2010 Professional Seminar: Entrained Mental Coherence Random Systems (Skip Atwater)

the earth revolved around the sun, if it's taken perhaps 300 years for there to be some kind of CO balance between a worldview that was maintaining a past creation story and new creation story, the Big Bang? So that's that conflict is, I mean, we see it everywhere now. So is that is that part one of the motivators the push for the the, the formative function beyond the evolutionary shift? 1:01:12 Dr. Hope? 1:01:19 What if you just had some designated not particularly involved person collapsed, the probability wave earlier? looked at the data with that pretend. 1:01:47 Observer, you know, but they wouldn't be blind or close to what data they would actually provide? Maybe. 1:02:05 I wonder, you know, it seems to me just listening to all this, that we have a bit of a situation. While we're still scratching our heads, plausible deniability that we have an opportunity at least 300 years long, to continue to take advantage of the old world way of thinking that there is good data out there that can be measured, and quantified and sold as good science. Okay. As long as we can. 1:02:43 Yeah. I want to thank you for that. Joy, I can buy a bridge in Brooklyn. 1:02:56 And I and that was a good transition to sort of where I want to go now. Joe mcmoneagle is I wish you were here has developed a very new little job that he has, having worked with Edie Mae through many of these problems. They went to the Soviet Union, where there was a study that looked like some remote intent of influencing the heartbeat of a rabbit. And I forget what the actual animal was, might have been a guinea pig was possible because they took data and said to the lab technician, you got all these rabbits here, want you to divide them up. In 5050, just pick any one you want. Don't worry about it, because we're gonna run an experiment on the group in the red basket and these others we want you to take and put in a different part of the lab. Okay, fine. And so then they have one of their trained psychics focus their intent on interfering with the biological systems of the target group. And lo and behold, they get statistically significant results. Oh my God, those damn Russians, they can stop the heart of a rabbit, you know? And Edie says, maybe not. Maybe it was decision argumentation theory. So they asked the Russians to redo the experiment. But the clueless observer model comes in, you have a machine pick which rabbits come out of the baskets without telling him that this is going to be the experimental batch and this is going to be the control batch. Okay. And redoing the experiment three times they did not get statistically significant data. The idea being that this person in Ed's conceptual notion of decision augmentation theory, this technique And that said, these are the experimental rabbits had information, which travels both way in time that somebody was going to try to do something with this. So he picked a bunch of sick rabbits, subconsciously, but still aware that this was the experimental batch, which created the results of them dying statistically significantly faster. By selecting them out. It wasn't the psychic that did it. It was the psychic guy who pulled them out of the basket. Okay. So that left the Russians scratching their head again, like, what does that mean? Now? Jumping ahead that ad and Joe and Joe's ability to move across time and find things and do things and all the studies that have been done on him over the 30 years, he's been in this business. Joe has now got a really interesting job because working with Dr. McMichael is here this morning, zoom here and other medical organizations to say, you know, I could sort of help with your business here. And they say, What do you mean? Yeah, what do you mean? Well, they'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing a drug. And then they jump through all of these hoops that are put before them by the FDA. And prove, with all their studies, that this medicine works. And then they put it out on the market in two to five years later, they have to pull it off the market because this doesn't work. So what is what's going on here? Joe says, Listen, I can help you make more money. Because if the thing that you put out on the market really does work, it would be a whole lot better than it being taken off the market. And he said, So they said, well, that make him money. That's a good idea. And he said What's wrong, and he says, the science that you're being asked to do to prove that this drug works is flawed by the nature of what you think you're doing, you are creating the results in the study, but it's not the truth. And the truth is, when you put it out there in the population, that drug doesn't work. 1:07:34 Right, so Joe works with them to remodel their research, like in the rabbit situation, take the guy out of the middle, in selecting the binary pair and so forth and so on. So many little procedural changes that Joe tries to look at through his remote viewing eyes. I mean, he literally remote views them, he uses his intellect of what he has experienced, to know how things will influence and his then become a consultant to them, which in the end might mean we'll get better drugs, because I mean, there really will work if the scientists don't correctly 1:08:12 experimental but in their problem already, because the drug company has the intent of having a drug that's going to work and make money. And we also are seeing all of these studies that are coming out with the placebo effect results are getting stronger. So if I go back to big toe, it seems like it's kind of like it's not the drugs anyway. 1:08:34 There was a whole issue of Newsweek magazine a couple a couple of weeks ago that the significance of any depressants is not is only 1.8 Beyond placebo. And yet, the effect of someone prescribing the anti depressant is in fact, what is bringing about the positive result? Actually, multiple the blind, the significance between 1:08:57 very, very small, very small, 1:09:00 very small, but you don't want to have clinicians stopping giving any depressants because their effect is helping people. 