Video yรผkleniyor...
Video Yรผklenemedi
๐ดโช๐จ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐! ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฎโ๐จ Nwaneri(19) was having a such a good game l until he got injured two shots takenโค๏ธโ๐ฉน Ethan Nwaneri Vs Andorra๐
78,420 gรถrรผntรผleme โข 6 ay รถnce โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gรถnderinin yorumlarฤฑ burada gรถrรผnecek
![๐จ"[It was] this massive alien sucking the life off of me!" Young, super-fit man describes how he spilled glyphosate on his neck and developed cancerโexactly where it was spilledโjust months after "One of the reasons [I] believe... it was glyphosate is because... I never had any cancerous lymph nodes in my whole lymphatic system besides... where it weaponized my lymph nodes and made them into a tumor, essentially" "it took from, when I was diagnosed, just a matter of months to where you see in these pictures here... this massive alien sucking the life off of me" "I personally don't believe any cancer is natural... We've been lied to, obviously" This clip of Arden Allison, who had to battle the cancer he's describing for seven years, is taken from a conversation with Polly Tommey of Childrenโs Health Defense posted to YouTube on July 17, 2026. His mother, Serene Allison, is the woman sitting next to him. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Arden: "One of the big exposures that I had, instead of just a mist, Iโ the truck sprayer broke. So instead of a big sprayer that shoots about 30 feet away, broke. So I had to go spray the compound and the access road with a backpack sprayer. "Well, I jumped over a little, I guess four foot fence, climbed over, jumped, landed, and braced for it, which is no problem. But when I did so I kind of bent over, the lid popped off and I was completely doused, up, like shoulders and kind of, I guess upper body area with glyphosate. "And number one, I was like, okay, it's fine. I was told it was healthy and not healthy, but it was absolutely fine. No problem. Was not a chemical. Number two, I didn't have access to a shower, so I washed off with a water bottle... And then continued to work until the, to the end of the day. And number three, it was hot, my pores were open, I was sweaty. And you just soak up all those chemicals and that whole season of work. "I worked for them for only about two months before I got tired of traveling and being on the road. That was September, October of 2015. And then I was diagnosed, just after, in 2016. Serene: "And, the kind of muscly brawn guy, he's six foot five, he was just becoming like, instead of mesomorphic, he was ectomorphic. He was getting thinner by the day. And I'm like, Arden, you okay? And he's like, I got a bit of a scratchy throat. And he kept on itching all around. "He was just always itching, and I'm like, something'sโ What do you got, a rash or something? He's just itching all the time. And he said he started having trouble sleeping at night. He said, it's just so hot. I'm sweating through the nights. Which is a sign of Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently. Arden: "It's a sign of a lot of different illnesses, like having night sweats. Your body's not, you know, properly functioning, but, yeah. Polly Tommey: "And, and so those pictures are shocking. So how long did it take for you to swell up around your neck? And you're describing how the glyphosate spilled on you in exactly those areas." Arden: "Yeah, so that's, that's one of the reasons why I do believe, that it was glyphosate is because Iโ That'sโ I only dumped it and had an exposure, an extreme exposure in this area. I never had any cancerous lymph nodes in my whole lymphatic system. Besides, you know, right here. These were where it weaponized my, you know, my lymph nodes and made them into, you know, a tumor, essentially. "But, yeah, it took. When I was diagnosed, the doctor said, hey, congratulations. If you're gonna have cancer, this is the one you want. So many young people beat it. And the good news is, you're young. So awesome. Fist bump. And I was like, all right, cool. "At first, I was shocked because I was man, I shouldn't be having cancer. And I didn't even know what it was. I only thought old people and unhealthy people got cancer at the time. It was just so, bizarre and unheard of. "Now, it took from, when I was diagnosed, just a matter of months to where you see on these pictures here, where I had these massive. This massive alien sucking the life off of me. I personally don't believe any cancer is natural. "They say genetic. Yeah, there are. There are some. But I think it's just. It starts in. It starts by chemicals. These genetic strains start by chemicals. We've beenโ We've been lied to, obviously. "We have record diagnosis of crazy cancers, new cancers. Man, this stuff we've never seen before. The doctor said we've never seen a Hodgkins lymphoma this aggressive. "It has to be fed by chemicals. When we play God, we have these organizations that play God, tweak, what we spray on our crops. They tweak our food, and they genetically mutate it. And then we consume this and we're exposed to it. It's on golf courses. It's on everything."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078181122899620151/amplify_video_thumb/2078178183560761344/img/L5yPXGe2mZ4TdTey.jpg)
![The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: โWeโre very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the playโฆhe's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenselessโฆ.He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.โ Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1869083747989033032/ext_tw_video_thumb/1869077699739738112/pu/img/lKNKi4pravXtVqn6.jpg)
!["Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." ๐ฝ๐ธ Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? ๐คซ๐ถ (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2079616298435400152/amplify_video_thumb/2079612656366112768/img/mxq1uM4Cp0iG8pyw.jpg)
!["There was a willingness to communicate. [The non-human entity] wanted to establish communication with us." ~JV ๐ฅ Has AI Figured Out the Identify of Gilbert? ๐ ๐ฝ Did an Alien Volunteer to be Studied and Communicate with Humans in a Secret USG Facility? Is it Still There? ๐ฝ "My understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while." ~JV This is Pt. 1 - Pt. 2 has the AI sleuthing on the possible identity of Gilbert. Excellent job by Ross Coulthart. And if you wanna see my post on Gilbert, the alleged Alien Entity, Vallรฉe...and ALL Gilbert-related entries in FS V7 โฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธโฌ๏ธ I'm taking with this with a major grain of salt until we hear from Gilbert. Then, I'll revaluate.) ~ Ross Coulthart: "You write in your Forbidden Science (7) diaries, in October 2021 for the first time, you mention someone called Gilbert. It's a pseudonym, but essentially, it's a long-lost friend, a discreet master remote viewer at the level of Uri Geller and Ingo Swann." Jacques Vallรฉe: "Yes." (If your response to hearing Geller's name mentioned is, "Oh, he's been proven to be a fraud. See Johnny Carson,' then you haven't done your homework on Uri. Drs. Kit Green and Hal Puthoff on Geller. ~ Kit Green: "Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does and the films of what he does recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magician's tricks. Thereโs not even a remotely qualified individual whoโs ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy โ that itโs all trickery. The RV [remote-viewing] experiments for me were astonishing. He was a superb remote viewer, he was a superstar." ~ Coulthart: "And Gilbert tells you that, through official channels, presumably, government channels, he was taken to participate in a controlled, personal exchange with a, supposed, alien. And you acknowledge in your diary that these revelations are explosive. "And by September 2023, you've received five closely-typed pages detailing how Gilbert says he was taken to a U.S. laboratory, sheltered inside rock, where military guides exposed him to what they explicitly told him was a living alien entity. Now, do you believe Gilbert's account, Jacques? I know at one stage you query: was this a fully veridical (truthful) account? Do you think Gilbert was telling you the truth?" Jacques Vallรฉe: "I have....I believe it for two reasons. You know, believe is a bad word. It's a religious word, it's a commitment, and so on. And everybody is free to believe whatever we want to believe. In science, you know, belief is a contingency. You face a phenomenon. You build a theory of a phenomenon, but the theory, there is no such thing as a theory without a way of testing it. "Now I have no way of testing what Gilbert has told me. I'm not going to reveal the rest of his data because that's his data, and I know there are plans to publish it in the proper way, so that everybody has access to it. I have the data, but it's not up to me to publish it. "There have been other cases, and I've had one personal occasion of coming face-to-face with an entity that is very similar to the entity that he describes. To my shame, I was so scared because this was unprepared. I was not intending to do that." Coulthart: "Are you saying that you had your own personal encounter with an entity? Vallรฉe: "Yes." Coulthart: "When did that happen?" Vallรฉe: "I had no communication with that entity because I was simply too scared, and I mention it in the book." ~Begin excerpt from FS V6~ Hummingbird. Saturday 27 October 2018. ...something brief and terrifying happened last night, far more tangible than a nightmare. As I review it, I have to accept an experience outside my body. All I know is that in the middle of the night I found myself propelled away into the kitchen, a tall being between me and the window. I couldnโt see a face, but it was tall like me, human-like, solid. A few seconds later I woke up suddenly, back into my lying body, panting and whimpering, terrified. It had been absolutely, shockingly real. No transition, none of that slow lifting of the soul people describe. I had been translated from the bedroom, standing up, totally aware, next to the entity that hovered near me without touching, yet encompassing me in a formidable presence. This is as close to a full