Blog

Apollo 14 Astronaut Claims Aliens Visited Earth

Edgar Mitchell, who rocketed into space as part of the Apollo 14 team to become the sixth man on the moon, claims that members of the U.S. Air Force saw UFOs flying over U.S. missile bases and the White Sands facility in New Mexico preparing to disarm the United States if a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia became imminent.

Mitchell grew up near the New Mexico sites, telling Mirror Online:

You don’t know the area like I do. White Sands was a testing ground for atomic weapons – and that’s what the extraterrestrials were interested in. They wanted to know about our military capabilities. My own experience talking to people has made it clear the ETs had been attempting to keep us from going to war and help create peace on Earth.

Mitchell said the officers whom he spoke to mentioned frequent sightings during the Cold war, adding, “They told me UFOs were frequently seen overhead and often disabled their missiles. Other officers from bases on the Pacific coast told me their (test) missiles were frequently shot down by alien spacecraft.”

Keep reading

ELON MUSK: WE’VE ALREADY IMPLANTED NEURALINK IN LIVE PIGS

On Friday evening, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk used a live event to release a number of rare updates about his secretive other startup, Neuralink, which is trying to build an interface between human brains and computers.

The demo focused on a device that Musk called “Link,” which appears to be the company’s prototype version of the hardware it wants to implant in users surgically. It takes the form of a coin-sized electronic unit that replaces a small piece of a user’s skull — and which, Musk said, could be used to both read and write information from the brain.

“In a lot of ways, it’s kind of like a Fitbit in your skull, with tiny wires,” said Musk. “I could have a Neuralink right now and you wouldn’t know.”

Keep reading

New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few Offsetting Advantages

Few people know that new prescription drugs have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious reactions after they have been approved. That is why expert physicians recommend not taking new drugs for at least five years unless patients have first tried better-established options, and have the need to do so.

Few know that systematic reviews of hospital charts found that even properly prescribed drugs (aside from misprescribing, overdosing, or self-prescribing) cause about 1.9 million hospitalizations a year. Another 840,000 hospitalized patients are given drugs that cause serious adverse reactions for a total of 2.74 million serious adverse drug reactions. About 128,000 people die from drugs prescribed to them. This makes prescription drugs a major health risk, ranking 4th with stroke as a leading cause of death. The European Commission estimates that adverse reactions from prescription drugs cause 200,000 deaths; so together, about 328,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe die from prescription drugs each year. The FDA does not acknowledge these facts and instead gathers a small fraction of the cases.

Perhaps this is “the price of progress”? For example, about 170 million Americans take a prescription drug, and many benefit from the drug. For some, drugs save their life or keep them alive. About 80 percent of them are generic; that is to say, drugs whose benefits and risks are better known. If we suppose they all benefit, then 2.7 million severe reactions is only about 1.5 percent.

But as far as we can tell (very little research is funded on prescription drugs as a health risk compared to less deadly risks like diabetes or Alzheimer’s disease), millions who take new, patented drugs experience only modest benefits over established drugs. Only a small percent of new drugs provide significant advantages for patients to offset these risks of harm. Independent reviews over the past 35 years have found that only 11 to 15 percent of newly approved drugs have significant clinical advantages over existing, better-known drugs. These contribute to the large medicine chest of effective drugs developed over the decades. But the 85 to 89 percent with little or no clinical advantage flood the market. About four-fifths of the additional $70 billion spent on drugs since 2000 in the U.S. (and another $70 billion abroad) have been spent on these minor new variations rather than on the really innovative drugs.

Keep reading