The UFO Giggle Factor on MSNBC

I came across a surprising quote from an “expert” who denies anything new has happened in the recent UFO coverage by the mainstream. Here it is…

“There’s not as many mysteries in science as people like to think. It’s not like we know everything — we don’t know everything. But most things we know enough about to know what we don’t know.”

As a scientist, I disagree. In the brief history of modern science, the experts have always opposed breakthroughs of every sort because they routinely “know” such things are impossible. This is not the exception, it’s the rule.

This historic reality is documented in, Science Was Wrong – Startling Truths about Cures, Theories and Inventions “They” Declared Impossible, by Stanton Freedman and Kathleen Marden. Here’s that link if you need to cut and paste:

And here’s a brief MSNBC interview of one of the New York Times reporters who broke the big UFO story.

Blumenthal, a NY Times reporter with unusual courage says, “They have confirmed, in effect, for the first time that these things [UFOs] exist, according to what the [Pentagon’s] program said. That they have established a kind of reality to these objects that didn’t exist before, that the government was standing behind, at least this unit of the Pentagon. They have, as we reported in the paper, some material from these objects that is being studied so that scientists can try and figure out what accounts for their amazing properties, this technology of these objects whatever they are. So they have made some progress…”

Wait now, the mainstream media is telling me that the US government says,

1. UFOs truly exist and

2. They have physical evidence that’s in a laboratory somewhere.

And somehow it’s not significant to the “experts” of materialistic science?

This attractive young TV news personality sums up one of the most earthshaking stories of modern times with laughter, wishing she had more time for these fun little UFO stories.

In a few years, assuming the US government doesn’t retract everything the Pentagon has told us, all TV anchors will act as if everybody has always known that UFOs are real. I can hear it now…

“Nothing significant on the UFO front, but stay tuned for breaking news that should have Democrats and Republicans hating each other enough to cover a month of advertising space. Right after these messages.”

M. Talmage Moorehead, MD

Harry’s Secret UFO Money

We’ve got a boatload of non-crazy people talking UFO’s in the major papers lately.

Tough themes for black-and-white thinking.

The New York Times and Politico are telling us that the former Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, with the full knowledge and agreement of Ted Stevens, Alaskan Republican, and Daniel Inouye, Hawaiian Democrat (both now deceased, God rest their honorable souls), secretly funneled 22 Million in tax-payer dollars mainly to Reid’s friend Robert Bigelow (a billionaire working with NASA) for a “black-budget” program run by the Pentagon’s Luis Elizando (now retired and working with a rock star, Tom DeLonge, on a UFO-related startup business).

I could see myself using these journalistic facts in a sci-fi novel, but wiser novelists would see it all as too far-fetched, especially the fact that two out of three of the program’s initiators are now dead. What are the odds?

Turns out, truth is stranger than fiction.

If you’re an objective person, this UFO story may be warning you to inoculate yourself against the dismissive term “conspiracy theory.”

Notice that conspiracy is normal, not theoretical, in national defense and other government affairs, such as the FED. (Unless I’m mistaken, the FED is a private corporate bank creating US computer money at will, and siphoning 6% to its anonymous shareholders.)

So what do we make of the UFO’s themselves? Are they real?

It seems they’re real enough for another round of sane and famous people to take seriously – even the fearless hero, Senator Inouye of WWII fame.

They’re real enough for a billionaire NASA contractor, Bigelow, to say on 60 minutes that he’s “absolutely convinced” that UFO’s have visited the earth and aliens exist.

As I mentioned previously, UFO’s are real enough for NASA to grant a million dollars to a religious organization to study their effect on religion if “disclosed” to the public.

But hallucinations are a real phenomenon, right?

These articles rule out subjective possibilities because more than one person, as well as video equipment, saw and recorded the object(s).

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re alien. It’s no secret that the US keeps about 50 years ahead of the public with their latest air-bourn wonders.

Maybe that’s the whole story.

