Ætherna

Bulletin Board

Home >> News

News

This article is not meant to push anything on anyone. It is meant to help people make a big transition in a short amount of time if you so choose. The key word is choice. Titles, labels and identifications are often limiting, but decisions and commitments we make to ourselves can often come with unlimited benefits.

My personal journey to going vegan was not easy. I can’t eat gluten, so the initial idea of committing to a vegan lifestyle felt like I had nothing left to eat. Every person has their own perceptions and limitations and every one of them are valid until we reach a point where they no longer serve.

In my experience, I stayed a vegetarian for quite some time. For almost three years I would try committing to being vegan for a few weeks and fail. I was gentle with myself about it, but it was no longer a struggle the day I sat down and committed to seeing the truth.

I decided that to motivate myself, I needed to understand what livestock farming looked like. I was aware of the health benefits and aware of how animal agriculture impacted the environment, but I had always justified not watching the terrible videos on the internet.

I figured I might as well check out the actual conditions each species was subjected to, in order to avoid any denial that might exist. I told myself I would make whatever personal choice I wanted to after I did this research.

How This Decision Came Easily 

The first video I saw showed an injured cow getting violently kicked and beaten while she couldn’t get up. I was horrified. I noticed a part of myself try to justify ending my “research,” but chose to take a different approach this time.

 I decided that if I’ve been eating this food for decades, I might as well commit just one hour of my time to investigating what the process of getting my food looked like. I figure this was the only way to make an honest decision about what I was eating.

I knew this way, the decision would be up to me. I’m a firm believer in making clear decisions based on all the details, so I had to see what those details were.

After one hour, I knew eating animal products was in the past for me. There weren’t words to describe the horror that goes on, and I had no real idea about the implications of the industry I was supporting until I saw the truth with my own eyes.

How to Properly Make a Decision For Yourself

The subconscious mind is programmed through repetition. If we have repeatedly seen ads and positive confirmation regarding eating animals or animal products for years, this is simply embedded in our perception. This isn’t an excuse, but it is a reason to be gentle on ourselves as we see these things.

This bombardment in the media has desensitized us over time and even made us defensive because we associate our habits with our identity. If our lifestyle feels threatened, we interpret this as a threat to our survival and our fight/flight mechanisms in the reptilian brain are activated to defend ourselves immediately. This often stunts our ability to investigate with an open mind. This is completely normal, but being aware of it can help us to move beyond this step.

If we want to change our programming, it requires a good amount of research and emotionality to actively change what has already been stored subconsciously regarding our relationship to food.

Exercise Self-Compassion

This is nobody’s fault, and nobody should be forced to do this either. But if we want to make autonomous decisions, we must investigate both sides of what’s happening. There is a tremendous amount of financial incentive for large corporations to keep information hidden and to repeatedly feed us with ads about the “benefits” of animal products.

Everyone is entitled to their own lifestyle and decisions, but they should be made with information that is not just what we see on television or through advertisements that are geared to create a specific perception.

Check Out World-Renowned Activist James Aspey

After an incredible interview with James Aspey, a vegan activist who did a 365-day vow of silence for animals, I learned some more excellent tips and tools to keep me dedicated to my journey. James has over 30 million views on some of his beautiful speeches and is a sensational international speaker. He is also a beautiful human being who has a wonderful story about his own transformation.

The Process of Becoming Vegan Overnight

The First Step: Awareness

  1. Dedicate one hour of your time to watching what happens in slaughter houses. Check out what happens to every species of animal involved. See the process of how your food is created. This way you get to make an educated decision, independent of the media.
  2. James says we must try to imagine the argument from both sides. He isn’t referring to “eating animal products vs. not eating animal products.” He is referring to looking at the perspective of how we are personally impacted, as well as how the victims are impacted.

The Second Step: Educate Yourself

1. Learn about the health benefits of being vegan, while looking at the drawbacks of the lifestyle you are currently living. Take the time to evaluate this with an open mind. If you didn’t already know, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen, along with tobacco and asbestos. James shares this as a resource:

https://www.forksoverknives.com/10-things-wish-americans-knew-meat-dairy-industries/#gs.mCqxTRE

2. Learn how animal agriculture impacts the environment. The best source that James Aspey shares is:

cowspiracy.com/facts

3. Learn about vegan alternatives, so you know what you will need to find substitutions for. I suggest simply making a list of foods you need to cut out of your diet and go to the grocery store to pick up these alternatives. Nowadays, you can find almost all alternatives for animal products at your local supermarket.

4. Identify your potential road blocks/fears and create proactive strategies to move through these moments. For example, what do you do if you are stuck late at work and need an emergency snack? How can you make these situations as easy for yourself as possible?

5. Join community support groups online and subscribe to some cool vegan Youtube channels for food recipes!

Some Tips/Suggestions:

  1. Don’t be afraid to ask questions about the things you’re uncertain of.
  2. Don’t stress yourself out if you make mistakes. This is how we learn.
  3. Don’t push your beliefs on others. Change doesn’t come from fighting a problem, it comes from being for the solution. Sharing is different than preaching, and we can’t know someone else’s reasoning for their decisions.

Three principles to remember:

  1. Stored subconscious guilt is the biggest cause of self-sabotage for behaviour. If you really want to make the commitment to a new lifestyle and have done your research, remember that what you eat can go so far as to affect your behaviour too.
  2. Every single person makes a difference. No one person is too small to make an impact. Change happens when many individuals take accountability for their lifestyles and habits, to create a collective shift. Your decisions matter.
  3. Where you spend your dollars supports an industry to be upheld. You are generally supporting an industry or not with your funding. Choice by choice, you are a part of the problem or the solution to change.
Check out this interview with James Aspey! He will teach you everything you need to know, and he has a heart of gold that will inspire you to take the next steps!

Finally, thanks to the internet we are becoming aware of just how much food is being wasted on a regular basis. Supermarkets are throwing out astronomical amounts of unsold food that is actually perfectly fine to eat. When the amount of homeless people who don’t always have access to food, and the many families that are struggling every day to put food on the table to feed their children, is this really the option that we have come up with? To simply throw the food in the garbage because it cannot turn a profit?

In the U.S. alone, $165 Billion is wasted on food every. Single. Year. When the UN estimates that solving the world’s hunger problem would cost a measly $30 billion in comparison, we can clearly see that something is very wrong here. The unsold food from the supermarkets might not be the answer to solving world hunger, but it certainly paints a picture of where our priorities are, and at least shows us that this has to change. Two men were arrested in the United States in 2016 for taking this food and trying to feed the hungry.

Thankfully, as awareness towards this issue continues to be raised we are seeing a number of groups organizations and even countries doing something about it. France has made it illegal for supermarkets to throw away unsold food, forcing them to find other, more beneficial options for their perfectly fine food. Others are taking that food that would otherwise be garbage and feeding the hungry.

World renowned chef, Mossimo Bottura, for example has opened up a 5 star restaurant called Refettorio Ambrosiano in Milan, Italy in 2015 that accepts donations of unsold food from supermarkets and utilizes volunteer work from professional chefs who want to donate their time to help feed the poor and hungry. Why should the homeless people only be fed soup when there is so much more food available that would otherwise be thrown out? These chefs prepare gourmet meals and the guests are served rather than having to wait in line. Bottura says this is as much about treating those less fortunate with dignity as it is about feeding them. Check it out!

Refettorio Ambrosiano has served more than 16,000 meals, and saved 25 tons of food surplus from the landfills. As Bottura says, this is a revolutionary idea! Hopefully other chefs and restaurateurs will be inspired to follow suit and encourage their local supermarkets to donate to initiatives such as these.

Check out Bottura’s book of recipes Il Pane E Oro, here, and donate to this cause to end food waste and feed the hungry.

Much Love

Anna Hunt, Staff Writer
Waking Times

According to the beliefs of several ancient cultures, the early morning hours may be ideal for meditation and spiritual reflection. New age and spiritual circles will also claim that if you wake between the hours of 3am and 5am, you may be going through a spiritual awakening.

