any health consequences.

advertisement - learn more

Prolonged mask wearing is a new phenomenon, it’s something we’ve never really seen en masse before. Today, mask mandates are spread across the globe in multiple countries, mostly if you’re inside a public space, like a school, bank or business for example. For workers who are not working from home, masks are still worn throughout the day in many countries around the world. Since the beginning of the pandemic a number of scientists and researchers have published papers in medical/scientific journals creating cause for concern around this practice. Many even became quite active on social media expressing their concerns with mandatory mask measures as it pertains to human health.

--> Read: A rare mineral can remove harmful toxins & heavy metals with just 30 seconds a day. Click here to learn more.

This in turn sparked mass ridicule from organizations like the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and other government health authorities who claimed, and continue to, that prolonged mask wearing is completely safe and there’s nothing to worry about. But is that really true? How do we know? Are there any side effects?

One of the challenges in answering the question of do ‘masks work to stop COVID spread’ is that the “yes” narrative is given so much attention, while the “no” narrative is ridicule, ignored, and in many cases deemed a “conspiracy theory.” Later in this piece I will get more into the discussion of whether masks work to stop the spread of COVID, but first let’s explore what this meta analysis says about the side effects of long term mask wearing.

According to the authors:

Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found. The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines.

advertisement - learn more

In the paper the authors provide a wealth of data and evidence for psychological and physiological deterioration that are quite consistent, statistically significant, and measurable throughout multiple studies when it comes to extended mask use. They believe that “extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.”

So where is the evidence? It’s outlined quite well in the paper. If you’d like to get a full scope of the health harms that can result from extended periods of mask wearing, I suggest you go through it. This article simply provides a brief summary, so it’s important to refer to the study.

The researchers discovered and confirmed that “relevant, undesired medical, organ, and organ system-related phenomena by wearing masks occur in multiple fields of internal medicine.” These fields are neurology, psychology, psychiatry, gynecology, dermatology, ENT medicine, dentistry, sports medicine, sociology, microbiology, epidemiology, pediatrics and environmental medicine.

They then go through each of these fields and explain what they found. There are clear, statistically significant, and concerning findings, especially when it comes to respiratory physiology.

For example, when it comes to the pediatric section, they explain:

Children are particularly vulnerable and may be more likely to receive inappropriate treatment or additional harm…Special attention must be paid to the respiration of children, which represents a critical and vulnerable physiological variable due to higher oxygen demand, increased hypoxia susceptibility of the CNS, lower respiratory reserve, smaller airways with a stronger increase in resistance when the lumen is narrowed. The diving reflex caused by stimulating the nose and upper lip can cause respiratory arrest to bradycardia in the event of oxygen deficiency.

In an experimental British research study, the masks frequently led to feelings of heat (p <0001) and breathing problems (p < 0.03) in 100 school children between 8 and 11 years of age especially during physical exertion, which is why the protective equipment was taken off by 24% of the children during physical activity.

Scientists from Singapore were able to demonstrate in their Ib study published in the renowned journal “nature” that 106 children aged between 7 and 14 years who wore FFP2 masks for only 5 min showed an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory CO2 levels, indicating disturbed respiratory physiology. However, a disturbed respiratory physiology in children can have long-term disease-relevant consequences. Slightly elevated CO2 levels are known to increase heart rate, blood pressure, headache, fatigue and concentration disorders.

It is also important to emphasize the possible effects of masks in neurological diseases, as described earlier. Both masks and face shields caused fear in 46% of children (37 out of 80) in a scientific study. If children are given the choice of whether the doctor examining them should wear a mask they reject this in 49% of the cases. Along with their parents, the children prefer the practitioner to wear a face visor.

A recent observational study of tens of thousands of mask-wearing children in Germany helped the investigators objectify complains of headaches (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), joylessness (49%), learning difficulties (38%) and fatigue in 27 % of the 25, 930 children evaluated. Of the children observed, 25% had new onset anxiety and even nightmares. In children, the threat of scenarios generated by the environment are further maintained via masks, in some cases, even further intensified, and in this way, existing stress is intensified.

This can in turn lead to an increase in psychosomatic and stress-related illnesses. For example, according to an evaluation, 60% of mask wearers showed stress levels of the highest grade 10 on a scale of 1 to a maximum of 10. Less than 10% of the mask wearers surveyed had a stress level lower than 8 out of a possible 10.

As children are considered a special group, the WHO also issued a separate guideline on the use of masks in children in the community in August 2020, explicitly advising policy maker and national authorities, given the limited evidence, that the benefits of mask use in children must be weighed up against the potential harms associated with mask use. This includes feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns.