out-of-body experience as I have ever had. It left me whimpering and scared. (Not a fan of JV mentioning this dream-like/out-of-body experience in the same breath as Gilbert's, alleged face-to-face, physical encounter with a living entity.) ~End Excerpt from FS V6 - Back to JV with Coulthart~ Vallรฉe: "Now in [Gilbert's] case this was very structured. He was asked to be there. And, by the way, it's not classified. I asked him if it was classified, he said, 'No.' And this was 20 years ago, this is not recent." Coulthart: "So, let's go through some of the detail of what you do reveal in [FS 7]. In December 2024, you write that you've seen Gilbert's structured results, and he says he was, apparently, instructed to put specific questions directly to the entity. And it gets fascinating. "Some of the questions generated impressions and responses he couldn't decipher. And what you conclude is that there may be two different levels of NHI, non-human intelligence. Your interpretation, or your friend's interpretation of what he got from the being, is that the higher-level controllers are genuinely alien, whereas the small beings - perhaps the Grays associated with UFO encounters - may be primitive biological hybrids, specifically engineered for terrestrial operation. Is that your conclusion, Jacques?" Vallรฉe: "Well, again, I'm an information scientist. I try to look for patterns of things, so I don't look at one case, you know, separate from others. I look for patterns of cases. In Trinity, in Socorro, in Valensole, and now in the case in Brazil that was revealed recently. "We have a dozen entities. These entities were small; they were the size of, you know, a 10-year-old or 12-year-old kid. They had two eyes and a mouth. They were breathing air. They did not look like our astronauts with, you know, all kinds of suits and [a] support system. They were breathing air. You could understand the, you know, any sense from their eyes. Overall, their structure was human." "Over the years, there have been efforts to theorize in biology about what it would take to create a different kind of human adapted to certain things. We are going to face that problem in space. NASA has looked at that. But before NASA, you know, certainly in World War II, that question was raised already. "And there are...and I mentioned a case from an American biologist who came back from Russia with at least a rumor that the Russians were developing short humanoids for future space missions, because that would save, you know... The most expensive part in the space missions we have now, like the Moon, is the human pilot, okay? If we could do away with the human pilot, or if we could minimize that pilot, then the technology would be safer and would probably function better. "So that question had been discussed in biology. Now, the threshold was, you know, a moral threshold. Are we permitted to create? I mean, we are clearly at the position where, as you know, that the question arose in China recently. You know, was there an experiment to manipulate an egg and create them? So, those are very current questions in biology. "Could some of the beings be just operators? Because in Brazil, especially, they did not seem to be in control at all. And the same thing in Trinity. Trinity is a very important case." (Speculatively speaking: If Gilbert actually came face-to-face with a non-human entity, how would we know if it was one of the actual alien "controllers (as JV suggests)" and not a different type of lower-level, artificial-intelligence-fused being designed to trick us into thinking we've actually met the controllers? Is there any way of knowing? Maybe Gilbert can shed light on that? Maybe what he encountered was just another type of being engineered and created by the controllers for terrestrial operation in order to keep their distance from us, or for some other reason? Or, maybe JV is correct and that was one of the actual alien controllers?) ~ Coulthart: "Can I just pull you back for a moment, though, to Gilbert's story, Jacques? Because I think it's incredibly important. What it's unique for, is it's actually somebody you have spoken to, directly, giving a first-person physical account of an encounter with a non-human being in what sounds like a U.S. military government facility." (Is the entity still there now?) Coulthart: "And there's actually a moment in your diaries, 12th of March 2025, where you actually get from Gilbert, a physical description of what he saw. He was, apparently, brought in as a specialist. He didn't know whether there were other captured or, interestingly enough, volunteer beings. But he had a rough idea of approximately where he was being taken. "He couldn't see outside the vehicle, but he was inside a small mountain, some kind of, perhaps, deep underground military bunker. Inside was a large, well-lit laboratory staffed by men and women wearing uniforms without rank or unit identification. There was no medical procedures or drugs. "And then, Gilbert says to you, he was brought face-to-face with the alleged entity. And it wasn't a Gray. It was over six feet tall. It, apparently, emitted light from different parts of its body, may have been enclosed in some sort of wired suit, test article, or a containment apparatus." (Was the suit designed to protect the being from our environment or to protect the humans in that room from the being? And just to reiterate, I'll assume it was an alien being. My friend made these excellent points... "We don't know if the parts of its body emitting light were its body or some sort of harness or device it was wearing. And if it was some sort of harness/device what was its purpose and whose device was it? Was it life support? Alien shackles? Was it meant to help, or control? "Say for instance, a harness device that emits a frequency that prevents the being from doing something? Leaving? Disappearing? Communicating?") ~ Coulthart: "And it, apparently, communicated through combinations of light, and permitted questions concerning psychic functioning. And he had several hours of communication with this being. Now, you've made it clear you believe Gilbert's account, you accept Gilbert's account. This is extraordinary." Vallรฉe: "I've known him for a long time, and I know what else he's done, which is extraordinary. So..." Coulthart: "I mean, this is very important, Jacques. Is this person willing to give evidence to a congressional inquiry, if they're not subject to classified limitations, security oaths, or NDAs?" Vallรฉe: "I asked him that because, obviously, I did not want to get into something that would take me, you know, beyond that range. And he said, 'No,' he was not... He asked, 'You know, do I need a special clearance for this?' He has done other work, you know, for the military." Coulthart: "Right. But I was analyzing the implications of what you say in the diary about Gilbert. And to summarize it, it's more than a psychic once met an alien. What it is, is, a classified U.S. group allegedly possesses, or hosts, a living, non-human intelligent being, and they've been operating a systematic, multidisciplinary communication program with it, over time. And Gilbert was brought in as one specialist to conduct controlled communications with it. Do you accept that that's the implication of what you say in the diary?" Vallรฉe: "This is logical in terms of what we know from a long time. What the procedure would be. The structure was...did not go into psychic functioning, you know? The questions that they had been asked were basic physiological, physical questions. They brought [Gilbert] in so that he was authorized to create his own questions and to probe...to see to what extent he could elicit a response that would be a psychic response from that entity. "The question is: At what level do they function? We know we have some ability to function on a psychic level. Some people can practice this better than others. We know from the SRI work by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ and others that this can be trained. As you know, I was involved in that project to some extent over several years, and with Ingo. So, I went through the procedure with Ingo for an entire year. What Gilbert is describing matches that very well. In other words, there was a procedure." Coulthart: "So, you allude, Jacques, to the fact that Gilbert is, apparently, writing his own book about what he encountered. Can you clarify for me, though, is Gilbert willing to give evidence to the ongoing congressional investigations into this?" (Good on Ross to follow-up because JV didn't answer it the first time.) Coulthart: "There are very few people who are willing to give first-person evidence. And if he's not restrained by classification-security-oaths constraints, what's stopping him from coming forward, even confidentially, to a secure SCIF in the Congress, and giving this evidence?" Vallรฉe: "I cannot answer for him. He has a long career in helping, you know, different projects in a classified setting. So, he's quite capable of answering that. What I know is...I don't know that he is writing a book. There is a project for a series of interviews, and I've participated in that. I've given a few interviews about my own work. But I know he's been part of that project. I don't know how it's going to be released or whether it's going to be released. I'm not part of the business that owns that data." (Well, whatever that is, it really needs to be released. Interviews in written form, or on camera?) Coulthart: "I'm very excited by the Gilbert character, and forgive me for harping on about him. Can I at least clarify, Gilbert is a he." (I'm just as excited. This COULD be HUGE!) Vallรฉe: "I don't want to give away any indication. You know, I have not had communication, recently. I don't know how far that project has gone. It's their project, and there is a boundary to what I can say." Coulthart: "But who are they, Jacques? Like, when you say it's their project, you're talking about the individual known as Gilbert by pseudonym?" Vallรฉe: "And the release of that information. His intent is to release it." Coulthart: "I've got to ask you this, and I appreciate you may not want to disclose, but is the person that you're talking about Keith Harary?" Vallรฉe: "Umm, no. I can definitely tell you it's not