Few of us were born when the forces for milk pasteurization launched the first major attack on Nature’s perfect food. In 1945, a magazine called Coronet published an article, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” blaming raw milk for an outbreak of brucellosis in a town called Crossroads, U.S.A., killing one-third of the inhabitants. The Reader’s Digest picked up the story and ran it a year later.
Just one problem with this piece of “reporting.” There was no town called Crossroads and no outbreak of brucellosis. The whole story was a fabrication—otherwise known as a lie. And lies about raw milk have continued ever since.
Unfortunately, the fictitious Crossroads story paved the way for laws against selling raw milk, starting with Michigan in 1948.
Here’s another example of lies against raw milk (which I referenced in an earlier post,[i] but it is worth repeating). In 2007, John F. Sheehan, BSc (Dy), JD, US Food & Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA/CFSAN), Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, prepared a Powerpoint maligning raw milk; it was presented to the 2005 National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) by Cindy Leonard, MS.[ii]
As shown in the table below, all of the fifteen reports associating outbreaks of foodborne illness with raw milk that Sheehan cites are seriously flawed. For example, in two of the fifteen, the study authors presented no evidence that anyone consumed raw milk products and in one of them, the outbreak did not even exist. Not one of the studies showed that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak.
No Valid Positive Milk Sample
12/15
80%
No Valid Statistical Association with Raw Milk
10/15
67%
Findings Misrepresented by FDA
7/15
47%
Alternatives Discovered, Not Pursued
5/15
33%
No Evidence Anyone Consumed Raw Milk Products
2/15
13%
Outbreak Did Not Even Exist
1/15
13%
Did Not Show that Pasteurization Would Have Prevented Outbreak
15/15
100%
Fast forward to the present and the ruckus about bird flu in dairy cows—more lies, very clever lies, but lies nevertheless.
In a press release dated March 25, 2024 ,[iii] the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as state veterinary and public health officials, announced investigation of “an illness among primarily older dairy cows in Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico that is causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other symptoms.”
The agencies claim that samples of unpasteurized milk from sick cattle in Kansas and Texas have tested positive for “highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).” Officials blame the outbreak on contact with “wild migratory birds” and possibly from transmission between cattle. The press release specifically warns against consumption of raw milk, a warning repeated in numerous publications and Internet postings.
According to the press release, national laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing, but it does not reveal the type of test used to detect this so-called viral illness.
THE FIRST LIE: Researchers have found HPAI virus in the milk of sick cows.
Officials have NOT found any viruses in the milk or any other secretions of the sick cows. The CDC has yet to reply to repeated requests for proof of finding the isolated HPAI virus in any fluid of any sick chicken or other animal.[iv] Nor have health and agriculture agencies in Canada,[v] Japan[vi], the UK[vii] and Europe[viii] provided any proof of an isolated avian influenza virus.
As for all the studies you can find in a PubMed search claiming “isolation” of a virus, not one of them shows the true isolation of a virus, any virus, from the fluids (phlegm, blood, urine, lung fluids, etc) of any animal, bird or human.[ix]
The truth is that “viruses” serve as the whipping boy for environmental toxins, and in the confinement animal system, there are lots of them–hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia from excrement, for example.[x] Then there are toxins in the feed, such as arsenic added to chicken feed, and mycotoxins, tropane and β-carboline alkaloids in soybean meal.[xi] By blaming nonexistent viruses, agriculture officials can avoid stepping on any big industry toes nor add to the increasing public disgust with the confinement animal system.
Way back in 2006, researchers Crowe and Englebrecht published an article entitled, “Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-‘H5N1’z causation omitted.”[xii]Nothing has changed since then.
Here’s your homework assignment: Contact USDA at Aphispress@usda.gov and ask them to provide proof of the isolation of the HPAI virus or any virus in the milk of the sick cattle.
SECOND LIE: National laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing.
They don’t say anything about the kind of test they used, but it almost certainly the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test. The PCR test detects genetic material from a pathogen or abnormal cell sample and allows researchers to make many copies of a small section of DNA or RNA. The test was not designed to determine or diagnose disease, it was designed to amplify or increase a certain piece of genetic material.
Each “amplification” is a doubling of the material. If you amplify thirty times you will get a negative; amplify 36 times or more, and you will get a positive. At 60 amplifications, everyone will “test positive” for whatever bit of genetic material you believe can cause disease.[xiii] If you want to show that you have a pandemic brewing, just amplify, amplify, amplify. Folks, this is not a valid test, not good science by any stretch of the imagination—especially as there was no virus to begin with.
How many times did our health officials amplify the samples they obtained from the milk of the sick cows? Be sure to ask them when you email Aphispress@usda.gov for proof of the virus.
THIRD LIE: The “virus” is highly pathogenic.
According to the Wall Street Journal, one—just one–person working in the dairies got sick and tested positive for avian influenza after exposure to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with the H5N1 bird flu.[xiv] The person reported eye redness, or conjunctivitis, as his only symptom—a symptom that can be explained by exposure to any of the many airborne toxins in confinement dairies. (How are they treating the illness? With vitamin A and herbal eyedrops? No, the poor sod is getting treatment with a toxic antiviral drug.)
According to the CDC, the disease in humans ranges from mild infections, which include upper-respiratory and eye-related symptoms, to severe pneumonia. If the “virus” is so highly pathogenic, we’d expect a lot of workers working around these sick cows to end up in the hospital. . . but we’ve heard of none so far.
FOURTH LIE: You can get avian fly from drinking raw milk, but pasteurized milk is safe
According to medical biologist Peg Coleman,[xv] “Recent risk communications from CDC, FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI (subtype H5N1) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidenceof viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature. . . An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature . . . does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that [non-existent] HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products [emphasis in the original].”[xvi]
Coleman notes the suite of bioactive components in raw milk, including bovine milk, that destroy pathogens and strengthen the gut wall. “Many of these bioactive components of raw milk are . . . sensitive to heat and may be absent, inactive, or present in lower concentrations in pasteurized milks. . . Cross-disciplinary evidence demonstrates that raw milk from healthy cows is not inherently dangerous, consistent with the CDC evidence of trends for 2005-2020 and evidence of benefits and risks. There is no scientific evidence that HPAI in raw milk causes human disease.”
And while USDA, FDA and CDC assure the public that pasteurization will make milk safe, they note that “Milk from infected animals is being diverted or destroyed,” implying that pasteurization alone does not guarantee safety. In any event, sales of industrial pasteurized milk continue their relentless decline.
Fortunately, raw milk drinkers are already skeptical of government pronouncements and are skilled at seeing through lies. Both large and small raw milk dairy farms report that sales are booming. The current bird flu fracas is just another Crossroads, U.S.A., a bunch of lies fostered by a dishonest dairy industry taking aim at the competition.
Along with our allies we have spent the last four years dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. In 2022, I published A Farewell to Virology, to date one of the only treatises that outlines a formal refutation of the entire virus model. This was inspired The Perth Group’s 2017 epic HIV – a virus like no other, the most comprehensive document refuting the existence of ‘HIV’ specifically.
In my recent webinars with Dr Tom Cowan we have been discussing the scientific method, along with the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments. Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.
It motivated me to write an essay specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed. The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.
The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.
We have had some feedback that although fairly brief, this paper is difficult to follow in some parts. (It helps to read all the endnotes.) If you have not already seen it, I would recommend watching Kate Sugak’s excellent presentation at the XXII Russian Scientific Conference: “The scientific vacuum: The scientific method and its absence in virology“. Kate covers the crucial scientific considerations articulated in my paper in an easy to follow format and shows that the virologists have nowhere left to hide.
The development since 1944, of American statutes and regulations governing US-Food and Drug Administration product licensing functions and non-functions, along with international Mutual Recognition Agreements and public health emergency/emergency use authorization/medical countermeasures law, support the conclusion that all biological products allegedly regulated by the FDA for compliance with manufacturing quality standards, distributed and used on the American population — and through MRAs, exported to countries around the world for use on populations worldwide — are in fact, unregulated.
Laws have been written to enable operators of biological product manufacturing facilities to legally make and distribute poisons. Legalized poisons are produced by US military-public health contractors working under black box conditions inside pharmaceutical factories in the US and in countries occupied by US financial, public health and military forces.
FDA, DoD and military-pharmaceutical manufacturing contractors don’t take every opportunity to adulterate every production run. They have vested interests in keeping the public in the dark about their legal access to production lines, and the availability of some harmless and/or beneficial products makes it more difficult for people to understand that the chemical and biological weapons emerging from the same factories are weapons.
The toxicity of vaccines and vaccine-related biological products has been incrementally increased over time.
Injuries and deaths caused by vaccines are falsely attributed to communicable disease, inherited genetic disorders and environmental exposures by the same public health, military and pharmaceutical manufacturing executives jointly running the intentional poisoning programs.
One of the most striking features of this almost-unimaginably vast military/public-health/pharmaceutical deception program is how the things that don’t happen matter as much as — and often more than — the things that do happen.
The records that can’t be located are as revealing as, and often more revealing than, the records that can be found.
One vivid example: blank pages enclosed as package inserts with Covid-19 vaccines.
Another example: if there had ever been any legal requirement for FDA to prevent Covid-19 vaccines from harming clinical trial subjects, and from later harming recipients in what many still irrationally insist is a consumer product market, FDA officials would have denied all of the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers’ licensing applications submitted starting in February and March 2020.
FDA would have denied the applications based on evidence accrued since genetic engineering research began, about harms caused to animal and human recipients of cell- and gene-based compounds, lipid nanoparticles, and other components listed on and/or redacted from application documents.
FDA did not deny manufacturers legal access to human targets.
Instead, FDA authorized legal access to several thousand targets in spring, summer and fall 2020, and then authorized legal access to everyone else in the world in December 2020.
Following FDA’s failure to deny manufacturers’ authorization to conduct what have since been revealed as fake clinical trials, if FDA had held a legal obligation to protect the public from biological product poisons, FDA officials would have immediately halted the alleged clinical trials in mid-2020 upon the first reported adverse effects and deaths.
Failing that, a drug manufacturing regulator with a legal obligation to protect people from harm would have immediately recalled all Covid-19 vaccines as soon as general public recipients in December 2020 and early 2021 started having anaphylactic reactions, developing heart damage and turbo-cancers and dropping dead; as soon as women started shedding decidual casts and miscarrying babies in the womb; and as soon as all the other injuries, diseases and deaths became clearly observable worldwide. (See, for example, Pfizer 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports received through Feb. 28, 2021, Table 1 at p. 7)
FDA did not halt the pretend clinical trials, and has not recalled the vaccines, ordered the manufacturers to cease production, or ordered pharmacists, nurses and doctors to stop using them.
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The “mandate for safer vaccines” section of the 1986 National Vaccine Act and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program offers another good example of events that should have taken place but didn’t, and records (recording those events) that should have been produced but weren’t.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act section of the act (Title III) amended the 1944 Public Health Service Act to establish and fund a National Vaccine Program; grant vaccine manufacturers legal immunity for injuries and deaths caused by their products; and establish and fund a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, all of which was codified at 42 USC 300aa et seq.
At 42 USC 300aa-27, Congress established a “mandate for safer vaccines.”
(a) General rule. In the administration of this part and other pertinent laws under the jurisdiction of the [HHS] Secretary, the Secretary shall—
(1) promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market on December 22, 1987, and promote the refinement of such vaccines, and
(2) make or assure improvements in, and otherwise use the authorities of the Secretary with respect to, the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.
(b) Task force
(1) The Secretary shall establish a task force on safer childhood vaccines which shall consist of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
(2) The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall serve as chairman of the task force.
(3) In consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the task force shall prepare recommendations to the Secretary concerning implementation of the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) Report. Within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act gave manufacturers immunity from liability for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines listed on the government-recommended childhood immunization schedule.
One of the justifications used to exempt manufacturers from liability was that the US government, through the Department of Health and Human Services, would monitor the childhood vaccine program, collect safety data, report the data to Congress to provide oversight, and take harmful vaccines off the market.
Safety monitoring and reporting as called for in the 1986 law did not occur.
In August 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a FOIA request with HHS, requesting copies of the biennial reports that should have been prepared and submitted to House and Senate committees between 1987 and 2018.
In June 2018, HHS responded to ICAN’s request:
“The [Department]’s searches for records did not locate any records responsive to your request. The [HHS] Immediate Office of the Secretary (IOS) conducted a thorough search of its document tracking systems. The Department also conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant indexes of HHS Secretarial Correspondence maintained at Federal Records Centers that remain in the custody of HHS. These searches did not locate records responsive to your request, or indications that records responsive to your request and in the custody of HHS are located at Federal Records Centers.”
Informed Consent Action Network v. US-HHS, (1:18-cv-03215-JMF), resulted in a July 9, 2018 stipulation signed by Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The stipulation quoted the June 2018 acknowledgement, by HHS, that HHS had no record of any safety monitoring activity or public, Congressional reporting of the childhood vaccination program, under the 1986 law, between 1986 and 2018.
Later two reports were located, filed on May 4, 1988 and July 21, 1989 (partial, no appendices). The 1988 and 1989 reports addressed vaccine promotion, vaccine supply, vaccine research activity (see, for example, pp. 67-78 of 1988 report), and set-up of reporting and data analysis programs.
Since 1989: nothing.
HHS has never systematically collected or reported information from parents, pediatricians, toxicologists, manufacturers, or anyone else about harms caused by childhood vaccines administered in single doses, combined doses (i.e. measles-mumps-rubella), or cumulative doses (the childhood schedule), and HHS has never collected or reported information about the harmful effects of biological components, chemical adjuvants, preservatives or any other ingredients.
What would a true vaccine monitoring, reporting and product safety program have looked like?
It would have included detailed records of:
Date, time and location of vaccine administration, including the name of the nurse or other health care worker who administered the vaccine, and the doctor who ordered the vaccine.
Parent and doctor observations of symptoms of injury in the baby and child post-vaccination: what the symptoms were, when they occurred in relation to the vaccine, how long they lasted, how severe they were, whether they were transient or chronic, and whether the parent was subsequently advised to refrain from further vaccination of the child.
Serial number of the vaccine vial, identifying the manufacturing facility by name and address, lot number, batch number, date of manufacture, and names of production line workers who prepared the batch, separated out the lot, and filled the vial.
Dates, times and shipping methods through which the vaccine vial was shipped from the factory and received by the doctors’ office, hospital or pharmacy.
Storage and handling of the vaccine vial by the employees at the doctors’ office, hospital or pharmacy.
Each chemical and biological component listed or not listed on the vaccine label, including chemical and molecular structure, raw materials, cell lines, active ingredients, adjuvants, preservatives and all other components.
Each manufacturing protocol used at each step in the production process, fully describing the chemical and biological reactions, procedures and methods used to make each component of the vaccine, including the final, finished product.
Names of the suppliers of each chemical and biological ingredient; date and time at which each ingredient was delivered to the vaccine factory; name of the employee who received the delivery.
FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility during the period when the vaccine was manufactured, including date and time of inspections and names of the inspectors.
Samples and protocols from the lot, submitted by the manufacturers to the FDA Bureau of Biologics, including date, time, shipping method and name of the person who submitted the samples and protocols.
Samples and protocols from the lot, received by the FDA Bureau of Biologics, including date, time, shipping method and the name of the person who received the samples and protocols.
Results of sample and protocol testing, by FDA inspectors, validating that the sample contained the compounds listed on the label; did not contain any compounds (adulterations or contaminants) not listed on the label; and that the protocol the manufacturer reported using, in fact yielded a chemically and biologically identical final product when applied by an FDA inspector to the same ingredients in the same sequence using the same methods.
FDA written certification of each lot for release, distribution and use, including names of FDA inspectors, signatures and dates of lot-release.
The July 2018 ICAN-HHS stipulation supports the conclusion that none of those regulatory functions have been performed, no records of vaccine manufacturing regulation have been produced by FDA or regulated manufacturers, and no records have been collected, assessed or used by HHS.
No vaccine manufacturing safety regulation has been conducted by FDA, NIH, CDC or any other HHS department, at any time since Congress passed the 1986 “mandate for safer vaccines.”
Or, if such evidence has been collected, it’s been collected under classified military data collection systems, to confirm and refine national vaccination programs as an effective chemical and biological weapons production and distribution system capable of deniably inducing rapid death (i.e. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and chronic diseases including asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune disorders, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer and other immune-mediated diseases.
Public health and regulatory systems have consistently hidden those truths behind false claims about the effects of vaccines, and behind legalized non-regulation of biological product manufacturing.
The US Food and Drug Administration and other drug manufacturing regulators claim that drug manufacturing regulation is about assessing product purity, sterility, potency, safety and efficacy to protect humans and animals from impure, adulterated, contaminated, impotent, harmful, and/or ineffective products.
Biological products can be defined as a subset of the larger category of drugs. Biological products are drugs manufactured through biological processes that take place within living organisms. Drugs that aren’t biological products are manufactured through chemical processes. Vaccines are included in the biological products class of drugs.
A defining characteristic of biological products, in legal terms, is their rule-governed exemption from regulatory oversight that applies to and is enforceable for drugs manufactured using chemical processes.
One of several defining characteristics of biological products as murder weapons, is their ability to biologically incorporate into the target’s body, such that weapons become indistinguishable from victims. Empty vials, syringes and other residual evidence disappears into garbage dumps and medical waste incinerators.
Eleanor McBean published a book in 1957 called Poisoned Needle.
She carefully documented the history of vaccination lies prior to and since Edward Jenner’s cow-pox and smallpox lies. She collected dozens of doctors’ observations throughout the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s, supporting the conclusion that vaccines have always been nothing more than toxic slurries introduced into healthy people and animals for the purpose of making them weaker and sicker and dead, while enabling the poisoners to lie to themselves and to their victims about what they’re doing, how and why.
One example from Poisoned Needle:
Dr. J. W. Hodge had considerable experience with vaccination before he denounced it and wrote a book on his collected data. In his [1902] book The Vaccination Superstition (p. 41) he states:
“After a thorough investigation of the most authentic records and facts in harmony with the physician’s daily observations and experiences, the conclusion is drawn that instead of protecting its subjects from contagion of smallpox, vaccination actually renders them more susceptible to it.
“Vaccination is the implantation of disease — that is its admitted purpose. Health is the ideal state to be sought, not disease . . . Every pathogenic disturbance in the infected organism wastes and lowers the vital powers, and thus diminishes its natural resisting capacity.
“This fact is well known and so universally conceded that it seems superfluous to cite authorities. Nevertheless, I shall mention one. The International Textbook of Surgery – Vol. 1. p. 263, is authority for the following statement: ‘Persons weakened by disease or worn out by excessive labor yield more readily to infection than healthy individuals.’
“If this is true, it explains why, in various epidemics, smallpox always attacks the vaccinated first, and why these diseases continue to infest the civilized world while its allied (unvaccinated) ‘filth diseases’ have disappeared before the advance of civilization, through the good offices of sanitation, hygiene and improved nutrition.”
For the last few years, I’ve been documenting the development of American public health emergency anti-law as a distinct layer of statutes, regulations, executive orders and court cases that overrides and suspends good laws criminalizing (among other crimes) intentional use of poisons, including vaccines, to injure and kill people.
Public health emergency law as a tool to enable deniable, spatially-distant, time-shifted homicide became more visible because public health emergency law was used to start the Covid-19 killing programs and is still being used to maintain the Covid-19 killing programs.
Public health emergency statutes, regulations, executive orders and court cases govern, among other things, non-regulation of poisons (i.e. emergency use authorization/EUA countermeasures) during declared emergencies.
In December 2023, I located a Federal Register Notice of Final Rule through which then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb shut the doors of all biological product manufacturing facilities to FDA inspections, effective May 2, 2019, eight months before public announcement of Covid-19, and more than a year and a half before the Covid-19 mass vaccination campaign got underway in December 2020.
This fact helps to answer the question: How could hundreds of millions of doses be manufactured, shipped and ready for use a few weeks after the FDA’s December 2020 “emergency use authorization” decisions? Manufacturing began well before Covid was announced, inside factories not subject to inspection. That’s how.
Reading Gottlieb’s rule-change a few months ago, I realized that non-regulation of biological product manufacturing under routine, non-emergency conditions, had been in effect — or, rather, non-effect — since long before Covid, and will still be in effect/non-effect even if emergency declarations about Covid and other fake communicable disease and public health threats are revoked someday.
So for the last couple of months, I’ve been thinking about and collecting more legal evidence that biological product anti-law under non-emergency conditions also suspends or overrides good laws criminalizing (among other crimes) intentional use of poisons to injure and kill people, just as effectively as public health emergency anti-laws do.
The legal history of routine non-regulation of all biological products can be assembled in the same way the legal history of emergency-predicated non-regulation of EUA countermeasures has been assembled.
Such a collection would document how, over time, built-in exemptions from otherwise applicable, enforceable manufacturing rules, along with rule changes, and explicit notices from FDA to manufacturers (called Guidance for Industry) that FDA would not, will not and does not enforce rules, have rendered biological product non-regulation more non-regulatory as each year has passed.
However, sifting through hundreds of rule changes to track each rule as it’s become increasingly inapplicable and unenforceable, is an exercise in grasping at smoke. So I’m not planning to pursue it further, unless an attorney contacts me with a credible proposal for a case that would be strengthened by detailed accounts of FDA Federal Register rule-making activities over the past half-century or so.
At 21 CFR 610.11, the 1973 FDA rules established that the only “general safety” test (GST) required to claim a biological product was safe, was to inject a sample into two mice and two guinea pigs. If the two mice and two guinea pigs didn’t get “significant symptoms” or die within seven days, “the product meets the requirements for general safety.”
FDA authorized “exceptions to this test…when more than one lot is processed each day” and “variations of this test…whenever required.” Manufacturers were directed to apply to the Bureau of Biologics (now the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) for exemptions.
After a series of revisions, FDA eliminated general safety test requirements for biological products, effective Aug. 3, 2015 (80 FR 37971).
FDA has made dozens of similar rule changes, weakening and eliminating rules about samples, protocols and lot-by-lot release; establishment and product licensing applications; post-approval manufacturing process changes; mixing, diluting and repackaging and more, including the elimination of facility inspections Gottlieb put in place effective May 2, 2019.
It’s important to understand that the acts FDA officials have committed, to eliminate applicability and enforceability of drug manufacturing regulations for biological product manufacturing, have not been acts to eliminate actual regulation of medicines.
They have been acts to eliminate what has, from the start, been pretend-regulation to enable unimpeded manufacture, distribution and use of intentional poisons, so that their true character as poisons could be hidden from and invisible to the public.
A few weeks ago, I located Mutual Recognition Agreements. MRAs are international trade treaties. When signed and ratified by national governments, MRAs authorize national regulators — including drug regulators — to be “relieved of” their regulatory obligations and instead, recognize and rely on the regulatory decisions of other countries’ regulators, especially the US Food and Drug Administration.
The two systems interlock.
Under the legal terms of MRA treaties, US-FDA can be legally construed as the sole regulator for worldwide drug manufacturing and distribution systems.
Under the legal terms of the US-FDA drug regulation system, all biological product manufacturing can be legally conducted with no substantive disclosure, monitoring or enforcement of rules controlling purity, sterility, safety, potency, efficacy, raw materials, manufacturing processes, or chemical and biological composition of finished, packaged, distributed products.
Also note, the legal structure of Mutual Recognition Agreements plus FDA-non-regulation-of-biological-products, operates separate from and in addition to the UN-World Health Organization, International Health Regulations system.
National governments interested in shielding their populations from intentional poisoning must withdraw from the United Nations and WHO treaties; must withdraw from the IHR treaty; and also must withdraw from each Mutual Recognition Agreement treaty that subordinates their own federal drug regulation to other countries’ regulators, including the US-FDA non-regulation, poison-facilitation system.
It’s plausible that some simpler biological products (insulin, for example) may have historically been manufactured, and may still today be manufactured, to meet measurable, achievable standards of safety and batch-to-batch consistency, because doing that would help US-FDA and pharmaceutical companies maintain public confidence and reduce the likelihood that the public would begin to see and understand the biological-product-based intentional poisoning program.
It’s also plausible that biological products labeled as vaccines have had, for many decades and still today, a high degree of batch-to-batch variation ranging from low to high toxicity, because that also would be a sensible way for US-FDA and pharmaceutical companies to maintain high levels of public ignorance, complacency and compliance with vaccination programs.
March 5, 2024 – Four questions and four responses “…Due to changes in US law, acts that are crimes in other legal contexts, such as poisoning, battery, torture and homicide, if carried out by vaccines (and many other drugs, devices and biological products) are legal. Perpetrators cannot be held liable under civil tort law and cannot be prosecuted under criminal law. This intentional poisoning is much more visible to the public because of the Covid-19 events since 2020, so there are more possibilities for stopping the programs. One of the main methods to carry out the mass deception is false attribution of cause and effect…”
Isolation means the separation of one thing from everything else. This is the only way to scientifically identify a thing. This is done with everything from large organic material to the smallest nano-particles. It is done with Gold and Silver. And it is done in basic chemistry, but it has never been done with a virus. Several have claimed to have done so, but have since been exposed as frauds. And today, virologists claim that isolation is not possible because of the obligate intracellular nature of a virus. This means that they cannot exist outside of a living cell. But if this were true, then it would also be true that they can not spread from one person to another. The pseudo-science of virology is full of logical fallacies that any inquisitive person can recognize.
Scientific studies require a control group. Meaning that two samples are needed where every factor is the same except for the presence of the thing being studied. But this can not be done in virology because a virus has never been isolated. When virologists claim they are isolating it, they are lying. This is evident today with the latest so-called proofs that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated.
In both the “Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus” published by the Medical Journal of Australia. And in the “Viral isolation analysis of SARS-CoV-2” from Japan’s Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, the titles suggest that they isolated a virus. But they clearly did not.
They took material from the most contaminated source possible, the nose, which acts as a filter by capturing particulates inhaled from the environment. And at no point did they isolate a virus from this sample. What they did was run the entire mix of unknown material through a PCR test, and claimed that it tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. But we know that the PCR test is not capable of isolating a virus, and we know it’s been deliberately adjusted to give false positive results. So this is not science, it is fraud. They then inoculated a culture of cells with the entire mix of nose material, added in unspecified material, and the cells died. At no point in these experiments was a virus ever isolated. They in fact did the opposite of isolation by adding foreign material to a mix of unknown material from a person’s nose. So even if the cells died as a result, there is no way of knowing what killed them.
There is an alternative theory that does not have massive funding from spurious foundations and Nobel Peace prizes to convince the public of it’s validity.
Terrain theory tells us that most of what we are told is a disease, is nothing more than the symptoms of a natural bodily process of healing and repairing tissues damaged from stress and external toxins. Cells naturally die and break down in a way that is identical to how virologists claim a virus behaves. And the very same foundations pushing the theory of the virus, have been simultaneously creating a more toxic world with petrochemical drugs that earn billions in profits. There are far more so-called diseases today than existed before this pseudo science was unleashed on society.
In 1859 Florence Nightingale published, Notes on Nursing, where in she wrote that “all disease… is more or less a reparative process… an effort of nature to remedy a process of poisoning or of decay, which has taken place… sometimes years beforehand.” She is saying that what we are told today are symptoms of a disease, are actually natural processes of the body healing itself from damage.
Manly P Hall, known best for his 1928 publication, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, gave a lecture in 1989 called, Magnetic Fields of the Human Body. In this lecture he described this same sentiment.
He said that each human body is surrounded by its own magnetic field which provides tremendous protection. And as long as the individual takes proper care of this magnetic field, it will heal all wounds and recover all bodily functions and organs. He said that the law of the energy field is also the law of integrity. When we break the laws of nature, we damage this flow, which in turn damages the individual’s vitality. This magnetic field can be damaged by negative attitudes such as fear, and destructive attitudes towards others. It can be damaged by drugs and alcohol, toxic substances, and any action contrary to the common good.
He went on to say that in ancient times looking upon objects perfect and complete in structure was therapeutic because looking upon them inspired an acceptance of perfect symmetry that positively effects our energy field. And conversely, when we accept discord as inevitable, our energy field is damaged.
For the past hundred years the same families and foundations have created a world of chaos and discord. And perhaps Terrain theory is correct, and the ancients were right, and we have been given a perfect divine vessel that will protect us so long as we look after it and live in accordance with the common good.