1:09:19 problem that you're trying to 1:09:21 put an economic system into a ONENESS consciousness is that you don't need it. You don't need drugs. Yeah. 1:09:32 Competition for money to make more money in the system. We can all make the system work if you will all play 1:09:37 the same game. 1:09:41 Comment on that? My experience? 1:09:45 How many comments have you had? What's your comment? What's your comment quoted? 1:09:56 Devices used in psychic or church and psychics himself have depended a lot on cultural influence on their own minds that they don't need the soccer pranic devices, they don't need the dowsing rods, they can hold out their hands and find water. There's all kinds of ways you can do it without having to have the equipment and if they didn't have it 1000 years ago, and they still did a lot of these kinds of things and people who had the doubt, 1:10:20 willow branch is much better than coathangers. 1:10:28 Connie, I was just I'm stuck on the drug companies still. And I think that their first objective is to make money and to show the drug works shows that the drug works and I don't think they care diddly. Show 1:10:49 I think that was very that was very get graphically displayed 1:10:59 for those that for those of you who missed it, you know she's going through, well, they believe in this and they believe and they don't need to live digitally. 1:11:17 Peter Becky was saying, my first observation is, I'm really impressed with this group, because my mind is completely closed 1:11:38 what does this have to do with dinner? And 1:11:40 my question is, is it different with the reason why I'm hungry? 1:12:03 We had a game statistics that were say below the event horizon. All probability and 1:12:13 yeah, I think you're onto something there. And it's been written down. And as Elizabeth says, if we just get all on the same track, then we wouldn't be messing with all these games. One of the interesting things that my wife and I who's watching us for either from the back or you hear Fareed, you going. She was watching us over the video feed here for a while is we got to talking several years ago about this idea of our desire to heal. And she said ever since she could remember as a little kid, I want to heal. I want to heal people I want to I want to heal people. And at 14 years old, she was a candy striper and stayed in nursing for 40 years, just retired last year. And we looked at that as an affirmation. When you choose a life of wanting to heal people, it means that everybody you meet has something wrong with it. 1:13:19 There is mostly a matter of perspective. The drug companies perceive the placebo effect as the enemy. It's the thing they have to beat. Yes, once we see this placebo effect as the answer, not the enemy, it's the thing we want to encourage. It's just never perspective. And then it flows the other way. Let's say it works. Let's use it. Let's make it better, and make it more powerful. But the drug companies see it the other way around. They want that's the enemy. You have to beat that placebo effect. They would like to placebo effect to go away, 1:13:59 makes their job easier. 1:14:03 Just a shift in perspective, 1:14:05 Cheryl? 1:14:14 I don't think so. 1:14:16 Robert Phillips worth the last seminar, several programs that the last time we were here. We're talking about the bed it was saying that a friend of hers who worked in pharmaceuticals research. And the reason is because people are manipulating the data 1:14:47 Yeah, and I mean that the concept here is we would hope that these people that are trying to do their job are motivated by doing good science and but then there's always As money over here, you know, that always can influence things. But if they were really still trying to do good science, they'd still create their own results 1:15:20 What are you suggesting figureheads? Brian, do you have something you understand 1:15:33 these people to develop a healthy for profit agency. But I would point out for those that haven't met Jeremy, you take the time to meet HD pharmacology. And this group, which l daubers. T team. And myself and several others have been participating these job. They're researching the placebo effect and doing a grant with the University of Maine. And his goal is to bring three or next to free low class medications to help people there are wonderful people out there. And what's cool. As you mentioned, Joe's doing the remote viewing, he's actually spent 1015 years trying to figure out the mechanism, how it works, the remote switching on and off the genes inside Rayleigh race has been dousing initial doses to test these formulations equity bracket, and when you go back, the initial dose turned out to be that he picked his usually the best dose. 1:16:42 So it's really suddenly making a new approach is chosen a pretty Introduce yourself as a farmer. But consumed by tomadas. He's really a pretty guy, take the time to go and look at your life. So I'm finished early, so they're sure. 1:17:15 One of the things that really enhanced by this meeting, is the question of if, if probabilities change, if the observer influences research, why are we doing research? Is it meaningful at all? And I don't know. Stop because that's what the society is on. But for me, it becomes a very important question. In terms of whether I get involved in doing more research. Am I just playing a big game? 1:17:59 I don't think so. My experience of doing research is how I learned, I think, unfortunately, that there's been a kind of horror show that surrounded research that if you get it wrong, but in my experience of doing research, I'm actually clarifying my thinking. And if I have a certain experience for me to find out if my experience is authentic, or in the work of a pioneering or