Keith." (Later in this interview, JV said he met Gilbert when he (Gilbert) was 22. Out of the public names associated with gifted psychics and remote viewers, Harary comes close. But there's another possibility that I'll let ChatGPT lay out in the 2nd tweet. If you've studied remote viewing, you know the name Keith Harary. If you'd like to read an excellent article written by Keith "Blue" Harary in Psychology Today, here ya go: dot com/us/articles/200411/confessions-of-a-star-psychic ~ Coulthart: "Is it Joe McMoneagle?" Vallรฉe: "[laughs] I shouldn't play... It's an interesting game, but, you know, there are two or three other names." Coulthart: "Joseph McMoneagle, of course, Jacques, as you and I both know, he worked with you at SRI. He was remote viewer number one in the U.S. Army intelligence program." Vallรฉe: "I have enormous amount of respect for Mr. McMoneagle." Coulthart: "So do I. Joe is probably one of the most respected remote viewers known to the U.S. military (JV shakes his head up and down in agreement) and the U.S. intelligence community. And I noted back in Forbidden Science 3, Joe told you about UFO-related material. And Joe talked about how a photograph of a disc had inexplicably disappeared from a classified safe under his sole control. And he you quoted him saying to you, 'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data.' What's going on here, Jacques?" Here's the excerpt from FS V3... "Joe [McMoneagle] once obtained a detailed photograph of a disk. He placed a copy in a locked safe with double combination, a classified safe under his sole control. Yet the photograph vanished. โ'There must be a higher level of authority that controls UFO data,' he said, 'a level beyond the folks who run the satellites.'" (The Gatekeepers?) ~ Coulthart: "Clearly, someone - if it's Joe McMoneagle, let's just call them Gilbert. Someone invited Gilbert to a secure facility, presumably, a secure-government facility, yet at the same time we have the government - in the form of AARO, the Pentagon - asserting, blue and blind, that there is absolutely no evidence of extraterrestrial-non-human-intelligence engagement with this planet. We know that's not true. What's going on, sir? You, probably more than anyone, know the answer to that question." Vallรฉe: "It's a central question, of course, and I don't want to make, you know, to treat it in a humorous way. But I recall a conversation with Dr. Hynek when I was working with him back at Northwestern. And I said, 'You know, what does the Air Force say and what does the Air Force think?' And he said, 'Jacques, you have to understand, there is no such thing as the U.S. Air Force. There are projects within the Air Force that do different things.'" (Kind of like when people say, "The GOVERNMENT does this and that." Like the Air Force, the U.S. government is not a monolith. AARO may have had no clue about the Gilbert story, until JV put out V7. Maybe they still don't know?) Vallรฉe: "And that's legitimate. [The USAF] are looking at different parts of, you know, the whole planet, with the tools they have. And they have different opinions about things, and they have budgets to pursue different things with different projects. And many times they don't know about the other project." Coulthart: "Is it possible that Gilbert was being played?" Vallรฉe: "[shakes his head back and forth] No. No." Coulthart: "That he was shown something that was an intention to try and see what a master remote viewer would think of what he was being shown?" Vallรฉe: "He's one of the best psychics in the world today, and has been throughout his career." (It's impossible to know 100% that what Gilbert encountered (assuming this actually happened) was a non-human entity. And even if/when he comes forward, that won't change. We're going to need evidence besides anecdotes.) ~ Coulthart: "So you find him very credible." Vallรฉe: "I met him when he was 22." Coulthart: "What state was the location in, where this facility that he was taken to is located? Did he give you that indication?" Vallรฉe: "I don't know the level of if there is a security wrapper around this. I don't know at what level. So, I've purposely been vague in the book, again." Coulthart: "I got that. Was there a date for the encounter? I think you indicated to me earlier it was about 20 years ago. Is that right?" Vallรฉe: "Yes." Coulthart: "Have you seen any evidence proving that Gilbert was actually at that location? Has he provided you with any substantiating...or corroboration?" Vallรฉe: "No. No. No. And that's why I don't want to go beyond, you know, reporting about that conversation and my trust in the conversation. I have no way of checking this. My own experience would indicate that that kind of thing is happening. Probably (in many places)." (Crosstalk, so I'm not 100% sure on "in many places." And what "experience" is JV talking about?) Coulthart: "Can I ask you a few questions, though? And you don't have to answer these if you're uncomfortable. Did he physically touch the entity?" Vallรฉe: "No." Coulthart: "Was the entity a prisoner?" Vallรฉe: "No. I asked him that question, of course, and he said the entity was a volunteer." (We need all the details on how that happened. Via a crash retrieval? Did it knock on the door one day? Teleport into their lab? Amazon Prime delivery in a REALLY big box with holes in it? ๐ And why should we trust the entity? My friend added this: "A death-row prisoner agreeing to cooperate with authorities on something could be considered volunteeringโฆbut is still a prisoner. Did the being say itโs a volunteer or was it the people at the facility? Do we really have to wait around for a possible book we actually might never see?") ~ Coulthart: "You, intriguingly, talk about, in your diary, captured or volunteer beings. You're clear that this being was there voluntarily?" Vallรฉe: "Yes." Coulthart: "But it suggests that there are other beings that are captured." Vallรฉe: "I don't know. I'm not, you know, fudging here. I really don't know the answer." Coulthart: "Okay. Do you know from Gilbert how long the entity had been with this facility, with the humans?" Vallรฉe: "No, and I asked Gilbert that. He did not know that. He was there just for that one presentation and that was..." Coulthart: "Was the entity alive, in the sense that we think of something being biologically alive?" Vallรฉe: "Yes. Now, I have no doubt, as you know, I'm not an expert about Hollywood, but I've, occasionally, seen what Hollywood could do in terms of special effects. And, of course, everything can be a special effect." (Again, according to JV, Gilbert may have seen, "a test article, a wired uniform or a safety container for the being rather than the body of an actual Alien." So, Gilbert may not know what it actually looked like. Hard to be definitive on what this entity was and we'll need to hear from Gilbert for more details.) Coulthart: "Did Gilbert explain why he, a remote viewer, was required to communicate with the being, if, as you say in the diary, it was communicating with light?" Vallรฉe: "Yes, yes. Because the people in charge were smart enough to understand that the communication that that being was capable of was beyond the... I mean, we have the same thing with whales, you know? Whales can read the inside of your body. I mean, women who were attending to whales, the whale would know they were pregnant before they knew they were pregnant." (That hasn't been proven.) Vallรฉe: "So, those situations are, you know...we have aliens (he smiled and I believe he used quotation marks with his hands) here on Earth in the form of some very intelligent animals that perceive things completely outside our range. So, it's not a new situation." Coulthart: "No, but I think this is the revelation - I think, one of the most important revelations in your latest book - that we are talking here about someone who you accept as telling the truth, who says they were part of what sounds like a U.S. government, U.S. military program, where they were asked to communicate with a non-human being. Can I ask you this, sir? Did conventional spoken language fail, or was it not possible with this being?" Vallรฉe: "The answers were in the form of light configurations." Coulthart: "And so, had we learned, had humans learned how to communicate with it through light?" Vallรฉe: "From what he told me, there was limited knowledge of what was positive and negative. He was asked to only frame questions in a way that where the answer could be yes or no, And that's why there were situations where he said he couldn't understand the answer." (Yes or no questions? I'm gonna assume the entity had no thumbs. Thumbs up? ๐๐ฝ Thumbs down? ๐๐ผ ๐) Coulthart: "One of the things you say in your diary - and I've learned to read Jacques Vallee's diaries very, very closely indeed - you say Gilbert's answers matched earlier results. Earlier results from whom, Jacques? I really think this is a very important question. What are you talking about there?" Vallรฉe: "Well, the...you know, my understanding is that there were teams there that had been working with that being and perhaps other beings for a while. I mean, this isn't just a one-off situation. They had a base. Again, I said, 'What were the insignias?' He said, 'They were probably people from different branches of the armed forces there. You know, the people there were experts, men and women, you know, who seemed to be coming and going.' There may have been other labs. You know, he was in one lab." Coulthart: "Is it your understanding that this communication with this being is communicating today? Is it still happening?" Vallรฉe: "I have no way of knowing." Coulthart: "So it was happening 20 years ago, but we don't know if that program is still operating today." Vallรฉe: "What was important to me, again, in terms of what we can derive from the database and from other, you know, all the other contact cases, is that the communication was primarily light, in the form of light."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2104287905443434740/amplify_video_thumb/2104285861336739840/img/AgvdmqeGRC_Dzu5K.jpg)