Although it’s difficult to prove if any of these claims are true, I would like to share some beliefs of the Secoya tribe of Ecuador. This indigenous tribe’s way of life is entwined with its traditions and ceremonies, even today, when most of the world has become Westernized.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Spiritual Hours of Shamanic Healing Ceremonies

The shaman elders of the Secoya conduct powerful healing ceremonies using plant medicines. In their culture, they plan these gatherings during late night hours and early morning. They believe that each night, at around 3am, benevolent spirits descend upon the earth. As well, the spirits of most of the earthly creatures are finally at rest.

The shaman elders believe that the angelic spirits are compassionate. They are here to help in our journey of self-healing and preservation. It is during the hours of 3am to 6am that the shaman will sing the most effervescent icaros, medicine songs, to invite these spirits to the ceremony.

Time of Letting Go in Chinese Medicine

The Secoya are not alone. Many non-western cultures place esoteric significance on different times of the day and night. Another example is in Chinese medicine. The 12 meridians in the body rejuvenate with qi – life force or energy – during different hours. As qi cycles through the body, each organ meridian is most active for about 2 hours during a 24-hour period.

In Chinese medicine, the hours between 5am and 7am are ideal for meditation. This time is when qi cycles through the large intestine meridian, closely associated with letting go. It is the time we are best equipped (energetically, at least) to deal with issues of distress, confusion, compulsive habits, rigidity, irritability, and depression.

Source: fiveseasonsmedicine.com

Morning Meditation in the Modern World

Even some modern psychologists agree. A daily morning meditation practice sets a positive tone for the entire day. Laura Maciuika, clinical psychologist and author of Conscious Calmstates:

Before breakfast is generally a good time to meditate. But for beginners, especially folks who are feeling stressed out, meditating at all can be daunting. In that case, I recommend simply putting your attention on slower, deeper breathing—even for just five minutes—early in the day before getting busy with anything.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Morning meditation can be very beneficial. Even if you don’t buy into the ancient beliefs of the Secoya and the Chinese, consider a very practical perspective: during morning hours, the mind and body are calmer. Most importantly, there are often fewer distractions.

Of course, you have to consider your life responsibilities and work and family schedules before committing to a meditation practice. I have three children, so I get that mornings can be busy. If you can only meditate at 7pm, then by all means don’t pass up the opportunity. It is better than not doing it at all.

If early morning just does not work for you, plan to sit down daily at any other time. If your schedule is completely sporadic, meditating at different times each day is fine, too.

Consider, though, that a meditation may not be as effective when you are overly-stimulated, tired or hungry. When meditating right before bedtime, the brain may think you are just winding down for sleep. The goal of meditation is to invigorate and wake up the brain – not to shut it down. Finally, try not to meditate right after eating because the body uses lots of energy to digest food.

Final Thoughts

There really is no way to know if any of the ancient beliefs or new-age claims about morning hours are true. Meditation and other spiritual practices are extremely personal. Thus, only the individual can assess if the time of day affects what they experience in meditation. Furthermore, it often takes a seasoned practitioner to notice the subtle nuances of the different approaches to spiritual and esoteric practices.

What I do know is that mounting scientific research is showing us that meditation heals. It restores the body and heals the mind. A morning meditation, even if it’s only 10 minutes, is a powerful self-care tool. And there’s a bonus: if you get it done in the morning, then you don’t have to stress out about making time for it during the rest of your day.

Read more articles by Anna Hunt.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Anna Hunt is writer, yoga instructor, mother of three, and lover of healthy food. She’s the founder of Awareness Junkie, an online community paving the way for better health and personal transformation. She’s also the co-editor at Waking Times, where she writes about optimal health and wellness. Anna spent 6 years in Costa Rica as a teacher of Hatha and therapeutic yoga. She now teaches at Asheville Yoga Center and is pursuing her Yoga Therapy certification. During her free time, you’ll find her on the mat or in the kitchen, creating new kid-friendly superfood recipes.

This article () was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Waking Times or its staff.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter. Ancient Cultures Suggest Morning Meditation May Lead to a Deeper Experience was last modified: February 20th, 2018 by WakingTimes

Snowy Hydro Ltd., Australia’s largest hydropower producer, is considering raising as much as A$2 billion ($1.6 billion) by the end of 2018 for a project expansion, which will boost its 4,100 megawatt capacity by as much as 50 percent.

The objective of PtG technology is to enable the balance of supply and demand for power in electricity networks with renewable energy. Importantly, as the use of renewable energy continues to grow there will be an ever-increasing need to support ramping and smoothing of renewables and to enable storage of the over-production via transfer of PtG on an as-needed basis.

The Influence, Guest
Waking Times

Reminder: the war on drugs is still in full effect.

It may be easy to forget with more and more states turning to legalized recreational and medical marijuana. It can get lost when we hear so many government officials responding to the opioid crisis with calls for compassionate treatment instead of harsh punishments.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But it is happening nonetheless.

Although felt daily in communities across the country, this fact only seems to break into the general consciousness every now and then. A reminder came earlier this week when the FBI released new crime statistics showing a 1.6 percent increase in marijuana-related arrests in 2016 compared to 2015.

The figures represent a change in the overall trend, with marijuana related arrests declining steadily since 2008, and even hitting a two-decade low in 2015. But the numbers still show over 650,000 arrests made in an endless pursuit to rid the country of a non-lethal drug.

To put everything in perspective, the FBI says, “Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 10,662,252 arrests in 2016. Of these arrests, 515,151 were for violent crimes, and 1,353,283 were for property crimes.”

So police arrested more people for marijuana than they did all violent crimes combined.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Again for the people in the back: at a time when more states are legalizing marijuana because they no longer consider it a crime, we are still arresting more marijuana users than violent offenders. To be clear, this country would be thrown into sheer chaos if people committed violent crimes at the same rates they use marijuana. So the fact that arrests for those crimes are lower can be seen as a positive sign in at least one regard.

But the statistics still speak to how law enforcement agencies use our tax dollars and where their priorities lie. It’s a question of resources, both in terms of time and money. In 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union found that marijuana arrests cost taxpayers around $3.6 billion in 2010 alone.

How much better could society function if that same $3.6 billion were used to combat property crimes and violent crimes? Or better yet, diverted to other social programs that look to curb recidivism and lower crime rates in the first place? We as citizens have a right to know and decide how our tax money is spent, and if marijuana is a problem, how many people consider it a $3.6 billion problem?

While it’s unclear what caused the uptick in arrests, the fact is they’re still happening. Prevailing attitudes towards marijuana have been changing for years, and in all likelihood they will continue to change as the country as a whole takes a more relaxed attitude toward the drug. Yet every day people are being arrested and forced to pay the penalty for something that may not even be a crime a few miles away. However this news moves you, remember, the war on drugs is far from over.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

This article (FBI: Marijuana Arrests Outpace All Violent Crime) was originally published by The Influence and is re-posted here with permission. 

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter FBI: Marijuana Arrests Outpace All Violent Crime was last modified: February 19th, 2018 by WakingTimes

Classrooms at the SU Matrullas school in Orocovis are now entirely powered by solar panels and battery storage systems supplied by Sonnen GmbH and local developer Pura Energia. 

Classrooms at the SU Matrullas school in Orocovis are now entirely powered by solar panels and battery storage systems supplied by Sonnen GmbH and local developer Pura Energia. 

Brendan D. Murphy, Guest
Waking Times

Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.  – Bruce Cathie

In recent years the defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature. It is high time that the world took heed of what the critics are saying, not least of all because of the medical and health ramifications.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The notion of peer review has long occupied special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on, rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats).

The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.

In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.

As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “[P]eer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”[1]

Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked.[2]

Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:

“Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts…There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.”[3]

Brian Martin asks us rhetorically:

What do [scientists] have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.[4]

Herein lies the problem in moving science forward and shifting paradigms. A paradigm is only as malleable (or mutable) as the minds and egos invested in it.

