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

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

 

 

Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Old, sick, and frail people were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

O the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored. In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Elizondo, Mellon & Justice Are Officially Leaving To The Stars Academy

Since 2017, To The Stars Academy (TTSA) has been in the news in relation to groundbreaking events in mainstream UFO/UAP culture. You likely remember TTSA’s release of video footage showing UFOs making incredible maneuvers in the sky. The video was taken by a US Navy pilot while tracking and following the object for as long as possible. The story was heavily covered in mainstream and alternative media after the New York Times broke the story.

Since that day, TTSA has been in the limelight when it comes to the mainstream discussion of UFO disclosure. But with that success also came doubt and controversy. Why was the media suddenly interested in a topic it had ridiculed for so long? Credible evidence has been available for decades, so why is it only be acknowledged now? Why is TTSA getting so much attention when many other credible organizations, people, and whistleblowers were saying the same thing for years?

This skepticism amongst long time UFO researchers is fair, as these are good questions that don’t have clear or obvious answers. Further, TTSA was comprised of many former government and intelligence agency employees, former operations office at the CIA Jim Semivan, former CIA employee Dr. Nor Kahn, former Pentagon employee Lue Elizondo, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon. With a roster like that, those with skeptical minds in a space shrouded by secrecy and deception would naturally question whether these ex-government employees are now in favor of disclosing government secrets, or whether they are part of a decade long cover-up program.

All that said, how can one deny the value TTSA has brought to this discussion. They have brought massive awareness around UFOs/UAPs to the masses with their work which has resulted in a greater audience willing to explore this space. As I have often said, just because there may exist an agenda to manipulate public perception on a subject, it doesn’t mean it won’t backfire and instead create massive positive public awareness.

Years ago we wrote an open letter to comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan about UFOs, as during that time he was denying the legitimacy of the subject and it was clear he had not truly looked into it. That piece was viewed hundreds of thousands of times, perhaps it got on his radar, perhaps it didn’t. But look now, with TTSA’s work and a change in the mainstream conversation, Joe Rogan has significantly changed his tune about the UFO phenomenon and is sharing that open-mindedness with millions of his podcast listeners.

But I’ll go back here one last time, people have been encouraged to keep an open mind about TTSA’s intentions as their focus on a potential “ET threat narrative” is believed to be part of a greater governmental agenda – even if that means by focusing on a threat it will bring haste to political action. You can hear these perspectives from researchers like Dr. Steven Greer and US constitutional lawyer Daniel Sheehan, both of who I shared screen time with in Dr. Greer’s latest film Close Encounters of The 5th Kind.

Nonetheless, the roster and goals at TTSA are now changing.

In a statement, TTSA informs the public:

TTSA now enters its natural evolution as a company as we adapt to a new global landscape with new opportunities and priorities.  TTSA looks to build on the momentum of business initiatives where we are seeing success and which are increasingly likely to yield shareholder value.  Data collection, artificial intelligence and entertainment opportunities remain our mainstays as key opportunities going forward and we are excited to announce more soon.

As we enter this new phase, inevitable changes will come with it, including a change in personnel.

We are incredibly grateful for the founding team members who helped establish TTSA, including COO Steve Justice, Director of Special Programs Luis Elizondo and Advisor Chris Mellon, who are moving on to focus on other endeavors, as TTSA continues to develop the new chapter in its evolution.

“This change does not alter the relationship TTSA and I have established or our collective dedication to the mission,” said Luis Elizondo. “We will continue to collaborate and strengthen our partnerships as we face new priorities and opportunities in the wake of COVID-19.”

TTSA thanks Steve, Luis and Chris for their meaningful contribution to the establishment of TTSA and an extraordinary three years. We wish them all the best in their future undertakings.

The Takeaway

It’s important to note that just because your favorite UFO researcher might have an opinion about a key aspect of this discussion, it may not be accurate or true. In the 12 years our team has been researching the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomenon, it’s clear that there is not much of whole-hearted collaboration, and there is a great deal of infighting and differing opinions about what is going on. That said, it’s important to keep an open mind, follow the evidence, listen to multiple sources, and dig deep to uncover what is available. I truly believe true disclosure has happened in many ways already, after we now have full disclosure from governments that UFOs exist. The question now is who’s manning them? We know much more about that question already, and don’t need the government to tell us so. This is why I feel full disclosure will happen primarily through the people – not necessarily a slow, sanitized, drip from the government.