But UFO’s seems to have been around longer than the US military, so maybe it’s a “breakaway civilization” that survived the latest of Earth’s cataclysms (the melting of the polar icecaps?) and now lives in isolation.

Not a popular idea but probably worth consideration when you look beyond mainstream archeology at the saw marks, drill holes and uncanny symmetry of ancient rockwork done with “primitive” tools.

And UFO’s couldn’t be aliens anyway, most people’s religion won’t allow it, and even the “non-religion” of science tells us that space is too big and light speed too slow for anyone to travel between the stars.

People argue the details, but as a scientist (a retired pathologist) I’m convinced that mainstream science is still in its embryonic stages. The things we’re aware of not knowing are often staggeringly basic. The things we are cluelessly unaware that we don’t know are probably more numerous.

And the more I learn, the more I discover that plenty of the things modern science “knows” are true turn out to be incorrect, especially in medicine. Probably also incorrect is the materialistic assumption of science that the universe is entirely made of matter and energy. It seems dangerously superficial to make that assumption and preach it to children (as we do) since it rules out free will and the inherent value of everything, including ecosystems and people.

So I’m going to try and keep my mind open about UFO’s, along with my powers of critical analysis and my willingness to direct the spotlight of objectivity on my own biased beliefs and assumptions.

I refuse to let reality sneak up and pull the plug on my subjective relationship with the Transcendent. That relationship means more to me than the “infallibility” of the stories I want to believe.

M. Talmage Moorehead, MD






In One Fall Swoop

When days were long, I was small.

Fall and Spring were part of Summer,

Woven in, but Time will fall upon the young

With silent tongue.

Until the seasons pass like weeks upon a respirator.

One chill takes the summer leaves.

One click and far away my analog world,

My kind, calm genius friend glowing green over EM fields of cells.

Patiently telling their secrets to me.

To the memory of my mentor and friend, Douglas Weeks, MD.

M. Talmage Moorehead

Ending Alzheimer’s Disease

The End of Alzheimer’s, by Dale Bredesen, MD, is finally out. I’ve been waiting for this forever. All the details of his protocol are now available to the public!

This book may save your mind and the minds of your loved ones. Buy it. Read it. Loan it to your doctor. 🙂

Clinical studies using Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol are showing breakthrough results in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s Disease as well as pre-Alzheimer’s. Over 200 patient success stories exist, many are breathtaking. In each case, the disease was well documented before treatment.

Bredesen’s ingenious basic science research on Alzheimer’s Disease has been published in peer-reviewed journals for 28 years, yet strangely his successful clinical protocol papers have received a cold shoulder from the medical establishment.

Is this because Bredesen is going after causes while mainstream medicine is interested only in masking symptoms? No. It may seem that way sometimes, but the truth is much more interesting.

It boils down to a rigid devotion to traditional experimental design which insists that each component of any therapy must be studied separately. Yes, rarely the medical gatekeepers will make an exception and study two medications simultaneously for certain diseases, but the moon has to be just right for such madness.

Historically this monotherapy approach has worked fairly well for diseases with single causes, but it creates a roadblock to clinical research on complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

Though the evidence against monotherapy for Alzheimer’s Disease is a billion-dollar wasteland of failed clinical trials, medical authorities cling to their linear way of thinking, blindly following the sacred tradition of scientific fundamentalists throughout history who have uniformly obstructed all major paradigm shifts with their flawed scientific beliefs and assumptions.

In the case of Alzheimer’s Disease, the belief is simple: if you don’t isolate one thing at a time, you’ll never know exactly what that one thing does in isolation.

Brilliant deduction. The assumption, though, is that knowing what each thing does in isolation should always be the ultimate goal of science and medicine.

This is narrow reductionism – dissecting a thing with the mistaken belief that answers can only be found in the parts.

But as Emerson said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” Sometimes the destruction of a forest cannot be prevented by focusing only on the trees.