The Problem of “Experts”

The reality is (as any real scientist will tell you) that scientists are prone — just like lay people — to being cathected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they have been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained accolades or financial remuneration as a result. Scientists, like laypeople, have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos — partially due to their “expertise” and academic titles, qualifications, theories, etc.

Once those hefty egos — belonging to people generally known as “experts” — rise to positions of power and/or influence, they can calcify the flow of scientific progress as well as the understanding of new discoveries or theories — particularly if they end up acting as “peer reviewers” at high levels in prestigious publications. In that capacity, too many become mere gatekeepers and seek not to facilitate innovation or vital new Copernican-scale revelations, but to maintain the status quo which got them there in the first place.

Dr Malcolm Kendrick comments in his excellent book Doctoring Data that, “by definition, anyone who is an ‘expert’ in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway.”[5]Close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out. The players with the deepest pockets have the funds to buy all of the “experts” they need to sell a bogus product or ideology to an unsuspecting public.

Consider the following words from The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton (pictured below):

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[6] (emphasis

added)

The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton

Peer review, as a “quasi-sacred” process that somehow supposedly transcends the foibles and follies human nature has taken on sacred ritual status. Has the paper been blessed by the Peer Review Priest? Peer review is held to be more than just pragmatically useful and functional (which clearly it is not, generally speaking) — it is held as a transcendent, almost magical, organizing force occurring in the heavenly ivory towers of Science, which somehow avoids falling prey to human weaknesses by virtue of those humans’ lofty qualifications as “scientists” or “experts.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Scientists, of course, aren’t quite human — they are something more, something pure, something that the layman can never be. Students undergo a magical alchemical process as they proceed through educational institutions and emerge transformed from their chrysalis with their doctorates, masters, stethoscopes and equations. They are the Chosen Ones, the purified, the holy, the redeemed, the righteous. They do not have to answer to the lowly non-scientific peasantry – let alone unbelieving heretics.

It is clear, however, that not only is the popular view of peer review misleading, but the most prestigious publications are some of the very worst offenders. Significant scientific publications — for example, the journal Nature — have a well documented history of prejudice against findings or hypotheses that run contrary to established scientific dogma.

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in May 2000, Canadian-based researcher, David Sackett, said that he would “never again lecture, write, or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practice,” over his concern that “experts” are stifling new ideas. He wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory and I think it’s a brilliant proposition.

Sackett says that “…progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.”[7]

Trusting “experts” in oncology, for example, is generally a very good way to artificially speed one’s trip to the grave, particularly if one has metastatic cancer (allopathic medicine is notoriously ineffective in that realm). And yet “experts” are now on a rarified level that perhaps only popes and celebrities can understand — they are virtually demigods today.

In the main, “experts” are those people in the establishment who espouse the mainstream dogma and reify the politically correct belief structures. “Experts” are lionized because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established (and profitable) beliefs — and the media is complicit in this. If you want to be horribly misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to just about any mainstream news media outlet and listen to the establishment’s “experts.”

Is it not time to get the crusty, rigidified, and corrupt Old Guard out of the way so we can let science move forward?

Is Most Research Just Bullshit?

Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.[8]

Most “experts” in medicine are, psychologically speaking, simply engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises, vigorously affirming and defending their ego’s (lucrative) construction of the world. To paraphrase physicist Max Planck, medicine, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”

Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment’s truths, narratives, and designated “experts” then researchers who yield findings deviating from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, fringe nuts, pseudo-scientists and so on, regardless of how meticulous their methods, and irrefutable their results.

The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment’s reality.

Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained.

Peer “Review” Lets Garbage Through — and Lots of it!

“Peer review” censorship exemplifies the neophobia in the world of science which serves to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious epistemologies and results, as it is meant to. This supposed mechanism of “quality control” has resulted not only in the dismissal of much important and credible research, but it has also let fraudulent research –and lots of it! — be published at the same time. Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare well, even if they are badly flawed — or outright rubbish!

David Kaplan, a professor of pathology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, has stated that,

Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that: authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation.[9]

Is it any wonder that John Ionnidis reported in his famous 2005 paper that, “Most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields”? Given the already outlined problems, is it really surprising that, in Ionnidis words, “Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias”?[10]

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth), has written,

The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants — collecting money and spending it — than to scientific imagination or creativity.[11]

In general, peer reviewers — generally not time-rich — don’t try to replicate experiments and rarely even request the raw data supporting a paper’s conclusions. Who has the time for all that? Thus, peer review is, according to Richard Smith writing in Peer review in health sciences,

thought to be slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud.[12] (emphasis added)

What about fake peer review? This is where the corrupt and abysmal becomes the theatre of the absurd. For example, Berlin-based Springer Nature, who publishes the aforementioned Naturejournal announced the retraction of 64 articles in 10 journals in an August 18th statement in 2015. This followed an internal investigation which found fabricated peer-review write-ups linked to the articles.

The purge followed

similar discoveries of “fake peer review” by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”.[13]

Yes, that means reviewers that don’t exist — recommended as “reviewers” by the people submitting their work for review. Imagine writing a paper and being able to nominate a non-existent person to review your work, and the contact email supplied to the publisher for this purpose is actually one you made up, which routes the paper back to you (unbeknownst to the publisher), so that you can then secretly carry out a (favourable) review of your own work under a pseudonym!

It’s being done, folks, this is not a joke.

In response to fake peer review some publishers have actually ended the practice of author-suggested reviewers.[14]

And now for the Conceptual Penis…

Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” — what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.

The authors tell us:

The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.[15] (emphasis added)

And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017. It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.[16]

In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.

As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one — not even Boghossian and Lindsay — knows what it is actually saying.

Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.”[17] (emphasis added)

The Spectacular Success of Hoax Papers and Non-existent Authors

In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.

Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist.[18] (emphasis added)

So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors — while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.

Going back at least as far as 1996 journalists and researchers have been getting spoof papers published in conferences or journals to deliberately expose weaknesses in academic quality controls. “Physicist Alan Sokal (of the famous Sokal Affair) succeeded in the journal Social Text in 1996,” while Harvard science journalist John Bohannon revealed in a 2013 issue of Science that he had duped over 150 open-access journals into publishing “a deliberately flawed study.”[19]Bohannon organized submission of the flawed study (technically, many different but very similar variations of the study) to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months. 255 went through the whole editing process to the point of either acceptance or rejection.

He wrote:

Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.[20]

The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct “peer review,” fully 70% accepted the paper.[21]

If peer review was a transparent and accountable process, according to Gary Novak,

there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity…Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it…[A] culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed.[22]

Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.[23]

In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”[24]

If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth — while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted — then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”? What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?

Clearly the problem of corruption and conflicts of interest have been increasingly on the radar of professional academics for some time now, so much so that it has been the subject of an increasing number of harshly critical articles and editorials. Conveying the depth and breadth of deception to the “uninitiated,” however, presents a unique challenge. And it isn’t just conflict of interest and corruption to blame for the failure of peer review, there is human bias, shoddy review work, fake reviewers and fraud, and varying other human interests to factor in.

At the very least we need to cease indoctrinating students into the dogma that all good things have been peer reviewed, and the converse: anything that has not been peer reviewed is clearly blasphemous and crafted by the unholy hands of sinners. In the meantime, the public needs to be warned: peer review is largely a sham and will not protect you or your family from medical pseudo-science or dangerous pharmaceutical products. Your doctor’s word should not be blindly trusted, especially when we know that doctors rely absurdly heavily on information (read: propaganda) provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself (can you say “conflicted”?!) in developing their views and opinions.

I can’t help but cringe when I hear people ask if a study has been “peer-reviewed.” The response this question most often deserves is simply, “Who cares?”