According to experts, masks block the foundations of human communication and the exchange of emotions and not only hinder learning but deprive children of the positive effects of smiling, laughing and and emotional mimicry. The effectiveness of masks in children as a viral protection is controversial, and there is a lack of evidence for their widespread use in children; this is also addressed in more detail by the scientists of the German University of Bremen in their thesis paper 2.0 and 3.0.

Keep in mind that pediatrics is one of twelve areas where they found significant concerns. I suggest you refer to the study to go through the others.

This data is quite eye opening and really makes you wonder how well thought out these mandates are, and what long term consequences they could have. With nobody really paying attention to these concerns, if there are consequences of extended periods of mask wearing, will the connection between the masks and the consequences ever be made? Again, this may be difficult due to the ridiculing of any evidence, opinion, and discussion around this, which is why we have chosen to cover these topics.

As the researchers state:

Long-term disease-relevant consequences of masks are to be expected. Insofar, the statistically significant results found in the studies with mathematically tangible differences between mask wearers and people without masks are clinically relevant. They give an indication that with correspondingly repeated and prolonged exposure to physical, chemical, biological, physiological and psychological conditions, some of which are subliminal, but which are significantly shifted towards pathological areas, health-reducing changes and clinical pictures can develop such as high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis, including coronary heart disease (metabolic syndrome) as well as neurological diseases.

For small increases in carbon dioxide in the inhaled air, this disease-promoting effect has been proven with the creation of headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract up to asthma as well as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate with vascular damage and, finally, neuropathological and cardiovascular consequences . Even slightly but persistently increased heart rates encourage oxidative stress with endothelial dysfunction, via increased inflammatory messengers, and finally, the stimulation of arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels has been proven. A similar effect with the stimulation of high blood pressure, cardiac dysfunction and damage to blood vessels supplying the brain is suggested for slightly increased breathing rates over long periods. Masks are responsible for the aforementioned physiological changes with rises in inhaled carbon dioxide and small sustained increases in heart rate and mild but sustained increases in respiratory rates.

For changes that do not exceed normal values, but are persistently recurring, such as an increase in blood carbon dioxide, an increase in heart rate or an increase in respiratory rate , which have been documented while wearing a mask, a long-term generation of high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis and coronary heart disease and of neurological diseases is scientifically obvious. This pathogenetic damage principle with a chronic low-dose exposure with long-term effect, which leads to disease or disease-relevant conditions, has already been extensively studied and described in many areas of environmental medicine . Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.

In summary, the authors feel that the typical conditions that have been documented include increase in breathing resistance, blood carbon dioxide, decrease in blood oxygen saturation, increase in heart rate, blood pressure, decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity, increase in respiratory rate, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing, headache, dizziness, decreased ability to concentrate and think and more. All these and more can lead to serious health outcomes.

Why This Is Important: This is important because long term mask wearing is being mandated and the health consequences may be great. Questioning this helps us ask whether or not our government and health authorities are doing their due diligence when it comes to protecting our health. Furthermore, the idea that masks help to stop the transmission of COVID is a heavily debated topic, suggesting that ignoring this data could be extra costly.

The researchers of this particular meta-analysis outline a significant amount of evidence that calls into question the ability for facemasks to protect somebody from COVID, as well as stop the spread of the virus. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed medical literature showing that masks are not effective, while on the other hand there is research that claims they work. The only difference is that research that shows they are effective is usually what’s presented by mainstream media and mass culture, while the research showing they are not effective is ignored.

Below is a brief explanation from the researchers. Overall, they show that the evidence for the effectiveness of masks to stop the spread and transmission of COVID is weak, and that the perceived effectiveness is mostly a psychological belief:

In a laboratory experiment, it was demonstrated that both surgical masks and N95 masks have deficits in protection against SARS-COV-2 and influenza using virus-free aerosols. In this study, the FFP2-equivalent N95 mask performed significantly better in protection that the surgical mask, but neither mask type established reliable, hypothesis-generated protection against corona and influenza viruses. Both mask types could be penetrated unhindered by aerosol particles with a diameter of 0.08 to 0.2 μm. Both the SARS-CoV-2 pathogens with a size of 0.06 to 0.14 μm and the influenza viruses with 0.08 to 0.12 μm are unfortunately well below the mask pore sizes.

In a meta-analysis of evidence level Ia commissioned by the WHO, no effect of masks in the context of influenza virus pandemic prevention could be demonstrated. In 14 randomized controlled trials, no reduction in the transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections was shown. Due to the similar size and distribution pathways of the virus species (influenza and Corona, see above), the data can also be transferred to SARS-CoV-2. Nevertheless, a combination of occasional mask-wearing with adequate hand-washing caused a slight reduction in infections for influenza in one study. However, since no separation of hand hygiene and masks was achieved in this study, the protective effect can rather be attributed to hand hygiene in view of the aforementioned data.