A Discussion on Chlorine Dioxide, Ozone and Methylene Blue – 3/13/24
Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Rumble & Odysee channels.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:
Below you will find some excerpts from Tom Cowan’s presentation. For additional details on any of the protocols he mentions, listen to the full video. The first part of the video covers the recently renewed “no virus” challenge. At approximate 18 minutes in, he begins to discuss the protocols mentioned in the title. Emphasis (bold) is mine. ~ Kathleen
Excerpts:
So, a lot of people have asked, and they’ve heard me mention and talk about in the New Biology Clinic (practitioners), a number of medicines, or so-called medicines — and they are rightfully so, the people, wondering how these fit into New Biology principles, because some of them are so-called natural substances, but some of them are actually what you would call chemicals.
So the list includes chlorine dioxide, or chlorine dioxide solution, and methylene blue, ozone, turpentine, C-carbon, zeolite, and there’s probably others.
And so there’s a lot of controversy, I think, within our group as to, well, everything from ‘these are amazing healing substances which everyone should have in their therapeutic handbag’…
[…]
And another position is, ‘I would never use something like those, because they’re basically chemicals’ — or ‘Maybe they’re from natural things, but they can only repress symptoms and anyways aren’t they meant to kill organisms like viruses and bacteria and fungi? And I thought that we’re not about killing stuff, because all these organisms are really out there to help us.’
So I thought I would take a look at that and give us a certain point of view that hopefully will make this question easier to understand and maybe hope give us some guidance on this…
[…]
So, let’s look at the first one which was chlorine dioxide. And not so long ago we had a conversation with Andreas Kalcker who I would say probably knows more about the use of chlorine dioxide than anybody else alive right now.
[Here Tom reads descriptions of what chlorine dioxide is and shares one of several protocols available for preparing and using it.]
So, what is it doing?
So if we, (and I would say this was more or less in agreement with what Andreas was telling us in our our conversation with him) that basically chlorine dioxide is a charge, or what he would call electron donor.
Now, that already is a little bit problematic in a sense… because we’re taught, and we’ve gone through what does it mean to be an oxygen donor. So we talked about Gerald Pollock’s very interesting research that we don’t actually absorb oxygen from the air. What we absorb and in his view were electrons.
I would actually change the word of electrons, since as I’ve been over, if you look at the model of the atom that we’re told, which is that the atom has a nucleus with protons and neutrons and then has electrons circling around it. So, basically a make-believe model…
[…]
And I think the word calling something a negative charge is an inappropriate terminology. So it’s not a negative charge, but it’s a certain kind of charge, which is opposite or different than other kinds of charge, which we call positive charge.
And that gets into a little bit of semantics. So let’s just say that the reason we need oxygen is because oxygen is a strong donor of the charge, which is what we need to produce energy and to create actually life.
So now we’re talking about a fundamentally different view of what a living system is, or even what substance is.
And I think what I’m talking about is at the end of the day, and the bottom line is, we have a very unclear and primitive and unformed, and I would even use the word ‘incorrect’. about what physical substance actually is.
So we know, for instance, with very clear experiments and accurate measurements. that if you shine a coherent beam of light into a very thin layer of some solid object like gold or silver or something, that 99% of the volume of that silver sheet or gold sheet, the light will go through unimpeded as if there is nothing there.
In other words, 99% of the area of a solid substance like a sheet of gold, there’s nothing there.
Now that led them to create the model that there’s these atoms linked together and they have nuclei. And what’s circling around them is electrons. And then there’s other people who dispute that. I’ve gone over that. And they say that that little part, that less than 1% that actually scatters the light (that’s the only part that scatters the light) that is the whole atom.
Now, whichever those two it is, you’re still left with the question of how come this chair or this desk or this sheet of very thin gold feels, seems, appears, and by every sensory observation appears to be a solid structure.
It’s not made of 99% of nothing. So even if it’s a nucleus that’s less than 1% of the mass, or even if it’s the whole atom that’s less than 1% of the mass, either way, you’re left with the dilemma of: So what is it made of?
And that includes us. So what are we made of? It appears that we’re not made of substance, because that doesn’t make any sense at all.
So we’re essentially made of charge. We’re like a battery. And we use certain processes to recharge our battery.
Interestingly, if you look at the work of Wilhelm Reich and others, you know, the whole phenomena of sexual activity and orgasm is a simply a way to recharge your battery. It’s an interesting way of looking at it. And connecting with the sun and the earth is another fundamental polarity that recharges our battery. And breathing in the air is a way of absorbing the some charge that we erroneously or (some other word) call oxygen.
So we’re actually absorbing charge from the sort of plasma or ether field around us. And that is what gives us life.
As well as exposure to the sun and the earth, which creates a fundamental polarity of the earth donating so-called negative charges, which again isn’t really a negative charge, and the sun donating a sort of positive charge. This is the male/female polarity, which also comes to a sort of fruition, like I said, in this sexual act.
So it’s possible, and I think the real way to understand what chlorine dioxide does, is it’s simply a molecule that has been somehow configured to be a very strong donor of this so-called electronegative or polar charge.
And since, in a sense, the root of all disease is a loss of the charge and your battery is running down and becoming dead, you can understand why giving somebody a very strongly donating substance, like chlorine dioxide, which is exactly how Andreas Kalcker described it to us — it has a very strong ability to donate this electronegative so-called charge, and therefore promote healing.
Now, it looks like that it kills bacteria or viruses or fungi, but that itself is an illusion because it’s not killing anything.
What it’s doing, like Florence Nightingale said, this decay process is a function of your battery running out. So if you allow — if you donate this charge and sort of recharge your battery, then the tissue stops decaying, and your decay process, once it stops, then the bacteria don’t have to come to feed off the decay.
And that which we erroneously call viruses which are just a misunderstanding of these decaying particles that are coming from your tissue, they obviously stop or are lessened.
And so you think you’ve killed the virus or killed the bacteria when you’ve done no such thing. You’ve actually restored the health of the tissue. And then the bacteria don’t need to feed off the decaying tissue, and there’s no viruses that are produced.
They’re not actually viruses anywhere. There’s only decaying tissue.
The fungi go away because they don’t have to eat up your decaying tissue to help you out, and then you seem a whole lot better.
Now, I think if you frame it like that, then you have a realistic understanding.
I’m not saying that I or anybody else knows… I mean, we still have this fundamental sort of dilemma of how electromagnetic phenomena, waves, frequencies, create a solid stuff called ‘you’.
I don’t know how that happens, but I know that that seems to be all we’re actually made of or all anything is made of, because the particles have been shown not to exist, and the electromagnetic waves and frequencies have.
So that’s what this world, this universe that we’re living in is made of, so we might as well accept that, and we might as well work with it.
Now, here’s the bottom line. If you think like this and understand the world in this way, and then you don’t want to end up having to use a chemical substance like chlorine dioxide, you would understand that a better strategy is to reserve your charge through eating living food, and through regular constant movement (not constant, but regular movement) in the outdoors, in the sunshine with bare feet or somehow connected to the earth, and to avoid toxic radiation fields or electromagnetic fields as much as possible.
Use other grounding devices and other tools like seawater and other plants and other extracts and other things, breathing better to do harmonious breathing or the breathing that we’re teaching in the clinic, or the Wim Hof breathing.
All these are regular normal ways that you can preserve your health so that you don’t need to get into the position of ‘now I have this horrible, quote, urine infection, and I need to do something right away’.
Now, having said that, and having worked almost four decades as a doctor, I don’t particularly have a problem with using a very safe substance, which is what all these appear to be, like chlorine dioxide solution, to temporarily relieve somebody suffering who’s got urinary tract infection, or a whole lot worse.
I mean, every illness, so-called, is a manifestation of decay and poisoning and a loss of charge, and in particular this loss of charge due to exposure to electropositive toxic substances in our world.
And so, if you can, in addition, and I would be very clear, in addition or on top of doing all the other things, like the food and the movement and the sunshine, and the, you know, not succumbing to repeated negative thought pattern and all the other things, and using, you know, other breathing techniques that help you put you in a state where you’re charged and working on your intimate relationships so you can recharge your battery, all these things, that should be first.
But again, I have no problem with somebody using chlorine dioxide solution in the way that I just described to help them out, because I see very little downside reported or something that I’ve observed…
[…]
I think the more important principle is to understand what it’s doing, which I think I have just described. Then you can see how it fits in, and that it is a wonderful and appropriate tool to help us out, as we’re also doing all the things to regain our charge.
Now, interestingly, if we go to the next one, which is methylene blue, which I never even heard of until maybe a few months ago, you find almost the same thing…
[…]
So when you realize that this substance has been effectively used to treat this and works in a reductive sort of way similar to how oxygen works, you start realizing…that this is a oxygen, i.e. a charge donor.
And it just happens to be a different chemical, which happens to, for whatever kind of molecular (it’s the wrong word, probably) reason, able to donate charge more effectively than most other things, you could see why it has become an interesting treatment for all sorts of degenerative neurodegenerative disease, particularly memory problems, depression, Parkinson’s pain, Alzheimer’s, all these things, which are basically just a losing of the of the electrical charge in the deepest, most profound area where the charge has to work, which is our nervous system.
It does this in the same way that oxygen would, but in this case, as they say, the oxygen therapy isn’t strong enough. So there happens to be this chemical, which seems to have very low or almost no toxicity that is able to strongly donate a negative charge and make a seemingly dramatic difference in people suffering from these sorts of conditions.
Now, again, I haven’t used it and maybe somebody will convince me that there is some negative effects from this. There may be that I couldn’t find any documentation of this so far…
[…]
One of the places I think we need to be sure I know they use methylene blue also widely with animal medicine with good effects. And there is some concern that some of the methylene blue that’s sold over the Internet is not really methylene blue. And so I would be careful about that. One place that I know you can get it that claims that it’s exactly the same chemical and they put it in structured water and they put some so-called healing frequencies is a website onlyresultscount.com. And they have a fairly inexpensive product, which you can easily get and they have a lot of directions on how to use it…
[…]
So I have some other things here like ozone, but I think you can start to see that there’s a pattern here. So ozone is just adding extra oxygen, which is adding another form of delivering this that oxygen provides to us, which is this so-called electronegative charge, which is the reason we’re sick in the first place…
[…]
Turpentine, we’ve been over a fair amount, and I would refer you to the interview that I did with our friend Andy Kaufman and the work of Jennifer Daniels…
I’m not aware of any analogy you could make with restoring the charge. But my guess is if you really looked into it, you would find something like that as well….
Zeolite and Carbon C60 seem to be things that have negative charge or a certain structure that helps to bind with these positively charged so-called toxins. You know, Andreas Kalker essentially made the comment that every toxic substance is basically a positively charged molecule. I’m not sure if that’s true, but Carbon C60 is these sort of buckyball things which is loaded with these negative charges which attracts this toxic stuff and essentially captures them inside the carbon structure and allows your body to eliminate them. The same thing with zeolite. There’s of course many arguments about what form of zeolite and how to use it…
[…]
I think all these things are interesting and positive approaches to the question of what it all boils down to is how can we help detoxify and how can we help prevent our tissues from decaying.
And that has all goes back to we’re essentially like a living battery. And our living battery is charged through the food and through the way we think and through connection with movement and through connection with the sun and the earth…
Growth formation of material from the Comirnaty Pfizer injectable under certain conditions (using a reptile incubator).
After 96 hours of exposure at 37 degrees Celsius (simulating human body temperature) and constant ultraviolet light stimulation, we proceed to analyze the result again by optical microscopy.
Haxon Achilles II Microscope, bright field
Magnification: 120 X – 1800 X.
Growth formation of the material from the Comirnaty Pfizer injectable after being subjected to certain conditions (using a reptile incubator).
After 48 hours of exposure to 37 degrees Celsius (simulating human body temperature) and constant ultraviolet light stimulation, we proceeded to analyse the result again by optical microscopy.
Haxon Achilles II microscope, bright field.
Magnification: 120 X – 1800 X
Video, translated from Spanish to English by La Quinta Columna, is available at La Quinta Columna Rumble & Odysee channels.
Based on what we know about the contents of the so-called vaccines, the COVID vaccines, they contain graphene and nanotechnology.
Here we have some images obtained via optical microscopy.
Well, we’re seeing formations that you’re used to seeing with not a lot of magnification, around a hundred magnification. And showing you points under the light of the condensator, we can see that these are little crystals that Dr. Roger Leir called orthorhombic crystal structures that are radio-modulable in a scalar manner via 5G.
In scientific literature, they correspond to graphene nanostructures, plasma, micro antennae. We have microfilaments, strands, and you’re used to seeing all of this, of course.
This is before putting the sample through the incubation process.
We’ll give it a little bit more magnification so that you can see those quadrangular patterns over here. We’ve got some over here. You can see that they’re those little squares.
Here’s a big piece of a graphene microfoil, and we’ve got hundreds in a single drop in just one centimeter squared, with about 800 magnification.
This is more graphene. Here you can see those quadrangular patterns. This is in profile. Sometimes they turn on the sample, and they even assemble themselves. Later on you’ll see some examples of those that have already assembled. And unfortunately, we’re quite used to seeing all of this.
This is another quadrangular pattern. This is a micro, almost nanoparticle, and we’ve got about a 1000 something magnification. And this is all normal, which shouldn’t be normal, based on what we know.
This is more graphene.
This is very characteristic, isn’t it?
Take note here. It is true that we’ve got around a 1000 magnification.
We’re just taking a look at a single drop here.
Here we go back to 100-120 magnification only. What we’re trying to do is find those ovoid shape structures.
We’re used to seeing this type of filament and strands, even the quadrangular patterns that you can see on the left.
It’s incredible that all of this is in a single injectable, as you can see here. And that metallic junk is in everybody — that everybody can see and that nobody says anything.
Now they’re talking about microplastics. But don’t worry because the video will be uploaded onto La Quinta Columna info’s website. It’s the Incubus Project.
Here what we’re seeing is another assembled structure of graphene. You’ve got a quadrangular pattern here.
And for those that said these were salt crystals (you remember that) or sugar crystals, it’s incredible all of this. This is such a determined attack against the whole of humankind. And this is in plain sight of everybody.
And nevertheless, all this is still going forward. There are still people that talk about vaccine, about RNA.
Here we have another assembled structure, a little bit more elaborate. Obviously none of this is normal. None of this should be in any injectable. but now that we have acquired this knowledge since 2021, none of this surprises us. Although unfortunately, most of the planet is not aware of this. They think that we’re talking in terms of vaccines still.
Now the good things come along. We’re going to place the sample of two drops of Comirnaty Pfizer in an incubator for reptiles.
The new environmental conditions are 37 degrees centigrade with a constant temperature and ultraviolet light. After 48 hours, we analyze the sample again via optical microscopy. And these are the results that we have obtained.
First of all, what we can see is that the graphene is kind of like more diluted. That’s the feeling we get. But this is not what draws our attention.
Here we can see a formation that you’ll see in just a second. Take note of this.
This is new. I’m just going to stop there. And this is what has appeared after exposure to ultraviolet radiation, to constant heat.
And you’ll see this with a greater magnification later. But one gets the feeling that there’s a kind of generation of a tree. And you can see a series of nodules or nodes. And you’ll see that from each nodule or node, there are three strands that come out.
It’s similar to what Franc Zalewski, electron microscopy found with an electron microscopy.
We’re going to do the same with the similar system with 25 — this is 25 microns, which is about 25,000 nanometers. And there’s just two days that have gone by, 48 hours. And the day after tomorrow, that will make four days, which are 96 hours. And we’ll have a look at it again then.
I’m not sure whether these are neural networks. The carbon nanotubes are, but these aren’t nanotubes. So anyhow, we’ll see this later. Let’s continue.
One gets the feeling that there’s a hatching or eclosion happening.
A little bit more magnification now.
Somebody said that if the sample dries up, there’ll be no evolution, but it doesn’t dry up because there’s hydrogel.
Let’s have a look at it now with a clear or light field.
This is what I want you to observe now. There’s a nucleus that looks metallic in nature, and each node has three limbs or extremities.
There’s the third one. Can you see it?
And this coincides exactly with what Dr. Franc Zalewski said. And we’re going to do everything possible to get in touch with him. Let’s remember what he said.
“I marked the vials numbers one, two and three. Only the third one was that thing inside. And it grew and developed for four days. And then I put it into a sputtering chamber. There the temperature is high so that the graphite is sputtered or pulverized…”
Similar to the habitat we have created inside the incubator.
Another thing is that we don’t know whether inside the incubator we’re going to be able to recreate the conditions inside the human body in terms of temperature and exposure to ultraviolet light. I think though we will be able to.
And about the intake of insects, not sure there.
“There’s another one. If there were only one, but here we can see another one. We can see the head and legs coming out of it. The scale is 30 microns.
‘The thing’ has found fertile ground. And here we have ‘the thing’. That thing is smiling at us.”
From La Quinta Coluna, we are studying the evolution of the sample submitted to the new incubation environmental conditions.
We suggest as a starting hypothesis that there will be a transformation during the exposure of the content of the Comirnaty Pfizer vial.
The sample will be submitted to evaluation via optical microscopy every 48 hours. So that’s the video. This is what we have.
And this is based on what we can get to know from what we’ve done. And we will not hide this information. We will make this information public.
And as and when we get more samples and as and when more time goes by, this will hopefully give us the key to what is evolving in that.
The question, not the conclusion we’ve reached, far from it, but the question is, are they using human bodies as incubators?
And is that why they don’t want to get rid of our bodies and biologies or human beings in general?
When they obtain biomedical or biometric data from individuals, is it really to monitor human beings or is it rather to monitor the conditions of the human beings as incubators?
These are just questions I’m asking.
In order to incubate, if anything is being incubated or if something is germinating, what is it incubating? Those are the questions that I’m asking.
Why do they want human beings to eat insects? Is it to normalize the feeding of insects so that they can survive or is it to feed something that they have introduced previously?
Why heat? They’re clearly generating artificial heat via geoengineering to everybody’s surprise. Because they precisely need that heat.
They need blue ultraviolet light and at the same time as this technological implementation of ultraviolet light is being implemented all over the world. There are many casualties or things that just seem to be there by chance.
So these are just questions.
And so we’re using the descriptive format just as they do based on everything we observe. The day after tomorrow we’ll have further images.
Drs. Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey have issued a new “virus” challenge (here).
“Please note that the requirements for submission can be found at the following timecodes in this video: 2:16-11:20.”
Tom published a 5 minute follow up the next day: You can do it, send us your videos (here).
Please share this challenge with any/all prominent virus-pushers! Below is the email address for submissions:
“If you or someone you know believe that viruses have been isolated and have a rebuttal or scientific study to show us, please submit a short paper or a short video to conversationswithdrcowan@gmail.com and we will review & address these in a future webinar. Please note that the requirements for submission can be found in this video.”
Background:
Scientific thinking applied to “virus” isolation – Tom and Mark, February 29, 2024 (here).
“virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof”
And we still have theSettling The Virus Debate Challenge from Tom, Mark and 18 additional signatories including Professor Timothy Noakes and former Pfizer respiratory division VP, Michael Yeadon, issued in July 2022.
Tip: Don’t disqualify yourself as “scientist” Kevin McCairn did, by publicly insisting that your lab participate in a challenge where the labs must be blinded to each other’s identities!
3000+ pages of “virus” FOIs (updated as of December 31, 2022) in 8 compilation pdfs, and my notarized declaration re the anti-scientific nature of virology: https://tinyurl.com/IsolationFOIs
Because “they” (HIV, influenza virus, HPV, measles virus, etc., etc., etc.) have never been shown to exist, clearlydon’t exist and virology isn’t a science.
The ongoing investigations into the elusive Covid Pandemic murder mystery are cluttered by all manner of obfuscation and misdirection.
Chief among these shaky postulations are the various iterations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus lab-leak theory, which has more lives than a feral cat and possesses a capacity for reappearing as often as the shambling zombies who lurk in the woods at the edge of town.
Once the curtain is pulled back on the unsubstantiated lab-leak hypotheses, the socially engineered sorcery of the Covid Pandemic is revealed as the base scheme that it is.
The lab-leak claim posits that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered quasi-biological, deadly gain-of-function phenomenon rather than a computer-generated construct. The initial research paper illustrates that the virus in question was nothing more than an in-silico apparition, a simulacrum created by demonstrably dodgy genomic sequencing.
This theory advances the fanciful plot that a hyperreality TV show viral escapee miraculously slipped out of—or was released intentionally from—a biological research facility in faraway Wuhan, China, went on a global rampage, and killed millions of people.
By implying that the virus was a man-made microbial murderer, promulgators of the lab-leak story avoid facing the fact that the last three-and-a-half years were a deliberate, highly organized culling of the global population under the guise of protecting “public health.”
Unfortunately, many in-the-know folks who are skeptical of the medical industry’s pharmacological fantasies are still trapped on the lab-leak circuit of the Covid merry-go-round.
Amidst the hyperfocus on gain-of-function research, furin cleavage sites, restriction enzymes, and the rest of the sci-fi vernacular that shroud the lab-leak hypothesis in scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo there lies an elementary question, “Does this theory hold even an ounce of water?”
One conspicuous curiosity that calls into question the threat of “lab-leaked bioweapon” is the fact that the “Covid-19” deaths follow the age/risk stratification and seasonal curve of influenza and pneumonia (two named illnesses that, until 2020, health authorities lumped together in their charts).
Meanwhile, many pneumonia deaths since 2020 have been fraudulently attributed to “Covid” on death certificates. Even if the bioweapon theory were a reality, perhaps we should be relieved, since Covid seemed able to impact only two kinds of populations:
Family members were prevented from being at their side to comfort them, to question the macabre protocols being mercilessly inflicted, and to spirit them out of the “death row” facilities.
That the death rate attributed to Covid was so low throughout the rest of the global population proves the alleged “bioweapon” was a dud.
Indeed, to hang one’s hat on the lab-leak theory and the grandiose narrative of the Covid Pandemic requires contorted mental gymnastics and a blind faith in the esoteric.
Countless incongruities point to the lab-leak theory—and possibly the virus itself—being a myth.
Here are a few peculiarities that should cause any reasonable person to question the lab-leak theory:
What dark magic was involved that trained this microbial Kraken to be released only upon administrative orders and to peak in synchroneity only in select locations?
Are we to believe a suddenly super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu, gain-of-function virus waited for a government decree to create excess deaths?
Why did this deadly virus cause no mass death in the Chinese city where a lab leak is said to have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
(3) The “first wave” of Covid deaths in the US occurred almost exclusively in nursing homes and hospitals, not in the general population.
QUESTIONS:
How is it possible that this virus was so demographically smart?
Why did it target those institutions—filled with ill, infirm, and elderly—so specifically and blanket them so completely?
Would not the high rate of deaths in hospitals and nursing homes have had anything to do with their application of dangerous protocols, their unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders, and their apparently purposeful policies of neglect?
(4) During that reputed “first wave” the people impacted were mainly poor, and many were disabled.
QUESTION: How, pray tell, was this Frankenstein virus programmed to avoid upper middle class and wealthy people? How did it know to sidestep healthy and able people? Aren’t the poor always more susceptible to disease? Do we need a viral event to explain this?
(5) During that initial wave, if we are to believe the “spreading pathogen” story, we must believe that this virus was geographically savvy. How was it that certain counties and metro areas in certain states in the US were impacted while neighboring regions adjacent to these areas were not affected? Curiously, many of these Covid-affected counties in the US were right next to unaffected areas, including in the NYC metro region where the virus seemed unable to cross rivers.
QUESTION: Was this gain-of-function hobgoblin designed to recognize county, state, and national boundaries and to stick to urban areas while leaving suburban and rural communities largely alone?
(6) Even after the “first wave,” the population groups that appeared to be exclusively targeted by this “bioweapon,” both in and out of institutions, were the elderly and the sickly and the disabled—people who are more susceptible to all types of afflictions.
QUESTION: Why did the supposedly novel virus jump over children and younger adults and able, healthy people?
(7) This lab-leaked daemonic entity killed many more victims in places where de facto police state “emergency measures” were fiercest and far fewer victims in contiguous jurisdictions where the countermeasures taken by authorities were much milder.
Thus, to ascribe this convergent set of circumstances to a lab-leaked daemon or pathogen of any genus strains credulity. What it should be attributed to is a coordinated campaign orchestrated by powerful interests and their collaborators in academia, in the medical industry, and in the media.
Origins of the lab-leak story
In the media, the lab-leak story surfaced early on. It was quickly adopted and became an accepted narrative even amongst certain sectors of the “respectable” Covid “skeptics.” In fact, some “Establishment” Covid skeptics have built their reputations—and in some cases entire cottage industries—around the lab-leak mythology, even though this gain-of-function narrative strains credulity.
So-called Covid skeptics buying into aspects of the Covid myth creates a situation in which “dissident movement” resources are channeled into conferences and investigations where attention is fixed—and fixated—on esoteric explanations that ultimately prop up the overall pandemic narrative. If they were truly dissidents, they would be collaborating with truth-tellers to prove the demonstrable forensics of the fraud that defines the Covid enterprise.
The lab-leak theory reinforces the idea that “the virus” is a grave problem that needs to be solved rather than a fear-based control mechanism. It bolsters the notion that a “deadly” man-made, “novel” virus caused an “unprecedented medical emergency” for which a raft of invasive policies—including the worldwide suspension of basic civil liberties—would become justified.
To justify another round of lockdowns and to codify more draconian measures such as mandated vaccination in the future, all that will be needed is to reignite the fear of a bioweapon.
A further but related result of focusing on the “lab-leak” conjecture is that it shores up the “deadly novel virus suddenly appeared” narrative, which provides the rationale for the biosecurity complex to siphon trillions from taxpayers through the aptly named “pandemic preparedness” industry.
But perhaps the biggest problem with accepting and promoting the lab-leak theory is that it reifies the Big Lie that there ever was a “pandemic” caused by a “unique viral pathogen” in the spring of 2020. In so doing, the theory hides the crimes that were committed in the hospitals and nursing homes and provides cover for the criminals who designed and executed this top-down operation.
Is it possible that the gain-of-function virus story was manufactured to get the public to snap up and swallow the lab-leak bait?
And was this entire fish tale dropped into the Covid discourse to keep the public obsessing over the “origins” of the disease rather than focusing on the policy-induced slaughter of the last three-and-a-half years? (When we say “slaughter,” we do not mean from an actual disease, but, rather, from isolation, from toxic treatments like Remdesivir and mRNA injections, and from the murderous misuse of sedatives and ventilators.)
Without the existence of a SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon, everything else in the official narrative swirls down the toilet, including the contrived Covid-19 case definition, the dodgy non-diagnostic rt-PCR tests, the fake excuses given for lockdowns and masks and social distancing, and the debate between whether the “novel virus” originated with a love match between a bat and a pangolin or from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab.
In other words, the establishment’s insistence on pushing the lab-leak theory serves to cover up the actual crimes that were committed on a massive scale and with impunity.
If it can be proven that there was no pandemic, as we have posited in a previous article, and no evidence of a virus, where would we go from there?
We would have to come to terms with the reality that this was never about “a mismanaged pandemic,” as some “health freedom” celebrities have taken to calling it.
We would have to confront the fact that the only pandemic was one of violent government and medical assault against billions of people, of false attribution of a made-up disease on death certificates, and of intense propaganda using fraudulent tests and bogus “scientific” studies.
We would have to accept that what we are dealing with is the collaboration of despotic public and private elements to commit criminal fraud and outright genocide.
We would have to hold the government (including intelligence agencies and the military), the health regulatory agencies, the hospitals and nursing homes, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the media accountable for these crimes.
The whole system would be revealed as the corrupt house of cards it is.
In short, legitimizing the lab-leak theory is a backdoor way of legitimizing the false claim of a global pandemic.
Coda
Misdirection is a classic strategy used to divert attention from one subject and direct it to another. Getting people to ask all the wrong questions ensures they will be kept from seeking answers to the right questions. Asking the wrong questions also ensures they will always draw wrong conclusions.
Thus, we have a deceived public wrongly determining: “It was a manufactured new virus and a few bad actors.”
And we have the subversive actors, who purport to oppose the official Covid narrative, pretending to believe: “It was a bioweapon that needs to be contained next time.”
Those who subscribe to the manufactured “deadly man-made virus” story are understandably terrified and desperate for explanations and for heroes and for “bombshell reports” that will mitigate their fears.