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. — Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Brendan D. Murphy – Co-founder of Global Freedom Movement and host of GFM Radio, Brendan D. Murphyis a leading Australian author, researcher, activist, and musician. His acclaimed non-fiction epic The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science & Spirituality – Book 1 is out now! Come and get your mind blown at www.brendandmurphy.net

“What a wonderful job of collating and integrating you have done! Every person in the field of ‘paranormal’ psychology or related topics should have this book as a major reference.” – Dr. Buryl Payne

“A masterpiece…The Grand Illusion is mind-blowing.” – Sol Luckman, author of Potentiate Your DNA.

“You’ve written the best synthesis of modern science and esoteric science that I’ve seen in 40 years of study in that area. Brilliant!”  – Michael K. Wade

Please visit – www.globalfreedommovement.org

Sources:

[1] DAVID KAPLAN, HOW TO FIX PEER REVIEWHTTP://WWW.NEWMEDIAEXPLORER.ORG/SEPP/2004/01/29/PEER_REVIEW_POLITICS_OF_SCIENCE.HTM

[2] BRIAN MARTIN, STRATEGIES FOR DISSENTING SCIENTISTS, JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION, VOL. 12, №4, 1998, PP. 605–616.

[3] GARY NOVAK, PEER REVIEW IS BROKENHTTP://NOV55.COM/PRV.HTML

[4] MARTIN, OP. CIT.

[5] KENDRICK, 133.

[6] RICHARD HORTON, “GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD: CONSTERNATION, CONFUSION, AND CRACK-UP,” THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 172 (4), 2000.

[7] TOO MANY EXPERTS SPOIL THE SCIENCEHTTP://WWW.ABC.NET.AU/SCIENCE/NEWS/HEALTH/HEALTHREPUBLISH_124166.HTM

[8] MARCIA ANGELL, DRUG COMPANIES & DOCTORS: A STORY OF CORRUPTIONHTTP://WWW.NYBOOKS.COM/ARTICLES/2009/01/15/DRUG-COMPANIES-DOCTORSA-STORY-OF-CORRUPTION/

[9] DAVID KAPLAN, HOW TO FIX PEER REVIEWHTTP://WWW.NEWMEDIAEXPLORER.ORG/SEPP/2004/01/29/PEER_REVIEW_POLITICS_OF_SCIENCE.HTM

[10] JOHN IONNIDIS, WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE, PLOS MEDICINE, AUGUST 2005

[11] MARC GIRARD, HTTP://WWW.LALEVA.ORG/ENG/2006/02/FALSE_MEDICAL_RESEARCH_SHOWS_UP_SYSTEMIC_FLAWS.HTML

[12] HTTP://WWW.PEERE.ORG/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2016/05/WILLIS.PDF

[13] EWEN CALLAWAY, FAKED PEER REVIEWS PROMPT 64 RETRACTIONS, HTTP://WWW.NATURE.COM/NEWS/PUBLISHERS-WITHDRAW-MORE-THAN-120-GIBBERISH-PAPERS-1.14763

[14] IBID.

[15] PETER BOGHOSSIAN, ED.D. (AKA PETER BOYLE, ED.D.) AND JAMES LINDSAY, PH.D. (AKA, JAMIE LINDSAY, PH.D.), THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: A SOKAL-STYLE HOAX ON GENDER STUDIESHTTP://WWW.SKEPTIC.COM/READING_ROOM/CONCEPTUAL-PENIS-SOCIAL-CONTRUCT-SOKAL-STYLE-HOAX-ON-GENDER-STUDIES/#.WR_YSMA0SSK.FACEBOOK

[16] IBID.

[17] IBID.

[18] RICHARD VAN NOORDENPUBLISHERS WITHDRAW MORE THAN 120 GIBBERISH PAPERSHTTPS://WWW.NATURE.COM/NEWS/PUBLISHERS-WITHDRAW-MORE-THAN-120-GIBBERISH-PAPERS-1.14763

[19] IBID.

[20] HUNDREDS OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS ACCEPT FAKE SCIENCE PAPER, HTTPS://WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM/HIGHER-EDUCATION-NETWORK/2013/OCT/04/OPEN-ACCESS-JOURNALS-FAKE-PAPER

[21] IBID.

[22] NOVAK, OP.CIT.

[23] RICHARD SMITH, MEDICAL JOURNALS ARE AN EXTENSION OF THE MARKETING ARM OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIESHTTP://JOURNALS.PLOS.ORG/PLOSMEDICINE/ARTICLE?ID=10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.0020138

[24] IONNIDIS, OP. CIT.

This article (Why Scientific Peer Review is a Sham) was originally  published and is copyrighted by Global Freedom Movement and is published here with permission.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter. Why Scientific Peer Review is a Sham was last modified: February 19th, 2018 by WakingTimes

In this minicast, Patagonia launches an online platform in support of local action on climate change and visits one of the greenest U.S. cities to help introduce the new platform, called Action Works.

In this minicast, Patagonia launches an online platform in support of local action on climate change and visits one of the greenest U.S. cities to help introduce the new platform, called Action Works.

In this minicast, Patagonia launches an online platform in support of local action on climate change and visits one of the greenest U.S. cities to help introduce the new platform, called Action Works.

Elizabeth Parris, the CEO of Bioviva USA Inc, has become the very first human being to successfully, from a biological standpoint, reverse the  age of her white blood cells, thanks to her own company’s experimental therapies. Bioviva utilizes intramural and extramural peer-reviewed research to create therapies for age-related diseases (Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart-disease), and now, they have reversed 20 years of ‘telomere shortening’ in a human for the first time.

Telomeres are short segments of DNA that cap the ends of every chromosome and act as a protective feature against wear and tear, which occurs naturally as the human body ages. As we age, these telomeres become shorter and shorter as our cells continue to divide more and more. Eventually they become too short to protect the chromosome, which is what causes our cells to malfunction and age related diseases to start setting in.

In September of last year, the 44 year old volunteered to partake in two of her own company’s experimental gene therapies; one intended to battle stem cell depletion, which happens when we age and leads to various age related diseases, and the other intended to protect against loss of muscle mass with age.

In Parrish’s case, specialized clinical testing in Houston, Texas, revealed that her telomeres were short for her age, which left her vulnerable to age-related diseases earlier on in life.

This type of gene therapy has been tested before, but prior to Parrish, it had only been used to lengthen the telomeres of cultured cells and mice; it has never before been tried on a human patient. The successful trial in mice was conducted by Maria Blasco and her team at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) in Madrid, who reported the telomerase gene result in 2012.

Blasco told The Scientist in an email, “We demonstrated that AAV9-Tert gene therapy was sufficient to delay age-related pathologies and extend both median and maximum longevity in mice. Many pathologies were delayed, including cancer.” (source)

After the gene therapy was completed on Parrish, the company’s website revealed the astonishing results of the experiment:

In March 2016, the same tests were taken again by SpectraCell revealed that her telomeres had lengthened by approximately 20 years, from 6.71kb to 7.33kb. This implies that Parrish’s white blood cells (leukocytes) have become biologically younger. These findings were independently verified by the Brussels-based non-profit HEALES (HEalthy Life Extension Company), and the Biogerontology Research Foundation, a UK-based charity committed to combating age-related diseases.

After learning of the experiment’s success, Parrish remarked that “if these results are anywhere near accurate, we’ve made history.” The company will continue to monitor her blood in the months and years to come, and will be testing new gene therapies to restore age related damage. Researchers still need to determine if the success seen in leukocytes can be extended to other organs and tissues, as well as repeated in other patients. For now, this is the first and only instance of such therapy being used (and successful) on a human, and was intended to prove the safety of this technique. Long term scientific scrutiny is still necessary to say for certain whether this is a safe and viable procedure, but what’s happened so far is almost unbelievable.

It’s a very promising discovery, and one that has already attracted attention from various investment and scientific communities. One example is Deep Knowledge Life Sciences (DKLS), a UK investment fund company which has already made BioViva a portfolio company of theirs.

According to Parish, “the best-case scenario would be that we added 20 years of health onto the leukocytes, and the immune system might be more productive and catch more of the bad guys.” “But we have to wait and find out. The proof will be in the data,” she said.