A recently published large prospective Danish comparative study comparing mask wearers and non-mask wearers in terms of their infection rates with SARS-CoV2 could not demonstrate any statistically significant differences between the groups.

One paper titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” concludes:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

I’ve written about a study published in the New England Medical Journal by Harvard doctors that outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection in a public setting. According to them:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The papers cited above are a few of many, there are a plethora of them available within the scientific literature.

On the flip side, according to a press release by the University of California San Francisco,

There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

A Mayo Clinic study released November 24, 2020, whose “findings strongly support the protective value and effectiveness of widespread mask use and maintaining physical distance in helping to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.” The experimental study “emulated the production of respiratory droplets by using mannequins, that were masked and other mannequins that were unmasked and measured the spread of those droplets at various distances.”

This is what Matthew Callstrom, M.D., Ph.D., chairman of the department of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, said in a news release about the study he co-authored with Elie Berbari, M.D., chair of the department of infectious diseases at the institution.

We found the most important measure for reducing the risk of exposure to COVID-19 is to wear a mask. We found that both disposable paper medical masks and two-layer cloth masks were effective in reducing droplet transmission and we did not find a difference between mask types in terms of how well they blocked aerosol particles emitted by the wearer.

The Takeaway: In an era where certain information is simply not presented to the masses, it’s important for various platforms to continue to share this information.

At the end of the day, it’s very difficult to determine who is right or wrong, which is why we need open dialogue. The fact that simple discussion and pieces of evidence that change the narrative, or threaten it, are being shut down, censored and completely ridiculed is quite concerning. The mainstream media continues to fail to have appropriate conversations surrounding all things COVID while forcing their opinion on the public. This in turn has created a great divide among the citizenry when really, we should all be coming together and respecting everybody’s decision to act as they please.

When things are not so cut and dry, should we give governments the ability to control our lives in the manner they have done with this pandemic? It’s a tough question, but one worth asking.

At the same time, things are getting to the point where more information seems unhelpful. No matter how much information and evidence is presented to support a particular idea, we’re always left with a divide among people. Why? What is happening in our thinking processes to create this? Can we really blame it all on “fake news” or are we starting to realize there are other factors at play?

Right now, the mainstream narrative suggests level 1 thinking: go to war with the virus. It does not consider long term consequences or a holistic approach to all things societally. Is this really effective? Perhaps we’re being asked to question that and mature in our thinking and decision making and perhaps do away with authoritarian mindsets.

We are at the point where we must be able to respect other people’s choices and the actions they choose to take without enforcing these actions on others who disagree. This, more important than who is right or wrong, is where we must meet each other.

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

Senior D.O.D Official Says UFOs “Are Demonic & We Shouldn’t Be Pursuing Them”

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 8 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The former director of the Pentagon's UFO program recently gave an interview to the NY Post. The discussion was about the UFO phenomenon, and how the topic is quite vast and may change humanities perception of reality in cultural and religious ways.

  • Reflect On:

    Why have governments kept the phenomenon a secret? Why ridicule it for so many years, and then start talking about it? Who decides whether or not humanity is ready to look into and deal with this very real phenomenon?

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.

Lue Elizondo is a former intelligence officer with the Department of Defense, and former director of AATIP, the Pentagon’s previous UFO program, from 2010-2017. No, it is not Lue who believes UFOs are demonic, he instead tells a story of someone else within government who had this belief.

Elizondo, along with his colleague Christopher Mellon, the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Steve Justice, a recently retired Director of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Skunkworks when they all began speaking publicly about the UFO phenomenon in 2017. In doing so they joined many others with verified high ranking backgrounds from within government who publicly comment on the subject, voicing their concerns that the phenomenon is real and that the public has a right to know about it.

From the perspective of a citizen, ‘why have UFOs been kept secret?’ is a difficult question to answer. Yes, there is the possibility that there are corporate and financial elite interests tied to this phenomenon, who would like to capitalize on it, and/or influence the perception of citizens regarding the phenomenon for ulterior motives. But perhaps that’s not true, it’s not something we hear about from all whistleblowers who have come forward. So what is going on? It’s difficult to know, and only a small group of people seem to control the secrecy around the subject.

A common theme seems to be that, one large reason for the secrecy is perhaps the implications it has on culture and religion. Multiple whistleblowers over the years have told us that governments know that the phenomenon is controlled by non human intelligence.

At the 15 minute mark of an interview with The NY Post, Elizondo speaks about a meeting he had with a senior Department of Defense official who told him that there are people within government who do not want information about the subject to get out due to their (the officials) philosophical and religious belief systems.

I remember the conversation very well, um, this is a person I respected tremendously, very very senior person…He told me he said…”We already know what it is.” I said OK sir, so it’s ours? And he said no, that’s not what I’m saying. And he said, he asked me point black “have you read your bible lately?” And I wasn’t quite sure where he was going with that and I said…where are you going with this? And he said “well then you know that these are demonic and we should not be pursuing them.”…He wasn’t kidding, that’s exactly how he felt…

Lue then goes on to emphasize that “no matter what it is, we need to figure it out.”