The information released by TTSA is merely the tip of a massive iceberg, an iceberg that we already know a lot more about than what has been disclosed to the public. Here’s to hoping that Elizondo, Mellon, and Justice plan to focus on bringing that information to the masses in a timely fashion – my hunch is they already know a lot more than they have shared over the last 3 years.

New Stanford Study Claims Lockdowns Are Not Effective To Stop Spread of COVID

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 (source)

What Happened: A study published by four medical professors from Stanford University has failed to find evidence supporting the use of what they call “Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions” (NPIs) like lockdowns, social-distancing, business closures and stay at home orders. According to the study, these measures have not been sufficient and are not sufficient to stop the spread of COVID and therefore are not necessary to combat the spread of the virus. Although they do mention that “the data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits” they mention that “even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures.”

The authors used England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States for the study. They found “No clear, significant, beneficial” effects of the methods being implemented (lockdowns, business closures, stay at home orders etc) to combat COVID case growth in any country.

You can access the full study here for a deeper discussion/analysis.

This Isn’t The Only Study: The recently published study by the Stanford professors is not the first. There are many examples.

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”

Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”

Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”

 Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”

Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”

Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”

There are dozens upon dozens of examples of published research showing and claiming that lockdown and other non-pharmacological methods for combating COVID have no benefit whatsoever on reducing the spread of the virus, so why are we being forced into these measures?

Below is a video of Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist (also one of the authors of the study mentioned at the beginning of this article)  where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media.  Follow their twitter account here.

The declaration explains why these health professionals and scientists strongly oppose lockdown measures, and also brings up the topic of herd immunity. In the video below they explain their belief of why there should be a different response to the pandemic.

The Consequences of Lockdown: The consequences of lockdown are many. And we are doing so for a virus with a 99.95 percent survival rate for people under the age of 70, and a 95 percent survival rate for people over the age of 70.

In Ontario, Canada, a member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s caucus is speaking out against his own government’s policies and calling for an end to the province-wide pandemic lockdown.“The lockdown isn’t working,” writes York Centre Progressive Conservative MPP Roman Baber in a letter to Ford.  “It’s causing an avalanche of suicides, overdoses, bankruptcies, divorces and takes an immense toll on our children. Dozens of leading doctors implored you to end the lockdowns.” (source)

A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

Many experts  who are opposing lockdowns are not advocating for no measures to be taken, instead many of them believe we don’t have to shut down businesses and keep people inside to protect the vulnerable. They advocate for a more focused type of protection, especially in light of all the harms that lockdown measures seem to be creating.

These harms were pondered early on in the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19?  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .

response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article  published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,

Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy. Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.

It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults. The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health. Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.

According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.

According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,

Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.

Bhattacharya, MD, PhD wrote an article  for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.” In that points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.

The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, EnglandFrance, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.

By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months. The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.

The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.

The burden of these policies falls disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable. For example, isolation led to a 20 percent increase in dementia-related deaths among our elderly population. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the lockdown in the United States shows that patients skipped cancer screenings, childhood immunizationsdiabetes management visits and even treatment for heart attacks.

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.

Other Strange Happenings: A lot of people are also raising concerns about COVID deaths being marked as COVID when they’re not really a result of COVID. You can read more about that, in detail here.

Concerns have also been raised with regards to PCR testing, you can read more about that in detail here.

Furthermore corruption and conflicts of interest also seem to be a big concern, you can read more about that in detail here.

The Takeaway: Never before have we seen actions taken by Western governments come under such scrutiny from so many people. COVID has really been a catalyst for more people to question what we are doing here on planet Earth, why we live the way we do and why we give so much power to governments that may not have the ability to make the best decisions for us due to a number of different factors.