In medical science, understanding a system as a functioning whole in both disease and health is more central than reductionism to the overall goal, which is saving patients’ lives.

Bredesen’s protocol is doing exactly that, as documented in peer-reviewed journals.

Disease complexity is why monotherapy experimental design has made no significant progress against Alzheimer’s Disease. This is a disease with at least 36 to 50 different “things” that can go wrong in various combinations that cause the mind to fail. The numbers and mixes of partial causes differ from one patient to the next, but three broad categories have emerged: Inflammatory, atrophic and toxic.

All three produce the same pathognomonic plaques and tangles under light microscopy, so pathologists consider Alzheimer’s a single disease, and drug companies target amyloid with their failed monotherapies.

It’s not as simple as they assume.

Clinically testing Bredesen’s therapies for each of the 36 to 50 causal elements in isolation, if it were possible and fundable (which it’s not), would take many decades and result in falsely negative and/or equivocal outcomes. This is because:

1. Each component of Bredesen’s protocol reverses only a small fraction of the 36 to 50 disease-promoting processes, and those processes are not uniformly distributed in the Alzheimer’s population. So any one of them tested in isolation would not likely have enough overall effect to achieve statistical significance. It’s like firing a shotgun one pellet at a time expecting to stop a serial killer in your bedroom. Stupid, right? Bredesen’s total protocol (tailored to each patient with lab tests) is needed to reverse mild to moderate Alzheimer’s Disease.

2. The synergistic effects of therapeutic components are foolishly eliminated by linear monotherapy-biased experimental design. Keep red and green separate and you won’t discover yellow.

Ignoring Bredesen’s work, as the orthodox mainstream currently prefers to do, is the moral equivalent of physical abuse to Alzheimer’s patients.

The mechanisms producing Alzheimer’s Disease take decades to produce symptoms, so when memory loss or difficulty with word-finding shows up, the disease has already been silently progressing for decades. The earlier you treat it, the better your chances for complete reversal. The worst thing you can do is wait for early symptoms to progress.

If you know anyone with subjective cognitive decline or mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, do them the biggest favor of their lives. Read Dale Bredesen’s breakthrough book for yourself and share your knowledge. Maybe the person you care about won’t be fooled by the supercilious, confident, sophisticated-sounding monotherapy zombies who feel they must watch their patients die while waiting for a prescription pill from a drug company.

Sorry, that sounds harsh. But people are dying in the worst imaginable hell while a scientifically documented breakthrough is ignored. It’s astonishing!

The problem is that most MD’s are too busy to read extensively and learn how to distinguish good science from unsubstantiated claims. So they blindly listen to authorities who have the power to take away their licenses.

In medical school, we studied our lecture notes and books with virtually no impetus to learn to critically evaluate journal articles. We had one brief class in statistics.

Anyway, here’s a video interview of Dale Bredesen discussing the groundbreaking, unprecedented results of his ReCODE protocol. Enjoy!

Learning the truth is always fun, and…

“It’s fun to have fun, but you’ve got to know how.” – Dr. Seuss.

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Retired Pathologist, science fiction writer, and novel content editor.

(I have no conflicts of interest to report and no personal acquaintance with Dr. Bredesen.)

Publishers Scam Scientists and the Public

“Aaron [Swartz] believed… you literally ought to be asking yourself all the time, ‘What is the most important thing in the world that I could be working on right now?’ And if you’re not working on that, why aren’t you?”

I’m glad we writers have Amazon et al. competing with the traditional publishers.

Nothing’s perfect but imagine the old days: working for a decade or two on your writing skills, finally hammering out a novel that works, and then feeling like you’ve won the lottery if you’re lucky enough to get past the slush pile and sell your copyrights to a publisher for 5  to 15% of the take.

It wasn’t the worst possible arrangement, but things are better now. If you pour your life energies into your writing, you’ve got choices for finding readers…

Unless you’re a scientist.