There was a time when the church wouldn’t even look through the telescope of Galileo because it conflicted with their narrative…This is something we have been dealing with for a long time…Imagine the first person that decided to get on a boat and sail over the horizon, right, and there’s discussion of sea monsters and krakens that will devour you and destroy your boat. And yet, we did it anyways, we did sail and explored the world and it turns out, you know, 500 years later yeah there really are sea monsters except for we call them the great squid of the pacific and we call them great white sharks and whales…Now they’re just a part of nature they have a scientific name. But, you know, those sea monsters still exist, they’re there, we just learned to understand them and maybe this is the same thing maybe this is just yet another expedition over the horizon in which we’re going to realize what we thought were monsters are really just neighbours.

Be sure to check out the full interview here if interested.

This begs the question. Is humanity ready for the disclosure? Regardless of the answer, it’s happening. Personally, I believe we are and I do not like the idea of high ranking officials who are guided by their belief systems dictating what these objects represent. I do not feel comfortable with a small group of people determining whether or not humanity is ready for such exploration. Why should they decide?

Throughout history we continually go through paradigm shifting moments, and every time we deny them and shy away from them as a way of holding on to beliefs. Is this human nature? Or something we can overcome with awareness? The UFO subject and its disclosure of it at the mainstream level represents just that, a paradigm shifting moment that calls into question what we thought we knew about nature of our reality.

Are we open to it?

Here’s another great quote from Dr. Eric Davis that may provide some insight as well. Davis, a renowned astrophysicist who worked with the Pentagon UFO program stated that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency, as recently as March 2020 about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.”

I think there’s a lot of evidence that the government has known, but the problem is, it’s so outside the realm of human comprehension that they can’t deal with it on a legislative basis, they can’t deal with it on a military, operational basis, they can’t can’t deal with it on the basis of a presidential policy. (source)

Being a researcher in the field for more than 15 years, stories of “beings” associated with these objects range from what can be perceived as very benevolent, to malevolent. There are all kinds of stories out there, some which have very interesting corroborations among multiple supposed “experiencers.” Perhaps all of these objects are not from “one” place or the “same” species, perhaps we have been visited by intelligent life from other galaxies universes, dimensions? Perhaps some are interplanetary? There is so much of our “reality” that we cannot perceive with our senses, perhaps they exist here, on Earth, but in these other realms we cannot perceive with our senses? The topic is quite vast and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched.

The latest program disclosed by the U.S. Defense Department is the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF). The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, is currently leading that program UAPTF.

In the NY Post interview Elizondo explains many things, and something that’s not novel. One of them is that the Navy, as well as other military branches, have encountered these objects on “a daily basis.” Prior to the “mainstream” UFO disclosure we’ve seen in the past couple of years, this was already quite evident. There are tens and thousands of pages of declassified documents describing military encounters with UFOs. These documents contain radar tracking data, pictures and now videos that have been released, as well as testimony from the pilots involved. This is nothing new, although it may be new in the public eye, it’s been something that’s been happening since man was able to take flight.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disk, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft….The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), and the actions which much be considered evaise when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of these objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely – General Nathan Twining, 1947.

The phenomenon has also been documented in the printing press in times of antiquity, prior to the time of modern day technology. It’s even seen in historical pieces of artwork. It’s safe to say that the phenomenon has been observed for a very long time – yet only now are we taking it seriously.

It’s quite clear that governments around the world have been studying this phenomenon while keeping humanity in the dark about what they’ve discovered. Intelligence agencies in the US are set to disclose what they know about the phenomenon very soon, but any information beyond what is already known among many ufologists is not to be expected. It’s safe to assume that a wealth of information will still be kept “classified” for “national security” purposes. I put “national security” in quotations because, in my opinion, I feel in many cases ‘national security’ has become and umbrella term to justify the concealment of information due to it’s implications on the human belief and culture, or to protect corporate and perhaps “elitist” agendas. Perhaps I’m wrong?

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it….And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. – JFK

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

CDC Specifies PCR Test Cycle Threshold For Vaccinated Individuals: What Does This Mean?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 17 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC is and will be collecting samples from COVID tests of vaccinated individuals to try and determine if the virus can breakthrough the protection of the vaccine. In doing so the CDC has specified a cycle threshold for PCR tests.

  • Reflect On:

    Why a cycle threshold suddenly? Why not one prior to the rollout of vaccines? How many false positives have we seen as a result of no prior cycle threshold? Will PCR tests of the unvaccinated have this new cycle threshold?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

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

The CDC is monitoring COVID-19 “vaccine breakthrough” cases at the moment. This means that those who are fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine can still become infected. According to the CDC, “a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will get sick and some may be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.”