![So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, โHe Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. โHowever, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFKโs head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFKโs brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. โFrom what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,โ recalls Dr. Jenkins. โWe were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldnโt look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.โ83 โWe never had the opportunity to review his wounds,โ Dr. Carrico told the author, โin order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.โ84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: โWe had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.โ85 โI donโt think any of us got a good look at the head wound,โ confirms Dr. Perry. โI didnโt examine it or really look at it that carefully.โ86 โAnd when we realized he was dead,โ Dr. Baxter recalls, โnone of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.โ87 โWhen things were over with,โ Dr. Jones says, โyou felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.โ88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: โParkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy offโthere is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they donโt know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. โOne of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. Itโs very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.โ89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the Presidentโs head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, โThe President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked โฆ and to have Mrs. Kennedy thereโnone of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipitalโthat much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.โ โWe did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,โ recalls Dr. Carrico. โWe did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I donโt believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.โ91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. โI guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didnโt do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.โ92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. โI saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.โฆ The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.โ Dr. Jenkinsโs original report also stated he saw cerebellum. โThe description of the cerebellum was my fault,โ he says. โWhen I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.โ93* โI did not really look at it that closely,โ says Dr. Perry. โBut like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.โ94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: โHe had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldnโt tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. Thatโs just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.โ95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a โlarge side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.โ96 Dr. Giesecke agrees โthat the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.โ97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. โI saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,โ says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompsonโs book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 โI am astonished that Bob would say that,โ says Dr. Malcolm Perry. โIt shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.โ100 โI donโt think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,โ says Dr. Peters. โHe wasnโt in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.โ101 โBob is an excellent surgeon,โ says Dr. Jenkins. โHe knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the Presidentโs brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.โ102 โMcClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,โ says Baden. โI am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.โ103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104โ Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. โI donโt remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,โ says Dr. Ron Jones. โI donโt remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,โ recalls Dr. Jenkins. โNeither do I,โ says Dr. Baxter. โI feel sorry for him,โ says Dr. Perry. โI had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.โฆ He is a pitiful sight.โ A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, โI think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.โ While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committeeโs medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFKโs head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the Presidentโs head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the Presidentโs car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctorsโ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFKโs back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the Presidentโs head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the Presidentโs brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFKโs personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. โHe told me,โ said Humes, โthat the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the Presidentโs bodyโ (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367โ68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctorsโPepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClellandโwent to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedyโs head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the Presidentโs head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. โFalse,โ says Dr. Michael Baden. โThere is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skullโ (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. โI donโt know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the Presidentโs chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.โ * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. โIโll tell you how that happened,โ Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. โWhen Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, โWhere are his wounds?โ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the Presidentโs temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.โ โ Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedyโs neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. โThatโs ridiculous,โ Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. โI did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.โ * While the Select Committeeโs forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the Presidentโs head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side โcould hide an entrance wound at the same spot.โ In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the Presidentโs head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wechtโs way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFKโs head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that โthe question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.โ He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, โYes, thatโs true, there should be more fragments.โ Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possibleโexcept that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1907374209979842573/ext_tw_video_thumb/1907371183789539328/pu/img/H5emFOslkouoPfyv.jpg)
!["We had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy. We didn't know that...it's gonna stay with you for maybe...years and years or the rest of your life." ~Mr. B. A Whole Lot of Not Rosy Robert Bigelow: "And so, it (survival of consciousness research) does have this aspect of things to be concerned about. And you know, I've told you that since we formed this institute (Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS)) in June (of 2020), all of a sudden, we had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy, okay?โ (I really hope he give details in a future interview because I think it's important to know what happened. Just the formation of an institute that planned on studying consciousness caused phenomena to start taking place and some of it was negative in nature. To me, that's problematic. Did anybody get injured or sick, or were they just scared?) Bigelow: "So, I mean, this is family members, myself, my staff. And none of this we expected, we hadn't asked for anything, positioned anything, decided to do anything in this kind of research. Our whole intention to begin with was simply trying to get ourselves up to speed in the literature, after being away from this for so many years, focusing on [the] space world, right? That's been mainly what I've been doing - except for the Skinwalker Ranch thing for 20 years - is the space world...has been huge in my life to pursue. The legitimate, parochial kind of, you know, using fire engines, rockets to get you there (smiles). "So we didn't expect anything like this to happen." (Again, this is various phenomena that allegedly started happening once they formed BICS with the intention of studying consciousness (including life after death), and apparently, some of it was not good. Again, did anybody get hurt? Exactly how bad was it? Details are sorely needed.) Bigelow: "And so, this Holy Grail is different than the second Holy Grail. If the second one being the ET, is a little bit lower. And this first one: Is there any part of your consciousness that survives your bodily death? That's a big deal, that's a huge story, that's gigantic." (I'd push back and suggest that both Holy Grails may be connected or related and the 2nd one may not be ET at all. This other intelligence (which John Keel labelled, "Ultraterrestrials") may reside in, or be able to enter, the same realms we enter when we die. Thereโs strong evidence that psychic mediums can acquire information they had no way of knowing about via their five senses. But are they talking to the dead, or is something else going on?) ~~~Excerpt from Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel~~~ In 1866, a New Englander named William Denton declared himself to be the first modern contactee. He claimed to be in telepathic contact with beings from another planet, and he and his whole family later purportedly visited Venus and Mars. Denton wrote a series of books describing