“So, a researcher, paid by a University or the people, publishes a paper and in the very last step of that process… after all the original research is done – the thinking, the lab work, the analysis… then the researcher has to hand over his or her copyright to this multi-billion dollar company… It’s an entire economy built on volunteer labor… the publishers sit at the very top and scrape off the cream.” – Christopher Soghoian


“Talk about a scam. One publisher in Britain made a profit of three billion dollars last year. I mean, what a racket!” – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D), Congresswoman California’s 19th District.

Scientists are forced to donate their writing to someone who didn’t do the work.

Most research scientists are paid through government grants, so maybe it’s not as crazy as it sounds. Why should taxpayers want to pay anyone to write for profit? I guess we pay solar companies to make a profit, but maybe scientists don’t deserve that special treatment. They’re only trying to cure cancer and get a few of us off the planet before we blow it up – nothing as important as solar power.

Ideally, science should be free from monetary bias and the corruption it brings. Maybe if they sold their own writing it would affect their integrity more than drug or tobacco company funding.

I doubt it.

Part of me thinks scientists have the right to sell their work, same as anyone else.

Assuming I’m somehow wrong about that, what should happen to the articles that government-funded scientists produce?

Should they be

  1. given to private corporations to sell, or
  2. distributed freely – at least to the taxpayers who funded the research?

The current science journal system has a bad smell and could probably use some fresh air and rational thought – with consideration for the worldwide scientific community, some of whom can’t afford scientific literature at current prices.

The whole situation highlights the capacity of educated people to be manipulated by a few parasitic corporations.

Incidentally, this parallels the way Americans in general have been quietly hoodwinked by another for-profit privately owned parasitic corporation, the Federal Reserve “System.”

Most of us don’t seem to know (or care?) that a few anonymous FED shareholders are skimming six percent off the top while the corporation they own, the FED, is diluting the value of US dollars with “computer money,” and thereby shrinking the middle class into poverty.

Here’s that complex story, free of the technical language that once allowed Bernanke (former FED chair) to say with a straight face, “We’re not printing money” to a fully conscious journalist.

The trick to hiding corruption is to make it complex and leave it out in the open where people become habituated to it, like the unfair loopholes in US tax code or the depressing, outdated myth of Neo-Darwinism that’s preached like a religion in government schools.

But I digress.

A brilliant young man in his early twenties, Aaron Swartz, saw an entrenched system where science articles are confiscated and sold for profit by private corporations. He tried to challenge the system, broke some laws and was charged with thirteen felonies. We’re told he committed suicide in 2013.

The way the government lawyers went after him was outrageous. In the blur of hatred for real cybercriminals it took more discernment and integrity than the authorities could muster to see that Aaron was an idealistic genius trying to make the world a better place, not a dangerous criminal. But I guess discernment is not a prosecutor’s job in a Universe where fairness and compassion, like consciousness itself, are assumed to be illusions by society’s “thinkers.”

Here’s something from a speech Aaron gave:

“…a lot of these [scientific] journal articles – they go back to The Enlightenment. Every time someone has written a scientific paper it’s been scanned, digitized and put into these collections. That is a legacy that has been brought to us by a history of people doing interesting work, a history of scientists. It’s a legacy that should belong to us as a people, but instead it’s been locked up and put online by a handful of for-profit corporations who then try and get the maximum amount of profit they can out of it.” – Aaron Swartz (1986 – 2013)

Maybe research scientists need to peer-review each other’s articles outside of the system. Then publish independently for profit, eliminating the scientific publishing “system” we have now.

Politicians might feign outrage and force scientists to give their work away again, but hopefully to the public, not to a private corporation. This would make the latest research available to developing nations and end the science info cartel’s glorious reign.

“What is the most important thing in the world that I could be working on right now?” – Aaron Swartz

Got a comment?

(Update 10/12/2017:)

“Major periodical subscriptions, especially to electronic journals published by historically key providers, cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable.” – Harvard University.