Throughout this pandemic, the tests used to identify “positive” COVID-19 cases has been the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which can detect the virus in nasal swabs (RT-PCR). The PCR test is not actually designed to identify active infectious disease, instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.  PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.

The CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold.

According to Public Health Ontario,

The cycle threshold (Ct) value is the actual number of cycles it takes for the PCR test to detect the virus. It indicates an estimate of how much virus was likely in the sample to start with – not the actual amount. If the virus is found in a low number of cycles (Ct value under 30), it means that the virus was easier to find in sample and that the sample started out with a large amount of the virus. Think about it like the zoom button on your computer, if you only have to zoom in a little (zoom at 110%), it means that item was big to start with. If you have to zoom a lot (zoom at 180%), it means that the item was small to start with.

Why This Is Important: It’s been difficult to find what PCR Ct value tests have been using during this pandemic, and it’s important because at a value at 35 or more for example, an individual is more likely to test “positive” when they are not infected and/or do not even have the ability to transmit. This is commonly known as a “false positive.”

There are multiple studies showing that the number of “cycles” performed by PCR to amplify the genetic sample is directly correlated with infectiousness. The more cycles needed to get positivity from a sample, the less viral replication, or “positivity” for lack of a better word, the sample shows.

For example, an article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. The cycle number is associated with the chances of infectiousness, yet this has never really been available to the patient nor the public. Most people don’t even know about it. The study examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. Cultured basically refers to the ability of the sample to find the virus and determine an infection.

This could be interpreted as,

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” (source)

According to Stanford Medical Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, PCR samples with a cycle count over 35 is a common lab occurrence. This means that if during this pandemic this was the case, the number of false positives could have been over 90 percent, meaning the vast majority of positive cases weren’t really positive. It means the number of positive “cases” were not an accurate picture of how many people were actually infectious and capable of transmitting the virus. This was and still remains a concern, because “cases” all over the world are being used to set health policy.

Bhattacharya explains in his article,

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness. Other states should emulate Florida in requiring laboratories to report cycle times to providers and to public health officials so they can provide better advice to patients and make more nuanced decisions about mandatory quarantine orders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) didn’t properly address this issue, it seems, until nearly a year into the pandemic, when they put a notice on their website. They did however already make it clear that WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. That being said, I still couldn’t find what cycle threshold was being used in any part of the world, you would think this type of information wouldn’t be so hard to find?

An article published in September of 2020 in Sciencemag also brings up this issue and explains it quite well:

Ever since the coronavirus pandemic began, battles have raged over testing: Which tests should be given, to whom, and how often? Now, epidemiologists and public health experts are opening a new debate. They say testing centers should report not just whether a person is positive, but also a number known as the cycle threshold (CT) value, which indicates how much virus an infected person harbors.

Advocates point to new research indicating that CT values could help doctors flag patients at high risk for serious disease. Recent findings also suggest the numbers could help officials determine who is infectious and should therefore be isolated and have their contacts tracked down. CT value is an imperfect measure, advocates concede. But whether to add it to test results “is one of the most pressing questions out there,” says Michael Mina, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Standard tests identify SARS-CoV-2 infections by isolating and amplifying viral RNA using a procedure known as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which relies on multiple cycles of amplification to produce a detectable amount of RNA. The CT value is the number of cycles necessary to spot the virus; PCR machines stop running at that point. If a positive signal isn’t seen after 37 to 40 cycles, the test is negative. But samples that turn out positive can start out with vastly different amounts of virus, for which the CT value provides an inverse measure. A test that registers a positive result after 12 rounds, for a CT value of 12, starts out with more than 10 million times as much viral genetic material as a sample with a CT value of 35.

But the same sample can give different CT values on different testing machines, and different swabs from the same person can give different results. “The CT value isn’t an absolute scale,” says Marta Gaglia, a virologist at Tufts University. That makes many clinicians wary, Mina says. “Clinicians are cautious by nature,” Mina says. “They say, ‘If we can’t rely on it, it’s not reliable.’” In an August letter in Clinical Infectious Diseases, members of the College of American Pathologists urged caution in interpreting CT values.

Nevertheless, Mina, Gaglia, and others argue that knowing whether CT values are high or low can be highly informative. “Even with all the imperfections, knowing the viral load can be extremely powerful,” Mina says.

Early studies showed that patients in the first days of infection have CT values below 30, and often below 20, indicating a high level of virus; as the body clears the coronavirus, CT values rise gradually. More recent studies have shown that a higher viral load can profoundly impact a person’s contagiousness and reflect the severity of disease.