They want some simplistic, reassuring answers that can explain it all away and let them go back to sleep.
They don’t want to be overwhelmed by talk about a global cabal or conditional UBI or programmable CBDCs or digital IDs or mass surveillance rolled out across the world via an endless series of manufactured crises.
This entire issue needs to be confronted head-on in the health freedom movement. Some apparent health freedom advocates who have captured the attention of huge audiences are, wittingly or not, doing the bidding of the biosecurity state. By maintaining and heightening the fear factor of the gain-of-function bogeyman, these influencers are creating fertile ground for future psychological “terror” campaigns.
How can we stop these popular but either deluded or deceitful actors from inadvertently—or purposely—promoting fear?
Or, more realistically, how can we help the hangers-on of these perceived “heroes” to stop giving credence to their claims—to stop automatically deferring to their opinions and advice?
One way is to show people that when they uncritically accept any statement as fact, regardless of the insubstantiality of the claim and the evidence that refutes the claim, they are operating on a level of superficial emotional reaction, are incapable of thinking critically or evaluating ideas rationally, and can be easily duped.
Each time an individual comes to understand that all facets of the official narrative of “Covid” are a fiction, that there was no “pandemic” and no “novel virus” and no “lab leak,” the world moves a step further from the lies and a step closer to the truth.
In the post shared below, Next Level takes a look at “Spike Protect” products being sold to supposedly protect and/or repair damage from “spike proteins”. (For more information on Next Level, see their magazine here.)
This is the “Spike Protect” product promoted by Dr. Bodo Schiffmann as mentioned in the Next Level post. Ingredients: nattokinase, astaxanthin, black pepper extract and curcuma extract. Dr. Bodo Schiffman’s channels are published in German: Telegram and YouTube.
You will likely have seen a few versions of “Spike Protect” capsules offered for purchase by some of the natural healing or medical freedom channels that you follow. A quick web search found several with varying ingredients.
Here
Ingredients: black cumin seed extract, dandelion root, n-acetyl cysteine, green tea providing EGCG, nattokinase, selenium.
Here
This site also mentions “shedding” protection. Their product comes in a bundle of products that include: selenium, glutathione, turmeric, quercetin, hesperidin, nattokinase, black seed oil, dandelion root, Irish moss, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, selenium, proteases, bromelain, papain, kelp, rutin, grape seed, ALA, citrus bioflavonoid, rose hips, Asian ginseng, eleuthero [Siberian ginseng], ginkgo biloba, CoQ10, green tea, catalase, flaxseed, lutein, SOD, parsley.
Here
Ingredients: quercetin, schisandra, gingko leaf, serrapeptase, nattokinase.
Here
Ingredients: nattokinase, dandelion root, selenium, black sativa, green tea extract, Irish sea moss.
and Here Ingredients: dandelion leaf, juniper berry, slippery elm, ginger root.
These same ingredients have been recommended for many of the symptoms related to upper respiratory issues and blood clots — in other words, for all things “covid” and “covid jab” side effects.
In the post below, Next Level challenges the idea that “spike proteins” are the culprit in causing these symptoms.
by Next Level translated from German via telegram translate
January 25, 2024
The community has requested a critical analysis of the studies used as the basis for the Spike Protect product.
It is important to emphasize that no serious scientist — regardless of his critical attitude — would use such study results as a reliable evidence base. The product’s arguments against supposed “spike proteins” are based on a number of studies that do not provide sufficient evidence. This product has not yet been tested for effectiveness in controlled scientific studies.
Critical assessment of one of these studies (Post Bodo Schiffmann.)
1. Incomplete data presentation
Of the 81 long COVID patients (undefined diagnosis) examined, only data from 70 patients were presented. The missing information on 11 patients could represent bias if their results did not meet expectations.
2. Questionable evidence of “spike protein” fragments
The study found weak signals of “vaccine spike protein” fragments in only 2 of 81 patients and a fragment of the alleged “viral spike protein” in one patient.
3. Analysis of fragments instead of whole proteins
Only fragments and not whole “spike proteins” were analyzed, which increases the risk of misclassification.
4. Possible artifact formation due to trypsin
The samples were treated with trypsin to generate fragments, raising the question of whether the identified fragments may be artifacts of trypsin use. This becomes particularly relevant with the mention of Australian virologists who reported that visible ‘spikes’ under the electron microscope could only be created by using trypsin. This highlights the importance of comparative controls with untreated samples. Controls without trypsin were not performed.
5. Variability of detection limit
The limit of detection in mass spectrometry is not standardized (similar to the CT value in PCR), meaning that other laboratories might have interpreted the authors’ 2 weak signals differently. Both as an artifact and undetectable.
6. Interpretation of mass spectrometry results
The results are based solely on the indirect method of mass spectrometry. However, this technique does not provide clear yes or no answers but requires interpretation of the results. In mass spectrometry, so-called ‘peaks’ are created in the mass spectrum, which provide information about the presence of certain molecules. However, the very weak signals of these peaks identified in the study have not been confirmed by other independent methods, calling their reliability into question.
7. Lack of positive controls
Positive controls, i.e. samples known to contain the target molecule (in this case the “spike protein”), are not mentioned in the study.
8. Insufficient information on negative controls
Although unvaccinated samples are mentioned as negative controls, there are no specific details about how many negative control samples were used, how exactly these samples were analyzed, or what specific criteria were used for their selection. (Theoretically, this could be a single case).
9. Mass spectrometry and database dependency
In mass spectrometry, molecules are interpreted by comparing their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) with database values. Incorrect database entries, such as incorrectly defining a harmless protein as a “spike protein,” can lead to misinterpretations, for example, with syncytin being mistakenly identified as a spike protein.
An article analyzing the other studies used to sell “Spike Protect” will be published in the next few weeks on NEXT LEVEL.
And so here we are again with yet another ‘health scare’ story hitting the headlines. This time it’s measles.
Although this is a UK storyline, I would point out that the WHO published a News Release dated 16 November 2023 entitled Global measles threat continues to grow as another year passes with millions of children unvaccinated.
So I suppose it shouldn’t be at all surprising to see reports about an upsurge in measles cases in the UK, such as the BBC article entitled Measles: Why are cases rising and what are the symptoms?
The article gets straight to the point in the opening sentence,
“Measles cases are likely to spread rapidly unless more people are vaccinated, the UK Health Security Agency has warned.”
The next sentence states,
“Pop-up clinics are being opened to get more children vaccinated.”
Another BBC article, entitled Get measles vaccine to avoid rapid spread, says UK health boss, refers to Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at University College London, and states, under the heading What is causing the drop in vaccinations?
“The pandemic also had an impact, with “some parents afraid to attend clinics for fear of catching Covid or because they were not clear that vaccination services were continuing”, Prof Bedford adds.”
Could it also be that some parents have actually started to earnestly research the real nature of vaccines and have decided not to subject their precious babies to that procedure?
Both BBC articles describe measles as ‘highly contagious’ and state that,
“It normally clears up after seven to 10 days.”
This raises the obvious question of why the alleged increase in cases is of such concern if it is a condition that is self-limiting and only lasts about a week or so?
The first cited article professes to address this issue by claiming that,
“…it can lead to serious problems if it infects other parts of the body, such as the lungs or brain.”
This is followed by the claim that,
“Complications can include pneumonia, meningitis, blindness and seizures.”
Although the article claims that ‘measles can be fatal’, it recognises that ‘this is rare’.
So why is this being reported as a serious problem when the number of deaths from ‘measles or related infections’ between 2000 and 2022 was 23? I am not denying that children and adults experience illness, and I would add that a single death is one too many. What I am contending is that claims that any death is caused by an ‘infection’, whether measles or something else, is grossly misleading, which is putting it mildly, because there is no evidence for the existence of any ‘infectious virus’.
I would point out that, by comparison, almost nothing is reported about the very real information relating to the much greater numbers of adults and children who have died as the result of the Covid-19 injections.
Nevertheless, the following claim is found under the heading Why are measles cases rising and where are outbreaks?
“Some 85% of children in 2022-23 had received two MMR doses by the time they were five years old, the lowest level since 2010-11. The goal is 95%.”
The idea of a required ‘target’ percentage of vaccination coverage is based on the concept of ‘herd immunity’. In order for ‘herd immunity’ to be valid, there needs to be evidence that the disease in question fulfils certain criteria, which are: that it is caused by a virus; that it can be prevented by a vaccine; and that one person’s ‘immunity’ – which really means their health status – affects another person’s health status.
These criteria have never been proven in reality. Herd immunity is a fallacy.
The advice, under the heading What should you do if you get measles? includes,
“rest and drink plenty of fluids.”
This is actually sound advice – although I must add that I am not providing anything that should be construed as ‘medical advice’.
The symptoms that are labelled ‘measles’ are part of the body’s normal processes of self-healing.
Unfortunately, the core message of both articles is to promote the MMR vaccine using propaganda rather than actual evidence of its efficacy, because there is none. No vaccine has ever been proven to prevent any ‘disease’ and all vaccines produce side effects, which the article claims to address under the healing What are the side effects of the MMR jab? with the comment that,
“Most side effects are mild and do not last long.”
The propaganda continues within the statement that Andrew Wakefield ‘wrongly’ claimed that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. Although he was struck off the register as the result of his work, which was the discovery of a link between autism and gut issues, Andrew Wakefield was never against the use of vaccines, he merely questioned the use of multiple vaccines, like MMR, instead of single ones.
What IS conspicuous by its absence in either of these articles, is any reference to the Stefan Lanka court case in 2016, the result of which was a clear demonstration that the study papers that are used as ‘proof’ that measles is caused by a virus, do not actually provide that proof. In other words, it has never been proven that measles is caused by a virus.
It is obvious that this is another case of fear-mongering aimed mainly at parents of young children with the objective of increasing vaccine uptake and thereby boosting the profits of Big Pharma.
The question is: How many will comply?
I would also ask: Have enough people seen through the lies regarding the claims of safety and effectiveness of vaccines? Is that why the vaccination uptake has reduced?
I suppose only time will tell.
I am ever hopeful that there is an increasing number of people who are awakening to the truth about the so-called ‘healthcare system’ we are supposed to follow; and learning how they really can take back control of their own health and the health of their family, especially their babies.
The CDC withheld an “alert on myocarditis and mRNA vaccines” warning of the connection between heart inflammation and Covid-19 shots in May 2021, the Epoch Times has revealed.
The agency never published the alert; instead, its authors pushed vaccines on all age groups across the country.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis was the author of the draft. He gained minor celebrity status during the response to Covid and Monkeypox, appearing on magazine covers dressed in bondage and posting shirtless photos demanding Americans wear masks.
The proposed alert came in response to two fatal post-Pfizer vaccination myocarditis deaths in Israel and repeated warnings from the Department of Defense.
Despite voicing private concern, Daskalakis publicly promoted the products. In the same month he sent the warning, he wrote, “Data over dogma. Vaccines Work,” in response to a CDC tweet allowing “fully vaccinated” Americans to “resume activities without wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart.” He then posted, “Highly effective prevention means fewer barriers, physical or social. #Covidvaccine.”
At the time, the overwhelming majority of American teenagers had not received Covid shots. No state had a vaccination rate above 20% for 12- to 17-year-olds. In California, 90% of that age cohort remained unvaccinated. Indeed, the age gradient of risk was so steep – medically significant outcomes from the virus centered on the age and infirm – there was never a reason to push them on the general population.
Over the following two years, Dr. Daskalakis and his colleagues pushed the shots on every age group and deliberately withheld publishing its alert on myocarditis. Instead, the CDC sent repeated alerts encouraging Covid-19 vaccination for everyone.
Two months after the unpublished warning, the CDC sent an alert to doctors to “remind patients that vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 12 years of age and older, even for those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The propaganda efforts, in conjunction with President Biden’s mandates, succeeded. By May 2023, a large majority of American teenagers had received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. The vaccination rate for 12 to 17-year-olds in California skyrocketed from 10% to 84%, with one in five receiving an additional booster, according to CDC data.
The rate of vaccination for 12 to 17-year-olds went from 3% to 47% in Mississippi, 15% to 87% in Virginia, and 19% to 94% in Vermont from May 2021 to May 2023.
During that time period, Dr. Daskalakis repeatedly avoided voicing concerns over the risk of myocarditis. “I am so excited for my #Covid19 booster on Monday! I love vaccines!” he posted on Twitter in September 2022. In October 2023, he posted a photo of him receiving another Covid shot.
Daskalakis sent the draft alert to Henry Walke and John Brooks, both senior officials at the CDC. Their social media accounts do not share the same penchant for nudity and mRNA shots as Dr. Demetre’s, but, like Daskalakis, they continued to promote the shots without mentioning the discarded myocarditis alert.
In January 2022, Walke joined Dr. Rochelle Walensky in a CDC telebriefing that recommended a “safe and effective vaccine” for “all children five and older.” Brooks blamed “people who are not vaccinated” as “the source of new emerging [Covid] variants” in March 2022.
To this day, the CDC recommends children begin receiving Covid vaccines once they are six months old. It is not possible for immigrants to obtain legal permission to work in the US without one.
Fifty years ago, the most incisive questions from the Watergate hearings came from Senator Howard Baker: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The inquiry, ostensibly simple, encompassed the entire scandal.
The corruption of our public health apparati demands a similar probe. What did they know, and when did they know it? As the Covid regime demands “a pandemic amnesty,” the report from the Epoch Times adds to the plethora of evidence that their misdeeds were not mere mistakes; they were deliberate acts of fraud and deceit.
They knew of the risks, and they withheld the information from the American people. Stripped of informed consent, millions of citizens took the shots while doctors like Demetre Daskalakis denied them the right to know the risks of the product.
During these past years, as more and more humans are awakening to the global assault that is in the process of transforming or terraforming the planet (including humans and all biological life) there is extensive research related to the so-called “covid mRNA vaccines” and all the deaths related to these poisonous injections. Yet, this assault is not a new agenda and has been going on for a very long time. Geoengineering, tampering with food and water supplies, EMF radiation & wireless technology, poisonous farming practices, and all vaccines (for both humans and animals, all of which have always been toxic and sometimes deadly) have all been part of this global anti-life agenda.
In his article below, Clifford Carnicom, challenges some of the research related to “covid vaccines”. Here he shares links to many articles from his past research related to geoengineering and the highly-toxic substances that fall from our skies. His extensive work in the uncovering of the cause of morgellons, a strange “disease” suffered by so many globally, clearly points to geoengineering as a probable cause. Of interest are the number of military and government agencies who visit his website (see The Visitors), while at the same time the EPA refuses to analyze and identify the fibrous substance sample that Carnicom provided. Of course, one is reminded here of the U.S. Department of Defense’s role in the rollout of mandated “covid vaccines” (see the work of Katherine Watt),
For those new to the work of The Carnicom Institute, please take a look at the many links to previous work that Clifford provides at the end of his article.
As an example, here is an excerpt from an article titled “The New Biology” written in June of 2014:
“It is generally perceived that the so-called “Morgellons” issue is primarily, if not exclusively, a human condition. It is not. It will be found that this condition actually represents a fundamental change in the state and nature of biology as it is known on this earth. The evidence now indicates and demonstrates that there is, at the heart of the “condition”, a new growth form that transcends, as a minimum, the plant and animal boundaries.
The precedent for this argument was made some time past in the paper entitled “Morgellons: A New Classification” (Feb 2010); the central theme of that paper remains valid at this time. The very classification of the domains of life is central to that paper. Readers may also wish to refer to the papers entitled, “Animal Blood” (Jan 2010) and “And Now Our Children” (Jan 2008), where additional precedents were established. The August 2011 video presentation, “Geo-Engineering & Bio-Engineering: The Unmistakable Link” is also relevant here.”
We owe a lot of gratitude to Clifford Carnicom and so many others who are working to uncover the truth about this horrific transhuman & anti-life agenda that is a daily assault on us all.
For the past several years, there has been some attention given to the presence of unusual filaments within blood samples, blood clots, and (purported) “vaccine” studies. If studied adequately, it will be determined that these filaments have a complex internal biology within them, down to the sub-micron level (minimum). Various names and chemical identities have been assigned to these filaments, such as “ribbons”, “threads”, “graphene oxide”(i.e., elementary chemistry) and the like. There are numerous implications from various researchers that these filaments originate from the advent of the “Covid Era”.
The characterization of these filaments as a product only of recent years, i.e., from purported “vaccines”, is mistaken. Any characterization of the filaments as being of relatively simple or uniform chemistry is mistaken. Any characterization of the filaments as being an unknown and mysterious entity (with no effort expended to remedy that ignorance) is equally inadequate and mistaken.
It is a disservice to simplify their nature, origin, constitution, and capabilities. These filaments, actually a product of synthetic biology, have altered human biology in untold ways for decades and they are NOT a mystery as to their origin or general nature. Any perpetuation of that myth is either from ignorance or with motive.
These unusual and remarkable filaments:
1. Have a known and documented existence of approximately 25 years.
2. Are of an extremely complex biological nature, internally down to the sub-micron level (at a minimum).
3. Have been intensively studied by Carnicom Institute (CI) and others for this same time period.
4. Are directly a physical aspect of the health condition known as “Morgellons”.
5. Have been shown to have a direct role in blood clotting and blood changes that appear to occur more frequently and visibly within the Covid Era.
6. Are ultimately of a synthetic, engineered, xenobiotic nature.
7. Were first identified to originate from an environmental source (geoengineering, bioengineering research).
8. Were given to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the year 2000 with a request for identification on behalf of the public welfare; this request was refused via a “policy” decision.
9. Are a direct metabolic development of the Cross Domain Bacteria (CDB) under study at CI over these same decades.
10. Have some variation in form (a degree of pleomorphism) and size (although all are primarily microscopic) and all have an existence that can be shown to directly originate from the CDB.
11. Can be shown to be a source of synthetic blood production under appropriate culture conditions.
12. The filaments can be demonstrated to be distributed throughout human biology, not just blood.
13. Can be cultured successfully from these same CDB.
These conclusions are justified with the research available at CI beginning in 1999 and they carry forward to the present day.
As the available research is too lengthy to present, a sampling of representative images and titles from the ~450 paper research set will be given for a sense of the state of affairs:
by Next Level (New Medicine) translated from German via telegram translate
January 6, 2024
Harmful effects of toxic adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines
Since the poisons in the vaccine mixture are defined as auxiliary substances, as an adjuvant to the protein component of the vaccine, they are considered harmless substances and are not subject to strict pharmaceutical law.
The known and typical effects of these poisons are systematically ignored when assessing vaccine damage because the vaccine is only considered to have an immunological effect. The actual vaccine, the little protein in the vaccination mixtures, actually has no toxic potential.
Allergies to the “protein” components in the vaccination mixtures
All protein components in all vaccines are misinterpreted as parts of pathogens or as weakened viruses. In reality, the proteins in the vaccination mixtures are components of completely normal and harmless bacteria and their “waste products” that occur in every human being.
Also included are components of chicken embryos, human and animal tissues/cells and their cell organelles. Under certain circumstances, allergies to these proteins can be triggered in anyone. Allergies can cause processes called autoimmune reactions.
Brain psychosomatic processes through the personal feelings accompanying the act of vaccination
These processes — originally designed as meaningful biological special programs — are triggered when the act of vaccination is perceived as existentially threatening and overwhelming. The brain-psychosomatic triggers and processes were determined by Dr. Hamer discovered and described.
The allergic and toxic reactions of the vaccine mixtures can chronicle the brain psychosomatic programs, intensify them and make therapy more difficult. Typical examples of these brain psychosomatic programs triggered by vaccinations are autism, depression, mania, epilepsy, convulsions and others.
Each of these supposed (fake) viruses traveled. In each case, they traveled from a foreign country to the US.
Name several viruses that, during the past 65 years, traveled from the US to foreign nations caused epidemics there.
No?
Can’t?
Why not?
Purported viruses can originate anywhere. They can travel anywhere. What’s the problem?
On top of all this, we have the “Hot Zone” theory/prediction of emerging deadly viruses:
They come from jungles and rainforests far away, and because modern travel is so frequent, they come to America, and…
Because our immune systems have no previous history of encountering these viruses, the germs sweep through our population and create pandemics.
Given that description, why haven’t the proponents of the theory cited viruses that originate in the US and travel to jungles and rainforests in other nations and cause deadly epidemics there? The people in those remote places have no experience with OUR viruses.
What’s the problem?
What’s going on is really quite simple. STORIES are being told about supposed viruses. The stories inevitably feature origins in foreign lands, and the germs travel to the US.
By any measure, we should have heard press reports, over the past 65 years, of the Chicago or New York or Miami or San Francisco or Des Moines Flu showing up in Germany, France, Brazil, West Africa, China, India…
But we haven’t.
And the reason is, those aren’t the STORIES. That’s all. This has nothing to do with science.
Nothing at all.
Therefore, all the stories of foreign viruses landing here are on the level of man in the moon and Cinderella and Snow White.
If these US outbreaks of illness in the US were caused by foreign viruses, we would have witnessed similar viral outbreaks in other countries that originated here.
“Oh, you can’t come in here, are you kidding? This is a high-security lab. Only certified professionals can enter. We’re dealing with viruses. Off limits to you and all civilians. WE tell you what we discover. YOU accept our findings. Now shut up and get lost…”
That’s the attitude of elite researchers who claim to be discovering and isolating new viruses…
When, in fact, as many of us have detailed…
They’re doing no such thing.
They’re faking it, in multiple ways.
They’re in charge of faking it.
A reader, in a comment, mentioned that WE should be able to go into those labs WITH VIDEO CAMERAS and record everything going on in there.
BANG.
BOOM.
Exactly.
We should be able to get in there with a pro video crew and cameras that record every single action these bozo researchers perform.
Many cameras catching the action from every possible angle. Up very close, medium range, ceiling angles, angles from the floor.
With sound. And send a few people in there who have previously detailed how the virus fakery is accomplished. They stand close to the researchers and stop them at any moment and ask questions.
“Why did you just do that?” “What’s in that dish?” “You claim you just proved WHAT? Explain how you proved it.” And so on.
Every single step of the so-called isolation of new viruses is questioned and criticized—and recorded on video, with sound—until there are no more secrets, no more proprietary information, no more missing pieces in the process. To OUR satisfaction.
Otherwise, there is no reason under the sun to accept what these weasels are telling us.
“Doctor, you just SAID you separated the virus from the solution in this dish of soup. You SAID it but you didn’t show it. We all know that. When are you going to SHOW the isolation?”
“Why did you just dip that instrument in the soup? What are you doing? You’re measuring something? Prove it. What are you measuring?”
“You SAY you just removed a virus from this soup you created, and you’re purifying it, and then you’re going to put a sample under an electron microscope, and then you’re going to say the particles that show up are viruses. So we’ll have to go over all these steps very carefully and slowly, because we’ll have many questions. Many pointed questions you’ll need to answer.”
All this is happening live, on camera, with sound.
In the moment.
Then we’ll see what these elite researchers know and don’t know.
I watched a recent interview (link) of Prof. Syed Sattar (Retired Professor of Virology from the University of OTTAWA, Canada), who is still active in the area. He is a great friend, and I greatly admire his academic credentials and achievements. I have known him personally and professionally, at least for twenty years.
I find the interview informative, describing the fundamental concepts of virology, notably virus isolation. That is, how the virus isolation concepts are illustrated in virology literature, which Prof. Sattar emphasized as well-established practices and routines in virology laboratories.
However, issues and confusion arise when virologists, including Prof. Sattar, describe isolation as “culturing or its part” as a virus. It is essentially their critical misunderstanding, i.e., considering “culture” and the “virus” as the same thing. In reality and scientifically, they have to be and are two separate entities. I often describe the difference between the two as being chicken (“virus”) and “soup,” which may or may not contain the chicken/virus.
To show the presence or existence of a virus, the virus (if there) must be isolated or separated from the culture. The separation of the virus from culture and its content is called the “isolation” step, which has never been done. This is the confusion or misunderstanding virologists and microbiologists have and are unwilling to take the time to consider or evaluate.
They often defend their position by arguing that viruses (particles) are minute in size and number and cannot be seen or isolated (separated) from cells (culture) to observe. Therefore, viruses and culture have to go together and side by side. Hence, it resulted in considering/calling culturing or culture a “virus.”
It is to be noted that there is no objection to the culturing step, which, in reality, is a fermentation step for growing or multiplying the viruses. However, once the viruses are sufficiently multiplied, they MUST be isolated or separated to evaluate their identity and characteristics, such as structure, RNA/DNA proteins, etc. This step is missing.
So, effectively, virologists work with cultures but make claims about them as “viruses.” It is like working with debris from a forest but selling it as novel and rare wood dust particles.
Seeing the photographs with low or high-resolution microscopes does not establish the presence of something, just like seeing small yellow particles would not confirm the presence of gold in the sample. The particles must be isolated/separated to characterize them.
It is an invalid argument that viruses are small (in size and number), so they cannot be seen without culturing or separating from cells. Smaller items like carbon, hydrogen atoms, and molecules are commonly available in isolated and purified forms with full characterization or certifications.
If the claim is that there are viruses, then these entities, considered particles, must be available in, isolated, purified, and fully characterized. Nothing of this nature is available, including for the coronaviruses. Calling or considering cultures/isolates as viruses is an incorrect understanding that needs to be abandoned.
Links to some articles for further information on the topic:
An unexplained pneumonia-like sickness is reportedly swiftly spreading through schools in China, leading to a surge of hospitalizations of children.
Over the past few weeks, numerous schools in China, predominantly in Beijing and Liaoning province, have reported a rapid increase in children presenting with severe symptoms. These symptoms, including high fever and lung inflammation, are eerily similar to those of pneumonia, Daily Mail reported.
However, what sets this illness apart is the lack of common respiratory symptoms like coughing. This unique symptom profile has led health professionals to label this as an “undiagnosed pneumonia.”
Note that this peculiar symptomatology has reportedly baffled health professionals, who are struggling to categorize and understand this new illness.
Mystery? Baffling? Eerie?
I don’t think so. They always give you: “This has no explanation”—just before they magically announce they’ve found a new virus.
Of course, they never actually isolate that new virus. They never discover it. They just invent a fairy tale.
As far as “mysterious” is concerned in China right now, here is a definitive statement from the American Thoracic Society: “It is possible to have pneumonia without a cough or fever.”
Oops.
For years, doctors have been diagnosing patients with pneumonia when there is no cough present. It’s not baffling. It’s not ultra-strange. So forget about that.
Which leaves the question: what IS making all these children in China sick? Hmm. Let’s see. Could it be changes in the moon’s orbit? Sun spots? Lasers fired from UFOs? Infected bats imported from Mars?
No?
Well, how about THIS?
US Embassy in China, October 30, 2023:
EVENT: This is a notification that the Beijing City Government has issued an ‘orange’ alert for air pollution effective from 12:00 Monday, October 30 until 24:00 Thursday, November 2. An ‘orange’ alert means that official forecasts indicate Beijing’s Air Quality Index (AQI) will exceed 200 for two consecutive days or 150 for three consecutive days. The alert may be extended if air pollution levels persist.
During an “orange” alert, some businesses may reduce operations.
ACTIONS TO TAKE: The U.S. EPA recommends people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers limit or avoid outdoor physical activity when the AQI level exceeds 200. It recommends everyone avoid outdoor exertion if the AQI level exceeds 300.
Reuters, October 31, 2023:
Authorities issued their highest warnings for fog and haze on Tuesday as smog enveloped major cities in northern China, warning the public that visibility could drop to less than 50 metres (164 feet).
Northern province Hebei launched an anti-pollution emergency response, listing traffic safety controls for when necessary including suspending flight takeoffs and landings, temporarily closing highways and suspending ferries, China’s meteorological bureau said in a notice.
As air pollution levels in the wider Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area and northern part of Henan province reached moderate to severe, pollution control experts said increased industrial activities, heavy trucking and crop fires had contributed to the haze, state media CCTV reported.
Crisis 24, a “global security platform,” reports that heavy pollution is occurring in Northern China provinces, including Beijing and Liaoning, the two areas reporting the “mystery illness” in children.
I see. Pollution causing lung problems. Wow. I just fell off my chair. What a revelation. Who ever heard of that?
Yeah. I went through all this—reported on all this—in 2020—with “COVID.” That was a mysterious pneumonia, too. Except for the heavy air pollution. Every year in China, about 300,000 people die from pneumonia (lung problems). That means there are millions of cases.