 

Jeff Street, Contributor
Waking Times

Reality is not what it appears — the ancients knew it, pioneering physicists of the early 2Oth century knew it, and current leading edge scientists are proving it — all is mind.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Big Questions and The Modern Scientific Worldview

Throughout the ages, Mankind has been trying to answer the big questions — What is the nature of existence and reality, what are we, and why are we here?  In our current age, with the ascendance of the ideology of scientific materialism, we have a strong tendency to reject anything that doesn’t fit our materialistic paradigm and label it as “mystical”.  We have become mesmerized by the material world.  Materialism and consumerism run rampant in our society. Lured by the apparent success of the reductionist method that we have used to analyze and understand our world, we have come to view the universe as purely a physical system, working something like a great machine, and with matter being the fundamental substance of reality.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ~Nikola Tesla

Our scientific analytical methods have certainly been successful and have led us to understand the inner workings of matter well enough to create many useful technologies.  But these successes have erroneously led us to conclude that our materialistic view of the universe must be correct and reject other ideas as “mystical” and backward.

The materialistic paradigm persists in the popular and scientific thought despite plenty of evidence that it is indeed not true.  The Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics have both shown that energy is more fundamental than matter.  The pioneers of quantum physics in the early 20th century — Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and others — all came to the same conclusion — that everything is energy and that somehow consciousness is intimately intertwined with it.  And yet this insight seems to have been lost since then.  Physicists are still chasing the fundamental “particle”, and focusing on material phenomena rather than focusing on what energy is, how it forms matter, and what other forms can it take.

And modern science is still largely ignoring the role of consciousness, despite the observations of quantum phenomena that strongly suggest that consciousness is intimately related to the nature of reality.  Mainstream science continues to assume that reality is objective, EG; that it exists independent of the consciousness of the observer despite much evidence to the contrary, and the conclusions of many pioneers of physics.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The accomplished English physicist, astronomer and mathematician, Sir James Jeans, had this to say — “I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe… In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.”  And he wasn’t alone, below Max Plank shares a similar viewpoint.

Reality is Not What it Appears

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” ~Shakespeare, Hamlet

Consciousness is probably the most mysterious and significant phenomena in the universe, so to treat it as irrelevant to understanding reality is a major mistake.  In fact, there have been some very profound experiments (see this video about these experiments) that leave very little doubt that there is an intimate relationship between consciousness and reality.  Leading some to conclude that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe, as many esoteric and mystical philosophies throughout the ages have claimed in one way or another.

It’s not surprising that we might get stuck on the idea that matter is the fundamental substance of reality because this idea is just a natural consequence of our perceptual limitations.  Our sensory apparatus — sight, hearing, smell, touch — provide us a useful representation of the external world, but when it comes to our primary sensory channel, vision, it is well known that we are “seeing” only are very narrow band of energies.  Our eyes detect electromagnetic energy frequencies and convert them to the images and colors that we perceive.  But our eyes only detect an extremely small portion of those frequencies, less than 0.00018%.  And we are only “seeing” the clumps of energy condensed to a slow vibration (EG; matter).  We can’t see all the rest of the energy and how everything is interconnected patterns of energy.

“All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.” ~Bill Hicks

Despite the lesson that the unseen phenomena of electromagnetic radiation should be teaching us we are still largely unaware of how the limitations of our sensory apparatus have conditioned our models of reality.  There are many more unseen phenomena we have yet to detect and understand.  Our visual perceptions are far less complete than we have ever imagined, and this has led to a tenacious conceptual bias that has colored our models of reality.  This bias is interfering with formulating a broader, deeper more accurate model including tackling the big question we’ve been avoiding — what is consciousness and how it is related to reality.

Ancient Cosmological Philosophies – All is Mind

Long before our current scientific age, and for much longer, there were many cultures with a vastly different view of the cosmos.  They saw the universe as intelligent and alive in it’s very fabric; they thought of the cosmos as a great mind, and that our earthly reality was in some sense a grand illusion.  Philosophy continues to explore the nature of reality and consciousness and debate many alternate perspectives.  Amongst contemporary schools of thought, there are those that resonant with the ancient idea that “all is mind”.  This idea has not been lost completely.

“The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” ~Sir James Jeans, Physicist

Science was born from philosophy but it has long since gone its separate way — science focusing on how things work and FACTS and philosophy focusing on MEANING. This is why humanity has lost its heart and it’s soul — facts without meaning are like a ship without a rudder.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10162674340441958,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8962-3608"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Modern science would have us believe that life, consciousness, and intelligence somehow emerged from the mechanizations of the universe by random chance, however improbable. That they were essentially accidents, and hence have no deeper meaning. Yet there are those who believe that it is all deeply meaningful and by design, and hence purposeful.

The Primordial Energy Field and The Emergence of Consciousness

Modern science is beginning to embrace that all is energy and is moving towards a unified energetic field theory, but they still have no clue how deep the rabbit hole goes.  When they figure out the deeper intricacies of atomic energetics and molecular and bio-molecular energetics amazing advancements in technologies will be possible.  And as this unfolds they will begin to realize that consciousness is a process in the energetic field and we will finally bid farewell to the materialistic view of reality that’s has dominated our thinking for so long.

Exactly how consciousness could emerge in the energetic field is unclear but a branch of information and computational theory may ultimately have the answer.  Cellular Automata Theory claims that highly complex and organized patterns and dynamics can emerge from very simple systems containing discrete cells, with a small sets of states, and rules that govern how nearby cells are affected.  And this structure has an interesting similarity to the base predicates of a number of obscure but compelling unified field theories (Zero Point Field Theory, Reciprocal System Theory, and others).  Presumably one of these complex dynamical patterns is the process of consciousness itself — the omni-present intelligence and awareness that permeates the energetic field, the fabric of the universe.

For a very interesting account of the scientific discoveries that have been unfolding over the past twenty years or so related to the energetic field and it’s connections with consciousness check the book The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe.

There are a number of groups doing scientific study of consciousness related physical phenomena and their findings are very interesting.  Explore these organizations and their work to dive deeper into this subject; the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, the International Consciousness Research Laboratories, the Global Consciousness Project, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.  An effort related to the Global Consciousness Project that is about to be launched is the Global Consciousness App.  Check out the video below about this interesting App and project.

Everything is Energy, and Thoughts Are Energy

According to Guy Needler, in his book The History of God, consciousness emerged in a small part of the universal energetic field and gradually increased in awareness until it was fully sentient.  At that point it decided to explore what it was by experimenting with what it could do.  It quickly realized that its thoughts created energy patterns in the field that it existed in.  It also discovered that it could divide its consciousness and focal point of awareness into many smaller parts and perceive from many different perspectives at the same time.  We are each a one of these divisions.  We are all threads of the universal consciousness, and it is experiencing everything we are experiencing.

In the universal mind thoughts are patterns of energy, and these patterns of energy are everything we see — light, matter, galaxies, stars, planets — and everything we can’t see.  And there’s a lot more going on in the part that we can’t see than most of us imagine.  The space that we think of as the one Universe, and with one reality actually holds many parallel realities, which are often referred to as the dimensions or planes of reality.

Because source consciousness is creating all that is with it thoughts and each of us is a thread of source consciousness, our thoughts are also creative.  We don’t realize this because we have forgotten what we are, but we are creating our reality with our thoughts, on an individual and collective basis, all the time.  This is not obvious because our thoughts are erratic and undisciplined, hence our creation is undirected and incoherent.  If we embrace our creative power and consciously master our thoughts, we will begin to create coherently.  And then it will become obvious that we are indeed creating our reality and we’ll begin to create the life of our dreams, and collectively the world of our dreams.  Check out my article Are You Creating Your Reality? Manifesting 101 to learn more about conscious creation, often called manifesting.