saucer-shaped vehicles in detail, which he thought were made of aluminum. (A commercial process for manufacturing aluminum was not invented until 1886.) He also told his audiences (he lectured widely) that the folks who rode around in aluminum airships looked very much like us. His narratives were, in many respects, identical to those of the modern contactees. Trance Mediums and Possession Trance mediums were nothing new in 1850. In the Bibleโs First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28 describes how Saul consulted a medium (โโฆ a woman that hath-a familiar spiritโ). Mediums acted as oracles in ancient times, and people with this peculiar gift appeared in each new generation. Such persons seem to serve as instruments through which the ultraterrestrials can speak to us directly, and they often come up with amazingly accurate prophecies of the future and precise details of events that could seemingly be known only to the dead relatives of the people who consulted them. Of course, when spiritualism became a national fad, a goodly number of charlatans and hucksters moved in. But most of the genuine mediums exercised their talents carefully and for free. They did not indulge in fancy hocus-pocus and did not need paraphernalia, such as spirit cabinets. They wereโand areโpeople who can apparently summon up unseen entities or alien intelligences and extract information from them. I am not a spiritualist myself, although I have attended a few sรฉances over the years, usually in the role of a scoffer and disbeliever. As a longtime amateur magician, I have been able to see through the frauds, but I have also been genuinely perplexed by some of the manifestations I have personally witnessed. (I recommend everybody read about The Scole Experiment or watch the documentary on YT about it. And...read the book, "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Related links here: ) ~ Back to OTH... Essentially, a trance medium lapses into an unconscious state, and while in this condition, his or her body is taken over by some outside influence. This influence is usually a self-styled โIndian guideโ from โthe other side.โ Many mediums have been simple, uneducated people, but when in a trance state they have been able to talk foreign languages fluently. Scientists and clergymen have put countless mediums through severe tests over the years. At one group of sรฉances in the 1920s, sitters, who were all versed in different languages, grilled mediums in everything from ancient Chinese to Swahili, and the controlling entities not only conversed in those languages but corrected the sittersโ grammar! The daughter of Judge Edmunds, president of the Senate in the 1850s, gave incredible performances while in a trance, speaking fluently in Greek, Spanish, Polish, Latin, Portuguese, Hungarian, and several Indian languages. Because the sittersโand the mediumsโassume that they are dealing with residents of heaven, they ask mostly spiritual questions. Customarily, the โcontrolโ will announce that Mr. Blank is standing next to him and wishes to speak to Mrs. Blank, who is attending the sรฉance. Mrs. Blank excitedly begins to question her dead husband, Mr. Blank. How is life on the other side? Just fine, the control replies, a little bored, everyone lives in vine-covered cottages, and all is sweetness and light. Where did Mr. Blank hide his valuable gold watch before he died? Itโs wrapped in an old sock and buried under some papers in the bottom drawer of the old rolltop desk, the control answers. Sure enough, when Mrs. Blank gets home, she finds the watch exactly where the mediumโs alter ego said it would be. Try to convince Mrs. Blank that she didnโt talk with her dead husband! In many cases, the medium even begins to talk in a voice that sounds exactly like the dead Mr. Blank, uses his pet expressions, and even refers to things known only to Mrs. Blank, indulges in their private jokes, and so on. Occasionally, a deceased celebrity will โbreak through.โ Recently the late George Bernard Shaw made a tape recording in England that is now circulating in occult circles. Those who knew Shaw claim that it sounds exactly like him, uses his phraseology and vocal mannerisms, and displays his brilliant and distinctive wit. The trance phenomenon deserves extensive study because so many aspects of it are directly related to the contactee phenomenon. The contactees have been told a hundred different stories of what life is like on other planets. If you review the descriptions of heaven produced at the thousands of possibly genuine sรฉances, you will find the same contradictions. The entities will lie transparently at one point in the sรฉance, and a few moments later will come up with astounding information that could not be based upon simple trickery. The mediums themselves have always been aware of their controlsโ mischievous sense of humor. They speak of false shades and malevolent spirits who perform outrageous hoaxes. So the mediums and the professional investigators are always wary. The fact that a control can imitate George Bernard Shaw does not necessarily mean that GBS is doing the speaking from the spirit world. The fact that a control knows where Mr. Blank hid his gold watch does not necessarily prove that Mr. Blank is standing at his side โon the other plane.โ The medium generally remains completely inert while in the trance or โoccupiedโ state but in some instances can become quite animated and make gestures appropriate to whatever is being said. In a very real sense, the mediumโs mind has been blanked out, and his or her body has been completely taken over by the control. The medium has become a zombie of sorts, possessed by an alien entity, an entity who lacks a physical form of his own. Contactees often find themselves suddenly miles from home without knowing how they got there. They either have induced amnesia, wiping out all memory of the trip, or they were taken over by some means and made the trip in a blacked-out state. Should they encounter a friend on the way, the friend would probably note that their eyes seemed glassy and their behavior seemed peculiar. But if the friend spoke to them, he might receive a curt reply. In the language of the silent contactees this process is called being used. A used person can suddenly lose a day or a week out of his life. I have known silent contactees to disappear from their homes for long periods, and when they returned, they had little or no recollection of where they had been. One girl sent me a postcard from the Bahama Islandsโwhich surprised me because I knew she was very poor. When she returned, she told me that she had only one memory of the trip. She said she remembered getting off a jet at an airportโshe couldnโt recall getting on the jet or making the tripโand there โIndiansโ met her and took her baggage. She remembered nothing further after that. The next thing she knew she was back home again. It seems likely the same methods are applied to both mediums and contactees. In the case of the mediums, the mind control serves a useful purpose. It enables the entities to establish direct vocal communication with us and, in many instances, pass along worthwhile information. This process can also be destructive. A young man from Ithaca, New York, called me some time ago at the urging of William Donovan, president of Aerial Investigation and Research (AIR), to tell me of his close brush with death. One evening in the fall of 1967, he said, he left his home to drive to a meeting. For some reason he couldnโt explain, he got out of his car, went back into his house, and carried out several aimless actions such as picking up a book from a table and putting it on the shelf. โFinally, I said to myself, Okay, itโs time,โ he told me. He remembers leaving the house and again heading for his parked car. The next thing he knew he was in a hospital bed. He had apparently driven about four miles to a railroad crossing just in time to meet an oncoming train. His car was demolished, but he escaped rather miraculously with only a few minor injuries. If he had not gone back into the house and carried out those meaningless, time-killing chores, he would have avoided the train altogether. It is possible, of course, that the shock of the accident blotted out his memory of that four-mile driveโbut he couldnโt even remember putting the key in the ignition. This man had been active in investigating the UFO flap that took place around the radio telescope installations near Ithaca in 1967-68. In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. โIn the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,โ Dr. Vallee states. โHe was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a โvoice from spaceโ had given her orders to kill that particular manโorders she could not resist. Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.โ So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. When the good guys worked through mediums, they needed some excuse that we would accept. The answer seemed to be โcommunication with the dead.