They are now specifying CT values for vaccinated individuals. It’s nice to see that the CDC is specifying cycle threshold, as mentioned above, for vaccinated individuals. It simply makes the detection of “positive” cases much more accurate and, as explained above, the chances of a false positive far are less when doing so. But the concern is, the testing of vaccinated individuals with this cycle threshold is less likely to reveal false positives, yet prior to the rollout of the vaccine there is reason to believe that the cycle threshold was 35 or higher, as mentioned earlier in the article. Why all of a sudden change it for vaccinated individuals? Does this mean that those who are unvaccinated will still be tested at a cycle threshold that is more likely return a false positive? Does this mean that unvaccinated individuals are likely to test positive more so than vaccinated ones, not as a result of the test but rather the cycle threshold used?

It’s interesting to think about how simple adjustments of the PCR test could either increase positive cases, or decrease them. This has been an issue for quite some time. For example, earlier on in the pandemic a Portuguese appeals court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals was unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus and as a result the decision was overturned.

Here’s study showing that recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive for COVID-19  repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such.

This concern was also raised in an article published in The Lancet medical journal titled “Clarifying the evidence of SARS-CoC-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19.” 

In the Lancet article, the authors explain that most people infected with COVID are contagious for approximately one week, and that “specimens are generally not found to contain culture-positive (potentially contagious) virus beyond day 9 after the onset of symptoms, with most transmission occurring before day 5.” They go on to explain:

This timing fits with the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.

This means that 50-75 percent of the time, just because an individual is PCR positive does not mean they have the virus or can transmit, and this is for what seems to be someone who most likely had positive. This is not referring to false positives.

Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.

They explain:

However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

An article published in the British Medical Journal explains:

It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood. In a recent systematic review, no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. However, cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.

Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling. Mass testing risks the harmful diversion of scarce resources. A further concern is the use of inadequately evaluated tests as screening tools in healthy populations.

The UK’s testing strategy needs to be reset in line with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ recommendation that “Prioritizing rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area.”

This doesn’t mean the test isn’t useful, but there are clearly concerns. I have emailed the CDC  asking them if there was a specific cycle threshold that was being used during this pandemic, prior to the rollout of the vaccine. I also asked if they will be changing the recommended threshold for unvaccinated individuals being tested.

The below comes from an anonymous source, but clams 40-45 cycles are typically used in the UK. Again, as Bhattacharya says above, in the US it seems to be 35 and above.

Corroborating Information: The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe stated earlier in the pandemic that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article, argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.

As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

An article written by Robert Hagen, MD for MedPage Today explains the issues with COVID testing as well, especially when it comes to results, false positives and symptomatic people compared to asymptomatic people. This article also goes in depth as to why false positives will be, and probably are very high. It’s called, “What’s Wrong With Covid Case Counts?”

22 researchers put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives. This also made a lot of noise.

Elon Musk revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something “bogus” is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.

Doing tests from several different labs, same time of day, administered by RN & am requesting N1 gene PCR cycle threshold. There is no official standard for PCR testing. Not sure people realize this. – Musk (source)

On the other side of the coin,

According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

The list of these concerns and examples go on and on, yet it’s something the everyday person often has no idea about as it’s not brought up within the mainstream media or discussion. There are those who believe it’s accurate, and there are those who don’t and also evidence that goes both ways. This in of itself shows we need better testing tools to detect people who have the virus and those capable of spreading it.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, these questions and concerns that have been brought up by many in the field have not really been appropriately addressed within mainstream discussion. Most people believe that PCR testing is sound and adequate in identifying people who are infected and also have the ability to transmit COVID, but this simply isn’t true and it’s very significant because “cases” are being used to set public health policy.

There’s a chance that COVID may not be as infectious as the numbers indicate, and this does not mean that it’s not serious and that people aren’t at risk, it simply calls into question the measures that we’ve taken which have caused harm.

Discussing the harms of these measures is being labelled as nonsense within the mainstream. For example, anything that calls into question lockdowns as a means for helping to stop the transmission of the virus for is labelled as “anti-lockdown.” World renowned scientists have been censored and ridiculed and pushed into silence. PCR tests are the basis of initiatives like vaccine passports as well.

An example I often use is of  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 discovered. He published data showing that no school children in Sweden died of COVID during the first wave despite no mask and lockdown measures. You can read more about that story here.

It’s unfortunate that the mainstream can’t have these conversations regarding information, opinion and evidence that contradicts the official narrative. This type of information always seems to be labelled as “anti-something”, and as a result of mainstream media ridiculing something, a large portion of the citizenry does the same. There are discussions to be had that are simply not being had, and no time or attention is being paid to experts in the field providing a perspective that opposes what our government is telling us. Why?

As a result of mass censorship, the COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to question what exactly is happening on our planet. Are things really as we are told? Does government and the wealthy “1 percent” really act in ways that best serve humanity, especially in a time of crisis? Are they interested in our well being as a number one priority, or something else? Can we have appropriate conversations with people who disagree with us? Can we get along regardless of what we believe is happening?