The suppression and muzzling of scientists, journalists, doctors and people during this pandemic for simply providing information, evidence and opinions that oppose mainstream rhetoric has also forced many more people to question what’s happening here. The shutdown of open scientific debate is quite concerning, and social media platforms have completely banned the accounts of what seems to be thousands of health professionals, journalists and independent media outlets while someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci is given instant virality on television when expressing his views.

Why is it that we fail to have proper conversations about controversial topics and viewpoints? Why do we have to shut them down, ridicule them and ignore them? What’s going on here? Is there a battle to control the perception of the masses when it comes to not only this pandemic, but other topics as well? Why do we continue to listen to and rely on entities that don’t really have our best interests at hand? Is the political realm really a representation of truth? Can it provide us with the answers and advice we are looking for and ones that are actually good for us? Should we give governments such power where they can shut down the planet at will when so many people across the globe disagree? Should people have the freedom to do as they please? Should business closures, isolation, and stay at home orders simply be shifted to recommendations? Should people be able to choose what measures they wish to take and respect the decisions of others who oppose them? When everything is not so black and white as sometimes it is made out to be, I believe freedom of choice should always remain, what do you think? I don’t have the answers, but I do know that asking questions and having discussions is very important.

Poland Moves To Make Censorship By Facebook, Twitter & Other Big Tech Giants Illegal

What Happened: The deactivation of Donald Trump’s social media accounts has sparked both praise and outrage across the globe. One fact, however, that remains unacknowledged on such a large scale is the deactivation of thousands of social media accounts which includes many doctors, scientists, journalists and people for sharing information, evidence, science and opinions that go against the grain, so to speak.

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 (source)

The Polish government has responded as officials have denounced the deactivation of Trump’s social media accounts and has said that a draft law is now being prepared, in Poland. This law will make it illegal for tech companies to take similar actions there and regulate what information people are able to see and access.

According to Poland’s prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, “Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not decide which views are right and which are not.” He said that there can be “no consent to censorship”, comparing social media companies regulation of information to Poland’s experience during the communist era. He said that “Censorship of free speech, which is the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now returning in the form of a new, commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently.”

Below are his words taken from a recent Facebook Post.

I was born and raised among people from whom freedom was the most valuable value. In Poland we are so attached to freedom because we know what it’s like when someone tried to limit it. For nearly 50 years we lived in a country where censorship was in force; in a country where Big Brother told us how to live, what think and feel – and what to think, say and write…That’s why we look at all attempts to restrict freedom with such anxiety.

One of the synonyms of freedom has always been the Internet for us. The most democratic medium in history, a forum where anyone can speak without embarrassment. A tool that allows every person to really influence reality, to an extent unknown several years ago. Freedom related to the lack of internet regulation has many positive effects. But they are also negative: big, transnational corporations, richer and more powerful than many countries, have gradually begun to dominate it. These corporations have only begun to treat our online activity as a source of profit and strengthening global domination. And also to ensure political correctness the way they like it. And fight those who oppose them.

Recently, we are increasingly dealing with practices that would seem to have gone on in the past. Censoring free speech, the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, returns today in the form of a new commercial mechanism to combat those who think differently

The discussion is about exchanging views, not gagging your mouth. We don’t have to agree with what our opponents write, but we can’t deny anyone from spreading views that are legal.

There is no, and cannot be, consent to censorship….Freedom of speech is the salt of democracy – that’s why we must defend it. Which views are right and which are not, cannot be decided by algorithms or owners of corporate giants.

Poland will always stand guard for democratic values, including freedom of speech. Social media owners cannot operate above the law. That’s why we’ll do everything to determine how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other similar platforms operate. In Poland, we regulate this with appropriate and national regulations. We will also propose that similar regulations apply throughout the European Union.

Social media must serve us – the public, not the interests of its powerful owners. All people have the right to freedom of speech. Poland will defend this right.

It’s great to see censorship on the minds of many and with all of the controversy that has crept into the mainstream, more people are definitely aware of the problem. I would, however, like to emphasize again that it’s not just Donald Trump that’s been subjected to it, it’s thousands of doctors, scientists, journalist and media organizations, like Collective Evolution as well.