What do burkas, tichels, yarmulkes, hijabs, kapps, fezzes, dukus, and surgical masks all have in common? Religious cultures mandate or strongly encourage these head coverings to comply with dogma. Although most of these are rooted in ethnic and religious traditions of any denomination to reflect humility before G-d and modesty before man, surgical masks have become the morality trend of the Western world for those who fear The Science before they fear any god.
As absurd as that last sentence may sound, the People of the United States are under siege–a war that is targeting our greatest claim to fame, our pride and joy: our freedom. Our Forefathers determined at the inception of this nation that all men have the inviolate right to life and liberty. Recognizing some freedoms that are indelible to the identity of a human are especially at risk of infringement, the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights to expressly protect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition the government among other activities.
Yet over the last three years, our government has encroached on these unalienable freedoms in the name of public health and following The Science. The few government officials and bureaucrats sitting in D.C. and Georgia imposed their beliefs on what makes the public healthy on the masses, without regard for dissenting opinions or contrary beliefs. Such factional tyranny is exactly the breach of social contract the Framers aimed to prevent.
After initially telling the country that masks would not work against this virus, Anthony Fauci fell in step, ordering persons be masked and directing both government and non-government actors alike to hold their fellow citizens accountable for failing to mask. A futile exercise in the name of “public health” given research predating the pandemic had already put to bed the idea that masking could prevent respiratory infections. Even following the Cochrane Review’s pandemic masking study showing little-to-no efficacy at masks preventing infection, the Biden administration still tells the People we should be masking.
Beyond inefficacy, recent studies are also researching possible adverse consequences from constant mask-wearing, now termed “Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome.” The illness bears many of the same symptoms as “long covid,” begging the question: are the health risks of long-term masking worth the miniscule efficacy? I digress. Masking mandates began to die down when the CDC lost a legal battle where the court only addressed the agency’s statutory authority to impose such a mandate. The question of whether such mandates are constitutional at all was never reached. Despite the open question in the courts, I firmly believe mask mandates do not pass constitutional muster.
Recalling my extreme parallel of religious head coverings to surgical masks, compare this scenario: one day, the bureaucrats in Washington decide that for public health and decency, everyone must wear a burka. The land would cry, “Foul!” Non-muslim citizens would lose their minds that Sharia law was being imposed on them in violation of their First Amendment right to be free from the establishment of religion! Only the worshippers of the public health fascists would gladly adorn the dress as a testament to their true belief that the burka would save them from illness. I ask you, how is our current masking guidelines any different? Because masking is not a teaching from an institutionalized religion? Is trusting The Science not a form of having faith?
In truth, our courts have held time and time again that government actors cannot infringe on our clothing under both freedom-tenants of religion and speech. Our Constitution contracts our appointed government to respect and defend our human right to liberty, which includes our ability to express ourselves and beliefs through our clothing and appearances. After all, our appearance is all a part of our individual identities. Covering one’s face, one’s physical identity, must be a choice and not a requirement.
Moreover, our individual identities are not just linked to our physical attributes. Nay, our speech is also core to our humanity and identities. Speech is the expression of one’s soul, subjective based upon the speaker’s own perceptions and experiences. How I speak and what I say is part of how others (and I) recognize me as who I am!
Like any painting serves as a window into the artist’s being, so is speech into a person’s mind, heart, and soul. It is as complex as the human body that produces such words and sounds: the speaker’s larynx, vocal chords, pharynx, palate, tongue, teeth, cheeks, lips, and nose are all coordinating in harmony to make what we think in our minds come out of our mouths. Speech is as unique to each individual as a person’s fingerprints or DNA. Muffling a person’s voice, covering the delicate facets producing speech, hiding non-verbal facial cues, and restricting air flow via masks is not natural.
Masking inhibits self-expression. Even prior to physical masking, virtue-signalers touted policing one’s own speech as being “politically correct.” Policing and masking speech is toxic to both individuals and humankind. It evokes the same hesitancy as does domestic abuse–the feeling of “walking on eggshells” for fear your words will trigger and bring you harm. It further causes an identity crisis–a dissociation within oneself, wherein the mind is policing the heart and soul for fear of offending any listener (or observer). Both perpetuate the victimhood complex where one believes she cannot live without fear because others will not do “what they are supposed to do.”
It is true that internal perceptions expressed outwardly are not always correct or palatable. Such is the beauty of allowing one to convey his opinions and beliefs in his own words: the listener can understand the person with whom she is speaking and take the opportunity to debate and educate, correct her own misunderstanding, or completely discredit the speaker of value within her own mind. Speech is not just about speaking, but about hearing and deciding what one believes to be true. Speech of our own and listening to others’ speech helps us understand and develop our own identities.
It is not that constant expletives and hyperboles should become the norm of self-expression through speech. No, language itself is so vastly malleable that it can be morphed to rise to any situation–to connect with one’s listeners. For instance, there are different ages of communication. You would not use the same words with a child as you would with adults, unless your intention is to be misunderstood or completely unintelligible like the unseen adult characters of Charlie Brown. To be understood by your listeners, you must change your speech to be appropriate for the venue and target audience.
How is any of this relevant to the topic of mask mandates eroding freedom? Requiring people to cover the face and bodily member responsible for speaking and being heard and understood is inhumane. It strips children of their ability to learn how to speak, how to use their body to produce sounds and words and sentences, and how to connect those words to facial expressions to add context for listeners. It socially distances people from each other, deteriorating the human connection that allows us to communicate and understand each other.
There is no replacement for that connection. As I discussed in a prior article, humans are a social species. Although we are capable as individuals, we fail to thrive when deprived of interacting with others. During lockdowns, people yearned to visit family, go out to restaurants, to resume “normalcy.” Zoom meetings, video calls, and text messages were not enough to curb the cravings for human connection.
Masking is just another degree of separation from one another. Although it is less obvious than the isolation of quarantines, it is just another lonely reminder that we are not free. Not free to be ourselves, not free to connect, not free from fear, not free to breathe, not free to decide for ourselves what is in our own best interest. Even President Biden joked during a recent press conference that, “they keep telling me… I got to keep wearing [a mask], but don’t tell them I didn’t have it on when I walked in,” defiantly waving his surgical mask away from his face.
Who are “they” to decide what is in any individual’s best interest? Are we children and “they” our parents? Do we lack the mental capacity to think for ourselves? Are we not developed and educated enough to decide what is healthy and what is not? Are our God-given immune systems so defective that we can no longer survive colds? I find it a hard blue pill to swallow that humanity has survived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years for a coronavirus variant to suddenly confound our natural biological defenses.
Who are “they” at all? “They” are not our duly-elected legislators who oathed to uphold and defend our Constitution and who are the only branch of government who the People gave authority to create laws. In fact, Senator JD Vance (R-OH) is now fighting this usurpation of legislative authority by “them.” On September 7, 2023, he brought to the Senate floor the “Freedom to Breathe” Act, which would prohibit mask mandates. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) objected to the call for unanimous consent, arguing that this legislation would infringe on the health powers of the states.
An interesting and seemingly Constitution-based argument by Senator Markey, but it presupposes masking mandates on the public are a health-related decision at all, which is not supported by scientific evidence, and that such mandates are not otherwise constitutionally prohibited.
Though the People granted health powers to the states, those powers are still limited by the People’s ultimate right to life and liberty, including the free exercise of religion without a state-sanctioned religion (The Science) and free speech without intrusions on the speech-producing orifice or physical identity of the speaker.
Masking restrictions are not a “health power” the state governments are permitted to enforce. Masking mandates are not a public health measure the federal government is permitted to sanction. Both impede life and liberty guaranteed to the People by being human and safeguarded by the People through enforcing our Constitution. As such, the People will not comply.
The parents of 62-day-old Sawyer learned their baby’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist who read Sawyer’s report said the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines.
A Maine couple last week finally got the answers they’d been seeking for nearly a year, ever since their 62-day-old son, Sawyer, died Oct. 28, 2022 — 34 hours after receiving his scheduled childhood vaccines.
According to a toxicology report, Sawyer’s blood contained 95 micrograms per liter of aluminum, a level that would be toxic for adults.
A toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said a viral infection Sawyer was being treated for could have been a contributing factor.
Sawyer’s parents, Melissa — a registered nurse — and her fiancé Nick shared their story last week with journalist Jennifer Margulis.
In an interview this week with The Defender, the couple detailed their search for truth, beginning with how Maine’s medical examiner refused repeated requests to perform lab tests that might have shown the culpability of the vaccines — and instead initially ruled Sawyer’s death “asphyxiation due to inappropriate sleep position and environment.”
The story of baby Sawyer
On Oct. 20, 2022, Melissa took Sawyer to a doctor for a persistent rash around his torso. The doctor diagnosed a viral infection, gave Melissa some medicinal cream and told her to monitor Sawyer’s temperature for possible fever.
Exactly one week later, Melissa went to the same pediatrician for a baby wellness checkup, where the doctor insisted Sawyer, despite Melissa’s reservations and the baby still having a rash, receive the scheduled childhood vaccines.
These included: RotaTeq (for rotavirus), Hib (for Haemophilus influenzae b), Prevnar 13 (for 13 types of pneumococcal bacteria) and Pediarix (for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and polio).
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician, told The Defender, “I don’t know of any official warnings against vaccinating sick children,” but “there are no upsides to vaccinating a sick child. There are only downsides.” He added, “And, there are no upsides to vaccinating any child.”
Melissa told The Defender that, despite her medical training, she became skeptical of vaccines just two days prior when she watched a video of a toxicologist talking about the dangers of vaccines for children. She discussed the upcoming vaccinations with her fiancé, and they decided to go ahead with them.
“We were afraid that the medical system was going to judge him and judge us and not let him into school,” Nick said. “We just hadn’t done any research on it.”
Nick has two daughters from a previous marriage, ages 11 and 19, who received all of their childhood vaccines “and nothing ever happened,” he said.
After the doctor’s visit, Sawyer arrived home screaming and Melissa gave him the baby Tylenol recommended by the doctor.
By the next day, the baby had calmed somewhat but was still acting “fussy and uncomfortable,” so Melissa gave him more Tylenol and some expressed breastmilk.
When Nick got home from work that day, they put Sawyer into his bassinet for a nap around 5:30. By 6:15 the baby was fussing, and with some help was able to get back to sleep. He slept off and on for another four hours, while his parents kept tabs on him via his baby monitor and visits to his room.
The last time Melissa checked on Sawyer, he wasn’t moving or breathing. She picked up his limp and lifeless body and started screaming. Nick rushed in to help but it was already too late.
Emergency medical technicians arrived after the couple called 911. They tried but were unable to revive Sawyer.
The county and state police also responded and, because it was an infant death, opened a formal investigation and ordered an autopsy.
Chief Medical Examiner Mark Flomenbaum performed the autopsy the next day. Although he found Sawyer to be “well developed” and without signs of injury or bruising, Flomenbaum filed a death certificate citing asphyxiation due to a “sub-optimal sleeping environment” — essentially blaming the parents.
“It was near Christmas when we got the autopsy results,” Melissa told The Defender. “We read them on Christmas Eve. … We did nothing for the entire weekend.”
Asked if they ever learned what the medical examiner saw to make his determination, they said no. “The only thing in his basket was the blanket he was laying on.”
The police looked for evidence of child abuse or alcoholism, but quickly concluded it was an accidental death.
Melissa, grief-stricken, told everyone she could to investigate the possible role of vaccines in Sawyer’s death.
She first called the medical examiner to see if he would do testing to determine if sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was responsible, but was told there was no need “because it wouldn’t show the cause of his passing,” she recalled being told.
The hunt for answers
That’s when the couple’s hunt for answers began. “I was looking up people on the internet, on social media. I was calling any number I could find,” Melisssa said.
Finally, she discovered a suite of pathology tests that could determine whether vaccines played a role in Sawyer’s death.
The tests measure C-reactive protein (indicating brain inflammation), liver enzymes, aluminum and mercury in brain and blood tissue, formaldehyde and formalin (another name for formaldehyde). A cytokine panel would also identify various blood factors and vaccine titer levels.
Melissa mailed and emailed Flomenbaum’s office to formally request the full battery of tests. The doctor refused, dismissing her concerns and telling her that heavy metals do not cause SIDS.
“They gave me a reason why each test didn’t need to be done,” she said.
Further emails to the state medical examiner’s office, from both parents, have been bouncing back as “undeliverable” since.
A friend of Melissa’s told her about Health Choice Maine, a statewide nonprofit working to protect health freedom and parental rights. There she met Tiffany Kreck, Health Choice Maine’s executive director, who helped Melissa organize her own investigation.
“Families being bullied by a doctor or threatened with CPS [child protective services] or whatever, can reach out, and we will, to the best of our ability, help them navigate it,” Kreck told The Defender.
Melissa said Tiffany gave her a list of things they had to do, “like getting reports and billing information, people to contact, and that’s what I did.”
Their primary goal was to find a competent pathologist to perform the lab tests Melissa had requested. They searched the entire country — even enlisting the help of Laura Bono, vice president of Children’s Health Defense, Kreck told The Defender — but came up empty.
Kreck told Melissa they would not be mentioning anything about vaccines to the prospective pathologists, so they would be less likely to reject the request.
The biggest obstacle was finding a doctor who was willing to order the tests.
Her ob-gyn told her that it was “out of his scope of practice.”
She called her primary care physician and told him she thought the vaccines had played a role in her son’s death “and he denied it,” she said. Her pediatrician also said no.
The toxicology report and next steps
Finally, they found someone in-state who, responding to Melissa’s grief, agreed to perform the tests on June 21. Although some of Sawyer’s tissue samples had degraded, the pathologist was able to perform enough tests to issue a definitive report last month.
The report was technical and was not accompanied by any guidance or recommendations.
Melissa said, “They never called me and said, ‘Oh, listen, this is high. This could be due to his vaccines. We will do a VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] report, you know, and advocate for other infants that pass away.’ No, we didn’t get anything from them.”
So they had to hire a private toxicologist who could interpret the report. That second report arrived last week.
“And she was the one that called us the other day and told us that his aluminum levels were very high,” Melissa said, “and that we needed to seek some legal services.”
The report showed baby Sawyer had 95 micrograms of aluminum per liter of blood, a level that would be toxic for adults. The toxicologist told the couple the aluminum and antigen levels in the blood were due to the vaccines. She also said the baby’s illness could have been a contributing factor.
Kreck told Margulis, “This additional pathology report shows how much are medical examiners don’t know because they won’t look.”
The report also showed high levels of lead, which would not be due to vaccines, the toxicologist said, and asked about lead levels in their house or water. But given that the baby had only consumed breastmilk and was not yet old enough to crawl around on the floor, the question remains open.
After receiving the confirmation about the aluminum, the couple felt “exonerated” from the implication they were responsible for Sawyer dying from asphyxiation, “but we also still feel like we failed our baby,” Melissa told The Defender.
“Me being a nurse,” she said, “I felt like I failed him both as a nurse and a mother.”
Nick added, “From the father’s standpoint, you’re supposed to protect your family, and I failed at that. It weighs on me every second of the day.”
Melissa and Nick are planning to file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). She said she still feels skeptical “because I know how the government and the medical system are.”
Kreck is helping the couple prepare for the VICP meeting. “We are doing every test that we can possibly do and trying to cross all of our t’s and dot all of our i’s before we go into the VICP,” Kreck said, “which is historically difficult and harsh on what they perceive to be SIDS cases.”
A couple told The Defender they got help reporting the case to VAERS last November, but have never received any follow-up. They did, however, confirm that Sawyer’s case was in the database.
Health Choice Maine is also exploring options for a lawsuit challenging the finding on the state medical examiner’s death certificate.
Dealing with the grief
Just three months after the ordeal, a therapist told Melissa, who was still grieving for her child and searching for answers, that she had an “adjustment disorder.”
“She was pretty much telling me that I was not adjusting to losing my son quick enough, and recommended trauma therapy,” Melissa said.
She left the office crying, wondering if something was wrong with her or not being able to let go of her grief. “I haven’t had good luck with therapists,” she told The Defender.
“I’ve been going through this all on my own, trying to go through reports and all the information about my baby’s life and his medical records. And I’m doing all this while trying to grieve the loss of him and it is horrifically painful,” she said. “It’s something no parent should ever have to go through.”
One therapist told Melissa to take mood stabilizers and anti-depressants. “The mental health care system has not been very helpful in this at all,” Nicked added.
Nick found that going back to work and keeping busy was the most therapeutic approach for him. “Just keeping my mind focused on other stuff, you know, while carrying all that around,” he said.
Nick has joined Melissa in several of her therapy sessions, which he found very helpful.
The couple found a grief support group called Empty Arms for parents who have lost a child, which has been “amazing,” Melissa said. The group does a butterfly release for the deceased on Memorial Day and an annual remembrance walk.
They have found support from family members as well, although Melissa said it has been hard to talk to her family about the vaccine connection.
The couple said the loss has brought them closer together. “I couldn’t keep going, fighting the fight we’re fighting right now, without her,” Nick said. “And you don’t realize how much you love someone and just how precious life is and what you have in front of you is.”
“Cherish it and love it, don’t let it go,” he said.
“We lost the biggest and best part of us both and if we didn’t stay together, I’d feel like I was losing another piece,” Melissa said.
The couple’s journey to warn others
“I just want to make other people aware and I want to put a stop to this,” Melissa said.
Melissa said she warns mothers of sick children to cancel their appointments for vaccines at least until the child has recovered. She added:
“Children do not need vaccines. And if they were to get them, they don’t need them until they’re at least two years old. The problem is, is they have a blood-brain barrier that has not closed up until they’re two years old or later.
“And if you get vaccinated before two years old, the aluminum can cross that blood-brain barrier. That’s why levels are so high and it stops respiration and causes cardiac arrest.”
Nick said, “I wouldn’t tell anybody ‘Don’t vaccinate your children.’ But I would definitely say ‘Do your research. Go to the end of the internet, make sure what you’re doing is right, that you know all the possible outcomes.’”
“Be more educated and be a strong advocate for your baby,” he added. “Because it’s your baby, not the doctor’s.”
Asked why more medical professionals don’t speak out, Melissa simply said “Career suicide.”
“I don’t even wanna be a nurse anymore,” she said. “Why would I want to be? But I have to pay my bills.”
“Doctors don’t have any better education on vaccines than most 10th graders,” she said. “Even as a nurse, we don’t get the education. We just got the schedule.”
She also said that medical examiners should have the right to test for vaccine injuries during the autopsy and identify them as a cause on the death certificate. “The vaccines are killing people and babies and they’re trying to cover it up,” she said.
While the couple said they found it helpful to share their story, they also admitted to wanting to keep a low profile. “It’s kind of a quiet subject for us because we’ve got to protect ourselves now,” Melissa said.
The couple is looking for a good support system. “We’re looking for people to stand behind us and support us as we go through this journey, for the next questionable amount of years, to get justice for our baby. It might drag on for a while,” Melissa said.
When asked about what gives them the strength to stand up and share their story, despite the backlash that such activism could invite, Melissa said:
“This is the only way that I feel like I can mother my baby anymore. And my baby deserves justice. And we deserve to know the truth.
“He is our reason for living right now. And he is our motivation.”
Questions about the state medical examiner
Kreck told The Defender that state medical examiner Flomenbaum came from Massachusetts where he had been fired as the state medical examiner. “It looks like he tried to sue them for wrongful termination and lost,” Kreck said.
Flomenbaum earned a national reputation as a top medical examiner through his work identifying bodies in New York City after the 9/11 attack in 2001, according to an article in the Portland Press Herald.
He was fired from his Massachusetts position for losing a body and having a backlog of bodies waiting to be examined.
In 2019, the Maine attorney general’s office investigated and later cleared Flomenbaum over criticism that he was running a side business as a consultant in out-of-state death cases.
The Press Herald article details more of Flomenbaum’s controversial history, which included a Connecticut prosecutor’s letter to then-Attorney General Jane Mills telling her that a judge had determined his testimony in a child manslaughter case was “not credible.”
Flomenbaum was reprimanded in 2021 by Maine Governor Mills for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in the workplace, after which he announced he would not be seeking reassignment to the position.
“He was only supposed to have a month or so left of his term back then and he’s still in office now. That all sounds very odd and fishy,” Kreck said.
Melissa told The Defender that Flomenbaum had recently left the medical examiner’s office, putting the disposition of Sawyer’s remains in question.
The couple, with the aid of Health Choice Maine, is seeking to remove Sawyer’s blood and tissue samples from the medical examiner’s office.
Anyone with information about where a new location might be found to accommodate Sawyer’s remains is encouraged to email Tiffany Kreck at tiffany@healthchoicemaine.org.
A new COVID variant called BS.24/7 is sweeping across the Universe as cases and hospitalisations rise. The fast-spreading subvariant, nicknamed Crap, is now the dominant strain circulating in the Universe, health officials say.
Image captured by a Starlink satellite (actual size)
Right now, BS.24/7 accounts for the largest proportion of suspected infections in the Universe, more than any other variant, according to the latest data from the Universal Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
BS.24/7 is a subvariant of Omicron990027.Z and a descendant of the TOXDCrap sublineage, which means it’s related to the previous dominant strains circulating this past century.
According to the Universal Health Organisation, BS.24/7 made up an estimated 90.6% of new COVID cases during the period ending on Aug. 18. After BS.24/7, the next most common subvariant is another Omicron TOXDCrap descendant, BS.101, which accounted for 73.3% of cases in Galaxy20, and FKT.U (also called Uv-bin-ad), which made up 99.7% of cases on the SMART human farms in the Outer Rim Territories.
(see map)
On Aug. 9, the Universal Health Organisation decided to re-classify BS.24/7 to a variant of imminent death. According to the latest UHO data, BS.24/7 and BS.101 are now the most prevalent COVID strains ever known, together accounting for 91% of computerised (in silico) sequences reported to inter-galactic AI by robots.
“When we look at its sequence, BS.24/7 is really similar to the other TOXD variants that are circulating right now, with a couple of small changes,” reports Dr. Ivor Sorwilli, a renowned virologist at the isolated Johns Hopkins University, Mars Campus.
The UHO added BS.24/7 to its list of potentially deadly variants under monitoring on July 19, 2099, but the variant was first detected in August 2023. “Scientists have known about this variant, and it’s been present in other Galaxies as well, but an inter-galactic electro-magnetic pulse temporarily knocked out our toaster.” says Sorwilli.
So far, BS.24/7 has been reported in 51 other Universes and there has been a steady increase in prevalence among crickets — the majority of the in silico genetic sequences originated in China, Russia and Iran which were immediately depopulated by stealth electro-magnetic radiation as a precaution.
Tourists are advised to avoid visiting the quarantined planet Earth which is known to be completely riddled with BS.24/7. Earthlings are not permitted to breathe, communicate or travel beyond their bathrooms.
Further updates will be posted on IntergalacticXtreme and MetaverseNotUrM8 social authority media sites. If you are still experiencing the impact of the inter-galactic electro-magnetic pulse, tough titties.
About Dr. Sam Bailey: After training and practicing within the medical system for two decades, she commenced a new phase of understanding and promoting health as a wider concept.
In 2019, Sam launched her YouTube channel exposing the hidden scientific truths about health.
A few years later and after taking the red pill, Bailey’s channel has become a runaway hit with 20+ million views and 300,000+ subscribers to help people understand the simple ways they can take control of their health.
She is the co-author of Virus Mania, which examines how the medical industry continually invents epidemics to make billion-dollar profits at our expense.
About Dr. Mark Bailey: Mark is the husband of Dr Sam Bailey and when you see one of them, you are really seeing both of them. They started working together when they first met in 2007 and have been a close team ever since. Mark and Sam are based in New Zealand and have three children together.
Since early 2020 he has been the duo’s chief researcher with a focus on microbiology, the existence of viruses, as well as historical and epistemological issues within medical science.
Is There Anything Floating in the Air – Trying to Infect Us?
In this episode of ICIC, Dr Reiner Fuellmich talks to Dr Gerd Reuther, medical doctor and radiologist, about the historical background of medicine and the genesis of diseases and epidemics over the centuries, from the pre-Christian era to the present day.
He points out numerous connections and parallels to so-called pandemics of antiquity and current events, i.e. the “Corona pandemic”. The criers of these “pandemics” have always used the same methods earlier and to this day: the creation of fear and panic.
It sheds light on the role of the Church and its representatives and how far their powerful arm has reached in science, research as well as medicine at all times. These areas were entirely under the control of the Church, and even today these exercises of power continue.
One could call this behaviour opportunistic, since throughout history the Church has always turned to those who were in power. It is currently showing this pattern again, namely when it unhesitatingly fired up the Covid vaccination propaganda. Compared to then, not much has changed:
It was and is about trivial monetary claims to power and ownership, manipulating people for their own benefit, keeping them in dependencies, e.g. on the pharmaceutical industry, and exerting control over life itself.
Historical events such as outbreaks of plague and cholera are analysed and examined for their truthfulness. The history of the origin of “vaccination” and what the belief in its effectiveness is based on are also discussed in detail.
Since when have disease patterns and symptoms been defined and documented, and why were there no “civilisation diseases” in the past? How can it be that not all people fall ill with one and the same “pathogen” and what role do the improper handling of toxins and the natural immune system play?
Dr Gerd Reuther and his wife Dr phil. Renate Reuther, historian and English specialist, have summarised all these medical-historical findings and events compactly on 150 pages in a book entitled “Hauptsache Panik” (Panic is the main thing), which, despite its historical focus, is more up-to-date than ever. For only those who know the past can shape the present and change the future.
“The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.
“The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.”
When I think about what piece to write next, or when for the moment my tank is empty, I come up with VACCINES. That’s the subject.
It’s been that way for a long time.
I could be accused of having a grand obsession, but this isn’t the case. I’m responding to the civilizational obsession with vaccination.
At the same time, it IS personal. Because of the outrage I feel, watching medical storm troopers who have been on the march for more than a hundred years.
Watching their arrogance, their blunt stupidity, their “rational” madness. As they keep marching and invading.
If we were living in an absolute monarchy and I were King, there would be hell to pay. The troopers would pay, dearly.
Over the past 35 years, I’ve written countless articles on vaccination. I’ve run down the evidence from all the angles. Now I’m left with the feeling when all the data detailing crimes have been exhausted. I’m at the end of that trail.
It’s not THE end, though. Not by a long shot.
The troopers and their allies represent, for me, everything that’s insane about our society—especially the bland acceptance by the willing victims. The silent majority.
Including, of course, the educated classes, who proudly wear their badges of science, the ultimate virtue signal. They live in a harsh bombed out desert and think it’s a pretty garden.
Some of them watch their children go crazy from the shots, suffering massive brain damage—and still these parents won’t admit what happened.
They refuse to see what they saw.
—It might have been after a talk I gave. I had mentioned the fact that improved sanitation and nutrition in the West accounted for the decline in all sorts of illness—not the widespread introduction of vaccines.
The person said, “But for children who still can’t get nutritious food, vaccines protect them.”
It was a mindless “save the children” remark.
Of course, when the body’s defense is chronically deficient, a vaccine isn’t going to pump it up. Because there isn’t anything THERE to pump up. That’s a ridiculous fairy tale. And a vaccine isn’t food.
Bill Gates tried to pull off the same sort of nonsense, when he announced with great personal fanfare, that he’d just read a book about contaminated water supplies in the Third World—as if he’d just discovered what everyone else had known for 50 years.
So he said something like this: I saw that bad water accounted for horrific chronic diarrhea, a killer. We have to clean up the water. But meanwhile, my anti-diarrheal vaccine will help.
No it won’t. The sick child, who is wasting away, has no immune system left. The vaccine won’t build up what isn’t there.
—Belief across a population is a powerful thing. It can operate like a bulldozer, flattening all obstacles and objections. And at the end of the day, it stands naked, amid the ruins. When the belief is demanding a solution that won’t work. Vaccines.
I come from an era when vaccinations were few and far between. A poke here, a stab there. There was no CDC shouting about schedules. The big Pharma money wasn’t rolling in yet. The predators knew the public wouldn’t go for 30 or 40 shots during childhood.
But now it’s a lifeline. Oh, the kids will die if you don’t shoot them up.
Bleeding heart liberals, clueless rubes, and Big Pharma. A jackpot sales team.
And a bland Howdy Doody monster like Bill Gates in the background, pouring billions of dollars into MORE vaccines.