โ These communicative efforts led to the foundation of spiritualism, and the entities played the role to the hilt, using their complete knowledge of us and our individual lives to provide us with โproofโ of the existence of a spirit world. This is the same precise methodology being employed with the UFOs to build up support for the extraterrestrial thesis. We humans need acceptable explanations for unnatural phenomena, so โtheyโ happilyโand often humorouslyโsupply us with all the explanations we can handle. At the same time, they give us tiny fragments of the real truth, hoping no doubt that we will be able to digest them slowly. Ever so slowly. In earlier times it seems as if they made a complicated attempt to convey the truth to us through mediums and psychics, but we chose to misinterpret these efforts and placed them within the context of our primitive religious beliefs. We are still doing this, and they are going along with it because even misinterpreted communication is better than no communication at all. Religion may not be truth but may merely be a step on the long path of the real truth. Do the ultraterrestrials really care about us? There is much disturbing evidence that they donโt. They care only to the extent that we can fulfill our enigmatic use to them. The Reverend Arthur Ford is one of Americaโs best-known trance mediums. For most of his life he has served as an instrument for an entity who calls himself Fletcher. In 1928, Fletcher announced that Harry Houdini (who had died in 1926) was on hand and had a message which he wanted conveyed to his widow, Beatrice. The message was in a code once used by the Houdinis in a mind-reading act. This code was known only to the couple and had never been published or revealed to anyone. Fletcher, through Ford, was able to give precise details of this secret code, and Mrs. Houdini later confirmed that the message had to come from her husband. This was only one of Fordโs many coups. In the fall of 1967, Ford went into a trance on Canadian television and produced a message for Bishop James Pike from his deceased son. Bishop Pike, who was present at this televised sรฉance, avowed that the message seemed authentic and seemed to come from the familiar personality of his son. This well-publicized sรฉance launched a major revival of spiritualism in the United States. Reverend Ford travels in high circles but has never made any material gain from his peculiar gift. He gives freely of his timeโand Fletcherโs advice from the other sideโat sรฉances all over the country. Mrs. Ruth Montgomery, the well-known author and Washington reporter, tells of the time that Reverend Ford visited her in Washington and lapsed into a trance so she could ask Fletcher for some advice on his behalf. Reverend Ford was then in the process of moving and wanted to know what he should do with some of his things. Fletcher seemed totally disinterested in Fordโs problems, Mrs. Montgomery reported, and when she asked if Ford should visit a clinic for a checkup, Fletcher snapped, โHeโd better do something. If he doesnโt, I canโt work through him much longer.โ Although Reverend Ford had voluntarily submitted his person to Fletcherโs use for nearly half a century, the entity was apparently completely disinterested in his problems and welfare. This is, alas, rather typical. Even the most helpful entities seem more dedicated to the job of communicating than to any kind of involvement with those to whom (or through whom) they are communicating. The bizarre history of psychic phenomena is filled with Fletchers. Mrs. Montgomery, incidentally, indulges in automatic writing herself and has received constant messages for the past few years, many of which have been valid prophecies and stern advice meant to govern her future actions. There have been innumerable psychic hoaxes for the past 150 years, and many of these parallel the UFO hoaxes. In 1855, the Fox sisters confessed that their spirit rappings were a hoax. They said they produced the sounds by โsnapping their toes.โ Think about that for a moment. Snapping your toes so that it sounded like a rap on a wall or table would be a most remarkable talentโperhaps even more remarkable than the ability to communicate with the spirit world. I donโt believe I would pay ten cents to hear someone talk to a rapping spiritโbut I would happily pay five dollars to examine someone who could duplicate the rapping sound by snapping his toes. Later the two sisters said the confession was false, and they had been bribed to make it. "Mrs. Houdini was genuinely astonished and impressed by Reverend Fordโs messages from her husband, and she made numerous public statements to that effect, as well as signing various affidavits. But later, in the 1930s, she chose to deny it all for a time. Then, shortly before her death, she reversed her denials. In ufology we have to contend with teenagersโ hot-air balloons, and in psychic phenomena we have to worry about youngsters firing rocks at houses with slingshots and phony mediums levitating โspirit trumpetsโ with black thread. But there are many more UFO sightings than there are plastic balloons, and there are more poltergeists dumping rocks in living rooms than there are wild-eyed youngsters with slingshots. There are also more ultraterrestrial entities than either the occultists or the UFO enthusiasts dream of." ~~~Edit of the Bigelow Interview~~~ Bigelow: "I also, I was...I got very disturbed toward the end (of AAWSAP) about something that happened to some of the government people, and I realized uhh...holy crap." (Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." I think it's one of the most important UFO books in recent memory.) George Knapp: "Hitchhikers." Bigelow: "Umm... Well, yeah. You know. So, hitchhikers being that you take things home with you. Everybody took things home with them. I took things to my house. Things happened to my wife, and to me. Different things. So, everybody took things home. We all, you know, we did. But we didn't know that, gee, it was like, gonna be kind of permanent. You know, we didn't know that, you know? That it's gonna stay with you for maybe...for years and years or the rest of your life, who knows? "But the ones that bothered me a lot where anybody got hurt or really disturbed... Not that it happened on the ranch, it was when they left the ranch. As you say, hitchhikers. And these were government people and it affected them." Knapp: "In very dramatic ways, though." Bigelow: "Very dramatic ways. Very dramatic ways. You know, and there's a cousin to that that we're facing, but it's abated, at least for now. And this other survival topic, right? The very dramatic kind of things that we wanted to have reduced or stopped." (The "cousin" to the hitchhiker phenomenon features the not-so-rosy things he referred to early on in this clip. But at least it had abated at the time of this interview. Has it started up again?) Bigelow: "But going back to the government people, the buyer (Brandon Fugal) came along at the right time, I had decided I wanted to tone down..." Knapp: "Take this off your plate." Bigelow: "Yeah, take it off my plate, tone it down, and if necessary, just lock it up and forget about it. And next thing I know, you know, [Fugal] comes along and, you know, the rest is history." Knapp: "Before we leave this, though, the incidents that happened to you, to your wife, to Colm (Kelleher), to me, the, you know, you bring it home. How does everybody handle that? I mean, is it spooky at the time, and do you draw the connection that it's ranch related?" Bigelow: "Yes and no. If the events hadn't happened very often prior to the ranch, then it's not ranch connected. But they did happen." (I think he meant to say, if the events hadn't happened prior to him buying the ranch in 1996 and did happen once he made the purchase, then it would seem to be connected just to the ranch. But he says these anomalous events did happen before he bought it. Maybe some events were connected to the ranch and others were not? Or, this precognitive sentient phenomenon, as John Alexander labelled it, was able to know that Bigelow was going to purchase the ranch in the future and began interacting with him and his wife before he bought it?) Bigelow: "And [these anomalous events] did [happen], where we lived with my wife and I. We had a poltergeist event one time that was really fun and very different, and that was before I ever acquired the ranch. My wife was a very strong - and probably still is, in spirit - person. And so she took them in stride. She had a full manifestation of an apparition, a human-form apparition in the bedroom, and looking at her. "And this was a holy cow. And she happened to tell me, kind of like, 'Oh, well, while you were gone, this is what happened here, a manifestation of this.' I've heard this kind of thing many times through other people, and recently. And she felt the bed depress as there was a curiosity going on because the facial features were distinctive enough to be able to...as though, 'Who are you and what are you doing here?' Coming from the manifestation from the apparition, looking at her, right? "And torso up was kind of what was manifested. And being able to see and feel the mattress being depressed as it's looking at you, wondering, 'Who are you?' That kind of look on the face. 'What are you doing here?' You know, usually you think it would be the opposite direction. 'Who the hell are you?'" (Fully-formed apparitions have been reported over the last 150 years or so but many times only partial bodies are seen. In this case, Mrs. Bigelow only saw the apparition from the torso up. When Leslie Kean sat with physical medium, Stewart Alexander, she said she only saw a hand form. The alleged spirits will say that, many times, it takes too much energy to form a full body. Learn more about the Kean encounter here: ) ~ Knapp: "Was [Mrs. Bigelow] freaked out?" Bigelow: "No. No, she wasn't. There was a bar of light - so this was not normal in the survival research, but maybe in the ET - that was between her pillows. A bar of light. It wasn't coming in from shutters or blinds or anything from the room or any kind of other light source. You could cover, put the pillows down, and the bar would not be reflected on the surface of the object above it, on the second pillow. It only happened when you did this. And she did that and said, 'Oh, well.' I said, 'Well, what did you do?' "'Well, I went to sleep.' Went to sleep, so..." ~~~ (In January of 2012, NYT journalist, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article about Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). He ended it with this: ) "One personal footnote. Donโt ask me what happened on Jan. 4 at 5:45 a.m. as I lay sleepless, wrestling with this story. A tremendous bang jolted me and my wife and the dog upright. We found the glass door to our 12th-floor terrace completely spiderwebbed with cracks as if struck with tremendous force, but there was no sign of any projectile. Invisible moisture between the double panes? Or something else? There are things I donโt mind talking about and things I do mind talking about." (Was this prosaic or just more of the not-so-rosy phenomena Bigelow referenced? We need to know!)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1902142299288838169/ext_tw_video_thumb/1902092701014855681/pu/img/uet_Rn_7fhU0pn3Q.jpg)
