Position on UAP health effects

So uNHIdden published this recently:

"Potential health effects associated with exposure to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)"

However, if we draw on the work of Dr Joseph Burkes and Preston Dennett—two of the most respected voices in the study of contact phenomena and health effects—we can see deep flaws in this paper, especially in terms of its comprehensiveness and methodological scope.

Formal Rebuttal to the uNHIdden Health Effects Report

Informed by the published works of Dr Joseph Burkes and Preston Dennett

The uNHIdden Health Effects Report presents a limited and reductionist view of contact-related health phenomena. It fails to incorporate experiential testimony, consciousness-based models, and documented healing cases—elements that are central to the work of Dr Joseph Burkes and Preston Dennett. This rebuttal outlines the report’s methodological and epistemological shortcomings and proposes a more inclusive framework grounded in experiencer-centred research.

1. Failure to Incorporate Consciousness-Based Models

Dr Joseph Burkes, in his Virtual Experience Model (VEM), argues that many contact events are not strictly physical but are “technologically induced illusions” designed to engage human consciousness. He writes:

“Most astonishing was that UAP intelligence… strongly suggested that at times we were not observing physical objects, but rather illusory visual displays.”

This insight challenges the report’s reliance on conventional biomedical metrics and calls for a paradigm shift toward consciousness studies. The report’s omission of such models renders it epistemologically narrow and blind to the high-strangeness phenomena that define many contact experiences.

2. Neglect of Documented Healing Cases

Preston Dennett’s The Healing Power of UFOs documents over 300 cases of contact-related healing, including spontaneous remission of cancer, reversal of paralysis, and surgical interventions by non-human intelligences. In one case, Dennett recounts:

“Maria M. Rivera… was suffering from cancer all through her body… [after contact] she was taken onboard a craft and underwent a painful operation. Afterward… the cancer was gone.”

These cases are not anecdotal outliers—they represent a consistent pattern across decades of experiencer testimony. The report’s failure to engage with this body of evidence results in a skewed portrayal of contact as primarily pathological, ignoring its documented therapeutic dimensions.

3. Lack of Experiencer-Centric Methodology

Both Burkes and Dennett emphasise the importance of direct testimony. Burkes notes that experiencers often face “ridicule and denial” from institutions, which suppress the psychosocial and spiritual dimensions of contact. Dennett similarly observes:

“I am currently convinced that UFO healings are a fairly consistent feature of UFO contact.”

The uNHIdden report does not centre experiencer voices, nor does it address the trauma, transformation, or stigma they endure. This omission undermines the report’s credibility and perpetuates institutional blind spots.

4. Absence of Cultural and Historical Context

Burkes highlights Latin American contact networks such as Rahma, which interpret contact as sacred and consciousness-expanding. Dennett’s global case studies show that healing and spiritual transformation are cross-cultural phenomena. The report’s failure to engage with Indigenous, historical, and spiritual frameworks reflects a Western-centric bias and limits its interpretive scope.

5. Methodological Narrowness

The report lacks interdisciplinary rigour. It does not incorporate insights from anthropology, psychology, or consciousness studies. It also fails to address the epistemological challenge of studying phenomena that may defy materialist assumptions. As Burkes writes:

“The phenomenon threatens the larger society’s consensus reality.”

This threat is precisely why a broader methodological lens is required—one that embraces complexity rather than suppresses it.

Conclusion

The uNHIdden Health Effects Report does not offer a comprehensive or balanced analysis of contact-related health phenomena. By excluding consciousness-based models, healing narratives, and experiencer testimony, it reinforces outdated narratives and misses an opportunity to advance understanding. Future research must adopt a multi-dimensional, experiencer-centred approach that reflects the full spectrum of contact experiences—including their potential for healing, transformation, and expanded awareness.