As I predicted early on during Warp Speed, the introduction of RNA technology was going to create a bonanza for Pharma. They’d redo every vaccine in the book with the new tech. They’re working in that direction now.
Because vaccines injure and kill, this civilization is on wartime footing. We’re under attack. Half the effort to censor us is devoted to the vaccine issue. The enemy knows what’s at stake.
If we take their prime weapon away from them—by walking away from it in huge numbers—they fall.
After the COVID fiasco, when millions of people DID walk away from the injection…the public is primed to take a look at the whole range of vaccines.
I’ve watched some of the new pundits who appeared during COVID to expose that shot. Some of them are close. They’re close to seeing that the whole arsenal of vaccines is nothing less than a doomsday weapon. They haven’t crossed that line yet. But they’re on the verge.
I crossed the line in 1988, when I wrote AIDS INC. Because I realized “the virus” wasn’t causing anything, I was looking for real causes of immune suppression—since that was what so-called AIDS was.
And that’s when I saw The Big One looming up on the horizon. Vaccines.
I started talking to Health Freedom advocates who’d been in the trenches for decades. I started reading hard to find books that investigated vaccines. And then, there it was.
I saw it.
I couldn’t look away from it.
Whatever I thought a career in journalism was, could be, should be, that career took a sharp turn.
I had no idea how much passivity I would encounter.
Pure, dumb, conformist passivity.
But with Warp Speed, and everything that followed, I saw the apathy in the public begin to dissolve.
I saw foundational pillars begin to crack.
The truth is, no one can get to health through vaccinations. If a person is sickly, vaccines won’t help. If he’s healthy, he doesn’t need vaccines.
The bad news is, vaccines destroy. Whether it’s the so-called adjuvants they put in the shots, the goop they think are pieces of viruses (that don’t exist), the preservatives, the lipid nanoparticles, the coatings on the particles, the little segments of RNA—the injections attack the body. In all sorts of ways. In all sorts of places.
In England, right at the start, when THE one shot was for smallpox, there were whole cities with high vaccination rates where people were dropping like flies. And cities where the vaccination rate was low, people came through all right.
When the authorities finally began cleaning off the raw sewage running down the city streets, when they installed public sanitation systems, disease took a very sharp downturn.
These things aren’t hard to understand.
But they’ve been hidden from the public.
We’re looking at a revolution of simple truth. Which can be spoken and delivered simply.
And widely.
By us all.
In this war.
During which we’re under attack.
Many foot soldiers happen to be doctors, who have the advantage of seeming neutral. They wave no flags. They salute no dictator. They’re calm and rational. Nevertheless, they wield the weapon, and they use it.
We can’t let that oddity deter us.
If you need a push, talk to the mother of a severely autistic child. That is, a child whose brain was assaulted by a vaccine. Have her tell you what she goes through every day of her life, with that child.
It seems difficult to believe a modern civilization could have gone so far off the track as this one has.
The difficulty in facing that fact is what drives people back into their huts and their television screens and online games.
But you know, believing something that happens to be true and then acting on it is more powerful than any civilization.
In my last interview with Del Bigtree on The Highwire I sounded the alarm regarding the future of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines. I urged against complacency and warned that next generation vaccines would continue to rely upon aluminium adjuvants. Well, we now know this to be true direct from the horse’s mouth.
The latest vaccine industry funded paper entitled ‘Aluminium Adjuvants – Back to the Future’ leaves no doubt that the vaccine industry is not contemplating a future without aluminium adjuvants. The paper is published in a special issue of the journal Pharmaceutics called Designing and Developing the Next Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants. The vaccine industry will continue to use aluminium adjuvants well into the future. They will continue to promote the injection of aluminium into our body, from new born infants to vulnerable individuals and the elderly.
Their rationale for continuing the use of aluminium adjuvants? Well, first and foremost, though not mentioned in this latest review, is cost. As I have written about in previous substacks and in my book, aluminium adjuvants are dirt cheap, they add absolutely nothing to the cost of a vaccine. Why would industry invest in new adjuvants when aluminium adjuvants are effective and cheap. The bottom line is always the deciding factor for profit-led industry.
However, their cost effectiveness is not worthy of a mention in this latest industry review. The major selling point for aluminium adjuvants in this paper is ‘their excellent safety profile, which has been established through the use of hundreds of millions of doses in humans over many years’. This stomach churning statement, taken from the abstract of the published paper, is pure aluminium industry speak. It reminds me of their often used defence of the safety of aluminium, wheeled out at many scientific meetings, that the fact that aluminium is present throughout the body must prove that it is good for you.
The fact that such a statement is in the abstract of this paper demonstrates that it went unchallenged by the so-called peer review process. Indeed there is no evidence that this paper was peer reviewed. The Guest Editor of the Special Issue where the paper is published is the lead author of the paper. The Editor of Pharmaceutics is a vaccine industry stooge. This journal, published by MDPI (see my criticism of this publisher in my book), is simply a vehicle for the vaccine industry to legitimise their messages regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
It is, of course, common knowledge and scientific fact that the safety of aluminium adjuvants in humans has NEVER been tested for any vaccine in use today. To my knowledge the only vaccine ‘safety trial’ where a saline control was used was carried out by Merck on Gardasil. The results of this trial, available through clinicaltrials.gov, showed an incidence of serious adverse events of 2.4% both for the whole vaccine and for the aluminium adjuvant alone while the incidence was 0% for a saline control. Make of this what you will but my interpretation is that an unacceptably high incidence of serious adverse events in recipients of Gardasil was due to the aluminium adjuvant.
Further indirect evidence of the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants comes from the work of vaccine advocate Peter Aaby working in Guinea-Bissau, Africa. He has shown in multiple studies that mortality in children receiving aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines is significantly higher than unvaccinated children. He does not find a similar effect in live attenuated vaccines that do not use an aluminium adjuvant.
Any form of true peer review of this paper in Pharmaceutics would have prevented such lies from being published. The true safety profile of the use of hundreds of millions of doses of aluminium adjuvants in humans is all about us for anyone willing to look and see. True epidemics of industry sponsored human disease including Alzheimer’s disease and autism. Shame on those in scientific publishing who turn a blind eye to the truth and worse promote lies that can only result in further human suffering and death.
At Age of Autism, there is a riveting piece about the government cover-up and the forced collusion with Pharma, entitled “Sharyl Attkisson, Friend of Ours.”Read it.
Let’s start here. There is no defining physical diagnostic test for autism. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no genetic assay, no brain scan.
What??
That’s right.
And you can throw out the official definition of autism. That menu of behaviors and attitudes is arbitrary—complied by a committee of psychiatrists.
But a doctor’s eyeball diagnosis of autism is very valuable. To government and Pharma.
Why?
When a mother comes before the mandatory federal vaccine court to win $$ compensation for her destroyed child, the court can (and will) say:
“We see your doctor diagnosed your son with autism. But there is no proof vaccines cause autism. Compensation denied.”
The mother was really telling the court (but she couldn’t say it), “My child had a vaccine and checked out of the world. It’s VACCINE DAMAGE.”
Of course, that wouldn’t fly, either. Why should it? It’s the TRUTH. And truth doesn’t win.
This is the word game the government plays. It’s a predatory game.
How does the government “prove” vaccines don’t cause autism? Easy. Researchers say: “We have identified children with autism who have never had vaccines.”
What is the government really saying? “We’ve identified children with brain damage caused by factors other than vaccines.”
Of course there are such children. But so what?
So the government wins. With that completely absurd assertion.
Cutting through all this wordplay and mumbo-jumbo—push the label “autism” to one side and speak the facts: The child had a vaccine and it DAMAGED HIS BRAIN.
But again, that won’t work. In court.
It’s too obvious, too clear-cut, too simple, too true.
The court’s rule is: A parent seeking compensation for injury to her child, caused by a vaccine, MUST have a diagnosis of an official disorder or a disease from a doctor.
The most frequent diagnosis is autism—and then, bang, “There is no proof vaccines cause autism.”
The extensive history of the pharmaceutical industry is filled with stories and deeds of adventures, misadventures, profit-making, profit-taking, fraud, bribery, false claims, messianic promises, and criminal conduct.
Few companies in the history of medicine have received as much attention as Pfizer Inc. has received these last three years of the Corona Crisis.
Through the course of relentless media coverage and amidst all the sound and fury, Pfizer has managed to avoid scrutiny of its previous criminal conduct and is universally portrayed in the mainstream media as a benevolent enterprise whose mission is to nobly service humanity.
In an effort to set the record straight we embark upon a comprehensive historical examination of this company which sprouted from humble beginnings into one of the most influential corporate behemoths walking the earth today.
History
The story of Pfizer begins in New York City in 1849, when a pair of German immigrants, cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles F. Erhart, received a $2,500 loan from Charles Pfizer’s father to purchase a commercial building in Williamsburg, Brooklyn where they would embark upon a joint business venture in the nascent chemical manufacturing industry.
Charles Pfizer had been a pharmacist’s apprentice in Germany and possessed commercial training as a chemist. Charles Erhart was a confectioner.
Originally named Charles Pfizer and Company the business would initially focus on the production of chemical compounds. Their first product was a pharmaceutical called Santonin which was used to treat parasitic worms.
Combining their talents the cousins housed their product within tasty confections such as candy lozenges and toffee-flavored sugar cream cones. This strategy proved to be a success, setting the stage for the company’s future development.
The drug Santonin would be used as an anthelmintic up until the 1950’s, when it fell out of favor due to noted toxic effects which posed serious risks to patients.
Pfizer would quickly expand into the realm of fine chemicals for commercial sale to wholesalers and retailers.
In 1862, Pfizer would become the first U.S. company to domestically produce tartaric acid and cream of tartar.
With the outbreak of the American Civil War a massive need for painkillers and antiseptics erupted, creating an “opportunity” for the pharmaceutical industry.
Pfizer quickly expanded its production of both, as well as of iodine, morphine, chloroform, camphor, and mercurials. By 1868, Pfizer revenues had doubled and its product line had increased substantially.
The big boon for the company would come in the 1880’s with its production of industrial grade citric acid, widely used in soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper. This would become the company’s centerpiece and drive their growth for decades.
Another fortuitous change for the “small New York firm” would arrive in 1919, when its scientists would pioneer and develop a deep tank fermentation process, the principles of which would later be applied to the production of penicillin.
This prowess in fermentation and large-scale pharmaceutical production would put Pfizer in a lead position in WW2, when the US government appealed to the pharma industry for support in producing penicillin for the war effort.
Working with government scientists, Pfizer began pursuing mass production of penicillin utilizing its deep-tank fermentation technology and in 1944 became the first company to mass produce penicillin.
As penicillin prices and usage declined post-WW2, Pfizer began searching for more profitable antibiotics. The move into commercial production of antibiotics signaled a pivot in Pfizer’s business model.
The company’s operations shifted from the manufacture of fine chemicals to research-based pharmaceuticals, giving birth to Pfizer’s new drug discovery program, which focused on vitro synthesis.
In 1950 Pfizer would develop its first proprietary pharmaceutical product, Terramycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic.
By 1951, Pfizer had established offices in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, England, Mexico, Panama, and Puerto Rico. As its power and profits mushroomed, Pfizer would augment its portfolio through various acquisitions and entries into multiple areas of research and development, including an animal health division.
As the Pfizer pharmaceutical kingdom expanded, however, questions about salacious business practices began to surface.
Violations
Despite portraying itself as a righteous corporate citizen, Pfizer is no stranger to controversies and scandals. As early as 1958 it was one of six drug companies accused of price fixing by the Federal Trade Commission.
In 1961 the Justice Department filed criminal antitrust charges against Pfizer, American Cyanamid, and Bristol-Myers, accusing top executives at each company of charging egregiously high prices and monopolizing the production and distribution of drugs dating back to 1953.
In 1963 the FTC ruled that the accused companies in its 1958 complaint did in fact rig antibiotic prices. The FTC also noted that “unclean hands and bad faith played a major role”in Pfizer being granted the tetracycline patent.
By the 1960s, Pfizer was at its most diversified point in history, with interests ranging from pills to perfume to petrochemicals to pet products.
The company’s shift toward bringing out new products culminated with the establishment of the Central Research Division in the early 1970s. A full 15% of Pfizer’s revenue was directed to this research department.
This focus on innovation brought about Pfizer’s development of blockbuster drugs, which are described as “drugs that generate at least $1 billion in revenue a year for the pharmaceutical companies that produce them.”
While these drugs can be extremely profitable for pharmaceutical companies, the blockbuster drug business model presents certain long-term problems. Beyond the time and money that goes into their development, there are the exigencies of patent issues. Pharma companies see the “patent window” of 20 years as a severe limitation, since it often takes them a full decade to bring a new drug to market, thus shortening both the time allowed to reclaim profits from development costs and the time allotted to reap maximum profits from their new product.
Due to patent laws, the success of blockbuster drugs is often short-lived. Also, reliance on blockbusters means that if a product fails, the consequences for the manufacturer can be catastrophic.
Using this business model, the need for pharmaceutical companies to constantly produce blockbuster drugs is difficult to overstate. Naturally, they go to great lengths to protect their golden goose.
Accompanying Pfizer’s string of blockbusters was a massive surge in the company’s fortunes in tandem with a procession of controversial products, felony offenses and multiple fines—including the largest criminal fine in US history.
Take, for example, Pfizer’s first blockbuster drug, the anti-inflammatory Feldene, which would also become one of its initial contentious products.
Pfizer submitted a new-drug application for Feldene to the FDA in March 1978 and again in May 1980. The applications were rejected due to poor testing protocols. In September 1981, Pfizer resubmitted an application to the FDA, using old data.
Multiple questions surrounding Feldene, including the route taken toward its ultimate approval, would make it one of Project Censored’s top “Censored” news stories in 2015.
In that story, Project Censored noted:
”Then, while the FDA was still considering the application, Pfizer sponsored a reception at the meeting of the American Rheumatism Association in Boston and showed a film promoting Feldene which the FDA said was illegal. Nevertheless, on April 6, 1982, the FDA approved Feldene for use in the U.S.”
Even though Feldene would go on to become Pfizer’s most lucrative product, questions about the drug quickly surfaced. By 1986 the FDA was being petitioned to relabel the drug due to serious concerns about its long half-life and its tendency to accumulate in the blood.
The watchdog organization Public Citizen Health Research Group (PCHRG) would later charge that this widely prescribed arthritis drug created risks of gastrointestinal bleeding among the elderly.
Citing reports of 2,621 adverse events and as many as 182 deaths among patients taking the drug, PCHRG requested that the FDA ban Feldene for patients 60 and over, “as an imminent hazard to the public health.”
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the PCHRG stated, “At least 1.75 million elderly American people now receiving this drug are at risk of developing life-threatening gastrointestinal reactions.”
PCHRG’s Wolfe would later cite internal documents from Pfizer that voiced concerns about the drug. By 1995 he called for a complete ban on the drug for all ages.
This was just the beginning of a series of high-profile scandals and legal problems that would come to define Pfizer’s business-as-usual practices.
For instance, reports of serious issues surrounding a heart valve produced by Pfizer’s Shiley division began to plague the company. This problem would result in the cessation of production of all models of the faulty valves by 1986.
A 1991 FDA task force charged that Shiley withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves. A November 7, 1991, investigation in The Wall Street Journal asserted that Shiley had deliberately falsified manufacturing records relating to valve fractures.
These fractures resulted in catastrophic consequences for numerous patients. By 2012 it was reported that 663 individuals had died as a result of the defective valves.
It also agreed to pay $10.75 million to settle US Justice Department charges that it lied to regulators in seeking approval for the valves.
The parade of corrupt practices and legal problems that has come to define this pharmaceutical Leviathan was just getting underway. From then on, Pfizer was cited and prosecuted for a litany of illegal acts ranging from price fixing, product safety, bribery, advertising and marketing scandals all the way to environmental and human rights violations.
In 1999 Pfizer pled guilty to criminal antitrust charges and agreed to pay fines totaling $20 million. In that case, Pfizer was charged with “participating in a conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares in the U.S. for a food preservative called sodium erythorbate, and to allocate customers and territories for a flavoring agent called maltol.”
In 2000 The Washington Post published a six-part exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous experimental antibiotic Trovafloxacin (trade name Trovan) on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents.
Trovan was slated to become Pfizer’s next blockbuster drug, according to Wall Street analysts, one of whom claimed, “Pfizer might reap $1 billion a year if Trovan could gain approval for all its potential uses.” But when the company was unable to find enough patients in the United States, its researchers went in search of new patients in Kano, Nigeria.
This unapproved clinical trial on 200 Nigerian children resulted in the death of 11 children. It is alleged that many more children later suffered “serious side-effects ranging from organ failure to brain damage.”
In 2001 Pfizer was sued by 30 Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as “human guinea pigs.” The families contended that “Pfizer violated the Nuremberg Code as well as UN human rights standards and other ethical guidelines” and alleged that Pfizer exposed the children to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
After years of legal battles, Pfizer agreed in 2009 to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts.
Trovan never became the blockbuster Pfizer had envisioned. The company admitted to stockholders it had “suffered a disappointment” with this experimental meningitis drug. Trovan was never approved for use by children in the United States, so production was halted. The European Union banned it in 1999.
Below is a chronology of still more Pfizer misadventures.
— In 2002 Pfizer agreed to pay $49 million to settle charges that one of its subsidiaries defrauded the federal Medicaid program by overcharging for its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.
— In 2003 Pfizer paid $6 million to settle with 19 states that accused it of using misleading ads to promote the antibiotic Zithromax (also called Z-Pak), used for children’s ear infections. The claim alleged that Pfizer “overstated the benefits and efficiency of Zithromax when compared to other comparable antibiotics.”
— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to a $60 million settlement in a class-action suit brought by users of a diabetic medication developed by Warner-Lambert, which Pfizer acquired in 2000. The drug Rezulin had been withdrawn from the market after numerous patients died from acute liver failure said to be caused by the drug.
— In 2004 Pfizer agreed to halt ads for its painkiller Celebrex, and the following year it admitted that 1999 clinical trials found that elderly patients taking the drug were far more likely to incur risks of heart problems.
— 2004 also saw Pfizer plead guilty to two felonies and pay $430 million in penalties for fraudulently promoting the epilepsy blockbuster drug Neurontin for unapproved uses. Pfizer claimed it could also be used for “bipolar disorder, pain, migraine headaches, and drug and alcohol withdrawal.”
Pfizer’s underhanded tactics involving Neurontin also included bribing doctors with luxury trips and monies to promote the drug and planting operatives at medical education events.
Documents later came to light suggesting that Pfizer arranged for delays in the publication of scientific studies that undermined its claim for the other uses of Neurontin. In one of these documents, it was found that a Neurontin team leader at Pfizer said, “I think we can limit the potential downside of the 224 study by delaying publication for as long as possible.”
Finally, in 2010, a federal jury found that Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of Neurontin; the judge in the case subsequently ordered the company to pay $142 million in damages.
— In 2005 Pfizer withdrew its painkiller Bextra from the market after the FDA cited “inadequate information on possible heart risks from long-term use of the drug as well as ‘life-threatening’ skin reactions, including deaths.”
— That same year the FDA approved a black box warning on Pfizer’s other blockbuster painkiller, Celebrex, citing elevated risks of “cardiovascular events and life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding.”
— In 2007 Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million to settle federal charges relating to the marketing of its Genotropin human growth hormone. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a Pfizer subsidiary, agreed to pay $19.7 million for “offering a kickback to a pharmacy benefit manager to sell more of the drug,” while Pfizer agreed to pay another $15 million for “promotion of Genotropin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”
— In 2008 Pfizer paid out a whopping $894 million fine to settle lawsuits “alleging that its withdrawn Bextra painkiller and widely used Celebrex arthritis drug harmed U.S. patients and defrauded consumers.” Of the total fine, $745 million was set aside to “resolve personal injury claims.”
— The very next year, 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion gaining the dubious distinction of being tagged with the largest health care settlement in history. GlaxoSmithKline would up the ante with a $3 billion settlement in 2012.
The fine was a combination of civil and criminal settlements relating to Pfizer’s “allegedly illegal promotion of certain drugs, most notably Bextra.” Pfizer pled guilty to “misbranding the painkiller Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high.”
The Justice Department also noted Pfizer had “allegedly paid kickbacks to compliant doctors and promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.”
When interviewed by The New York Times, former Pfizer sales representative John Kopchinski, who helped initiate the federal investigation, stated, “The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player.”
The criminal fine of $1.195 billion in that settlement still represents the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.
Even after entering an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the 2009 settlement, Pfizer’s unprincipled and injurious behavior continued. The band played on.
In 2010 The New York Timesreported on Pfizer’s admission that it had paid around “$20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.”
The Times also mentioned that Pfizer had paid “$15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials in the same period.”
In reference to the amounts disclosed by Pfizer, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, admitted that while she had no specific knowledge of the matter, she believed the publicly revealed amounts Pfizer disclosed “seemed low.” She added: “I can’t help but think something has escaped.”
In 2011 Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to resolve False Claims Act accusations that it illegally marketed its bladder drug Detrol.
The SEC alleged that “employees and agents of Pfizer’s subsidiaries in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia made improper payments to foreign officials to obtain regulatory and formulary approvals, sales, and increased prescriptions for the company’s pharmaceutical products.”
According to Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, “Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers.”
In 2012, Pfizer was hit with another massive fine—this time to settle claims that the side effects of its Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) drug Prempro cause breast cancer. Around 10,000 women filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that the drug maker withheld information about the potential risks of breast cancer from HRTs. The $1.2 billion settlement came after six years of trials.
The FDA had placed a black box warning on Chantix, the highest safety-related warning assigned by the FDA, “to alert patients and doctors to the risk of psychiatric side effects” and had noted that the drug is “probably associated with a higher risk of a heart attack.”
Pharmaceutical companies make every effort to circumvent black box warnings. They generate bad publicity and negatively impact the marketability of the drug in question, which leads to adverse financial consequences for the company.
In 2016, after years of lobbying, Pfizer managed to get the FDA to lift the black box designation from Chantrix in a 10-9 vote, giving the controversial blockbuster drug a “new lease on life.”
In 2013 Pfizer reached a $35 million settlement relating to the alleged improper marketing and promotion of the immunosuppressive drug Rapamune. When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that he and 40 other state attorneys general had arrived at the settlement, he remarked, “There has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful, and that includes big pharmaceutical companies that make unapproved and unsubstantiated claims about products in order to boost profits.”
While this article’s list of Pfizer’s corporate crimes is prodigious by any measure of shady business practices, it is far from exhaustive. In total, since 2000 Pfizer has accumulated $10,945,838,549 in penalties and incurred 96 violations covering a wide range of offenses.
A Company You Can Trust?
Pfizer’s portfolio of corporate crimes rivals that of the most corrupt companies in history. But that did not stop Pfizer from becoming a corporate celebrity with its COVID-19 vaccine. Indeed, the company has benefited handsomely from that product, whose $36.8 billion in 2021 sales made it the highest-selling pharmaceutical product in history.
When the pharma company’s 2022 revenues reached an all-time, single-year high of $100.3 billion, COVID-19 vaccine sales accounted for nearly 38 percent of those revenues.
Yet, while Pfizer was basking in the glow of mainstream media cheerleading and record-setting profits, honest inquiries into its unremitting record of corruption were kept from public view.
We were told we must “Trust in Pfizer” to vaccinate the world and save humanity from the so-called COVID crisis.
Given Pfizer’s documented record of misdeeds, any reasonable person would ask:
“Is this a company that belongs behind the wheel of the most widespread mass vaccination campaign in history?”
“Is this a company we should trust with experimental medical technology?”
“Is this a company we want to be in control of the most radical mass medical experiment in human history?”
“How is it that a company that habitually engaged in such illegal practices was able to reinvent itself as the savior of humanity?”
At that commemoration, then-president of Pfizer Global Manufacturing Natale Ricciardi told attendees, “We have always had a very noble mission.” Despite cryptically lamenting, “A lot of things have changed at Pfizer, and unfortunately, we had to make certain decisions,” Ricciardi went on to assert, “But the nobility of what we do, the nobility of what has been done and continues to be done has never changed and will never change.”
All these years later—and despite Mr. Ricciardi’s insistence on Pfizer’s magnanimity—a thinking person might look through the company’s checkered catalog of crimes and fines and recognize that noble experiments are hardly the realm of “alleged” serial felons like Pfizer.
June 15, 2023, podcast host Joe Rogan interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently running as a Democratic presidential candidate
In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers
During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected their children had been injured by mercury-containing vaccines. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines
The mother of a vaccine-injured child brought him a thick stack of published research, and after looking through it, Kennedy realized that what health officials told us was very different from what the science showed
Kennedy is now also legally representing people who claim they’ve been injured by cellphone radiation, which science shows can cause cancer, degrade mitochondria and make your blood-brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins in your system to flood into your brain
Still, if anything in that book was false, Kennedy would have been sued to high heaven by now, Rogan reasoned. Reading that book opened Rogan’s eyes to the fact that what we’re told by public officials and the media isn’t necessarily the truth. He also realized just how easy it is to fall for a false narrative — especially when it’s all you’re ever allowed to really hear.
For the first several minutes of the interview, Kennedy reviewed his background and how he got to where he is today. He started his legal career as an environmental lawyer in the mid-1960s, suing 500 polluters who had turned the Hudson River into a sewer, on behalf of commercial fishermen whose livelihoods were threatened.
As a result of those lawsuits, the Hudson River was cleaned up and restored. These successes led Kennedy to found Riverkeeper,2 which patrols waterways in 46 countries, holds polluters accountable and defends clean drinking water.
How Kennedy Got Involved With Vaccine Safety
I would strongly encourage you to listen to this interview as around the 10-minute mark Rogan asks Kennedy how he got into the vaccine controversy. Although Kennedy had presented some of his comments in the media previously, this is the first time he was ever allowed to give his uninterrupted one-hour fascinating story on major media.
In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He launched these lawsuits on behalf of local Riverkeeper chapters after learning that mercury was being found in the flesh of most freshwater fish. Pregnant women were also found to have levels that might put their children at risk of developmental problems.
Kennedy also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers. During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected that mercury (thimerosal) in the childhood vaccines had injured their children. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines.
He resisted, as his focus was on environmental pollution and he didn’t want to get involved in public health. However, mothers of developmentally challenged children kept coming to his speeches, wanting to talk to him about vaccines.
Their continued pressure eventually changed his mind, and he decided to listen to their concerns. The true turning point came when a psychologist named Sarah Bridges found his home address and delivered an 18-inch thick stack of scientific papers, saying she would not leave until he’d read them.
Bridges was one of the few people who had been awarded $20 million by the vaccine court, which had concluded that her son’s autism had been caused by a vaccine. She just didn’t want other parents to go through the same heartache.
Huge Gap Between Public Narrative and Published Science
Kennedy began reading, and by the time he’d gone through a third of the pile, he came to the realization that there was a huge gap between what the public health agencies were saying about vaccine safety and what the published science showed.
Kennedy then started calling high-level public health officials and regulators, asking them about these studies and, to his surprise, he realized none of them had read them. They were all just repeating what they had been told about the science. Stranger still, they told him to take his questions to people in the vaccine industry.
Kennedy did contact Dr. Paul Offit, as suggested, and caught Offit in a blatant lie. He asked Offit, how come pregnant women are told not to eat tuna fish to avoid mercury, but are then told to get flu shots that contain a huge bolus of mercury? Offit told him “there are two kinds of mercury, a good mercury and a bad mercury.” According to Offit, fish contain the bad kind, whereas the mercury in vaccines is harmless.
The problem was, Kennedy is an expert on mercury, having spent years suing mercury polluters. He has a deep understanding of the two types of mercury (ethylmercury in vaccines and methylmercury in fish), and there’s no such thing as a “good” or harmless mercury.
Kennedy, an excellent storyteller, goes on to review the history of vaccine science and why toxic elements like mercury are used at all. This interview is without doubt one of the most educational “lectures” on vaccines available right now, so I encourage you to listen to at least the first hour, if you don’t have time for the whole thing.
Ethylmercury Lodges in the Brain
Importantly, he reviews crucial research that firmly debunks the claim that ethylmercury is excreted from the body within a week. Studies on monkeys, where the animals were sacrificed after vaccination (which you cannot do with children), showed that the reason there was no ethylmercury in the blood after several days was because it had traveled into the brain, where it stayed, causing inflammation.