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

UFO “Crash Retrievals” Hits The Mainstream Discussion, What’s Going On?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 12 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent article in published in the New Yorker brings up the topic of UFO crash retrievals. This article summarizes what was said by a former U.S. senator, and much more.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is so much information about this topic, and many others concealed from the public, is it really about "national security" or is there another reason for all of the secrecy?

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.

A recently published article in The New Yorker written by Gideon Lewis-Kraus, previously a writer-at-large for the New York Times Magazine, goes quite in-depth into the UFO phenomenon. It’s always great when the topic attains more “legitimacy” within the mainstream, but it’s unfortunate that something has to be presented in this fashion for it to receive legitimacy.

The article mentions the topic of UFO crash retrievals, which is the idea that governments have, in this case the U.S. government, recovered debris from crashed UFOs. It mentions Harry Reid, a retired American attorney and politician who served as a United States Senator in Nevada from 1987 to 2017. Reid has been quite active in trying to get congress and others within the government to look into this issue more in order to bring it out into the public domain.

We already know that the Pentagon has, and has had, programs to study the phenomenon. This is a matter of public record. The agency disclosed to the public is called  “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force”, but remember that the United States has a history of government agencies existing in secret for years. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, its existence was hidden until the mid 1960’s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely secret for 30 years.

According to the article, Reid states that he,

“was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials, […] And I tried to get, as I recall, a classified approval by the Pentagon to have me go look at the stuff. They would not approve that. I don’t know what all the numbers were, what kind of classification it was, but they would not give that to me.”

Kraus reached out to Lockheed but there was no response.

Speaking of Lockheed, Steve Justice, a recently retired Director of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Skunkworks, has also alluded to the idea that this type of technology is real. He has been quite outspoken about the “black budget” world, and crafts that can mimic the capabilities that are observed in unidentified aerial phenomenon by, as he once said, employing a driver system that alters the space-time metric. He once stated:

“We have glimpses of how the physics of this works, but we need to harvest technologies from the Science Division to realize the capability.” (source)

I saw him state this during a livestream as well, when he was with To The Stars Academy. He has since left this organization.

His statement is  another way of saying that these technologies exist within the “science division”, wherever that may be.

This is an idea that has been given credibility by many “high ranking” people from within various governments. For example, Apollo 13 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell once told the world that “Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” He is seen making these statements in this documentary.

Eric W. Davis, a renowned astrophysicist who worked with the Pentagon UFO program stated that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency, as recently as March 2020 about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.” Christopher Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997 to 2002 has confirmed that he was  present during this testimony. He himself has been quite outspoken about the phenomenon over the past few years.  Dr. David Clarke, an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University who was also the curator for The National Archives UFO Project from 2008–2013, came across some interesting documents suggesting that the UK was desperate to capture UFO technology. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian defence minister claimed that the protocol when military jets were scrambled to intercept a UFO was to “shoot first and ask questions after.”

These are simply a few of many examples that lend credibility to how government has viewed UFOs over the decades. Interestingly, the most viewed document in the FBI archive is about a supposed crash of three UFOs that contained bodies inside.

Have governments done anything with this technology? 

Documents obtained by The Drive show that revolutionary technology that has the capability to alter space-time may actually be “operable”, according to Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy, seen in the picture above. You can read more about that story here.

What about the supposed bodies? How did these objects crash? Were they brought down by us? I hope not, but given the nature of our race it’s not unlikely to assume that we would be more of a threat to life in the cosmos than an extraterrestrial space faring race would be to us, but that’s just me speculating. I don’t know. What I do find interesting about the phenomenon is that most of the examples that are available in the public domain show that they perform evasive maneuvers.

This has been emphasized by many, like Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer in 2008General Nathan Twining in the 1940’s, and more recently Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades now.

In my research I haven’t really come across anything that is indicative of a threat, so I hope mainstream coverage and government disclosure doesn’t take it there. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate “national security” concerns, but to take the stance that these objects represent a threat doesn’t seem to be evidence based in my opinion.

Why This Is Important

Mainstream UFO disclosure can be confusing. For example, why is the military witness testimony of certain pilots involved in a UFO incident that was released and confirmed by the Pentagon a few years ago credible and worthy of mainstream coverage, but the testimony of a high ranking Air Force Colonel, like Ross Dedrickson, not brought up at all?

Is this because Dedrickson claimed to have knowledge about extraterrestrials and what they are concerned about? Is this going too far for people? Again, who dictates and determines “what is too much” for people to handle? Why determines what is credible and not credible? Is it because there is no data about ETs? Or is it because data about ETs has been withheld, just as data about UFOs were withheld?