We are living in an age where there is a digital authoritarian Orwellian type of “fact-checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

All of this censorship obviously requires a mass amount of surveillance. It’s no secret that tech companies like Facebook and Amazon, for example, have strong connections to intelligence. If you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees for example, there are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defense.

Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama. NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out in a recent interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald,

He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional…When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way.

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour…

Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

I would argue, however, that big tech may not just be censoring “minority” opinions. When it comes to the coronavirus for example, there seems to be, in my opinion, a large majority of doctors, scientists and journalists who are presenting information, science, evidence and opinion that strongly oppose certain measures taken by governments to combat Covid, like lockdowns, for example.  Yet somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci can go on television anytime he wants and is given the gift of instant virality while other experts in the field with opposing views seem to be completely ignored.

I would argue that the mainstream can make the majority feel like the minority, and the minority feel like the majority.

Final Thoughts: Censorship of information, thoughts, opinions and more can be a tricky subject to debate. At the end of the day, information that should not be censored seems to be censored simply because it threatens various corporate and government initiatives, or because it opposes a narrative that we see within the mainstream media. This is exactly why people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, among many, face difficulty. What does it say about our world when we silence and jail those who expose unethical and immoral actions by those we give the most power to?

This, in my opinion, is just wrong and not something humanity should stand for. Already we’ve seen a massive growth of other social media platforms that don’t work with and engage in big tech censorship, like Telegram, for example, and this doesn’t really come as a surprise. Many people are under the opinion that Facebook or Twitter can do whatever they like because these are private companies, and we the users, choose to use them. That may be true, but at the same time why censor so much information that is clearly not false, but simply because you don’t want people to think that way? What we are seeing today is not censorship of harmful information but rather the continued and concerted effort to control the way people think. The information that is censored is constantly labelled as “misinformation” and “fake news” when again, that’s clearly debatable and in many cases simply not true.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. – Edward Bernay’s, Propaganda 1928

The good news is that censorship measures have exploded and have also acted as a catalyst for more people to question what’s happening on our planet, why, and ask themselves what can we do about it. The number of people asking questions today is more so than ever before, and although sometimes it presents itself and seems like chaos, perhaps we are simply experiencing birthing pains as human transitions into a new experience. The more this kind of activity happens, the more our collective eye begins to see our planet in another light. The veil is being lifted.

“Mainstream UFO Disclosure” Continues As CIA Releases Thousands of UFO Documents

What Happened: (Photo Credit: An Unidentified Flying Object is pictured over Bulawayo, in what is now Zimbabwe. Barney Wayne). President Trump recently signed a bill into law requiring multiple government affiliated organizations, like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to release all of the information and data they are withholding from the public pertaining to “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon” (UAP), also known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). In compliance, the CIA released thousands of more documents on top of the millions they’ve  released over the past decade. This in no way means that the agency has released “everything they know” with regards to UFOs. Being a UFO researcher myself for more than fifteen years, I am positive that we will never get more than the tip of the iceberg, officially, when it comes to the knowledge and information that intelligence agencies around the world have gathered about the phenomenon. This information most likely includes what they are, how they are controlled, where they come from and more.

Nonetheless there are some very interesting documents that clearly indicate these objects are real, that they’ve been tracked on radar, photographed and videotaped performing maneuvers that no man made piece of machinery can. They are constantly observed defying our known laws of aerodynamics.

UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis are no longer taboo, but what seems to be a concern to many in the field is the fact that mainstream media organizations and governments are in a coordinated process of disclosing the reality of these objects after a decades long campaign of denial, secrecy, and ridicule that placed the subject in the “conspiracy theory” bin. So the question is, why all of a sudden legitimize the topic? There are so many examples of mainstream media and the “powers that be” taking legitimate events and twisting the masses perception of them. Are we going to see the same thing with the UFO phenomenon? Will there be an unnecessary threat narrative? Should we rely on ourselves, our own research, information and experiences to explore this topic or should we simply listen to what we are told by governments? Can we rely on governments and mainstream media for any accurate and honest coverage of this topic?

