[ISCNI*Flash thanks Katharina Wilson for permission to print this edited version of her longer article titled IMPLANT OWNERSHIP: PROPOSAL AND SUMMARY, copyright 1996 by Katharina Wilson. As growing numbers of abductees consider the prospect of having possible "alien implants" removed from their bodies, urgent questions arise. Given the many unknowns in "implant surgery," how can the health and safety of the abductee/patient be assured; what constitutes proper handling of the removed objects; and who owns the objects? This article is a good start toward addressing these questions. Katharina Wilson is the author of "The Alien Jigsaw" and "The Alien Jigsaw Researcher's Supplement," two books that chronicle the first 32 years of her life and her experiences with non-human beings. Responses to this article may be sent to Katharina by email at firstname.lastname@example.org, or by postal mail at: Puzzle Publishing, P.O. Box 230023, Portland, OR 97281]
by Katharina Wilson
[July 31, 1996] -- Peter Davenport, director of the National UFO Reporting Center, recently attended the 'UFO Expo West' Conference [in California]. During Q&A after Whitley Strieber's presentation, Peter made the following proposal:
"Ufologists should establish a precedent at this time regarding the ownership and possession of removed implants." Peter pointed out that he believed that any FOREIGN BODY (as opposed to a tissue sample) removed from a person should remain the property of that individual."
The crowd spontaneously broke out in applause and even Whitley embraced the proposal strongly and immediately. Peter spoke briefly with a representative of another group working with implants and left with the impression that this researcher did not support the proposal.
[Based on this initial response, Davenport prevailed upon Katharina Wilson to query other researchers and abductees on the issues raised by implant removal. Citing Davenport's proposal, Wilson asked:]
"QUESTION: What do you believe the guidelines should be concerning the foreign object, i.e. implant? Do you believe that after the analysis is completed, the implant/object should be returned to the abductee from whom it was taken? This is a variable that we may not have thoroughly considered. If you have the time to participate in a dialogue about this important proposal, please let your voices be heard.
"Also, please consider this question if you are thinking about having a FOREIGN OBJECT you believe to be an implant removed from your body. Your ideas and feelings about this would be appreciated."
From the total [to date] of 25 respondents, it was generally agreed upon by fifteen people that unless the abductee gives someone explicit permission, no one else has the right to claim ownership of an object removed from their body except the abductee. The remaining ten people did not disagree with the question posed in the proposal. However, rather than directly addressing the question, they elected to express their concerns relating to the implant retrieval process in general.
Two respondents brought up the subject of selling implants for monetary gain. One mentioned the selling of an alien implant in a neutral manner, the other respondent believed that if anyone is to make money from these implants, then it should be the abductee. However, this person also expressed great distress that this would ever be considered by anyone, especially an abductee or an abduction researcher.
Another individual proposed that if someone else pays for the removal of the object or if there is a third party involved, for example, an insurance company, then that third party should have a voice in the ultimate ownership of the object.
[Several abductees responded to Katharina's query with further questions of their own, such as the following.]
"Since established professionals of various professions are being suspected of possible conspiracies and cover-ups, who would want them to have possession of something so important?" [Referring to alien implants.]
"How can we trust anyone but ourselves when it comes to something so important [as an alien implant]?"
One respondent brought up the fact that implants may one day be "seized by government and military personnel under some 'national security' nonsense, or at least as a PR effort." This is a chilling thought indeed, and I believe, not as far-fetched as you might imagine.
One respondent stated that the implant should be the property of "the whole of humanity if it turns out to have value in furthering our knowledge..." This same individual -- who did, in fact, have an object removed from their body -- recommended that abductees not take this step until "[they] have thought long and hard" and they "have defined [their] motives for doing so." It is noteworthy to share this individual's insight with our readers: "...If it is indeed a 'genuine article' you just may be in for a few surprises and changes in your personal makeup that you had not counted on." This person expressed that they had to come to terms with physiological and psychological changes they did not expect to occur after the object's removal.