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality.  As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality.  Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.” ~R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy

Within the Mind-Scape

All that is — the galaxies, stars, planets, light, matter, you and me — everything we can see, and everything we can’t see are the inner workings of the cosmic mind — the universe is conscious in its very fabric, and we are inside of it!  This consciousness, in fact, encompasses many universes and a vast number of parallel realities.  It is the source of all that is, including our own consciousness and that of every sentient entity in the universe.

We exist in a mindscape, a realm of ideas made manifest.  We exist inside of a cosmic mind that is creating a multitude of environments and experiences to explore all the possibilities of existence and expand its understanding of self.  It is all constructions of thought within the cosmic mind. You are a construct we call a person, and you are within a construct that we call the universe and the world.  You are a vehicle that source consciousness is experiencing through.  You are an aperture that it is using to look out onto, and experience, one of the many environments that it has created.

You are a focal point of source consciousness’s awareness looking out from inside of one of its own thoughts and experiencing them.  Through its thoughts, it is forming a multitude of parallel realities, and then diving in and exploring them, experiencing them.  All realities, all worlds, are INNER WORLDS.  This why it is said that to know thyself and know the truth you only need to GO WITHIN. Everything is within the unbounded mind of source consciousness, and it is all within you because you are it.  You are a thought within a thought within a thought experiencing itself.

“We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” ~Bill Hicks

 

“All that we see or seem, Is but a dream within a dream.” ~Edgar Allen Poe

The Universal Mind is Infinite, And What it Can Create is Limitless

The universe is infinite simply because it is a conceptual space, a realm of ideas and imagination, which makes it inherently unbounded.  What it can create is only limited by its imagination, and it’s imagination is limitless.

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” ~Albert Einstein

Each and everyone one of us is a part of this infinite mind, and we all potentially wield its unlimited creative power because we are it.  The only thing that limits us is our beliefs and imagination! Wake up to what you truly are and be amazed at what you can create.

We are limitless!

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Jeff Street awakened about a year and a half ago, after having been an atheist/agnostic scientist type with absolutely no spiritual beliefs for most of his life. After many ‘magical’ new experiences, he is now passionate about learning and sharing his insights about spirituality and metaphysics on his blog www.divine-cosmos.net. You can also follow Jeff on Facebook via www.Facebook.com/DivineCosmoz

This article (Mind Over Matter – Consciousness and the Nature of Reality) was originally at Divine Cosmos and is posted here with permission. 

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter. Mind Over Matter – Consciousness and the Nature of Reality was last modified: February 18th, 2018 by WakingTimes
    Inflammation is behind all chronic dis-ease and health conditions. Dr’s and the pharmaceutical industry have waged war against this process but are they actually fighting the body and making things worse? Could this fundamental process be misunderstood by medicine and instead – when understood – be used to aid true healing? IS inflammation […]

Prison is big business, and working prisoners are a corporation’s dream. Prisoners are being contracted for work right now on a massive scale, and despite the alarming and unsustainable growth of inmate numbers in the United States, incentive to lock people up is only increasing. This is the income that prisons — comprising one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States, backed by Wall Street — depend on:

Now prison labor based in private prisons is a multimillion-dollar industry with its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs (Pelaez 2008). . . . The industry also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cell manufacturing, all of which rival those of any other private industry (Pelaez 2008). Furthermore, private prisoners at the state level produce a variety of goods and services, from clothing to toys to telemarketing and customer service (Erlich 2005). The private federal prison industry also produces nearly all military goods, from uniform helmet to ammunition, along with durable goods ranging from paint to office furniture (Pelaez 2008). (source)

Did you know that corporate stockholders who profit from prison labor lobby for longer sentences? They do this to expand their workforce, and so, according to a study done by the Progressive Labor Party, “the system feeds itself.” The PLP also accuses the prison system of being “an imitation of Nazi Germany” with regards to forced slave labor and concentration camps.

If we look at the history of prison labour in the United States, it becomes immediately apparent that the entire system is birthed out of racism. After the civil wars of the mid-to-late 18th century, the system of hiring prisoners was established in order to continue the slavery that had dominated previous years. This was, of course, a time when racial segregation was legal across the United States:

Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of “hiring out prisoners” was introduced in order to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone else’s land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven – and were then “hired out” for cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts were Black. In Alabama, 93% of “hired-out” miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.(source)

Vicky Pelaez, a Peruvian journalist and columnist for The Moscow News, points out that dozens of states have legalized the contracting of prison labor to corporations, which include such names as: IMB, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Dell, and many more. Some of these inmates are getting approximately $2 a hour. She also outlines how inmates are commonly imported and exported.

A surprising number of well-known corporations are making a killing off of the prison industrial complex, as you can see below.

Whole Foods

The state allows inmates to work for the profit of a private corporation, and Whole Foods is one of many companies that takes advantage, buying fish and cheese produced by prison inmates and paying them a rate of .74 cents a day. They then increase the price of the product astronomically – tilapia raised by inmates, for example, sells for $11.99 a pound at Whole Foods — and enjoy all the profits. (source)

McDonalds

It’s no secret that McDonalds is suffering right now; in a world where people are steadily waking up and moving towards a healthier lifestyle, there is no place for such heavily processed and unethical ‘food.’ Yet despite being the world’s most successful fast-food chain, they still source many of their goods from prisons, including their containers, uniforms, and cutlery. The inmates who sew the uniforms hardly make anything. (source)

Wal-Mart

Although their company policy expressly outlines that forced labor, as well as prison labour, is unacceptable, a large portion of products sold in their stores have been supplied by third-party prison labor factories. Wal-Mart purchases its products from prison farms, where workers are put through several hours of intense labor, in difficult conditions, without sunscreen, water, or food —not to mention, basically working for free. (source)

Victoria’s Secret

Undergarments and casual wear are sewn by female inmates for Victoria’s Secret. In fact, in the late 1990s 2 prisoners were placed in solitary confinement for telling journalists that they were hired to replace “Made in Honduras” garment tags with “Made in U.S.A” tags. (source)

BP 

This is a surprising one. When BP spilled several million barrels of oil into the Ocean (Gulf Coast), the company sent a workforce of prison inmates — almost all of them African-American — to handle cleanup, despite there being scores of displaced coastal residents desperate for work. The move sparked considerable outrage, particularly since BP not only saved money by hiring inmates over locals, but also through the significant tax breaks they received as a result. (source)

AT&T

In 1993 the company laid off thousands of telephone operators, who were all union members, in order to increase their profits. Despite being vocally against prison labour, they went on to hire inmates to work in their call centres, paying them a mere $2 per day. (source)

Aramark

This is a company that provides food to hospitals, schools, and colleges. They also have a monopoly on food served in approximately 600 prisons. They have a history of poor food service, a problem which led to a prison riot in Kentucky in 2009. (source)

More Information On The Prison Industrial Complex

Even though various social, political, and human rights organizations have condemned the United States’ prison system, it remains one of the biggest businesses in existence today. Did you know that America has four percent of the world’s population, yet still carries approximately twenty five percent of the world’s prison population? That is a staggering number. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and it is increasing exponentially each year. Almost half of American juveniles will have been arrested before they reach their 23rd birthday, and children as young as 13 years old have been sentenced to die in prison. The cost of this system? Approximately $75,000,000,000 a year…

These are just a few startling statistics outlined in the video below. Check it out.

 

James Brunt is an artist known for bringing attention back to the finer details that nature has to offer us. While natural landscapes are often breathtaking on their own, imagine stumbling across one of his creations. James uses natural materials and objects he finds around his home in Yorkshire, England and creates his art in places like beaches, forests and parks. He is very mindful of not disturbing the land and has created his own code of ethics,  “I am very conscious of the environment around me and take into consideration many things when deciding to make a piece of work. This code that I work to now has developed over time as my understanding of my surroundings grows. It wasn’t always the case, but it is now.”

His array of materials aren’t limited when working with an abundant natural setting. He has access to many natural materials and creates his works of art from things such as rocks, twigs, leaves and even berries if he comes across some. Once he’s collected the appropriate amount of materials, he arranges them in mandala-like spirals and concentric circles. His pieces often involve detailed patterns, textures, and shapes and achieves this look from using multiples of one kind of material.