Check out this teenager who discovered a new test for early detection of pancreatic carcinoma. He tells the truth about the publisher’s info-sucking money scam near the end of the video.

“And a child shall lead them…”


M. Talmage Moorehead, MD




UFO’s, NASA and Religion ~ Gulp!


What would happen to religion if ET’s landed?

NASA granted a million dollars to the Center of Theological Inquiry to study this question. Really.

Here’s a NASA dot gov link talking about it. A “.gov” URL can’t be faked, so this must be real, not a hoax.

Two explanations come to mind…

1.) NASA needed to dump some “excess” year-end money.

At the Pettis VA Medical Center where I worked for 13 years as a pathologist, I was told that any department that didn’t deplete its budget money by fiscal year-end would have its budget cut the following year by the unspent amount. They said it’s like this in all government agencies. Congress funds NASA, too, of course.

If this budgeting habit is widespread, it might help explain why the US seems to be fading, like every other powerhouse nation in history, into a ghost of its former stature. Runaway debt is poison. Enjoying world-reserve-currency status merely prolongs the decline.

But the point is, NASA may have been dumping excess year-end money, feeling too rushed to consider the appearance of tax dollars going to a religious study.

Odd but right at home with the US spending shenanigans in The Death of Common Sense, by Phillip Howard.

2.) There’s also the remote possibility that NASA has a genuine concern for the fate of religion in a world where ET’s become real, no longer forgettable things that nearly all scientists agree must be out there somewhere.

As a sci-fi writer, I use the UFO literature as a muse. Endless ideas. But I’ve probably read too much of it because some of the UFO people don’t sound simple-minded, crazy or dishonest to me at all.

Two of the non-crazies are President Carter and Paul Hellyer (a former Canadian Minister of Defense).

Worldview anomalies from these people are hard to ignore. And they’re not alone. A few astronauts, along with hundreds of government and military personnel have given lengthy video interviews about UFO’s and ET’s.

For instance, here’s the late Edgar Mitchell (God rest his insightful soul), the sixth man to walk on the moon:


There’s also FAA Division Chief John Callahan who reports a UFO in Alaska, describing multiple witnesses, radar corroboration and CIA cover-up – “This meeting never happened.”

If that’s a little unnerving, a former ER doc, Steven Greer, MD, who left the emergency room to pursue “UFO disclosure” full-time, challenges both the UFO community and the general public with his detailed stories and documents.

Most MD’s I’ve known over the years would love to escape medical practice and its complex, risky and stressful routine. Some manage to get away, usually climbing the food chain to administration.

But doctors from the top ten percent of a medical school class (AOA), like Dr. Greer, don’t willingly accept a loss of prestige. And because they’re heavily in debt, they rarely opt for a lower income without a solid business plan.

As far as I can tell, there’s nothing prestigious or solid about UFO’s in the US. So Dr. Greer is difficult to ignore.

His Jewish wife of nearly four decades must be a saint to have followed and supported him in this unusual lifestyle. He thanks her publicly.

He says he’s seen UFO’s since childhood.

Stanton Freedman, PhD sounds a little edgy, highly intelligent, and happens to be a nuclear physicist who’s dedicated most of his life to studying UFO’s, even though he’s never seen one.

There’s no way I can ignore a person like him. Sorry, Mom.

Richard Dolan is a historian with an academic delivery that appeals to people who like objectivity. His level-headed views and philosophical analysis of UFO’s give him a unique voice in the spectrum of “experts.”

He’s never seen a UFO. Here’s his perspective. I find it riveting…

But for some reason the guy who sounds the most convincing to me is The Honorable Paul Hellyer of Canada. He’s 93 years old now but sharper in front of a panel of politicians than most younger people would be. Aside from his topic, he sounds as rational as a math teacher on Tuesday morning.

When he went public on UFO’s he hadn’t seen one. Then a few years later he said that he and his wife had finally seen one (twice).