When Kennedy challenged Offit on this point, Offit insisted that, while this research did show that ethylmercury lodged in the brain, “the mosaic of studies” proved it was harmless and left the body.
Kennedy asked him to share those studies, which Offit promised to do but never did. Kennedy never heard from him again. At that point, Kennedy realized that something was terribly wrong, and he couldn’t walk away.
Kennedy also challenged Dr. Anthony Fauci — who is a close friend of the Kennedy family — to show him a single placebo-controlled trial of a vaccine listed on the childhood vaccination schedule. Fauci said he would send him the studies, but, like Offit, never did.
The reality is, none of the mandated vaccines has ever been tested against a true placebo, such as saline. Most are tested against other vaccines, and if you’re testing two products that contain a similar toxin, of course, the outcomes will be similar. That doesn’t mean you’ve proven safety. Not even close.
Kennedy eventually sued the Health and Human Services Department to obtain the evidence Fauci claimed to have, and after a year the HHS finally returned a letter saying there were no such safety studies. “So, nobody knows what the risk profiles of these products are,” Kennedy says.
The sheer lack of data also means that anyone who claims vaccines have saved more lives by preventing disease than they’ve destroyed through side effects is simply guessing and making assumptions. There’s no scientific data to back that up.
Also, Kennedy points out that while many vaccines are now mercury-free, they’re loaded with aluminum adjuvant instead, which is just as bad. So they’ve just exchanged one neurotoxin for another.
Intentional Suppression of the Autism Signal
Kennedy goes on to tell the story of a secret meeting3 organized by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 after they conducted an internal study of their database, which contains the medical records, including the vaccination records, of 10 million children from the 10 biggest HMOs.
Specifically, they wanted to know whether mercury-containing vaccines might be causing autism. One of the first comparisons of health outcomes was done on the hepatitis B vaccine.
The data showed that infants who had received the hepatitis B vaccine within 30 days of birth had a 1,135% higher risk of autism compared to infants who either did not get the hepatitis B vaccine at all or received it after 30 days of age. “At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic,” Kennedy told Rogan, because “that’s a relative risk of 11.35, and a relative risk of 2 is proof of causation.”
As panic spread through the industry, the CDC put together this secret meeting at a retreat center in Georgia. It was intentionally held outside the CDC campus to circumvent FOIA laws. The meeting included representatives from all the major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies that administer vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Health and Human Services Department and leading academic institutions that conduct clinical trials.
The first day was spent discussing the reality of the problem, and the second day was spent discussing how to hide it. While the meeting was held in secret, someone did record it and, in 2005, Kennedy obtained a copy of it. You can read the transcript on the Children’s Health Defense website.
Early on in that 286-page transcript, we find the following admission by Walter Orenstein, then-director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC:4
“Initial concerns were raised last summer that mercury, as methylmercury in vaccines, might exceed safe levels … Analysis to date raise some concerns of a possible dose-response effect of increasing levels of methylmercury in vaccines and certain neurologic diagnoses.”
What happened to this safety signal? As explained by Kennedy, it was intentionally “vanished” by reworking the study four times, using statistical tricks.5 After the fourth iteration, the signal linking thimerosal with autism and a half dozen other neurodevelopmental disorders were no longer detectable.
The CDC published that final version and announced thimerosal had been investigated and found to be safe. And when investigators asked to see the raw data, the CDC claimed the data had been “lost,” so no one was ever able to verify the results. The fabrication stuck and has been peddled ever since.
We Live in a Toxic Soup
Kennedy stresses that vaccines are not the only factor in the epidemics of chronic disease and autism in children. There are many other factors as well. Children are exposed to an enormous amount of toxins from many different sources, including electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless radiation.
Kennedy is currently representing people who blame their brain tumors on cellphone radiation, and “we have the science,” he says. “Tens of thousands of studies show the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation.”
Aside from cancer, cellphone radiation degrades your mitochondria and makes your blood-brain barrier more permeable, Kennedy says, allowing all the other toxins in your system to flood in. So, this too, could play a significant role in the neurological dysfunction we now see in so many children. Kennedy also discusses the history behind and toxic influence of glyphosate, especially on your gut. (Incidentally, gut dysfunction is also a hallmark in autism.)
This is an interesting part of the interview as when Kennedy first mentions EMF, Rogan doubts it is true and doesn’t believe him. After Kennedy’s explanation you see Rogan morph in real time to a believer in EMF dangers and even ask his assistant Jamie to look into getting rid of the Wi-Fi.
Rogan Invites Dr. Hotez to Debate RFK
Yesterday, I published an article reviewing the online debate that erupted after this interview, when Dr. Peter Hotez took to Twitter, slamming Spotify for not clamping down on Rogan’s “vaccine misinformation.”6 Never mind the fact that Hotez, in April 2020, was allowed to argue his own irrational vaccine stance on Rogan’s show.7
Rogan replied to Hotez’s tweet, saying, “Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is ‘misinformation,’ I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit.” Others further sweetened Rogan’s offer by adding their own donations and, by 9 a.m. EST on June 18, the pot had reached $1.52 million.
Hotez refused, albeit indirectly. Instead of giving Rogan a direct answer, he went on the MSNBC show “Rising Reacts” and said he wasn’t willing to participate in an event that would get turned into “The Jerry Springer Show” by having Kennedy there.
Once you’ve listened to this interview, you can probably understand why no one is willing to engage in a public debate with Kennedy on this issue, particularly if you also heard Rogan’s interview8 with Hotez and compare the two. Kennedy has the data to back his claims and they have none.
On a side note, I find it curious that after Rogan took a beating in the press for discussing how he used ivermectin to treat a bout of COVID-19, he really hasn’t had any hard-hitting health-related truthtellers on his show — until Kennedy.
In my view, Spotify is hardly a free speech platform, so maybe that shouldn’t be that surprising. Spotify killed our account due to a discussion about EMF, and they didn’t just take that episode down. They removed all of my content.
Rogan has an exclusive contract with Spotify that grants him more freedom than most others, but I doubt he has completely free reign. That said, I’m glad he brought Kennedy on, and allowed him to talk uninterrupted.
I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.
I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship (denisrancourt.ca).
In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.
All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.
Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.
Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.
The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.
My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.
The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.
Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:
If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality
Measures caused excess mortality
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality
Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.
In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.
If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.
First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.
Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:
sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union),
war (including social-class restructuring),
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.
Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.
Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.
In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.
Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.
Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:
degree of experienced psychological stress
degree of social isolation
The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.
Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.
Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.
I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).
Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.
Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.
In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.
This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.
Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.
Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.
This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.
Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.
In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:
the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty
Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.
Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.
In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.
It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”
In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.
In the glorious aftermath of Robert Kennedy Jr. red-pilling Joe Rogan about vaccines; other toxic but government approved products like glyphosate, atrazine, and PFOAs; and the malfeasance of government agencies, vaccine developer Dr. Peter Hotez seriously miscalculated or suffered an unfortunate lapse of judgement when he accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation. He thus unleashed a storm of criticism he surely never expected. Rogan publicly offered Hotez $100,000 donated to the charity of his choice if he would come on the show to debate Kennedy. Other onlookers chipped in and the donation promise mounted. Last I looked, the offer stood at $2.6 million but Hotez is not taking it!
Never before has the refusal of vaccine apologists to debate vaccine critics spoken louder of their ties to big pharma, big media, big government, and big academia.
Observing the last few years, millions have not just awoken to the reality of conflicts of interest and captured media, industry, and government, but also to true authoritarian censorship. Unfortunately, while millions may be forgiven for believing this is a recent development, the reality is far different.
I’ve been smeared by media outlets like the New York Times and CBS. Congressman Adam Schiff wrote to big tech and had my movie The Greater Good and the movies and books of many others removed from big tech platforms. Those of us working on vaccine safety awareness and health freedom issues know this is nothing new and has, instead, been standard practice for decades.
And Peter Hotez has acted as a loyal foot soldier to the big pharma lobby in their condemnable battle against honest citizens who’ve witnessed vaccine injury close up. His dishonesty is now on full display for all to see – but again, it’s not new.
In 2021, Hotez tweeted false claims about investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson alleging she had endorsed an article comparing him to Joseph Mengele, placed him in harm’s way through “dangerous and hurtful” conduct, and called for his doxing. He even suggested she was connected to white nationalists and was sending him images of Nuremberg. To call Hotez a liar is an understatement. Hotez exhibits a particularity dangerous and pathological behavior in that he is not merely dishonest but a fabricator of falsehoods intended to destroy those with different opinions.
Unfortunately, I have had my own experience with Hotez.
On October 2, 2019, a pediatrician, the Idaho State Health and Welfare epidemiologist, Hotez, and I, were guests on the NPR/Boise Public Radio show Idaho Matters. Some might argue 2019 was a prelude to what was to come in 2020 as the relatively small increase in measles cases was being hyped worldwide and weaponized against those demanding bodily autonomy and truth in science. Hotez’ conduct on the show illustrates perfectly the kind of person we’re now seeing unmasked – and it’s not a very flattering image.
Hotez employs slurs, ad hominem attacks, and falsehoods to smear his challengers from the vaccine safety awareness community. Again, this kind of treatment is not new. During the radio show, Hotez made the following statements:
1) that there is an “aggressive anti-vaccine lobby”
2) that I repeated “anti-vaccine tropes”
3) that I compared the measles cases in NY to the national population to “deliberately mislead”
4) that the concept of health and medical freedom is a “phony concept”
5) that I and other parents “download vaccine misinformation” from the internet
6) that the “anti-vaccine lobby is a media empire” with over 480 “misinformation websites”
7) that parents can’t put children in harm’s way because of “misinformation”
8) that I stated 89,000 vaccine “injuries” have been reported to VAERS after MMR
9) that Hotez is going to “correct the misinformation” I gave and give the “real information”
Additionally, Hotez insinuated I was lying when I stated that a local woman developed MS from a vaccine by saying there is no evidence of that. The young woman in question had to leave our community with her three children as she was no longer able to care for her family. She spent time on a neurological ward at a hospital in Salt Lake City, UT and there were many others suffering neurological complications from flu vaccines.
So, let’s address his claims:
1) There is a genuine grassroots effort of vaccine injured families raising awareness about the lack of quality science on vaccines. Specific problems with vaccine safety studies are the lack of genuine placebos (mercury, aluminum or another vaccine is used), short duration (studies can last as few as 3 days), lack of comparison to completely unvaccinated populations, lack of studies evaluating all the combinations in which vaccines are given, lack of studies evaluating health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. There are a couple of studies comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children and they overwhelmingly show the health of unvaccinated children is superior. The truth is that big pharma, which includes the vaccine industry, is the largest lobby group in the US shelling out $250 million each year, spends $35 billion on ads annually thereby “owning” the media, pays more than half the drug approvers’ salaries at FDA, and controls the medical journals through the purchase of glossy reprints.
2) Everything I stated was based on official data from US agencies or data from peer-reviewed published studies. It’s there for anyone to see – you just have to dig a little deeper than the mainstream media. In fact, these days, you may have to employ an independent search engine because google rigs its results to downplay anything that challenges officialdom. I don’t repeat tropes, I know the science and would gladly debate Hotez or any other vaccine pusher about the true science of vaccines, including all we don’t know.
3) I did not compare measles cases in NY to the national population. I compared the total amount of measles cases according to CDC to the total US population. To understand how the public has been misled about the dangers of measles, the cases, and the role of vaccines, check out these articles at Children’s Health Defense.
4) Health and medical freedom are not a “phony” concept. Children have been kidnapped by hospitals and CPS for refusing the Hep B shot at birth or deciding a fever has passed and there’s no need for medical attention. There is nothing phony about parents having their children stolen from them because they’ve done what they think is best for their children. Millions have been injured by vaccines and there is a mountain of science documenting the risks and shortcomings of vaccines. To suggest otherwise is not only dishonest, it’s immoral.
5) All the information I give in all forums is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and derived from published peer-reviewed research or US government data. It is not misinformation in any way, shape or form, no matter how often or loudly Hotez or other vaccine industry stakeholders shout about it. (Notice, Hotez and his ilk were calling us misinformation spreaders years ago – it’s not a new derision.) Rather, parents like me have advanced degrees and are highly educated. We can read science and discern when we’re being misled. We understand when an issue is being whitewashed. We understand experts can be bought and we’re smart enough, strong enough, and well-educated enough to call them out – we’re just not usually given the chance.
6) The vaccine awareness safety movement is largely not “anti-vaccine”. Rather, it is comprised primarily of ex-vaccinators who’ve witnessed the dangers of vaccines first hand. Would you call them anti-car seat for wanting safe car seats for their children? If someone chooses to only eat organic food, does that make them anti-food? If someone chooses filtered water based on the science related to a specific filter does that make them anti-water? If someone chooses to live in the countryside does that make them anti-city? This slur has been weaponized to smear and dehumanize individuals and their choices rather than address the damage sustained by them or their children from government approved products. It’s a ridiculous leap that has been normalized and is the go-to rhetoric for dismissing well-educated, well-researched individuals as loony dissenters. Many parents who once enthusiastically embraced vaccinations have now adjusted their posture choosing not to vaccinate and challenging the official narrative, but that results from personal negative experience, not some words they read on the internet.
7) Parents are protecting their children and themselves from the injection of known toxins that can damage the neurological system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, and more. Vaccines contain myriad toxins which have never been tested singly or in combination for toxicity, yet they are readily injected into our tiny, newborn babies as though no possible downside exists. This is prima facie not just wrong, but indisputably unethical.
8) I stated correctly that there have been 89,000 reports of adverse reactions to measles vaccines. Hotez’ number of 221 is the number who actually received compensation from the impossibly corrupted Vaccine Compensation Program.
“While the current vaccine is acknowledged as a good vaccine, we and others have demonstrated that the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine. The Table shows that this phenomenon continues to play a role in measles outbreaks. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced [8]. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized [8].”
Call me a lay person, but it does not take a scientist to understand words like “primary and secondary vaccine failure” or the “paradoxical situation of highly vaccinated groups being more susceptible.” Hmmm. When have I heard about vaccines undermining the immune system and rendering vaccinees more susceptible to illness?
While it wasn’t Hotez who made the absurd claim that vaccines are one of the best tested medicines available, I feel I’d be remiss by not correcting that whopper. The truth is vaccine safety studies do not use genuine placebos, they instead utilize another vaccine or solution containing mercury or aluminum as the placebo. Absent placebo-controlled studies, it is preposterous to claim that vaccines are well tested and one cannot make any claims about safety or efficacy without a proper placebo-controlled study. NONE. Not to mention that vaccine safety studies evaluate one vaccine but vaccines are administered in groups of as many as 8 doses of vaccines in a day. Nor are the health outcomes of vaccinated compared to those of the unvaccinated. To argue this is robust science is laughable. To understand the shortcomings of vaccine science, watch my movie, The Greater Good.
Hotez has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry, spent his career developing vaccines and holds patents on vaccines, rendering him a seriously conflicted participant in any debate about vaccines. One would never ask someone from the coal industry about the safety of coal-fired power plants but when it comes to vaccine-connected physicians and scientists, we somehow give them a free pass. Perhaps worse still is the glaring lack of disclosure made by media when media presents these so-called experts with vested interests. Nary a word was mentioned about Hotez’ background in his introduction on the show.
In addition, Hotez makes disparaging remarks about those who deviate from the official orthodoxy of vaccines dispensed by the pharmaceutical industry and the health agencies that receive vast sums from that industry without any consequence or challenge from the compliant media.
As I wrap things up, let me share one last tidbit which illustrates the type of sick individual Hotez is; I did not have time to mention this during the show, but he has stated that the parents of vaccine injured children “hate their children and are a hate group.” Seriously.
It beggars belief that Hotez has any credibility as an expert but the pharma-influenced media doesn’t bat an eye at such outrageous comments.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would do the world a service by debating Hotez but my experience speaks volumes about Hotez’ true colors – he’s not interested in an exchange of different views, respectable debate, or an examination of the body of science. You can hear it yourself in the show, all he does is disparage me and those who have concerns about the safety of vaccines likely in the hopes that others will dismiss our concerns without further investigation.
Hopefully, his latest antics will undermine any vestigial credibility he may have had.
[TCTL editor’s note: To keep up with growing amount of money being offered to Peter Hotez (for his favorite charity) for a debate with RFK Jr., see Joe Rogan’s twitter feed. TCTL is still suspended from twitter (that happened years ago) but you can view JRE’s feed whether you have an account or not.]
“Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.
“Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.”
We have, for quite some time, been exposed to a myriad of silent killers. These are the subtle murderers of both the physical body as well as the spirit.
I used to think most of these killers were unintentional and merely the result of ignorance or a non-existent understanding of the non-material world of spirit. I also felt that science was rather inept in detecting subtle shifts of emotion, such as depression or “just not feeling well.” All such “measurements” were simply too nuanced to show up in their metrics.
Now I believe a lot of what I am speaking of is intentional. We are intentionally being eliminated or, at the very least, intentionally being made ill. Humanity is purposefully being murdered.
That’s a rather radical assumption, eh? Well, let’s just put it aside for the moment if this bothers you. I can make a good argument even if you are unwilling to accept that extreme notion. And, as the eminent Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used to often say to his patients, “Well, I could be wrong.”
There are many obvious things out in the world that are killing us softly…and not all of them so softly. Pollution is a big one; the air we breathe and the water we drink are toxic—probably more toxic than we are led to believe (that’s the “softly” part). Then on the toxic list we’ve got most of what we eat, the obvious being fast food, the not so obvious being processed food, and the really soft culprit being GMO. There are more “obvious killers” out there as well, I just don’t have the space to include all of them.
Some of the more “not so obvious” things, which some of you may have issue with, are things like 5G, and really any EMF pollution, which even includes radio waves. Most medicine is toxic, doctors themselves can be quite toxic and guilty of killing us softly, although I still would bet most of them do this unintentionally (how many times have you read statistics that “deaths due to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals” rank in the top five of global killers?) There are so many things on this list it would take volumes to present them all.
Actually, I would not be surprised if every single thing we encounter every day is chemically toxic in some way (meaning it is responsible for destroying the tissue of our physical body). Fun stuff.
I think a lot of people out there are not really aware of most of these things, or think the damage they may inflict is so minimal it really doesn’t amount to much. Well, as they say, things add up.
Again, this is all stuff that most people at least have heard of possibly being bad news. Most of those people, again, probably figure that the powers that be would not allow things out there that could really hurt us. I mean, really, there are so many government agencies that regulate this stuff, and do whatever they can to keep us from being harmed. Cough, cough. Really? Like I’ve said before, if you believe that, I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada I’ll sell you cheap. Or is it Kansas?
We’ve all seen movies like Erin Brockovich (2000) and Dark Waters (2019) that show the heroics of individuals fighting the big bad polluting evil ones and winning millions of bucks for their victims. That’s great, more power to them. But the bad guys in these movies are for the most part a few levels down from the real culprits. Sure, there are evil corporations and CEOs who run them. They are indeed part of the agenda. But again, I won’t get into that here.
Some of the biggest soft killers out there are mental health killers, as well as the drugs that accompany them. I would also put the aforementioned EMF killers in this group, and maybe even some of the pollutants that attack our minds rather than our bodies—nobody pays much attention to that—to subtle effects of personality, cognition, etc. For example most of the talk about the Covid vaccines hurting us is how it hurts us physically. You hear little about the effects they may have on the brain (other than physical), the personality, or the spirit. Oh God no, none of that woo woo stuff please, it just isn’t important.
Human beings are pretty subtle bio systems, and that is just the physical part of us. The mental/emotional part is pretty subtle too, and the spiritual part is so subtle it is ignored entirely. Even the first two of these, physical and mental, are largely ignored. The only part of them that is given much attention at all is the tip of the iceberg part. The majority of these systems lie below the level of gross awareness, yet this hidden level(s) has more influence on the well being of the person than the relatively small portion of the iceberg that is given all of the attention.
Let me be a bit clearer here.
Modern medicine is mostly a science of statistics. The majority rules here, the middle of the bell curve is what is given consideration. Nearly every medical “statement” is given as a percentage. What percent will survive a particular cancer, disease, or treatment modality, what percentage will still be alive in 5 years, what percentage will suffer side effects—on and on. Very little thought is given to the outliers. In fact, certain side effects fall so far below a relevant statistic, that these side effects are completely ignored; yet these ignored side effects could have a huge impact on quality of life.
Here is an example: I have dozens of clients who come to me with the common complaint of depression. Most of them are not suicidal; they simply have what they define as a crappy life. Their life just isn’t the life they envisioned. Maybe they don’t even know they are depressed, but after further evaluation, it seems clear they are just not capable of being fully happy, motivated, curious about life, or even interested in life.
These patients don’t really possess any of the typical traumas in their experience that can bring on such complaints. What is it then? The environment (I don’t mean climate change)? Yes. The culture? Yes. The societal decadence and immorality? Yes. The food they eat? Yes. The over the counter drugs they take? Yes. The prescription drugs they take? Most definitely yes.
All these things are killing them—some obviously, but the real dangers are the things killing them softly—the things we are told are unimportant.
None of these things are considered by modern medicine to have a significant enough influence on the body, the mind, or the spirit (which of course no medical practitioner pays any attention to) to be dangerous. If we, as humans, fall above a certain line with our complaints and ailments, we are considered “normal” and the complaints and ailments that fall below that are not statistically relevant. But they add up.
We then die younger than we should, we become weaker earlier than we should, and even if our body can stay physically functioning through modern medical miracles, we are dead inside with a poisoned soul as well as with a body and brain that is barely functioning to par, but functioning enough that most people think is good enough.
Living a life that has meaning and purpose is actually more important than living a life with a fully healthy body—and we are getting neither in this current world setting. Our souls are slowly being killed by a meaningless, materially focused culture where consumerism is the name of the life game. I need not list the problems present in this soul killing culture, but at the head of slow death is the movement toward transhumanism and the deliberate creation of a world without a moral foundation.
The physical body is being killed softly as well with all of the aforementioned toxic killers we are exposed to day in and day out. Most of them are slow and soft, and operate unhindered below the radar of most people—and certainly below the radar of those who should be monitoring such things.
Is this intentional? Are we subjected to this slow genocide as part of the global eugenic effort to rid the world of useless eaters?—or even more horrifying, to rid the world of all humans who are made in the image of God along with nature herself? An agenda chillingly made clear in C.S. Lewis’ tome That Hideous Strength seen as well in the works of numerous others such as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.
Probably not everything I have mentioned here has come about as part of this nefarious evil intention. But I would be willing to bet a lot of it has (see the work of David Icke). It may just have become the nature of the beast to create a culture in its atheistic hubris that ignores the subtleties of life and living.
Most of these toxic examples I have presented here have come about through omission—e.g., by omitting any sort of diligence to avoid their toxic effects, or by entirely doing away with things that fall into the lower material resolutions of our experience, making them statistically irrelevant—if you can’t clearly see it then just ignore it. Obviously anything “unseen,” such as love, beauty, art, God, unity, and the essence of life, is completely and almost savagely ignored. Such is our world—a humanity that is quietly, and softly, dying.
What makes us sick and what doesn’t make us sick? To answer that question, our first step is to understand how we as human beings come to know something. There are two basic ways. First, we can have a sensory experience of something that tells us that this thing is real. We might study a particular tree in its habitat and see whether it produces fruit or observe what type of birds it attracts. Or we could study frogs and learn about where they live, what they eat and their interaction with the wider ecosystem.
But there are also things for which no sensory experience is possible, perhaps because they’re too small to see. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but in this situation, we have to do something called “science”— meaning looking for and establishing the existence of things that we don’t experience directly through our senses.
When we do science—and this is important—we have to make sure, during every single step of the process, that we haven’t altered the nature of the thing we’re studying, or even brought that thing into existence through our intervention. Analytical chemists understand this; they tell me that in their line of work (which amounts to finding things they cannot experience through their senses), they have to validate that their procedures—taking something out of its habitat and shining a light on it or adding chemicals—didn’t in fact actually create what they ended up with. Otherwise, they can’t know whether or not the thing actually exists. Stated another way, when researchers test cause and effect by changing an independent variable to see whether it has an effect on a dependent variable, they have to make sure, every step of the way, that they are measuring just the relationship between those two variables. This is the essence of the “scientific method.” When we don’t follow the true scientific method, we can end up in a world of illusions, delusions and make-believe.
What if there is no possible way to do an experiment? In that case, you are relying on something that is more like faith, and you should acknowledge that. You should state, “This is what I believe to be true and I’m going to dedicate myself to figuring out whether I can validate that it actually is true.” In other words, the goal is to go from “I believe” to “I know.”
How Do Viruses Make You Ill
AWOL Viruses
What is the agreed-on definition of a virus? A virus is described as a disease-causing microbe with a piece of either DNA or RNA in the middle surrounded by a protein coat, and is said to be self-replicating in a host. It gets into the host’s cells, makes more of itself and then causes disease by bursting open the cells.
According to the definition, the expected natural habitat of this organism is the lungs, the blood, the lymph nodes, the urine, the cerebrospinal fluid and so on. However—and there is no scientific disagreement on this important point whatsoever—there is not a single study in the published medical literature for the past one hundred years that reports finding such a particle in any biological fluid of any plant, animal or human being. This is true whether you’re talking about the fluid from someone’s “herpes” lesion, or the lungs of someone with “Covid-19,” or the snot from a person with “measles,” or the blood of someone with “Ebola” or the lymph nodes of a person with “AIDS.” There is not one published study in the scientific/medical literature showing that someone found such a particle in any one of those bodily fluids—and nobody disagrees with that! This should make you suspicious. As Mark Twain once stated, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
WC Fields said, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” and I think he was talking about virology. Consider this: we now have over two hundred ten responses from various health departments around the world to the question, “Do you have any published study that shows that you directly isolated SARS-CoV-2 from any human being on the planet?”1 (SARS-CoV-2 is the alleged virus, and Covid-19 is the disease alleged to be caused by the virus.) They all say the same thing: “We have no record of SARS-CoV-2 having been purified.” They’ve never found it, nor have they found any of the other pathogenic viruses. (We also have around forty or fifty similar responses pertaining to Ebola, Zika, HIV, measles and the like.)
Colleagues of mine have asked the authors of four of the most important papers written about SARS-CoV-2, some of which bafflingly have the word “isolation” in the title, “Did you isolate this virus in your study?” Their answer was not only “No” but also, “We didn’t even try to find it in any biological fluid of any person who was sick.” In the early days of virology, scientists did look, but they were never able to find such a particle using the very tool—the electron microscope—that should have allowed them to find it. After twenty years, they abandoned ship and said, “There’s nothing to this theory.” But then later, it got resurrected.
What Are You Sick With
A Belief System
Note that virology has methods and techniques to truly isolate a virus.2 Using ultracentrifugation and something called a “sucrose density gradient,” virologists can separate a fluid sample into bands by molecular weight. Ultracentrifugation will spin viruses out into their own band, which virologists can then extract with a pipette and check for purity.
But they don’t use these techniques! Instead, I’ll give an example of what a virologist says if you ask, “Why do you think this virus exists? If you can’t find it, why do you think it’s in the lungs?” A virologist told me that someone would have to be “incredibly ill and shedding extremely large amounts of virus, and the fluid from their lungs would have to have a large amount of virus—and even then, it wouldn’t be possible.” In other words, “There’s not enough virus to find.”
Think about this. Your lungs are said to be the perfect culture medium—at the ideal temperature (thirty-seven degrees Celsius) for viruses to reproduce—and the lung environment is, therefore, supposedly teeming with viruses. After they reproduce, viruses reportedly kill millions and billions of cells, and that, we are told, is how they cause disease. Supposedly, there are twenty million copies of a virus in a single sneeze. But the virologist’s answer is, “There’s not enough to see.”
Remember, a virus is described as incredibly tiny—something like one-thousandth of a pinhead or less—which means that when viruses explode, they are exploding perhaps one hundredth of a pinhead of your lungs. Yet you could take out even a baseball-sized piece of your lungs, and while that might be called “having a bad day,” you won’t die. The body also isn’t crazy enough to make an abnormal and excessive immune response to losing less than a pinhead size of the lungs. So, it is logical to ask, “If the virus is exploding the cells in a portion of your lungs that is the equivalent of less than a pinhead, how is it causing disease?”