The phenomenon encompasses a wide range of topics and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. There are thousands if not millions of examples, cases and “contactees.” We cannot generalize the behaviour these objects and the intelligence behind it based on a few cases that will be made popular within the mainstream.  We’ve written about this topic in depth since our inception in 2009. If you want to sift through our article archive, you can do so here. As far as a deeper discussion with regards to “mainstream UFO disclosure” and why there are concerns, you can refer to the fairly recently articles I’ve published below:

And Just Like That, UFO ‘Crash Retrievals’ Are Now Mainstream

A Question About Extraterrestrials on Everybody’s Mind: Are They A Threat? 

Declassified FBI Document Mentions Nikola Tesla’s Contact With “Space People”

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.

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, and today the topic has gained even more ‘credibility’ given that multiple governments have now confirmed the existence of these objects. There is no shortage of radar tracking data, video evidence, photo evidence and high ranking witness testimony that’s now available within the public domain. This seems to be confusing many people, as “mainstream UFO disclosure” is taking off after a decades long campaign of “ridicule and secrecy.”(Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter).

Nikola Tesla, who was born prior to Oberth, also had a strong interest when it came to the idea of life on other planets. There are many examples documenting this fact. For example, in an interview he gave to Time at the age of 75, Tesla stated the following:

I think that nothing can be more important than interplanetary communication. It will certainly come someday, and the certitude that there are other human beings in the universe, working, suffering, struggling, like ourselves, will produce a magic effect on mankind and will form the foundation of a universal brotherhood that will last as long as humanity itself.

No doubt that contact, communication and relationships with beings from other worlds would have huge implications and change human consciousness forever. It would truly leave, as I’ve said many times before, no aspect of humanity untouched.

There are many more examples and interesting statements from Tesla which we will get to later, but first I wanted to draw your attention to some declassified Federal Bureau of Investigation Documents (FBI) that were kept by the agency pertaining to Tesla. The document is a record of an “Interplanetary Sessions Newsletter” from 1957. The newsletter seems to be a printed promotion of a lecture to be given by George Van Tassel. The newsletter appears to be written by writer Margaret Storm, along with what appears to be her husband, John. What’s interesting to ask is, why was the FBI so interested to the point where they documented these meetings, discussions and gatherings? Why did they keep records of this specific newsletter? Is it because they had a heavy interest in the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon? Remember, this is from the 1950’s, today we now know that governments and intelligence agencies, like the FBI, have had a long and documented interest in the phenomenon.

Part of the document reads as follows,

Margaret Storm has been assigned to certain work with the Space People, she is writing a book – Return of the Dove – a story of the life of Nikola Tesla, scientist, and the part his inventions will play in the New Age. Much of the data for this book has been supplied to Mrs. Storm through transcripts received on the Tesla set, a radio-type machine invented by Tesla in 1938 for Interplanetary Communication. Tesla died in 1943 and his engineers did not build the Tesla set until after his death. It was placed in operation in 1950 and since that time the Tesla engineers have been in close touch with space ships. The Space People have visited the Tesla engineers many times, and have told us that Tesla was a Venusian, brought to this planet as a baby, in 1856, and left with Mr. and Mrs. Tesla in a remote mountain province in what is now Yogoslavia. Tesla’s connection with the Space People…was not revealed until 1950.

Whether or not you believe this is up to you, as there is no real way to verify the claims. The document brings up more related UFO phenomenon.

As far as George Van Tassel goes, he  had a long career in aviation, starting off with Douglas Aircraft and then moving on to Hughes and finishing with Lockheed. In the early 50’s he went public claiming he had contact experiences with people from space. According to him, these beings issued warnings of destruction given humanity’s ways along with messages of universal peace. After this they apparently began instructing Tassel on how to construct a building that could reverse the aging process. It was called “The Integration” and the project consumed all of his time He claimed the instructions for the device came from extraterrestrials from the planet Venus. He apparently died of a heart attack shortly before the first demonstration was set to take place. (source1)(source2)

Having studied the lore of the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon for more than 15 years now, one thing I find particularly interesting are the stories and encounters that involve messages of concern about the direction humanity is needed and the urgent need to change our course to avoid poverty, war, hunger, environmental destruction and disaster. There are countless examples of this, one of many would be the encounter more than 60 school children had in Zimbabwe in 1994. I emphasize again that there are thousands of examples, and the corroboration and similarities of these messages of supposed contact experiences is truly interesting to say the least.