While atheists are understandably upset that some of NASA’s tax dollars went to a religious outfit, there’s a group of well-educated religious people who think that the arrival of ET’s on Earth would support the theory of intelligent design.

I’d agree. “Coincidences” like Earth’s hypercomplex DNA codes showing up in a “mindless universe” can’t happen on one planet after another without spoiling science’s enthusiasm for the neo-Darwinian myth.

Spirituality provides meaning and purpose to most people today, and has done so for our ancestors throughout recorded history. Perhaps science demotes these facts to everyone’s peril.

Is it possible that the rocket scientists at NASA truly worry that religion might die if our world accepted ET’s as real?

I guess fundamentalism (both scientific and religious) would take a hit. But I don’t think most people’s appreciation of God would suffer. Mine wouldn’t.

How about yours?

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD


Fundamentalism in Science and Religion

The growth spurts of science come from dissent, doubt, and radical questioning of normsThese are the sunshine and water of science.

When your interpretation of evidence brings you to disagree with something that science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, you are following in the footsteps of the greatest scientists in history: Einstein, Copernicus, Salk, Papanicolau… the list grows with every decade.

But when we agree vehemently (and emotionally) with a scientific dogma that we haven’t personally studied in-depth, or that we can’t understand after having studied, we find ourselves following the footsteps of the average American fundamentalist, whether “religious” or “scientific” – and that distinction needs to be tentatively abandoned because “scientific materialism” is an untestable assumption that rules out God and the reality of our own minds without considering one piece of evidence, pro or con. That’s more akin to fundamentalist religion than objective science.

The thing that all fundamentalists have in common is a belief that they are in possession of a source of ultimate truth, whether old writings, a person with special insight, or an array of science journals. The important parts of their “truth” must be kept static, never doubted or questioned because the facts have been proven and are now known forever.

To go against the known “truth,” or even to doubt it, is considered irrational and morally wrong, especially among modern scientific fundamentalists. (Many Christian fundamentalist groups have been arguing over “important details” long enough to have seen the irony and abandoned much of the vicious outrage of bygone generations. Scientists could learn something here.)

Of course the religious fundamentalists must label their dissenters as heretics, infidels, heathen or whatever.

The scientific fundamentalists don’t use the same terms, they casts aspersions upon a dissenter’s educational credentials, sanity, mental acuity, motivation, and funding, but not so much upon the detailed logical weaknesses of opposing ideas. It’s too much work and they already know they’re right.

An important example is the way the scientific fundamentalists have responded to Stephen Meyer, PhD in his detailed analysis of DNA and molecular biology that concludes that intelligence must have been involved in writing the code and designing the cellular systems of life if the Universe is really only 13.8 billion years old.

The fundamentalist gatekeepers of science journals obstruct publication of dissenters’ work because of narrow-minded bias. They seek to embarrass anyone who dares talk rationally and openly about a shunned concept.

An example is the general rejection of “functional medicine” by orthodox western medicine. More specifically, Dale Bredesen’s breakthrough work with Alzheimer’s patients is ignored because it goes beyond standard experimental design where one variable must be isolated independently, a practice that grossly underestimates the complexity of many diseases and disallows examination of multiple simultaneous synergistic treatment effects.  (The whole treatment is better than the sum of its parts as tested independently.)

And yet, fundamentalism is the natural style of human thinking.

Ever wonder why?

Is it because we’re social “pack animals” or because God created us this way?

Is it the result of a “residual primitive brain” or the result of “sin?”

Maybe none of the above, or all, but the human groupthink tendency probably offers a survival advantage that’s underrated by those of us who perhaps value objectivity too highly.

Could it be that we shouldn’t paint fundamentalism in the same black-and-white colors it endorses?

That’s a tough challenge for me, personally.

But maybe fundamentalism is like salt: necessary for survival, but fatal if the dose is too high or too low.

Is religious and scientific fundamentalism good, bad or somewhere else – maybe on an amoral spectrum of usefulness?

What do you think?

M. Talmage Moorehead