When UFOs were ridiculed, there was a lot of “evidence” for their existence. There is a lot of “evidence” for the idea that some of these objects are not human in origin, but again, a lot of people still have “feelings” about taking it there.

Will we ever get the entire truth?

Kraus states in his article that,

The government may or may not care about the resolution of the U.F.O enigma. But in throwing up its hands and granting that there are things it simply cannot figure out, it has relaxed its grip on the taboo. For many, this has been a comfort.

It’s great to see and know that this topic is no longer taboo to discuss. But again, it’s unfortunate that there seems to be a “mainstream culture”, for lack of a better word, that dictates what can be spoken about still. Why does this culture get to decide when something is taboo or not? Furthermore, if governments and intelligence agencies come out and say “this is what we know” can we really trust them at this point? Is it really all they know? Is releasing some information a way to stop the conversation about it, or at least limit it?

For example, when a program or information is declassified, how can we be so certain that that’s all there is to it? Is more information concealed for national security purposes, or other purposes? What implications might that secrecy still have?

Media and government manipulation is something citizens always have be be wary of. A CIA document pertaining to media and government relationship states that the CIA task force:

“now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation, [and that] “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” [the agency has] “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

Let’s not forget about operation Mockingbird.

Although it is a document outlining their desire to become more open and transparent, the deception outlined by various whistleblowers and pieces of evidence requires us to read between the lines and recognize that the relationships shared between intelligence agencies and our sources of information are not always warranted and pose inherent conflicts of interest.

Herein lies the problem: What is “national security,” and who determines that definition? JFK bravely told the world that the:

“dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. […] there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

What are the justifications for UFO secrecy?

Don’t get me wrong, I am quite convinced that there are many people within government, normal people like you and me, who simply want to know what this phenomenon is all about and are passionate about truth and transparency. It’s a complicated topic that’s been drenched in secrecy for years. As far as why this secrecy has occurred is an entirely different discussion. Perhaps this campaign of secrecy was done with the best of intentions? Perhaps not? Perhaps it is and was a mix of both? I don’t know, but there’s nothing wrong with discussing and speculating, especially in a time when speculation and opinion are being condemned in multiple fields.

I also believe there are other reasons for secrecy that go beyond “it’s too much for the people to handle” and that “it’s a national security issue.” These reasons may go into protecting certain interests, like profits of the energy industry among others. Based on my research, any type of technology that can release humanity’s dependence on big corporations is somehow always kept on the back-burner, at least until it can be monopolized and put out in a way that benefits those who control it.

UFO technology could perhaps collapse the entire economy and our way of life as we know it by offering new modes of energy generation that, as Tesla once said, use the “wheelwork of nature.” Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe there are ways to provide abundance to all without requiring us to work within our current demanding lifestyles? Perhaps we don’t have to be dependant on money?

Reasons like this are sometimes hard for people to examine. It can be scary for some to even contemplate the idea of a government or powerful set of people who are actively taking measures to prevent humanity from thriving. Perhaps that is a conspiracy theory? Perhaps it’s not. I do believe there is enough information and evidence to at least have that conversation, and I think it’s an important one to have and consider.

But as you could note by my above statements, the UFO topic has the potential to change how we live our day to day lives in society due to what abundance it could provide for the average person. While this is not obvious when exploring the subject, this has been one of the drivers of our passionate research over the years.

The Takeaway

As I’ve said many times, I don’t think we will ever get anything significant from government disclosure than what’s already known about the phenomenon among researchers who have been studying it for decades. So don’t get your hopes up. Perhaps the fact that these objects are real is all we will get, but who knows?

Is this an issue where the citizenry has to take initiative to find out more? Why is the idea, for example, of trying to make contact with these objects in a citizen initiated way taboo or “crazy” within the mainstream? If we want to find out more about this topic, perhaps we have to try and do so ourselves? Why is it that when government tries to find out, it’s “official” but when citizens try and do it, it’s a “cult?”

Are human beings at a point in our culture where we are capable of exploring this topic without labelling phenomenon as “demonic” or “angelic.” Can’t we just accept that there may be other consciousness’ in the universe that takes on a similar, but different physical form? The discussion of what these objects are seems to be the next step, and it’s being had, but it’s taken decades for the topic to exit the “taboo” realm, how long will it take for the implications of the phenomenon and deeper questions that it leads to, to be considered no longer taboo?

It leaves no aspect of humanity untouched, it goes into consciousness, physics, the nature of our society, history, other dimensions and more, but many people within this community don’t want to go there until it is “confirmed” by a “credible” source. This in my opinion is a problem.

Some sources the masses rely on as “credible” are more manipulative than credible, and that’s something we have to come to terms with. It’s OK to speculate. Perhaps our definition of “evidence” needs to change in order to go above and beyond the limitations of “science.”

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!