James will often welcome his fans to join him as he works but if they can’t join in on the live action fun, he shares his photographs online, which are also available for purchase. Working with the environment can also be tricky, so James has to make sure that he photographs his finished work before nature plays its role.

You can check out James art on his  Facebook where he frequently shares and updates, along with his Twitter. You can also purchase his prints on his Etsy Shop.

Enjoy!

As the modern-day consumer continues to opt for plant-based alternatives to milk, the dairy industry is failing and is now relying on government handouts to survive. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, these times are changing!

Last week, the United States senate signed a budget agreement to grant a whopping $1 Billion to the dairy and livestock industries. These funds allocated will be used for programs that are designed to help the dairy industry recover from a long-time slump in dairy prices. The industry has been affected by a number of different factors which include consumer habits and lifestyle.

Over the past several years, we have seen Americans opting towards plant-based alternatives. While we don’t know exactly why, we can speculate that it has to do with the growing awareness of the horrors that take place on factory farms, the environmental implications, and more evidence that pasteurized milk from cows is making us sick. Whatever the reason – the dairy industry is failing.

In 2016, dairy farmers across the nation dumped 43 million gallons of unsold milk into manure lagoons, fields and into animal feed. Last year, the surplus of milk hit 78 million gallons as dairy sales have been consistently on the decline. We have seen some larger dairy companies try to adapt to the changing consumer demands, such as Elmhurst Dairy, which has shifted it’s gears to nut milks, completely dropping dairy after 90 years.

Danone – a popular brand of yogurt, has now acquired WhiteWave Foods, which is a parent company of popular plant-based brands such as Silk, Vega, Alpro and So Delicious. There is no doubt about it, people are truly waking up. Seeing large corporations like the ones listed above making these types of transitions is very telling.

Change IS Possible

To everyone who remains hopeless and believes that no good will ever happen, nothing will change and that we can’t really make a difference, I hope this serves as a big old pile of hope for you. It is one out of many examples that prove that there are things in our society that are changing for the better and that change is absolutely possible. Having awareness is one of the first steps towards creating real change on the planet, and in a large way we can thank the internet for spreading the truth about the dairy industry and what has inevitably led consumers to make more educated, ethical, and health conscious decisions for themselves and their families.

Now the real question is, why is the government handing this money over? Can’t that $1 Billion be used in a better way? Sure, dairy farmers are going to have to figure out an alternative, but this is a good sign. Clearly this industry isn’t coming back, maybe that money could be used to help the existing dairy farms transition over to more sustainable options.

Still Drinking Milk From Cows?

That’s okay, I’m not here to judge, but perhaps this information will open your mind to consider other options? Sooner or later cow milk may not even be an option for you. There is some evidence that shows how raw milk may be beneficial for us to consume, but the cons do outweigh the pros. Not to mention raw milk remains illegal in the United States and Canada, and when there are so many viable alternatives, is it really worth it? Why not save the cow milk for the growing baby calves who need it the most?

Beware Of Synthetic Preservatives & Chemicals

It is important to know that just because something is vegan, or labeled as “plant-based” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is healthy. It is important to do your research and choose the brands from ethical companies that use good, wholesome ingredients. As many companies have jumped on the nut milk train, they don’t all have the best intentions, and some have done so for the sheer purpose of profit – like so many other companies in the world today. As the consumer, we have a vote in the types of products that are being produced.

Better yet, make your own nut milks. Not only is this a super simple process, but it is much healthier as you get to choose exactly what ingredients are being used. An added bonus is that by making your own, you will be producing much less waste, especially if you buy your nuts in bulk. Essentially, this is a win-win – more healthy, less wasteful and did I mention that homemade nut milks are way more delicious? Try it and see for yourself.

Much Love

Related Articles

How The Government & Dairy Industry Tricked Us Into Believing We Need Milk 

7 Ways Milk & Dairy Products Are Making You Sick

Dairy Is F**king Scary: The Truth About Milk Explained In 5 Minutes (Video)

George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth. Sound familiar?

Within the past few years, so much information has come out contradicting the mainstream rhetoric. Election fraud, as made evident by Wikileaks, is one example, and false flag terrorism, with 9/11 being the perfect example, is another. The elite has been thriving off of shaping our perception about events to justify their actions in response to these events, all while manufacturing them in the first place. Perhaps one of the best examples comes from 2016, when the Pentagon was caught paying a PR firm more than half a billion dollars to create fake terrorist videos.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also called out the desire by the elite for a New World Order, which would see the “powers that be” use “imaginary and mythical” threats to control us. If you’d like to learn more about the New World Order, you can read an article I wrote about it in 2015 that goes into more detail here.

“The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

Mark Twain (source)

Keep in mind, this just pertains to geo-politics; there are several other examples within the health, food, education, finance, and other industries. We live in a world of manipulation and propaganda, handed down to us by the global elite, who would like us to believe this is simply a conspiracy theory.

Now can you see the correlation between our modern day world and 1984?

Recently, Gizmodo.com reported that Amazon sold out of 1984, and within recent days it occupied the number one spot on Amazon’s best-selling books list. The rapid sell-outs of the book were also reported by mainstream media outlets like CNN, only they tied it to Trump’s administration. The New York Times reported that this started when Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to Donald J. Trump, used a turn of phrase that struck some observers as reminiscent of the dystopian world of 1984.

This is clearly just another attempt by mainstream media to smear Trump. This was not done at all with Hillary because she is backed by the elite. Any opportunity they have to smear Trump, they’ll take, that being said, he makes it easy for them to do so. Neither are fit to be president.

This, unfortunately, is what politics has become — a cesspool of corruption completely devoid of a suitable leader to choose from. Any leader worthy of the name is ignored, because guess who controls our attention? Mainstream media and the handful of powerful people who run it. We saw this with Dr. Ron Paul all three times he tried to run for president.

It’s ironic because the move toward tyranny, and a ‘big brother’ type of state, which desires a heightened national security state, a watchful eye on citizens, and an enormous amount of propaganda to shape our perception of events happening around the world while, at the same time, encouraging us to continually consume, is and has been in the works well before Donald Trump. The agenda has been an American-dominated global empire where a tiny minority of people control and own all aspects of our everyday lives, from water, GM foods, minerals, and everything else worth owning in this world.

We must understand why Trump was demonized by the mainstream media, beyond the fact that he made it easy for them to do so. He has made plenty of sexist, narcissistic, racist, and other statements that have offended many, but the fact remains that Hillary Clinton was the ultimate representative and puppet for the American establishment, which seeks to control the populace through various means, and is leading many people to believe that the country is heading toward a state of complete tyranny.

Author Richard Dolan puts it quite well:

If you are concerned about fascism coming to America, don’t look for a fist pounding demagogue. Look instead at a government that can read every email you have ever written, GPS you at any time, know your internet habits better than you do, surveil you literally wherever you go in any major city, and use your information against you if they decide, however loosely, that you are an enemy of the state. That is fascism, and the U.S. has been living that bipartisan nightmare for 15 years. Thank you George W. Bush. Thank you Barack Obama.

Trump might make that situation worse, or he might not. But without a doubt his rhetoric has spoken directly to those who feel left behind by globalization, to a middle class that has been effectively disemboweled over the last generation, in which economic hope has all but evaporated. Trump has played to that part of the electorate, and only time will tell whether or not he is sincere, or can deliver. (source)

Whoever these people are, and the agenda they are pushing, it’s clear that Trump, despite his power and privilege, is not in the same boat as the Clintons, Bush, or Obama.

This does not mean I’m a Trump supporter. At the end of the day, the real “menace of our Republic,” as former New York City Mayor John F. Hylan put it, is the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” It is the “little coterie of powerful international bankers [who] virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes,” controlling both parties and the majority of newspapers and magazines. “They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”

According to CNN, 1984 also saw a spike in sales during 2013 when leaks by by Edward Snowden made NSA surveillance a huge international story.