![An interview by VERY DARK AND CORRUPT Wall Street Journal aired today [1] WSJ's terrible "journalists" (and I use that term lightly) made many false statements about Sarepta's worthless, dangerous drug and Vinay Prasad's firing [1,2] I explain how the FDA sausage is made in excruciating detail Buckle up To get readers up to speed -> In June, corrupt pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics paid $40,000 to lobbying group Michael Best Strategies (MBS) to deal with a problem [3] -> MBS had recently hired Chris LaCivita, who had close connections with "MAGA" influencer Laura Loomer [4] -> With stock down 88%, Sarepta needed to sell their very bad, very dangerous drug or the company would go bankrupt [5] -> After several deaths from the drug this year, FDA official Vinay Prasad said "no way" and kicked the drug to the curb [2,6] -> Sarepta panicked and paid MBS (we believe) to deal with Prasad [3,4] -> If this story is right, LaCivita recruited Laura Loomer to take down Prasad [4,7] -> Loomer said she was defending Trump, but she was lying [7] -> She was defending taxpayer-funded payouts to a worthless, corrupt company [7] -> Laura Loomer so brave A history of bad drugs and regulatory failure -> This is one of the worst pharma scandals in American history and corrupt mainstream media isn't covering it -> Sarepta has a very long, troubled history [8] -> For more than a decade, every major Sarepta FDA drug approval has required INTENSE political intervention [8,9] -> Scientists at FDA have been repeatedly overruled [8,9] -> Many scientists have resigned, very publicly, over these POLITICAL decisions, some writing scathing public criticisms of these terrible decisions [10,11] -> The most recent resignation by Vinay Prasad is not something new; it follows in a long tradition [2,10] -> In fact, standards have dramatically deteriorated since the first controversies about the company's drugs in the 2010s [8,9] -> Prasad was trying to hold the line in the face of rapidly deteriorating standards at the agency [2,6] -> For that, pharma launched a coup--a literal coup of a drug regulator [4,6] -> This is unprecedented -> Banana republic sht, unbelievably corrupt 2016: first Sarepta drug approval and the "highly unusual" decision -> The first Sarepta drug approved by FDA was called Exondys 51 [8] -> This drug was for patients with mutations in dystrophin, a muscle protein [8] -> This is a debilitating and fatal disease affecting children [8] -> Exondys 51 increased dystrophin by 0.2% of normal levels [8,12] -> Unsurprisingly, there was no good evidence the drug worked [8,12] -> Why would it? It increases the protein from zero to 1/500th of normal levels -> One reviewer wrote: "I can find no precedent of an accelerated approval for a marketing application where the effect size on the surrogate endpoint is as small as 0.3%." [12] -> The study submitted by the company included no proper control group [12] -> The techniques used were so bad not even a first-year PhD student would do a study that way -> This the level of work you would expect from a mediocre undergraduate with no guidance -> It's almost like it was so bad on purpose -> (Narrator: it was on purpose) -> Nerd time: -> One reviewer wrote: "The Western blots submitted by the applicant for Study 201 were oversaturated, unreliable, and uninterpretable." [12] -> Another wrote: "Because CDER also determined that the conditions under which the original IHC analysis was performed were inadequate, including that the reader was not masked to sequence and time, the Center requested a re-reading of the stored images by three masked pathologists under different conditions. The IHC results from the reread were not nearly as favorable, as compared to the initial IHC results reported by Sarepta." [12] -> "The lack of concordance between the IHC and the Western Blot results is 'striking'" [12] -> "Study 201/202 had fundamental flaws, including baseline biopsies from external controls who could differ in unknown ways from study subjects, Week 180 biopsies from different muscles than baseline, and potential protein degradation in stored baseline samples." [12] -> And on and on. -> FDA commissioner Robert Califf wrote at the time: the submitted study was "characterized by major flaws in the clinical study design" and "Blinded experts assembled by the FDA fundamentally debunked this study, which has yet to be retracted and continues to be cited" [9,12] -> That's right, the FDA commissioner expressed dismay that the study that the company used to gain approval hadn't yet been retracted, it was so bad [9] -> Senior FDA official Janet Woodcock decided to approve before scientific review team had even voted [9,12] -> Woodcock be like: yeah i'm going to decide before you guys can because i know what you're going to say lol -> Despite external intense pressure, FDA scientists voted against Exondys 51's efficacy [9,12] -> They then voted against its accelerated approval [9,12] -> The review team filed an appeal with FDA commissioner after "passionate" disagreement with Woodcock [9,12] -> One reviewer called Woodcock's decision "unprecedented" [12] -> In a 126-page report, FDA commissioner Califf called Woodcock's decision "highly unusual" [9] -> The FDA board wrote: "[Woodcock's] involvement here appears to have upended the typical review and decision-making process. ... Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of interfering with the integrity of scientific reviews at the lower levels of a Center." [9] -> Again, the data were unbelievably bad, literally every technique in the study was inappropriately used [12] -> I would fire an undergraduate student who did science like this, immediately -> FDA's chief scientist accused Sarepta of "serious irresponsibility" for selectively publishing only some of the data [9] -> Even Woodcock, who approved the drug, called the research "seriously deficient" [12] -> Yes, even the person who approved the drug over the heads of FDA's scientists said the research was horrible [12] -> Still, FDA tried to bury their heads in the sand and beg that, basically, Sarepta pretty please do a better job next time -> FDA commissioner: "The utmost attention should be paid to optimizing the methodological rigor of [future] trial[s]" [9] -> FDA also demanded a clinical trial "to verify the benefit" of the drug [8] -> Welp, this was in 2016 [8] -> The trial results are supposed to be available in 2026, maybe [13] -> Or maybe later, depending on how much money needs to be made first -> As an article published in Nature three years later despaired of the decision: "The approval was conditional on the company agreeing to conduct a two-year post-approval trial to show Exondys 51โs efficacy. But by August 2019, the company had yet to begin such a trial and in the meantime had profited from sales of $300 million in 2018." [13] -> If it sounds like Sarepta used political pressure to get its drug approved and then tried to avoid actually publishing the study showing it didn't work, it sounds that way because that's exactly what happened [13] -> FDA commissioner after deferring to Woodcock: "I am confident this unique situation will not set a general precedent for drug approvals under the accelerated approval pathway, as the statute and regulations are clear each situation must be evaluated on its own merits based on the totality of data and information." [9] -> This statement was profoundly naive, and the historical record bears this out [8,14] -> Three FDA scientists resigned, including the lead reviewer of the drug, understanding the grave implications of the collapse of scientific standards and where they would lead [10,11] -> One was John K. Jenkins, M.D. Director, Office of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/FDA [10] -> In a presentation given just before his resignation, he wrote: -> "Path taken by Sarepta NOT a good model for other development programs" [10] -> Crucially: -> "Upholding statutory standards for approval in face of hopes and desires of patients, families, sponsors, and investors is a very difficult job" [10] -> "Personal attacks on FDA reviewers creates an atmosphere of distrust and isolation rather than collaboration" [10] This brings us to WHY Sarepta's drug was approved Facebook FDA -> So why did the drug get approved? -> Basically, Sarepta propagandized extremely desperate patients [9,15] -> They used miraculous snake oil promises and patients believed them -> Remember that this is life or death for patients, and they are extremely vulnerable -> Sarepta also professionally trained some patients to give testimonials to FDA and congress [15] -> The patients then went to congressmen who don't have time to understand the science [15] -> They gave emotional stories to congressmen [15] -> The result: -> Letter from 109 House members [15] -> Letter from 24 Senate members [15] -> And a media circus documented in the New York Times [16] -> Patients screaming at scientists during meetings [9] -> 2,792 emails written to FDA urging approval [12] -> One of them: "Dear Dr. califf: How is it that everyone in and around DMD understands this simple Idea and the science geniuses at FDA don't? You stupid fckers are costing each and every DMD kids days of their lives with your Moronic Dystrophin dance. Time to get a fcking clue" [12] -> Upon approval, a journalist for Reuters wrote: "owing to pressure from patient advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy even though an outside panel of experts and the agency's own reviewers questioned the drug's efficacy" [17] -> A commentary in Nature Medicine was also published called "Railroading at the FDA" [9] -> Its author wrote: "In the words of one FDA committee member, Exondys lowers the agency's evidentiary standard for drug effectiveness 'to an unprecedented nadir.'" [9] -> A highly critical commentary was also published in Science, titled "Sarepta gets an approval - Unfortunately" [18] -> The article's author pharma veteran Derek Lowe wrote: "The company... called up Duchenne-affected boys and their families to plead with the FDA, and won over Janet Woodcock, and that appears to be enough. Is this going to be the new way to get a drug approved? Run a trial in a dozen people, generate unconvincing data, and then lobby Janet Woodcock? I share the worries that this might open the floodgates, because after all, Sarepta got their drug through." [18] -> One FDA reviewer ended in an equally grim