If you’d like to dive into the benevolent (“good”) or malevolent (“bad”) discussion, you can do so in an article I recently published here.

Just because the claims in the document cannot be verified, does not mean that Tesla’s interest in extraterrestrial communication is not verified. As mentioned earlier in the article, it is. For example, according to the Library of Congress, Tesla claimed to have received radio communications from Mars. They cite an article from the Richmond Times purported to offer an extensive description and commentary of his supposed discovery. “As he sat beside his instrument on the hillside in Colorado, in the deep silence of that austere, inspiring region, where you plant your feet in gold and your head brushes the constellations — as he sat there one evening, alone, his attention, exquisitely alive at that juncture, was arrested by a faint sound from the receiver — three fairy taps, one after the other, at a fixed interval. What man who has ever lived on this earth would not envy Tesla that moment!” 

A direct quote from Tesla below, taken from his piece, “Talking With Planets.”

I can never forget the first sensations I experienced when it dawned upon me that I had observed something possibly of incalculable consequences to mankind. I felt as though I were present at the birth of a new knowledge or the revelation of a great truth. Even now, at times, I can vividly recall the incident, and see my apparatus as though it were actually before me. My first observations positively terrified me, as there was present in the them something mysterious, not to say supernatural, and I was alone in my laboratory at night; but that time the idea of these disturbances being intelligently controlled signals did not yet present itself to me.

The changes I noted were taking place periodically, and with such a clear suggestion of number and order that they were not traceable to any cause then known to me. I was familiar, of course, with such electrical disturbances as are produced by the sun, Aurora Borealis and earth currents, and I was sure as I could be of any fact that these variations were due to none of these causes. The nature of my experiments precluded the possibility of the changes being produced by atmospheric disturbances, as has been rashly asserted by some. It was some time afterward when the thought flashed upon my mind that the disturbances I had observed might be due to an intelligent control. Although I could not decipher their meaning, it was impossible for me to think of them as having been entirely accidental. The feeling is constantly growing on me that I had been the first to hear the greeting of one planet to another…I was not merely beholding a vision, but had caught sight of a great and profound truth.

Another example of Tesla’s thoughts, in his own words:

Others may scoff at this suggestion…(of) communicating with one of our heavenly neighbors, as Mars…or treat it as a practical joke, but I have been in deep earnest about it ever since I made my first observations in Colorado Springs…At the time, there existed no wireless plant other than mine that could produce a disturbance perceptible in a radius of more than a few miles. Furthermore, the conditions under which I operated were ideal, and I was well trained for the work. The character of the disturbances recorded precluded the possibility of their being of terrestrial origin, and I also eliminated the influence of the sun, moon and Venus. As I then announced, the signals consisted in a regular repetition of numbers, and subsequent study convinced me that they must have emanated from Mars, the planet having just then been close to the earth. (source)

Final Thoughts: It’s quite clear that Tesla had a strong interest in extraterrestrial life and attempted communication. It’s amazing how he was the first person to develop equipment that could pick up on signals coming from space as well as other planets. Today, signals of unknown origin are commonplace in the scientific community, massive radio bursts and other anomalies are commonly detected.

We’ve written about this (UFO/extraterrestrial) topic since our inception in 2009, and if you’re interested in browsing through our articles on the subject you can do so here.

As Tesla alludes to early on in this article, contact has huge implications. It will and is currently forcing humanity to look at a broader view of reality and entertain concepts that perhaps once did not fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Through all stages of human history, plausible concepts and even ones that are backed by evidence and examples have always faced harsh opposition and resistance.

We are still a very young race and no doubt there are truths waiting ‘out there’ for us to discover. One thing is for certain, we definitely do not have our affairs here on planet Earth in order. As we grow it seems we question our lives more and more, what we are doing here and why we do it. We have the potential to create a much better human experience for all life on the planet  We seem to continually put our ability to change the world for the better into the hands of those who may not have our best interests at heart. Somehow, someway, it’s time for us to take responsibility and begin creating a human experience that resonates with all and is in harmony with mother Earth. How do we do this? I don’t know, but I do know that staying silent, not exploring and not expanding our consciousness is not the answer. We need to be able to talk about controversial topics openly, and those who oppose mainstream narratives should not be ridiculed nor censored.