There is a second reason virologists give for not using the tools at their disposal to isolate a virus. They say that the virus is an intracellular parasite organism, meaning it is only inside the cell and doesn’t go outside the cell. But if that is the case, how does it get to the next person? This starts to strain credulity. Here’s how that nutty conversation might go:
Q: “Why can’t you catch the virus when it goes from one person to another person?”
A: “Well, it’s not there for more than about six hours. We don’t have enough money to pay someone to look every six hours to find the organism in the snot.”
We asked one eminent virologist, “If you put ten thousand people together and collected all their sputum, would that be enough to find the virus?” His answer: “No, that’s not enough.”
Poisoning, Not Purification
There are something like ten thousand published papers that refer to the “isolation” of such-and-such a virus. Virologists will show you the title of these papers and say, “See, how can you say this isn’t true?” But since they aren’t using the proper steps, you have to know what they did instead. And you have to ask, did they rigorously validate every step of their process?
In 1954, a researcher named John Franklin Enders established the procedures that rejuvenated the then-languishing field of virology.3 Here are Enders’ basic steps:
Virologists take snot from somebody alleged to have a certain disease (such as measles or Covid-19).
Sometimes they centrifuge (not ultracentrifuge) or filter the mixture to get rid of cells, fungi and debris. That has become a sticking point because some people call this “purification.” However, purifying the snot a little is not equivalent to purifying out a virus.
Next, they put the snot in a cell culture of green monkey kidney cells—cells that happen to be highly inbred and tend to break down easily.
Then they mix in antibiotics—and specifically antibiotics that are kidney-toxic (gentamicin and amphotericin)—and they take away the cell culture medium’s nutrients. (This is the equivalent of being forced onto a standard American diet after thriving on a Wise Traditions diet.)
Next, they mix in fetal bovine serum, a product sucked out of the heart of a newborn calf.
Maintaining the cell culture at a steady temperature, they then watch what happens. In about five days, the cells break down— which is called a cytopathic effect (CPE)—and they call the CPE the “proof” that the virus exists and causes damage.
Understand that virologists consider this process—which inevitably generates cell breakdown—not “a” proof but “the” proof for the existence of all pathogenic viruses. You might reasonably ask, “How do you know the CPE is not due to starving the cells, or poisoning them with gentamicin and amphotericin, or using fetal bovine serum, or because of some other toxin in the sick person’s snot?” Virologists’ answer is that they do a “mock infection” as a control. However, if you go to the hundreds of papers I and my colleagues have read over the past two years, you will not find even one actual mock infection. In fact, it can’t be done because the independent variable would necessarily need to be the very virus that they have not isolated. Often, the study authors don’t even provide details, and if you try to obtain more information, you invariably learn that they did not conduct a properly controlled experiment.
Interestingly, Enders’ procedures are also how pharmaceutical companies make viral vaccines.4 For example, they take someone with measles and put their unpurified snot into a monkey kidney cell culture, add fetal bovine serum, gentamicin, and amphotericin, and then when the cells break down, they call that “isolation” of the measles virus. They put that goop into a vial—and that is called a “live” virus vaccine. They can also cycle the goop over and over in huge vats, removing some of the proteins, and that is an “attenuated” viral vaccine. But at no point did they ever demonstrate there is a virus in there. With mRNA and newer technologies, they are just putting different stuff—known and unknown—in their vaccines. In short, vaccines are biotoxins, and they make people sick. How could biotoxins possibly prevent people from getting sick?
The Lanka Experiments
There is one scientist, Stefan Lanka, who contracted with an independent professional lab to try to answer the question of whether the culturing process itself, rather than a pathogenic virus, might be causing the CPE.
The lab conducted four experiments. In the first, they cultured normal cells with a normal nutrient medium, adding only a small amount of antibiotics—and no snot from a sick person. Five days later, the cell growth was perfectly normal. The second experiment was the same as the first, but with the addition of 10 percent fetal bovine serum. Again, five days later there was no cell breakdown.
The third experiment replicated Enders’ procedures, lowering the percentage of fetal bovine serum from 10 percent to 1 percent (that is, starving the cells) and tripling the amount of antibiotics. On day five, the characteristic CPE that “proves” the existence and pathogenicity of a virus was evident—except that Lanka had not added any fluid from a sick person or anything else that could have had a virus in it.
The fourth experiment repeated the third but with the addition of RNA from yeast. It so happens that monkey kidney cells don’t like yeast any more than they like kidney-toxic antibiotics. Unsurprisingly, the fourth experiment produced the same CPE result—clearly showing that the CPE is the result of the culturing technique rather than any virus.
After they “prove” the existence of a virus using their cell culturing process, virologists “find” the genome of the virus using fragments of the RNA in the broken-down cell culture to create the assembled genome of the alleged virus. This is called “sequencing.” What is important to understand is that this process generates a genome that is purely theoretical (“in silico”). As I explain in my booklet Breaking the Spell:
“This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces [of RNA] into an entire ‘genome.’”5
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, sequencing software generated anywhere from three hundred forty-two thousand to one million different possibilities of how to arrange the fragments. A small group of scientists then decided which arrangement they liked—by “consensus”—and then, for every subsequent analysis, they put that first consensus-derived genome in and told the computer to make another one along the same lines. When they turn out a sequence that is a bit different from the original consensus-derived “genome,” that’s called a “variant.”
Note that all of this applies both to so-called “natural” viruses and to so-called lab-engineered “gain-of-function” viruses—which no more exist than any “natural” virus exists. So, here you have biologists in their hazmat suits, protecting themselves against a genome from a virus that exists only in a computer.
As for the PCR test, the whole premise of the test is also nonsense. You cannot say that a PCR sequence came from a thing you have not isolated. It makes no sense to even talk about “false-positives,” because the results are just plain false.
Identical Pictures, Delusional Thoughts
At some point, people say to me, “But Tom, we’ve seen electron microscope pictures of SARS-CoV-2,” complete with “spikes” and something that looks like a “corona”! However, I have a picture from a kidney biopsy produced before the year 2000 (when there was no possibility that it was SARS-CoV-2) that looks just the same. In fact, I have eleven electron microscope pictures—labeled as kidney biopsies, lung biopsies or SARS-CoV-2—and there is no way to tell the difference between them. They are morphologically indistinguishable—they all look the same. In fact, the CDC has known since the 1970s that electron microscopy cannot tell the difference between a kidney biopsy, lung cancer, cellular debris, SARS-CoV-2 or any so-called pathogenic virus; it simply is not possible.
The cellular debris, by the way, comes from poisoning—whether from putting yeast, antibiotics or fetal bovine serum on a culture, or from EMFs, or from not eating a Wise Traditions diet. It can even be from “wonky” or delusional thinking. For example, I knew an anthroposophical doctor who spent his career giving AIDS drugs to so-called “HIV-positive” people because he believed in the delusional germ theory, and then, because of this belief, he took four Covid shots. Five days after the fourth one, he was dead. You could say he died from the shots, but I say he died because he spent his entire life believing in something that is completely make-believe.
An Even Bigger Delusion
It turns out that the delusion is even bigger than viruses—we didn’t just make up viruses, we made up diseases. Consider what happens if you get a splinter in your finger. In medical school, I was taught that pus is a sign of infection, but actually, the pus is the body’s therapeutic response to the splinter; if you suppress the pus, you will never get the splinter out. We need to stop thinking of the body’s responses as “diseases”; they are the wisdom of the body coming through.
We can look at many other conditions—and the body’s wise therapies—in the same way. For example, if you put toxic junk in your lungs, the body will cough it up because it wants to get rid of dead, dying and poisoned tissue. In Wuhan, which has some of the worst air pollution in the world, bronchitis is the therapy for breathing air. It’s not a disease.
Or consider chickenpox, which might have something to do with malnutrition or a collagen deficiency or a toxic environment—but is also a normal maturation and cleansing process. If you come along and poison a child with a chickenpox vaccine so they cannot go through that cleansing process, they will instead have a life of asthma, allergies, eczema and all these other made-up terms that really mean you stopped the process of healing. It may look like you lessened the incidence of “chickenpox,” but by interfering with the cleansing process you have increased lots of chronic things, which never go away.
There are no vaccines that are exceptions to that rule—they all poison you, and you end up worse. When you cannot go through the normal maturation and healing steps, you eventually may end up with cancer. You’re depositing one poison after another throughout your life, and now you’ve got a garbage can of poisons otherwise known as a “tumor.” What would you do if you kept being poisoned over and over, and someone prevented you from getting the poisons out? It’s very simple: you would buy a garbage can and put the poison in there. But what happens if you keep putting in garbage, and it starts piling up in your basement, garage, kitchen and bedroom until you can’t live? That’s called “metastasis,” and then you die.
What Are We Made Of?
To examine more deeply the question of what makes us sick, let’s consider what we’re made of. To start on safe ground, let’s accept that we’re made of a head, ears, eyes, mouth, chest, arms, fingers, legs, toes and a bunch of other things. Inside, we also have things like a heart, bones, blood vessels, nerves, a liver, kidneys and other things. As far as I can tell, older healing traditions like Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine also believe there is a heart and liver and spleen and all the rest of it. In fact, not only do they believe it, they put huge stock in the energy flow through those organs.
Now remember, there are two ways of knowing. In the first instance, you can observe, but if you can’t observe, you have to do science—and you have to be sure that any science you do isn’t affecting what you’re seeing. And if it is, you have to control for that.
We’re told that hepatocytes are the main functional cells of the liver, but we might ask, “How do we know that?” How many of us have actually seen hepatocytes in the liver of an intact living organism? Nobody. That may not mean they’re not there, but it means we’ve got a question that requires further experimentation. We can take someone and anesthetize them (or at least some part of them), and stick a needle in, and suck out a piece of the liver, and stain it with toxic chemicals, and shine a high-powered light on it, and then say that what we see are the hepatocytes.
But how do we know that the process of anesthetizing (that is, poisoning) the person, removing the sample from a living organism and putting chemical stains on it didn’t create the structures we’re seeing?
For example, we know that bacteria, when stressed, will create a storage form called bacteriophages, and the same is true for other organisms like fungus spores. How do we know that stressing the liver by removing it from the living organism that nourishes it didn’t create the appearance of the liver cells? I’m not necessarily saying that this proves there are no liver cells, but I’m saying you need to ask the question if you want to do real science.
My thinking on these matters owes a lot to thinkers like the British biologist Harold Hillman, who spent fifty years and thousands of pages asking these kinds of questions.6 If you really want to understand biology, read Hillman. Another influence is Gilbert Ling, a brilliant Chinese-born American scientist who challenged the accepted view of the cell.7
Let’s remember that in addition to sensory observations and science, you may get to a point where you simply can’t know something. Going back to virology, if you can’t take the virus out of the sample that you inoculate, the best you might be able to say is, “We have no actual evidence that the virus exists. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t, but we have no evidence.” How different would the world be if, in March 2020, they had announced: “We did some experiments, and we have some idea there might be a virus, but we can’t really prove it, and all the experiments have shown it’s not really there—but we think we should lock you down and make you wear a mask and starve you anyway.” Of course, they don’t say it like that. My point is that it may not be possible to prove the existence of those liver cells—or any cells.
What is also interesting is that of the approximately one hundred eighty-four different tissue types, we know that forty-four don’t have any cells. Examples are the crystalline lens of the eye, and the bursae—sacs of fluid (colorfully described as “miniature water balloons”) that facilitate the frictionless movement of the joints.8 The absence of cells makes sense because this organized water tissue is much stronger and more coherent than if it were broken up into little cells.
Historically, what did Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine have to say about cells? Nothing. There is no mention of cells in either of those traditions. By the way, they never mentioned contagion or germ theory either. It was the German physician Rudolf Virchow who popularized the idea that we are made of cells. In the 1850s, Virchow wrote a book about cellular physiology essentially based on his dissection of an onion; he saw that it had compartments and from there he asserted that all living things were made of cells and that “all cells come from cells.” Although many people initially thought he was nuts, somehow that became the cellular theory of biology and medicine, despite the theory never having been “proven” in any meaningful sense of the word.
Ribosome Fairy Tales?
For the time being, let’s assume that cells do exist in those one hundred forty or so human tissues. Then we can ask, what is a cell made of? In addition to a cell membrane, standard textbooks show pictures with structures called organelles that include a nucleus, an endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, mitochondria, lysosomes, the Golgi apparatus and others (see Figure 1). This definition of a cell is the basis of all medicine and biology.
Now, let’s consider the ribosomes. Cell biology tells us that ribosomes are the place where mRNA is translated into proteins, describing ribosomes as the cells’ protein-making “factories” or “machinery.” Ribosomes also happen to be an important part of the Covid story— remember, the official rationale for putting mRNA in the injections was so it could instruct the ribosomes to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.9
As an aside, if you say, “I’m going to make tires out of rubber,” it would not be unusual to be asked, “How do you know that works?” Then you could describe the process, including the quantity of rubber needed to produce a set number of tires, and they could repeat the process to see whether they end up with the same number of tires from the same amount of rubber. Along these lines, you would expect there to be hundreds of studies showing that if you put “X” amount of mRNA into a human being, you get “Y” amount of spike protein. But do you know how many studies there are like that? Zero. Instead, we just heard, “We had to move at the speed of science,”10 which really means “We made it up.”
There is an interesting thing going on with the ribosomes, because we’re talking about the place in a cell where the essence of you, biologically, is made. We are made of proteins. The creation of you, we’re told, is in the ribosomes. The question is, is there such a thing as a ribosome, or did they make it up?
FIGURE 1. A standard (make-believe) cell diagram.
One clue that there is something fishy going on is that no one can tell you how many ribosomes a cell contains, other than a vague “millions.” However, we can do some basic arithmetic (which will be an approximation because we’re mixing volume and linear measurement). We’re told that a ribosome measures about twenty-five nanometers (0.025 micrometers)—and if we conservatively estimate that a mammalian cell has about four million ribosomes, then that would equal one hundred thousand micrometers. However, a typical mammalian cell is something like one hundred micrometers, and the cytoplasm (which contains the ribosomes) is only 70 percent of the cell, meaning that its volume is seventy micrometers. Not only that, but the mitochondria—which are hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the putative ribosomes—are also in there. So, how does something that is one hundred thousand micrometers fit into a space that is seventy micrometers and also houses millions of mitochondria? Doesn’t anybody study arithmetic?
A second clue that ribosomes are imaginary comes from electron microscope pictures, which always show the ribosome as a perfect circle. If it is a perfect circle on a two-dimensional picture, that means it had to have been a sphere in real life. Now think about how biologists obtain these pictures: they take some tissue, put it in a blender, grind and macerate it, freeze it to minus one hundred twenty degrees centigrade, stain it with heavy metals and shoot a high-energy electron beam at it to evaporate all the water from the tissue. How does a sphere that has been ground up in a blender, frozen, poisoned and had all its water evaporated end up—every single time—as a perfect circle? It is not possible for those circles to be real cellular structures. (This is a good time to remember WC Fields’ quote about “baffling them with bullshit.”)
Fortunately, Harold Hillman had the genius to take something that could not possibly have ribosomes in it and put it through the same process (staining and so forth), and he got the exact same pictures. It turns out that those are just typical images of dead and dying tissue (remember that pictures of “viruses” also come from stained tissue that is dead and dying), and those perfect circles are gas bubbles—in which case, there are no ribosomes. And if there are no ribosomes, there is no place for the translation of RNA into protein to occur. And if that is the case, what the heck is going on, and how do we actually make the stuff that we’re made of?
More Cell Make-Believe
For another example, let’s look at the cell component called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Textbooks describe the ER as “a netlike labyrinth of branching tubules and flattened sacs”11 that serve as the cell’s “transportation system.” The millions of ribosomes in a cell are said to line the surface of the “rough” part of the ER.
Why does the ER even have to be there? Before I answer that question, let’s consider that the cytoplasm of a cell (which is the gel-like liquid inside a cell membrane but external to the nucleus) has a different pH level than the pH inside the cell nucleus—and that is a verifiable, measurable phenomenon. You can measure the two pH values one hundred times and they will never be the same. Why is the pH different? The reason can only be due to the cytoplasm and nucleus having different concentrations of hydrogen ions—because that is where pH comes from. And for the pH values to be different, there has to be an impenetrable barrier between the cytoplasm and nucleus, or some other mechanism that keeps the hydrogen ions from equilibrating across the two. If there were no mechanism, they would equilibrate and their pH would be the same—but it never is.
Now, we run into the conceptual problem of the mRNA. They say DNA makes mRNA in the nucleus; then, the mRNA exits the nucleus through pores in the nuclear membrane and heads to the imaginary ribosomes, where it is translated into protein. So, how does the mRNA get out without letting any hydrogen ions in to equilibrate? An mRNA molecule is at least thousands and maybe millions of times bigger than a hydrogen ion. Picture the problem this way: Something the size of an elephant can go out, but something the size of a mosquito can’t get in.
Believe it or not, we’re expected to believe that there is something like a whirligig that attaches to the mRNA (the “elephant”) and spins around like a conveyor belt and takes the mRNA to the other side of the cell. Meanwhile, no one has ever seen the whirligig. (“But it must be a whirligig, because how else did the elephant get out?”) But then you have to ask, how does it go round and round and not tangle up the “branching” components of the ER? If you picture them like ropes, wouldn’t you have to untangle the ropes? (Didn’t any scientist ever go on a merry-go-round?) Once again, Hillman provided a common-sense answer. He showed that when you take tissue and quickly freeze it, it makes fracture lines—and that’s what we call the endoplasmic reticulum. The ER doesn’t exist.
In short, using basic principles of geometry, mathematics and logic, you can go through the same process with every component of the cell. Nothing on a standard cell diagram—with the exception of the nucleus, the mitochondria and a thin cell wall—has ever been proven to exist. It’s all make-believe.
Other Things That Just Ain’t So
In addition to the imaginary cell components, there are a lot of other things in science that, as Mark Twain put it, “we believe in but just ain’t so.” Consider “Neurology 101.” A neurologist’s explanation of how nerves work goes like this: We have nerves made up of nerve cells called “neurons”; they transmit electrical and chemical signals via “axons” that end in “synapses.” Something called the “presynaptic junction” releases chemical messengers called “neurotransmitters” (such as serotonin and dopamine), which swim across the junction and attach to “postsynaptic receptors,” where they “depolarize” the next neuron and start the next impulse—and so on, until the nerve ends at its destination and “fires.” But the process can’t work like that; it’s nonsense. This becomes immediately obvious if you ask someone to wiggle the tip of their right or left index finger as soon as they hear the word “right” or “left”; they do it virtually instantaneously, with no lag time for this hypothesized neurotransmitter journey.12
In addition, if you dissect a nerve, you never see a synapse. Now, you could have the problem of “maybe it’s just too small to see,” but most things aren’t too small to see with an electron microscope. If you hunt down a picture of what an anatomical synapse is supposed to look like, what you’ll find are pictures of stained nerves. That’s not a synapse—because there are no synapses. The nerve is continuous.
Think about how much in medicine is based on neurotransmitters and receptors (such as the famed “ACE2 receptors,” “opiate receptors,” “dopamine receptors,” or “serotonin receptors”). They even tell us that it is oxytocin, a hormone that “acts as a neurotransmitter,” that makes us love someone. It couldn’t be because they’re a nice person or they give you a backrub—no, it’s the “love hormone” oxytocin.
Here is another example. How many of you have heard of the “blood-brain barrier” or believe there is such a barrier? We often hear about it from people opposed to vaccination, who say that vaccines make your blood-brain barrier “leaky.” The implication is that we’re talking about an actual anatomical structure—a physical barrier that stretches out like a piece of cellophane along the border between the blood vessels and your brain tissue so that nothing gets in or out—except vaccines. . . and except anesthetics because drug-makers “know how to get anesthetics through the blood-brain barrier.” Nonetheless, no one has ever proven the existence of such a barrier.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that there aren’t substances that get into the brain in a different way than they get into the liver. The liver and the brain each have a different composition of water and lipids, so logically, some things will dissolve and get into the liver differently from how they get into the brain. But just because things get in the brain differently does not mean there is an anatomical barrier.
Finally, we can scrutinize the notion that DNA is the mechanism of heredity. The premise of genetics is that you have a stable fixed code that is the same in every cell of your body. That fixed, stable DNA makes proteins, and the proteins make you. But there are probably two hundred thousand different types of protein, and only twenty thousand genes or units that code for these proteins. We’re told that one gene makes one protein, so how does that work? Where did the other one hundred eighty thousand proteins come from? The central dogma that one gene makes one protein cannot be true. So, how we are made can’t have anything to do with DNA and, therefore, DNA cannot be the code for biological systems. In fact, DNA changes from minute to minute—Barbara McClintock proved this decades ago13—so there is no stable DNA. We do not have the same DNA in all the tissues and cells of our body. These things have been 100 percent disproven.
It’s the Structured Water
The ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, synapses, neurotransmitters and blood-brain barrier represent just a partial list—and I do mean partial—of things of which I either doubt the existence or suspect their function is different from what we have been told. If you are still wondering what we are made up of, the reality is more beautiful, simpler, easier to understand and more logical and rational. The real answer to what we’re made of is structured water. Structured water, which creates free electrons, is the only possible explanation for how we’re able to instantaneously wiggle our index finger when we hear the word “right” or left.”
FIGURE 2. Dark-field microscope image of cells showing cell membrane, nucleus, mitochondria and structured water.
Figure 2 is an image of a cell produced with dark-field microscopy, which is the most reliable technique for viewing live, unstained biological samples. In the image, you see a thin membrane (the outer coating); you see organized water (also called structured water, coherent water, EZ water, the fourth phase of water or liquid crystalline water); you see little black dots in the structured water (the mitochondria) and you see a nucleus that is always circular or dome-shaped—and that’s it.
Note that the mitochondria help structure our water by making ATP—which is not “energy” as we’ve been told. Think of structured water like jello. If you add water to gelatin proteins, nothing happens, but if you heat the mixture, the heat unfolds the proteins and you get water that gels. As for us, we have all these proteins, and the mitochondria make the ATP that unfolds them so that the proteins can interact with water and form gels. All gels create a negative charge and an electromagnetic field around them, which is the voltage—the energy—of life. To put it simply, we are living liquid crystals.
The dome in the middle (the nucleus) also has something sticking out that collects energy from the world. It may be DNA, but it is not a double helix—it’s a spiral sticking out of the nucleus. The way it works is similar to a radio antenna. It “downloads” information coming in through “radio waves” that get picked up by the “antenna,” and out of that emerge proteins and life (or sound and song in the case of a radio). And this dynamic, tunable, responsive, liquid crystalline medium pervades the whole body—from the organs and tissues to the interior of every cell.
Note that in Genesis, before God created the Earth, plants or people, he created water and light energy. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and the Spirit. The Spirit is the information field that comes in through our antenna. Every scriptural tradition says that all living things and the universe itself are made of water.
What Does Make Us Sick?
If we now circle back to “what doesn’t make us sick,” we could summarize the answer in one word: “viruses.” And if we ask, “What does make us sick?”, the answer is also straightforward. We get sick when we mess up our structured water. If we disturb the gels by putting “schmutz” in them—which could be aluminum, mercury, glyphosate, bad food, EMFs, or even negative emotions like anger, fear, shame or guilt—that will distort or dissolve the gels. If we do that in our eye, we get a distorted gel that has a film on it, and we call that a “cataract.” If we distort the bursa in our knee, so that the gels that are supposed to protect both sides of the knee start sticking together, then we have bone on bone and we call that “arthritis.” Public health officials create epidemics by pulling different manifestations of distorted water into a single diagnosis—such as AIDS or Covid-19—and when they are ready to make the epidemic go away, they separate them back out into twenty different diagnoses. It’s very clever—and it’s nothing new.
Without describing it as such, medicine does sometimes assess the coherence of your water to see if you are sick. For example, doctors use MRIs to diagnose cancer. What is the MRI measuring? It’s measuring the coherence of your water. When your water goes from a gel-like jello to a puddle-like liquid, it sends a different signal to the MRI.
Imagine you have a poison grape in your “jello.” Your body heats up the gel and you get a fever—that’s hyperthermia. The heat dissolves the gel and makes it runny, creating mucus that you can spit out or cough up, or creating something you can push out through your skin. That’s what we call “being sick.” It makes perfect sense. If you want to flush out the poison grape, all you have to do is clean your gels—which is what detoxification approaches like the Gerson diet and water fasting are all about—and clean up the field and you will heal. If you want to know why you are sick, think about how you are structuring your water, what you’re putting into your water, the quality of the water and the quality or composition of the field that you’re exposed to.
I’m not the first person to say that water creates life. Mae Wan-Ho, a past speaker at Weston A. Price Foundation conferences, wrote books about “the role of biological water in organising living processes.”14 Marcel Vogel,15 who knew more about crystals than any human being ever alive and who invented liquid crystal screens, discovered that he could use the energetic fields of quartz crystals to structure water.16
We are made of a living, evolving, changing crystal, which is why we are not made of quartz. One way of viewing Covid-related events is that people like Bill Gates are trying to make us be made of quartz, not water. In some ways, that is what this is all about. As a fixed, perfect quartz crystal, they tell us, nothing will ever change and we can live forever. But that is not what I want. I want to change, grow, evolve and be a human being who has to be watered.
We’re swimming along with misconceptions in a make-believe world—and we have to get rid of this garbage. We can find a much better way once we explore and learn what we’re really made of and how it all works. Every reason we get sick has to do with a distortion of the field coming in.
Continuing with the radio analogy, you need to find the good signal instead of the distorted signal. The good signal is the sun, moon and the earth; good friends; your dog; community; clean, nutrient-dense food, clean water and clean air; good music; and love, safety and freedom. That is the field that you “download” into the gel to give it information to organize progressively into the more and more perfect crystal that is you.
Sidebar
No Deathbed Confession
How have virology’s luminaries been able to claim they found a virus when we know they have never found one in any biological fluid? Let’s consider Luc Montagnier, the prestigious virologist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. He died in 2022. Montagnier acknowledged that purification was a necessary step to prove the existence of a virus (or, in the case of HIV, a retrovirus) but admitted, “We did not purify.”17 The technician who performed his electron microscopy for twenty years even said, “It turns out we never saw a virus. All we saw was junk.” But to his dying day, Montagnier never “fessed up” or acknowledged, “We don’t have a real virus.”
On what did Montagnier base his claim that he had found HIV? It’s very simple:
• He took lymphocytes from the lymph nodes of a person said to have AIDS.
• He stimulated them to grow with a chemical called PHA (phytohaemagglutinin).
• When the lymphocytes grew, he assayed them for an enzyme called reverse transcriptase.
• When he found reverse transcriptase, he said that it proved the existence of a new retrovirus eventually called HIV.
• To “prove” that HIV was transmissible to other people, Montagnier took his PHA-stimulated lymphocyte culture and put it in a lymphocyte culture from a healthy person. When he found reverse transcriptase in that culture as well, that was the “proof” that HIV is a transmissible disease.
There was only one problem. Ten years previously, Robert Gallo had written a paper reporting reverse transcriptase in every single culture from anybody with lymphocytes stimulated with PHA. Both Gallo and Montagnier knew that his experiment had nothing to do with proving that there was a retrovirus or any kind of virus at all. Later, the scientist credited with discovering the reverse transcriptase enzyme, David Baltimore, also admitted as much.18
Water Pictures
Veda Austin, a “water researcher,” has dedicated many years to observing the life of water, which she describes as “fluid intelligence.”19
Veda has developed techniques for photographing water in its “state of creation.” This work explores whether, if she asks water a question, the water can take in and download the information and, given the right circumstances, make structures that essentially answer that question. And what she has found is that if she puts the water in a dish and freezes it, the water organizes its crystals and makes pictures.
For example, when she showed the dish of water a wedding invitation and said, “Water, show me the wedding invitation,” the frozen water created an amazing artistic depiction of a wedding ring. But my favorite example is when she said, “Water, what is falling down?” The water did not create anything as straightforward as an image of rain; instead, the water produced an image of “London Bridge is falling down.”
“Safe and Free” by Jude Roberts20
In the last two years, I’ve learned important things from my cat Pumpkin. One stormy evening, with coyotes howling in the distance, I walked with Pumpkin toward the greenhouse where he sleeps, but Pumpkin started heading for the woods instead. When I called him, he gave me a look that seemed to say, “There’s no point in being safe if I can’t be free.” My friend Jude Roberts understands this, too. His song “Safe and Free” reminds us what this is all about.
I got up to go to work today,
there was no work for me.