note: ". Approval of this NDA would send the signal that political pressure and even intimidation โ not science โ guides FDA decisions, with extremely negative consequences. The public is well aware of this development program: the meager size of the study population, the marginal (at best) effect size, the Divisionโs dim view of the efficacy data, and the robust activism of some members of the DMD community. Many would be amazed at an approval action, because other DMD drugs, recently turned down for approval, appeared to provide stronger evidence of efficacy. ...The ramifications here are profound. The public will perceive that it was their unprecedented lobbying efforts that made the difference and earned eteplirsen its accelerated approval. For the future, this will have the effect of strongly encouraging public activism and intimidation as a substitute for data, which is one of the worst possible consequences for communities with rare diseases. This type of activism is not what was envisioned for patient-focused drug development." [12] -> A new era was born -> Activism had replaced data -> Facebook had fried people's brains -> And now Facebook-fried brains had fried FDA too -> FDA's credibility as a regulatory agency would now be hollowed out -> FDA's Facebook age had begun -> But the worst was yet to come Sarepta approvals: 2016 to present -> Three more drugs were approved from Sarepta on the same shoddy basis, proving Califf's promises that Exondys 51 was an isolated case empty [8,14] -> But things would take a turn for the worse with Sarepta's newest drug Elevidys in 2024 [19] -> At last a rigorous clinical trial looking at actual clinical outcomes was published [19,20] -> All would be put to rest -> At long last the issue could be resolved with HARD CLINICAL DATA -> There was only one problem -> The trial failed to show any benefit according to the primary outcome [19,20] -> The surrogate biomarker of micro-dystrophin meant absolutely nothing; it wasn't actually helping patients [19,20] -> What did FDA scientists do? They voted against approval. Of course [19] -> How could they not? The drug didn't actually work in the clinical trial [19] -> It's the only thing that made sense, since FDA is a scientific agency -> AND THEY WERE OVERRULED AGAIN BY PETER MARKS [19] -> YES THAT'S RIGHT, OVERRULED YET AGAIN -> PHARMA WINS AGAIN -> HAHAHAHAHAHA PHARMA ALWAYS WINS YOU FOOLS -> What happened is that Marks crossed his eyes somewhat, trying to make the words on the page blurry -> He prayed really hard, "my god please give me a sign, something, anything, I need this for my career" -> lzzosolsolzzolzozlslzolosllslozllzlzl -> Marks was trying really hard to see SOMETHING, come on come on, give me SOMETHIGN he said -> And he said: wait, look, there are these secondary, exploratory endpoints and a two of them look pretty good, I'LL APPROVE [19,20] -> AHAHAHHAHAHA YES PHAMRA WINS AGAIN -> And Marks said, "Thank you pharma go- I mean god, not pharma god, why did I just say that, FCK" -> The trial was explicitly designed for what Marks did NOT to happen [20] -> Once the primary endpoint was not met, the secondary endpoints couldn't even be statistically tested [20] -> And the trial explicitly said that they could not be interpreted the way Marks interpreted them [20] -> They were not adjusted for multiplicity and they were, like expression of dystrophin, simply bad endpoints [20] -> These two secondary endpoints were time to rise from lying on the floor and the 10-meter walk/run tests [20] -> Subjects who received the Elevidys performed, on average, about 0.5 seconds better than placebo recipients on these tasks [20] -> However several facts must be borne in mind when interpreting these: -> 1. At the time of testing, patients receiving the drug were receiving more corticosteroids than placebo patients, biasing the results [20] -> 2. Blinding might have been broken because those receiving the drug experienced lots of nausea and vomiting from the drug (~70%) [20] -> 3. These differences were tiny and may be attributable to chance, since the natural course of the disease varies widely [20] -> Marks knows this but who cares? Pharma I mean Facebook needed to be placated Elevidys: the drug -> To understand why this is so messed up, one must understand a few things -> On a Bayesian basis, one must assume that Elevidys is harmful until proven otherwise, for two reasons: -> 1. All drugs are potentially "toxic", but some toxins heal: by default you must assume it is a toxin that does not heal because this is what is actually usually the case; you need evidence that it actually heals -> 2. Elevidys IN PARTICULAR must be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise because of the very nature of the drug -> Let's do a breakdown of the basic science of Elevidys that supports this (Bayesian) hypothesis: -> Gene therapy that permanently integrates into human genome [21] -> Meant to replace dystrophin, the protein that these patients cannot produce themselves [21] -> Preferentially targets muscle but gets expressed everywhere [21] -> Killed three people this year [6,21] -> Costs $3.2 million per injection [21] -> Truncated version of the protein it is supposed to replace [21] -> 3X shorter than the real protein [21] -> Has to be truncated because the technology cannot create the full protein [21] -> Because it's an abnormal protein, it's foreign, so immune system attacks it [21] -> Patients injected with drug are basically given an autoimmune disease [21] -> Patients have to be given anti-inflammatories to fight the disease that the drug causes [21] -> Causes terrible muscle inflammation [21] -> Inflames the heart, heart walls thicken because of the inflammation [21] -> Blows up the liver, causes acute liver injury and death [21] Drug should actually be assumed harmful, not beneficial -> Given all of the above, since the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, it should actually be considered harmful by default, not beneficial [19,20] -> In other words, what we would actually expect if we added more patients and did an even larger study... -> Is that the drug would do worse than placebo, i.e., patients taking the drug would do worse than those taking placebo -> Why isn't this the default interpretation? -> They are reading the study with an intervention bias -> An intervention bias is natural, which is why "do no harm" is such a central tenet of medicine -> If I may put forward a thesis: most of Vinay Prasad's 500+-paper body of work has been dedicated to demonstrating the "do no harm" principle empirically [22] -> Rose-colored glasses study interpreters are simply not applying this principle properly and are thus failing scientifically in the most fundamental way -> Incomprehensible -> Back in 2016, scientists were adamant that the approval of Sarepta's first drug indicated the profound deterioration of scientific standards [8,9] -> But this latest approval is even worse: actual clinical data is now being overruled -> No standards at all are being enforced anymore; anything can now be approved based on any evidence whatsoever -> What Vinay was trying to do was simply to stop the unrelenting downslide -> And his firing punctuated that downslide for what it was The WSJ segment -> When Elevidys was approved, former FDA chief scientist and one of the original reviewers of Sarepta's first drug Luciana Borio said: -> "I donโt know what to say. Peter Marks makes a mockery of scientific reasoning and approval standards that have served patients well over decades. This type of action also promotes the growing mistrust in scientific institutions like the FDA." [23] -> To return to this video, these two WSJ reporters show an incredible level of ignorance and arrogance -> Finley says that the drug is "clearly" beneficial by misreading the secondary endpoints, just like Marks did -> An FDA memo from last year says about these endpoints: "Under these circumstances, they are misleading and cannot guide any stakeholdersโincluding patients, family members and caregivers, and prescribersโin making informed decisions about the potential benefit of treatment with ELEVIDYS." [20] -> It really doesn't get any clearer than that -> But these two journalists are overruling the actual scientists, just like Marks did -> One of the most incredible comments during this interview was the complaint that "90% of clinical trials fail", as if that's bad thing [1] -> It's actually a good thing; most drugs suck; failing in clinical trial actually allows us to use only the drugs that don't suck -> These people don't understand the most fundamental purpose of the clinical trial -> They think clinical trials failing is a bad thing, as if it means that patients now won't get to use a useful drug -> No, it's a good thing, because it means that patients won't be exposed unnecessarily to a useless drug that might harm them -> The level of ignorance really is unbelievable -> What's worse is that these "journalists" defend their decision -> But what they did is exploit social media hysteria caused by Laura Loomer [1,7] -> Following up on her heels with editorials, using her as pharma attack dog [1,4] -> This is a huge blow to WSJ's credibility, and they know it -> Unbelievably shameful Where do we go from here? -> The Vinay Prasad firing creates a serious crisis of credibility at FDA [2,6] -> Up to this point, we could call these approvals a difference of opinion, but as we've seen, that's a huge stretch -> But any illusion of that is now shattered: the firing shows that drug regulation is explicitly political -> Janet Woodcock: approve, keep job -> Peter Marks: approve, keep job -> Vinay Prasad: block, transparently fired -> Make a decision that is anti-pharma and lose your job: that's the message -> Who can trust any decision at FDA anymore? -> RFK Jr. and Marty Makary both stand behind Vinay Prasad [24] -> Trump went along with lockdowns, he went along with mask mandates, he went along with all of the Covid pseudoscience that he now decries -> He should reverse course and not go along with this -> Trump has created a profound crisis of credibility at FDA and needs to fix it](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1952294845248114806/amplify_video_thumb/1952292444621451264/img/SPXp7ZpvQZ3FQV7_.jpg)