For ages this idea has been proclaimed in the consummately wise teachings of religion, probably not alone as a means of insuring peace and harmony among men, but as a deeply found truth. The Buddhist expresses it in one way, the Christian in another, but both say the same: We are all one. – Nikola Tesla (source)

A Deep Discussion About The “Galactic Federation.” Could This E.T. Alliance Be Real? (Podcast)

CE Founder Joe Martino and myself  discussed this topic in depth in a recent podcast episode. You can access the full podcast episode here

The idea of a “Galactic Federation” comprised of different extraterrestrial beings who are part of a benevolent alliance received mainstream attention approximately one month ago when Haim Eshed, former head of Israel’s Defense Ministry’s space directorate for 30 years, General and respected professor claimed that the U.S. & Israel have been in contact with intelligent life for a long time.  He claimed that humanity is not yet ready and we do not have our affairs in order to be welcomed into the galactic community, which includes a “Galactic Federation.”

His words were understandably met with ridicule by media outlets. This is interesting to observe given that the topic of UFOs has been taken seriously within the mainstream as of late. The existence of UFOs performing manevuers no man-made piece of machinery can has been confirmed. This is no longer taboo, and neither is the extraterrestrial hypothesis as an explanation for the origin of these objects. CNN and the New York Times provide a few of many examples. Linked within those articles you’ll find a deeper discussion about “mainstream media UFO disclosure,” as it’s something many seem to be concerned about.

As far as a Galactic Federation goes, Eshed’s claims are not where the idea comes from. This idea is decades old and comes from many “channelers”,  people who claim to be in telepathic or physical contact with beings from the federation. It came from a 1977 mainstream media broadcast that was interrupted, and it’s also mentioned in a declassified CIA document from the 1980’s showing an attempt to “remote view” the “Galactic Federation” headquarters on Earth.

Again, all of this and more is discussed in a recent podcast (listen) episode Joe Martino (CE Founder) and myself had about it.  One thing we often chuckle at in our research: the subjects that much of the public and academia ridicule as silly and un-credible are the ones the governments and intelligence agencies spend billions researching and using themselves. Below is a clip from the episode.  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

Three Eminent Epidemiologists Explain Why They Strongly Oppose Lockdowns For Covid-19

Censorship of information by Big-Tech, all of whom have strong connections to Department of Defense agencies and big politics, is at an all time high. Not only has a sitting president had his social media accounts completely wiped out,  but thousands of doctors, scientists, journalists and people have had the same thing happen to them. Regardless of your views and what you believe, whether you are “left” or “right”, this is quite concerning. This type of censorship comes under the guise of good will, claiming that freedom of speech is causing harm, but this, in many cases, simply isn’t true. We’ve see academic thought, opinion, evidence and research removed from social media, especially when it comes to Covid. Any information that opposes the narrative that’s constantly beamed out by mainstream media or government health authorities seems to come under a watchful eye. A political scientist like Dr. Anthony Fauci is given free reign, instant virality and air time yet other renowned experts in the field have their voice silenced and never get a chance to speak to the masses. This has many people questioning what’s really going on here? Open scientific discussion is being stifled.

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 (source)

Because this article is presenting a discussion of three renowned scientists who oppose government measures, I am also concerned that it will be “flagged” and perhaps labelled as “fake news.” When this happens, not only is the discussion and article completely censored from our followers but our social media accounts, like our Facebook Page, is punished. As a result of the “flag” our algorithms are adjusted and anything we post with this “flag” on our page is essentially blocked from our followers. This is why we are moving away from Facebook and asking people who wish to keep in touch with us to join us on Telegram, and/or our email list.

Below is a video of Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media.  Follow their twitter account here.

The declaration explains why these health professionals and scientists strongly oppose lockdown measures, and also brings up the topic of herd immunity. In the video below they explain their belief of why there should be a different response to the pandemic.