It has been hypothesized by several people including myself, that these devices may be altering our bodies either physiologically, psychologically, and perhaps even psychically. Therefore, it would seem that these implants probably have functions other than being a device implanted merely for the purposes of tracking the abductee.
SAFE TO REMOVE?
There was concern expressed by several respondents that having an alien device removed from an abductee's body may not be such a safe decision, since we know next to nothing about these objects. Concern that the devices may be "booby-trapped," or "connected to nerve endings," or that we might face the possibility of having "...our very first fatality during a removal operation..." were some of the concerns expressed. In addition, it was also suggested that a "moratorium [be] placed on further surgeries until we have the results [of] the first ten or twelve [objects]."
Considering the words of the abductee who has already had one of these objects removed, I think many people would agree that further implant removal surgeries should be put on hold until there is time to monitor the abductees for physiological and/or psychological changes, and until the laboratory analysis has been published in a reputable journal.
Interestingly, a researcher and author who responded to the proposal stated that if abductees are not frightened by "propaganda," they probably won't elect to have their implants removed and that "the standard reaction is a feeling of being intrigued by the device's presence."
Four individuals specifically questioned the validity of the research results if the implant were returned to the abductee after the original analysis was performed. Should the need to reexamine the implant arise at some point in the future and the abductee retained possession of the implant, they believed future results might be inadvertently adulterated due to the inconsistent storage and handling by the abductee.
Another important question that was brought up in this discussion is: What if the abductee does not wish to remain in possession of the implant? Another respondent stated that "an honorable and respected group" of individuals should be in charge of caring for, or archiving and storing the implants.
Care and respect for abductees' physical and mental well-being and the object's 'chain of custody' are of primary concern to this author. I am happy to report that several respondents brought up these same concerns.
I have compiled the following list of considerations thanks to the suggestions from our respondents. The majority of these ideas come from two scientists who asked not to be identified. My comments are contained in brackets.
* Collect the objects and all possible information about their sources.
* Decide on the best method(s) of analysis, preferably non-destructive analysis that changes the objects as little as possible.
* Preserve the objects in a way that keeps them available for future study.
* One danger of allowing the objects to be returned to the source is that some of them may be hoaxes. If the objects are not available for future study, the data will be of no value and a new investigation will have to be initiated. [Imagine how
frustrating this would be if you were the person who submitted yourself to surgery in the interest of furthering scientific knowledge and your data had to be omitted.]
* Everything stands the chance of being called a hoax by 'someone,' sooner or later. It is much more difficult to prove that a genuine object is not a hoax when it has been accused of being one, than it is to prove that something is not genuine.
* The same elements exist throughout the universe and their physical reactions are the same, so we are not likely to find any chemical compounds we couldn't find on Earth. [Recently, astronomers discovered the 'building blocks' of vinegar in space.]
* [If you are an abductee and you know or suspect you have an alien implant or a suspected foreign object in your body, do not let your fear of the unknown or the requests of a researcher pressure you into making a snap decision to have it removed. There is the possibility that the object has been in your body for a long time and another week or even a month probably will not make that much difference.]
* A wealth of valuable data could be rendered meaningless unless a methodology is set up for comparing, testing, and re-testing these suspicious objects. [After the welfare of the patient-abductee, the chain of custody is of the highest importance.]
The belief in abductions aside, by the implementation of the scientific method, (having the object removed by a qualified physician and following the chain of custody precisely), there is no reason why the results of an analysis of these objects should not be submitted to a scientific journal for publication. I appeal to all researchers and medical doctors involved in this endeavor: please let one of your goals in performing this research be the publication your findings. Only by publishing your findings will the information reach the public in a way that is verifiable by scientific standards.
I would like to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to respond to this proposal. I encourage you to continue expressing your ideas and views about this important subject on message boards, in discussion groups, at conferences, and to your personal physician should you find yourself in the position of having one of these suspicious objects removed.
Original file name: .CNI - Implant Article.edit
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.