Who knows, perhaps Trump is also a part of this agenda — after all, there can be disputes and disagreements among the elite, too.

The Orwellian State Has Been Growing for a Long Time

The state described in George Orwell’s books has been in the works for a long time, and for the past few decades, politcal parties have not existed to secure the will of the people. Theodore Roosevelt, former President of the United States, was another among many who tried to warn us that both parties have strayed from their original purpose:

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people (source).

For mainstream media to tie Trump to this book is ridiculous, given the fact that the power that’s controlled the presidency for so long is clearly the correct comparison. 

What Can We Do About It? 

The good news is that more and more people across the globe are starting to wake up to all of the misinformation being spread on a daily basis, and that includes the agenda of those behind it. Even a decade ago, the mass populace was not as aware that all is not as it seems, and as a result of this mass awakening, our perception, our thoughts, our collective consciousness is beginning to shift. We no longer see the world the way it has been presented to us, and we are starting to realize that simply waking up to all of the propaganda that surrounds us is creating big problems for the global elite. The very first step to changing a problem is to first recognize that problem, and we are still in that process.

Having worked in this field for almost a decade, it’s quite amazing to see what’s taking place, and how many people are having those ‘ah-hah’ moments. The quest for world domination does not sit well with the citizenry, and democracy has become nothing but an illusion, with political parties serving the interest of their ‘owners,’ not the people.

The more people recognize what’s really happening in our world, the more people will take a stand and do whatever they can to change it. This is happening now, in several different ways, and it starts with you and me.

The more we try, and the more we ‘wake up,’ the closer we get to actions and ripple effects that will change our world.

A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

Researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisonsdesigned to diminish their relative significance.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxicaluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a new drug against a “pharmacologically inert” placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines, pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine injuries.

Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups. Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups allowed industry researchers and government regulators to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of “significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.

The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain, they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.” In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate on their often-troubling findings.

Abbreviated Trial Times

Typically, FDA requires drug companies seeking approval for a new drug to observe health outcomes in both the placebo and study groups for 4-5 years. Vaccine manufacturers take advantage of FDA regulatory loopholes that allow fast-tracking of vaccines and cut that period down to a few weeks or even a few days. This means that injuries that manifest, or are diagnosed, later in life—most neurodevelopmental disorders, for example—will escape attention entirely.

Further Smokescreens

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra point to clinical trial data posted on the FDA webpagefor the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine approved in 2006. Those clinical trials deployed a panoply of the kind of cunning deceptions used by industry and government researchers. Unlike many of the other HPV vaccine clinical trials, these clinical studies employed a true saline placebo.

Across the Gardasil clinical studies, a group of 15,706 females ages 9-45 and males ages 9-26 received the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine. A control group of 594 individuals received an inert saline placebo. The industry researchers never explain the tiny relative size of the saline placebo group; it’s noteworthy that small size would have the effect of keeping unwanted signals weak. But a second control group of 13,023 received a so-called “spiked” placebo loaded with an aluminum adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS). The large size of this “spiked placebo” group suggests that the decision to keep the saline placebo group small was strategic.

Putting aside the thorny ethical question of whether study participants were told that they were being injected with a neurotoxin with probable associations with Alzheimer’s, dementia and other forms of brain disease, the inclusion of both saline and aluminum placebos provided these researchers a chance to do some genuine science. But the FDA webpage shows the troubling gimmick that was then employed by the FDA and Merck, which seems deliberately designed to blur datasets in order to mask adverse effects during the clinical trials. The table showing relatively minor injection-site adverse reactions—one to five days post-vaccination—displays three distinct columns for the three groups: Gardasil recipients, the aluminum “placebo” recipients, and saline placebo recipients (see table below). In the table, “Intergroup differences are obvious,” in the words of the Mexican researchers. For example, roughly three and a half times more girls/women experienced injection site swelling in the Gardasil group compared to the saline group (25.4% vs. 7.3%). In fact, by all five measures, both the Gardasil recipients and the aluminum placebo recipients fared two to three times worse than the saline recipients.

When it came time for Merck to report on the occurrence of more serious reactions, “Systemic Adverse Reactions” and “Systemic Autoimmune Disorders,” for example, the company scientists switched to a very different format. In these tables, the third column that reported results for the saline placebo recipients disappears. Instead, Merck combined the groups receiving the spiked aluminum placebo into a single column with the group receiving the genuine saline placebo (see example below). The merger of the two control groups makes it impossible to compare results for Gardasil versus the saline placebo or the aluminum placebo versus the saline placebo. In this way, Merck’s researchers obliterated any hope of creating a meaningful safety comparison.

Risks and Benefits

Given aluminum’s known neurotoxicity and its association with debilitating autoimmune conditions, it is unsurprising that there are no observable differences between the Gardasil and AAHS/saline groups. But, despite the researchers’ efforts to paper over adverse effects, they were not able to conceal the devastating health injuries to their human guinea pigs. The bottom line of these trials reveals a shocking truth: An alarming 2.3% of both their study and control groups had indicators of autoimmune diseases! These data are even more alarming when one considers that the observation period was curtailed after only six months. With this level of risk, it would seem that no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive this vaccine—particularly given the comparatively low risk posed by HPV in countries with appropriate cervical cancer screening tests. Even in countries such as India, where cervical cancer mortality is high due to late detection, leading Indian physicians argue that comprehensive screening should be the country’s top priority rather than the “panacea” of HPV vaccination.

Consider the math: According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an estimated 2.4 women per 100,000 die of cervical cancer in the US each year. On the other hand, the FDA’s Table 2 (above) shows that 2.3 per 100 girls and women developed an “incident condition potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder” after enrolling in the Gardasil clinical trial. It is difficult to understand how any rational regulator could allow more than two in 100 girls to run the risk of acquiring a lifelong autoimmune disorder, particularly when Pap smears are already doing an effective job of identifying cervical abnormalities. The NIH notes that the incidence and death rates for cervical cancer in the US declined by more than 60% after introducing Pap smear screening.

Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra make their own effort to illustrate the zany risk-benefit ratios associated with these vaccines when discussing the results of one of the 16 clinical trials. That study compared approximately 14,000 women who received either Gardasil 9 or the original quadrivalent Gardasil. Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

Implications for Aluminum Adjuvants

Merck found that astronomical casualty counts were equal among both Gardasil and aluminum “placebo” recipients. The inescapable implication is that aluminum adjuvants may be a principal culprit in the flood of injuries reported for the various HPV vaccines. This conclusion, if true, requires reevaluation of the use of aluminum adjuvants in several other vaccines, including some given to infants. Aluminum adjuvant levels have mushroomed since the 2003 removal of thimerosal from three pediatric vaccines. The following chart, prepared by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, illustrates the stunning amount of aluminum in vaccines.

Multiple peer-reviewed studies have connected aluminum exposures to a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, that have become epidemic coterminous with these aluminum exposures. A review in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition warns of dangerous accumulation of aluminum in the brain when, as in the case of vaccination, “protective gastrointestinal mechanisms are bypassed.” It’s time to go back to the drawing board on HPV vaccines and aluminum adjuvants. More importantly, FDA needs to start requiring the same rigorous pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines that it has long required for other drugs. All existing vaccines, particularly those containing aluminum, should be safety-reviewed according to these more stringent standards.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Pages

Connect with us

Subscribe to our rss and social networks accounts...

On the Subject of US

Ætherna Guild is a free will, clean energy & sustainable living community resource website. More

Navigation

Browse Ætherna's resourceful info!

Ætherna Guild



Energetic Balance Frequencies

Ætherna Guild's Mission

Awaken mankind's universal consciousness to find equitable solutions for a real, honest, best and prosperous Guild, based on unity and sharing, peace, respect and love, in harmony with nature and our environment to foster the achievement of collective goals leading to a higher intelligence and collective consciousness.

A Sovereign Space for One Hearth Guild ॐ

More