Governor closed my shop, he say
to keep me safe and free
I’ve had my shop for twenty years,
It feeds my family,
And now we have to stay inside,
To keep us safe and free
To keep us safe and free
Called my dear old mother,
My mother said to me
“Son, I miss you dearly,
But you cannot come to tea”
“The children miss you, Mamma,
They’re healthy as can be.”
“A hug could kill their Grandma,
Keep them away from me.
Keep me safe and free.”
Giant tech and billionaires
And pharmacology
Spinning like a top to move
The wheels of industry
Amazon and Walmart,
The consumer pedigree,
They can do their business,
Because anyone can see
They keep us safe and free
Technocrats and robot gods
And blind authority,
Sell your soul and pray to them,
They’ll keep you safe and free
Biotech behemoths say
They have a shot for me.
I trust them with my body,
And forgive them for their greed
If it keeps me safe and free
Keep us safe from terrorists,
Keep us free from germs,
Keep us from the danger
Of the wisdom we have learned
Until the books are burned
Governor says to wear a mask
I cannot disagree
I cannot breathe or speak my mind,
But at least I’m safe and free
I’ll wear my mask for you my friend,
You wear your mask for me.
Worried eyes and faceless fear
Is all that we can see.
Sure feel safe and free
Keep us free from choices,
Keep us stuck in blame,
Keep us in a toxic state,
Of poverty and shame
While they run their game
I’ll open up my shop today
Even if they come for me.
If I can’t feed my family,
We’re neither safe nor free.
I may not be a scientist,
And I’m damn sure not a priest
Ain’t a fool on God’s green Earth
Can keep life safe for me.
So better I live free.
Alberts B. et al. “The endoplasmic reticulum.” In Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition. New York: Garland Science; 2002.
Cowan T. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2016, pp. 102- 105.
Halpern ME. Barbara McClintock on defining the unstable genome. Genetics. 2016;204:3-4.
Dr. Tom Cowan has been one of the leading voices speaking out against the mainstream medical narrative and coordinated agenda of masking, social distancing and forced vaccinations. His messages of health freedom and personal autonomy have resonated with millions of people around the world. Dr. Cowan challenges conventional medicine to explore health and wellness in holistic terms, seeking to provide a collaborative forum for the exchange of knowledge, products and practices that enable us to forge a new world together, governed by truth.
“Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
“In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.”
It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over.
To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhumanism, digital currencies, smart cities etc.
Yes, these are important issues – really important issues, I totally agree – but so is the idea that ‘pathogenic agents’ exist because it has tentacles that reach into many aspects of our lives, so it cannot be brushed aside as if irrelevant, especially in view of the complete lack of evidence to support this idea.
I would therefore recommend that people who believe in ‘pathogenic agents’ become aware of the various reports that claim there will be ‘future pandemics’. For just one example, a 22nd May 2023 ‘News’ item on the UN website states,
“Although COVID-19 may no longer be a global public health emergency, countries must still strengthen response to the disease and prepare for future pandemics and other threats, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday in Geneva.”
There has never been a ‘pandemic’ due to an infectious agent and there never could be. But, whilst people believe that pathogenic infectious agents exist, they will believe in the possibility of other ‘pandemics’.
Therefore, one of the answers I would provide to the question of why the ‘no virus’ issue is so important is: that fear of ‘germs’ makes people believe that ‘disease’ can be transmitted between people, which means that we have to continue being afraid of each other.
In fact, one of the fundamental problems with all of this is that it keeps people in a state of unjustified fear, which is disempowering. Releasing unjustified fear is empowering.
Furthermore, fear of ‘germs’ makes people acquiesce to measures that are claimed to be for their benefit but are far more likely to be harmful, and in many cases potentially or even actually fatal.
For example, the maintenance of a belief in pathogens permits the maintenance of a belief in the idea that STIs are real, as demonstrated by a recent BBC article Gonorrhoea and syphilis sex infections reach record levels in England,
“England is seeing record high levels of gonorrhoea and syphilis sexually transmitted infections, following a dip during Covid years, new figures reveal.”
Is the claim that these STIs ‘dipped’ during the Covid years intended to suggest that people maintaining their distance from one another was beneficial? This point is not elaborated upon, so maybe it was not intended to imply that. Still, the point was stated, so maybe it was intended to be drawn into the sub-conscious mind.
One of the key messages in the BBC article is that people should ‘practise safe sex’ – whatever that means. In order to be ‘safe’, people are encouraged to ‘get themselves tested’ – does this sound familiar?
In addition, the article states that,
“The age group most likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is people who are 15-24.”
The reason for STIs to mainly affect young people is not explained, although it is possibly because this age group is more likely to be tested, as the article indicates,
“Some of the rise will be due to increased testing, but the scale of the surge strongly suggests that there are more of the infections around, says the UKHSA.”
A particularly significant comment made by the spokesperson for the UKHSA, and reported in the article, is that,
“Testing is important because you may not have any symptoms of an STI.”
Yet, according to the CDC,
“An infection occurs when germs enter the body, increase in number, and cause a reaction of the body.”
In other words, an infection causes a reaction or ‘symptoms’, but infected people may not have symptoms. A contradiction in terms, surely!
Just to be clear, the definition of ‘symptom’ according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
“…subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance.”
So, to summarise: according to the medical establishment, a symptom is evidence of disease and ‘germs’ are pathogens, which means they cause disease, which is defined by the presence of symptoms. Yet ‘germs’ are said to be able to cause an infection even in the complete absence of symptoms.
Confused? You should be, because this is all nonsense!
But it is nonsense that people are not only expected to believe without question, but are not allowed to question.
Maybe it is because this is all so confusing that people are likely to just switch off their thinking, because they don’t understand it, and instead defer to the so-called ‘experts’. I am not being disrespectful. I do wonder, however, whether this approach may be intentional and that those in control of the narrative intentionally promote contradictory information to ensure that people are confused.
Deferring to ‘experts’ is however, a serious error of judgement, because it means people will believe the experts’ reports about ‘germs’ and become trapped in a false narrative that they may have been ‘infected’. This in turn will make them believe that they need to take certain drugs and act in a certain way to ‘protect’ themselves from other people or protect other people from them, especially people with whom they are in a loving relationship. They are made to believe the idea that they could cause harm to their partner or vice versa, and they therefore live in fear.
This fear is fuelled by a variety of statements, such as the claim in the BBC article that,
“An untreated infection can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and can be passed on to a child during pregnancy.”
There is no evidence for this claim. Yet, this is exactly the kind of message that will encourage people to want to be tested to make sure they are ‘safe’. Again, does this sound familiar?
An even deeper problem is highlighted by the comment from the Chief Executive of the Terrence Higgins who is reported to have said that,
“Sexual health services and public health budgets have been cut to the bone.”
This comment was followed by his statement that,
“This was exacerbated and laid bare by last year’s mpox outbreak, which left sexual health clinics in the most affected areas unable to provide HIV and STI testing, HIV prevention and access to contraception due to the displacement of these core and vital services. Until sexual health is properly resourced – with an appointment easier to access than a (sic) – we won’t see the number of STIs heading in the right direction.”
Where do I start with this?
OK, so the Terrence Higgins Trust web page About our charity states,
“We’re the UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charity. We support people living with HIV and amplify their voices, and help the people using our services to achieve good sexual health.”
I realise that I don’t have a Substack article specifically about HIV, but this is one I wrote about STDs,
HIV is a huge topic, but the fundamental point to convey here is that there is no evidence, and there never was, that there is such a thing as a ‘virus’ called HIV that is the cause of a health problem called AIDS – or any other health problem for that matter.
It is abundantly clear that there is a lot at stake here. It is also crystal clear that belief in the existence of any kind of pathogenic agent is absolutely essential for organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), as well as ‘health’ institutions, such as the WHO, CDC, NHS, and all the other alphabet agencies.
I have no idea of the motives of those who are in charge of the THT, nor do I intend to speculate on them. However, whether they know it or not, what they are promoting on their website is fully supportive of Agenda 2030 and the ‘Global Goals’, as the message at the foot of their website claims,
“Time is running out. Donate now and together we can end new cases of HIV in the UK by 2030.”
To those in the ‘truther’ community who claim that the 2030 Agenda has nothing to do with the ‘virus’ issue I would strongly suggest that they read SDG3, especially target 3.3.
And target 3b
The ‘no virus’ issue – and the associated understanding that there is no proof that any ‘diseases’ are caused by any ‘microorganism’, whether bacteria, fungi or parasites (‘viruses’ aren’t relevant in this context) – is and remains an extremely important issue; especially in view of the intended 2030 Agenda rollout of vaccines, because vaccines rely on the existence of pathogenic infectious agents.
Another reason to understand its importance is because the idea that ‘germs’ cause illness that only the medical establishment can address supports the idea that we need a ‘health service’ to look after us when we become ill, which is not the case. To this, I would add a caveat that accident and emergency services ARE important and should remain in place, although those who work in that sector should receive further training to teach them how the body actually works, and how it can and does heal itself; this knowledge will certainly improve patient recovery times and outcomes.
We may not reach everyone, but the importance of the ‘no virus’ issue cannot be underestimated. When people lose their fear of ‘germs’ of all descriptions, they will be able to concentrate their efforts on all the other aspects of their lives.
People can only make informed decisions when they are in possession of all the relevant information.
Produced by The Way Forward, Alfa Vedic & The Sovereign’s Way
Directed by Kelly Brogan, Amandha Vollmer, Alec Zeck, Mike Winner, Dawn Lester
Starring David Icke, Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Dawn Lester, Sally Fallon Morell, Andrew Kaufman, Kevin Corbett, Christiane Northrup, Lee Merritt, Barre Lando, Mike Wallach, Christine Massey, Alec Zeck, Mike Donio, Roman Bystrianyk, Leslie Manookian, Mike Stone, Stefano Scoglio, Ana Maria Mihalcea, Steve Falconer, David Nixon, Etienne de la Boetie2, Marvin Haberland, John Jay Singleton and many more. [Click here and scroll down to see full line up.]
The End of COVID is the end of pandemics. It’s the end of scientific dogma, social distancing, vested interests, public health authorities, and billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies.
On June 20th, the entire production is coming to a close – once and for all.
~~~
The End of COVID is a collaborative effort – a collection of perspectives and expertise from a wide variety of sources. This includes doctors who have a long list of credentials, and holistic health practitioners with no abbreviations next to their names. It includes self-published authors, and New York Times best-sellers – prominent media personalities, and relatively unknown independent journalists.
The common thread is that this project was put together by men and women seeking the truth.
It wasn’t funded by pharmaceutical interests, informed by scientific dogma, or backed by the corporate press. It was made with intention – by mankind, for mankind.
So that we never have to see this show again.
We never have to mask up or be spaced apart. We never have to fear germs or fall for medical propaganda. Because, now, we know better.
We know the real history of virology and vaccines. We know the institutions and influences behind “the science.” And we know how we can step into our power and stand up to the nonsense.
This means the show is over. The trick has been revealed. Never again can we be fooled, persuaded, or coerced.
Instead, we can all turn off the broadcast. And move on – toward a life of health, happiness, and sovereignty.
Video available at La Quinta Columna Odysee & Rumble channels. Follow at La Quinta Columna telegram channel: https://t.me/laquintacolumnainternational
They are introducing nanotechnology into all sorts of injectable products, especially in what they call vaccines for Covid.
Self-assembled nanotechnologies, based on graphene, are advanced non-human technologies, but implemented by humans.
The parasitization of our species ordered by “them” will lead to the extinction of human beings as we know them, who will become transhuman, monitored, with non-human thoughts that can in turn be read remotely via electromagnetic waves. Managed by AI, we will become what they call enhanced humans. Augmented humans.
Helpful list from FDA, found while doing research and organizing my files on:
Public Health Emergency (PHE), Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and PREP Act notices, declarations, determinations and authorizations issued by HHS Secretaries and their delegees from Jan. 2020 to the present;
Legal advisory opinions about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the HHS Office of General Counsel from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
Guidance to pharmacists about PREP Act liability immunity, issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, from Jan. 2020 to the present; and
May biochemical weapon uptake rates approach zero in coming months and years, as rational popular response to the truth rendered much more visible since January 2020, and in firm opposition to all “recommendations” of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Biochemical weapons deployed by injection have been intrinsically injurious from the start of government campaigns promoting their use more than a century ago.
The “Covid-19” weapons have been the most deadly to date, with some lots deadlier than others, and contents of many lots still unidentified.
A poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been ordered to cull 800,000 chickens, as regions introduce arbitrary “public health” measures to stop the spread of “bird flu”
On May 12, Russian media reported that an “infected” gull had been discovered near a pond in a village in Moscow Oblast.
What happened next was practically preordained.
Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin—the poster boy for New Normal Russia—issued a decree on May 18 imposing “quarantine” measures on 11 districts in the capital.
The order placed restrictions on public events where birds might be congregating, and also banned the transportation of feathered creatures in the aforementioned districts.
Of course, birds could always just, you know, fly into one of these “quarantined” districts, and spread their devilish flu, but that’s neither here nor there.
Moscow is the trend-setter when it comes to enterprising public health policy in Russia, so of course other regions have been eager to follow suit with their own arbitrary bird flu edicts.
Just hours after Sobyanin’s decree was published, Kaliningrad imposed its own “quarantine” on a 10km perimeter around another bird flu Ground Zero.
The restrictions, which will remain in place until August 1, included a ban on the “import and export of birds and hatching eggs, the relocation of birds, procurement and export of bird feed, as well as holding agricultural fairs, exhibitions, auctions and other events.”
A week later, the discovery of dead, flu-riddled gulls in Nizhny Novgorod prompted officials to introduce a 30-day quarantine in one of the region’s districts.
Health authorities “seized poultry within a radius of five kilometers [from where the dead gulls were found], and poultry farms in the region were transferred to enhanced security protocols.”
Locals were also advised to only buy poultry from “verified” sources—the good, factory-farmed corporate stuff; don’t even think about buying poultry from your unverified neighbor!
But confiscating all chickens in a 5km radius is amateur hour compared to the health-boosting measures adopted in Yaroslavl.
The Romanovskaya poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been instructed to cull its livestock, and destroy all animal products on its premises, following an alleged bird flu outbreak:
All birds, more than 800 thousand in total, will be killed … The destruction of the carcasses, along with poultry products (eggs), will be carried out via incineration at a specially designated site. […]
The poultry farm has not disclosed any details about the order. When a 76.RU correspondent tried to contact company representatives, they declined to comment.
“We are in quarantine. That’s all,” a receptionist said, before hanging up.
The region is a major agricultural hub, so there’s no reason to believe that this bird-liquidation will cause a shortage of poultry or eggs. But…it’s also 800,000 chickens?
Finally, like a bad omen, Tatarstan (which was arguably the most Virus Crazy region in Russia after Moscow/St. Petersburg) is already bracing for the bird flu apocalypse:
It was clear that the COVID grift was rapidly losing its potency when Virus Nanny Anna Popova announced an imminent wave of “Arcturus”.
How many waves of severe-sounding Greek letters and words are possible, before people stop paying attention? Or worse, starting asking questions?
Well, now Russia is sacrificing 800,000 chickens to the Global Health Gods.
By the way: Where did this scary outbreak of bird flu begin? Hard to say for sure, but China recorded the world’s first human death from the new and improved “H3N8 avian influenza strain” in mid-April.
The bird flu scam actually predates COVID by many years. In fact, many of the trusted experts who demanded large-scale chicken slaughter (for public health) later went on to become celebrated “coronavirus experts” who championed worldwide house arrest for the proles—resulting in another mass culling.
Have you ever heard of a psychopath named David Nabarro?
source / source (to be fair to Nabarro, he later described lockdown as a “last resort”, which makes him slightly less disgusting than the typical WHO-certified Neanderthal.)
Let’s not deceive ourselves, friends. Global Biosecurity Theater is forever.
In this episode, a successful career government pharmaceuticals and vaccines testing expert with Health Canada explains why COVID-19 is not proven to exist in applied science. As such, no vaccine will treat a nonexistent pathogen.
Dr. Qureshi has a Ph.D. in fundamental science (chemistry) specializing in analytical chemistry, which covers the science of substances, isolation, identification, characterization, purification, tests developments, validation, and their uses.
For over three years Dr Qureshi has collaborated with other independent scientists and researchers at Principia Scientific International to provide objective, independent analysis to expose the most significant medical fraud in history.
Working with Dr Judy Wilyman – Australia’s most prominent qualified expert in vaccine injury – co-authors, Qureshi, Beatty, and O’Sullivan have compiled an important new book that among other things shows how corrupt policymakers, a controlled media and government ‘experts’ combined to scare us onto surrendering our freedoms – all premised on junk science.
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon reveals how a coordinated international medical hoax – just like the climate scare – is a dystopian population control strategy implemented by a psychopathic billionaire cult pursuing UN Agenda 21(Agenda 2030) to depopulate the planet.
About Dr. Saeed Qureshi
As a senior research scientist for 30 years with Health Canada, Dr. Qureshi conducted experimental studies relating to drug applications for product marketing—undertaking hands-on experimental (scientific) studies for both in vitro and in vivo (animal/human) evaluations.
He has extensively published in peer-reviewed journals and made numerous invited national and international presentations on these topics.
For his scientific accomplishments he has received several high-profile awards including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indus Foundation, India); from the Deputy Minister’s Award of Excellence in Science at Health Canada) plus the Excellence in Science Award also at Health Canada
Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon identifies that modern democracies commonly suffer from a fatal weakness, in that they rely on politicians and government scientists to maintain high ethical standards, indefinitely.
“…This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness…
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests.
[…]
The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.”
“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations”
In the not so distant past, when we walked around feeling healthy without any symptoms of disease, most of us would consider that we were, in fact, free of any disease. There would be no thoughts about going to the doctor for a PCR test in order to determine whether or not we were unknowingly a walking talking “virus” spewing host harboring billions of “infectious” particles capable of transmitting disease to our loved ones. We would not subject ourselves to quarantines and daily testing due to the remote possibility of being around someone who tested positive with symptoms, let alone for anyone testing positive without any signs of disease. We did not go around covering our faces with masks out of fear that those around us may be silent spreaders. We didn’t bust out our rulers in order to measure 6 feet of distance between us and another living soul. None of these irrational actions were ever even a glimmer of a thought until the well-orchestrated fear propaganda campaign promoted the pseudoscientific concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease and catapulted it into the public consciousness.
Even though this idea has been effectively weaponized against us over the last few years, it is not a new one. In fact, as will be shown later, the notion of the asymptomatic carrier began at the same time germ theory was born. The idea is that one can be silently harboring and able to transmit a pathogen without displaying any symptoms of disease whatsoever. This has resulted in the highly illogical creation of asymptomatic disease:
What Does it Mean to Have an Asymptomatic Disease?
“Asymptomatic disease is where a person is infected with a disease (or develops a disease; diagnosed) but fails to display any noticeable symptoms.”
Asymptomatic until symptomatic – silent diseases
“Many diseases and infections can be asymptomatic, including those that may be potentially fatal in some people. These include (but are not limited to): tuberculosis, breast cancer, endometriosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia, hypertension, common colds/flu, and type-2 diabetes mellitus. Many of these conditions remain largely asymptomatic until very advanced disease stages when they suddenly become symptomatic. Others can remain more or less asymptomatic throughout their disease course.”
“Infectious diseases can also be completely asymptomatic (with no symptoms ever manifesting), particularly in younger and healthier individuals. For example, hepatitis (hepatitis C) infections can take up to 6 months to develop, and even then, approximately 80% of infected individuals may not experience any symptoms. Other examples include cholera, herpes, measles, and rubella which can be completely asymptomatic.”
“In summary, asymptomatic disease refers to diseases and infections which do not lead to any symptoms in patients (subclinical) for the whole disease course or until they develop symptoms in which the asymptomatic phase is referred to as pre-symptomatic.
In many respiratory infections including COVID-19, asymptomatic disease is common and may be a source of transmission within the community, though more research is needed to establish the exact contribution asymptomatic transmission has on the community rates of infection.”
As can be seen, many so-called “infectious diseases” are said to be asymptomatic. If one is labelled as asymptomatic, one never develops the disease at any point in time even though they are diagnosed with asymptomatic disease. This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness. One can not have disease if one is not displaying signs of disease:
Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests. In the past, most would have scoffed at this idea and never willingly subjected themselves to quarantines and further testing. In fact, they would have never tested to begin with. However, in the face of a “pandemic” with a “novel virus,” many lined up for the mass testing agenda in order to ensure that they were amongst the “uninfected.” This willingness to subject to testing despite a clear lack of symptoms was primarily driven by fear. This old concept was thrust onto a frightened population and then ramped up in a way that had never been done so before.
In order to understand why there was never any reason to ever participate in this irrational belief of such a ridiculous concept, let’s examine how the asymptomatic carrier first came about at the dawn of germ theory. We will then examine how this idea was weaponized against the public during the “pandemic” despite a complete lack of any scientific evidence in support of the asymptomatic disease carrier.
When German bacteriologist Robert Koch was looking for the causative agents of certain diseases in the late 1800’s, he formulated a series of four logical requirements that needed to be met in order for anyone to claim that a certain microbe caused a specific disease. These were as follows:
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all hosts suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy hosts.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause the same symptoms of disease when introduced into a healthy host.
The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and shown to be identical to the original causative agent.
While these logic-based postulates were accepted by and large within the scientific community, Koch quickly discovered a problem with his very first criterion. Whether it was tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, or cholera, the microbe that he was claiming as causative agents were regularly found in healthy individuals. Thus, Koch was unable to satisfy his very own first Postulate. However, rather than realize that his criteria had worked as he had envisioned and had actually ruled out bacteria and other microbes as a causative agent of disease, Koch allowed for himself and others to bend not only his first postulate, but the others as well. Allowing for the bacteria and other microbes claimed to be causative agents of disease to be found in those without disease lead to the creation of the illogical concept that became known as the asymptomatic carrier of disease. Koch’s entire claim to fame rested entirely on the perception that he was a microbe-hunter. Bending his own rules saved Koch from giving up his prestige, kept his findings intact, and helped to establish the germ theory on unfalsifiable pseudoscientific grounds.
Koch’s idea of asymptomatic “infection” received a big push shortly afterwards when the media released propaganda promoting the idea of an asymptomatic carrier in 1907 by targeting an Irish immigrant by the name of Mary Mollen. Mary was a cook for wealthy families and ended up employed by banker Charles Henry Warren when he rented a summer home for himself and his family. When 6 of the 11 family members came down with the symptoms of typhoid fever over the last week of August, the property owners feared that no one would rent the house again if they believed that the property was the source of the outbreak. A man named George Roper was hired to investigate the situation and he came to the conclusion that it was Mary who had passed on the bacteria to the family through her cooking. This led to a modern day witch-hunt for Mary who refused to believe that she was the source of illness. Sadly, Mary was eventually involuntarily quarantined for the majority of the rest of her life. This ordeal led to Mary being notoriously and unfairly known by the moniker Typhoid Mary, even though many of her stool samples came back negative for the bacterium:
Typhoid Mary: the Tragedy of Mary Mallon
“On 11 November 1938, a 69 year old Irishwoman died on North Brother Island, New York. She had been held in isolation for 23 years, yet she had not been charged or convicted with any criminal offence.
Mary Mallon was born in Cookstown, Ireland in 1869. She immigrated to America when she was a teenager and found employment in domestic service. She developed an aptitude for cooking, and as this paid more than basic service, Mary accepted several jobs as a cook for the wealthy. In 1906, Charles Henry Warren, a New York banker, rented a summer home for himself and his family on Long Island. Mary Mallon was engaged as a cook for the duration of their stay. From the end of August, one by one people began to fall ill with typhoid fever, in all, six of the eleven occupants of the house developed typhoid fever.
The owners of the property feared that they would be unable to secure further tenants if the public believed that the source of the outbreak was their property and so hired Dr George Soper to investigate the cause. Soper came to the conclusion that Mary Mallon was to blame for the spread of disease. Hindering his efforts, Mary had left their employment three weeks after the outbreak. Soper started to investigate the previous situations held by Mary Mallon. From 1900 to 1907 there had been seven jobs where, it was reported, somewhere between twenty-three and thirty-eight people became ill and one person, a child, died. Soper believed that Mary was the source of typhoid fever that had followed her employment history, but he needed biological samples to affirm his hypothesis.”
“The Greater New York Charter allowed for ‘all reasonable means for ascertaining the existence and cause of disease’. It essentially gave health officials the authority to remove Mary Mallon and quarantine her against her will. After two years of isolation, with only a dog for company, Mary sued the health department. They had tested her stools approximately weekly and 120 out of 163 samples proved positive. Yet Mary countered with her own private analysis, sampled over the preceding year, all coming back negative. Mary’s laboratory results proved for her, her healthy status and she failed to understand that she was diagnosed a healthy typhoid carrier. She was arguably the first person identified as such, and having not been charged with a criminal offence she felt it was barbaric to be treated like a criminal (and a ‘leper’) when she was innocent of any crime.”
Mary was falsely quarantined against her will due to one man’s suspicion and hypothesis that rested solely on correlation equaling causation. No scientific experiments were ever carried out proving that Mary was spreading disease to her patrons. As with all claims of asymptomatic transmission, it was a circumstantial case built upon faulty epidemiological data. George Roper is the man who ultimately condemned Mary by labeling her as the cause without any scientific evidence proving his hypothesis. Based upon his own words presented below, he assumed certain premises, such as the bacterium should be in the urine (which it was not) and in the feces. He claimed that stool examinations only failed twice over the course of two weeks to find the bacterium. However, he later recounted several instances of failure to detect the bacterium over the course of several months. In the summer months, few bacterial colonies were found and in the month of July, there were five consecutive negative tests. During the month of August, no typhoid was ever found in Mary’s stools. In September, they began to appear again. However, from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the stools failed to yield any typhoid bacilli. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools showed anywhere from 25 to 50 percent “typhoid-like” colonies on the culture plates. There were two instances within that period where no bacilli were found. Taking into account that Mary’s own independent lab results showed that no bacilli were found within her stools, Soper’s consistently contradictory evidence should have been questioned.
After recounting these failures, Soper shared his thoughts on how Mary transmitted the bacterium through having not washed her hands properly while preparing the food. He based his conclusion upon his interviews where he stated that no housekeeper ever told him that Mary was a clean cook. He did not say whether he asked them or not or rather just assumed that their lack of addressing it was proof that Mary was unsanitary. Soper then stated that, in the most thorough “investigation,” he believed that the bacterium was carried from Mary’s hands to the people who ate ice cream containing cut-up peaches that she had prepared. Again, no evidence was provided beyond his belief. Soper was amazed that no one had ever discovered an asymptomatic carrier in America before him. Interestingly, Soper revealed that he was long interested in the transmission of typhoid fever and knew of Robert Koch’s work. He stated that his interest in this area was longstanding and that Koch’s work was the basis for his own investigation. He admitted that he had read several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. Soper was made aware by Dr. Simon Flexner, of the infamous Flexner report, to some of these references after he had concluded his work on the Mary Mallon case. It is very clear that Soper went looking for evidence to fit his preconceived conclusions as to what the cause was. He was also potentially guided along the way:
The Military Surgeon Vol. XLV July, 1919 Number 1 Original Articles Typhoid Mary
By Major GEORGE A. SOPER
“It was expected by me that the germs might be found in the urine, but more probably in the stools. None was found in the urine. The stools contained the germs in great numbers. Daily examinations made for over two weeks failed only twice to reveal the presence of the Bacillus typhoid and on these occasions the sample taken was perhaps too small to reveal them. The blood gave a positive Widal reaction. The cook appeared to be in perfect health.
The feces were examined on an average of three times a week from March 20 to November 16, 1907, and in only a comparatively few instances did the investigators fail to find the bacilli. During the summer months the culture plates contained only a few typhoid-like colonies. In July there were five consecutive negative tests followed by a positive one.
During August the stool showed no typhoid; in September they began to appear again; from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the feces failed to yield typhoid bacilli. During this time the patient’s diet was carefully regulated and she was receiving mild laxatives. On October 16, 1907, a very thorough test showed that the germs were again present. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools gave, with only two exceptions, from 25 to 50 per cent typhoid-like colonies on the culture plates. These exceptions were on November 13 and December 4, when no typhoid was found. The implication was plain. The cook was virtually a living culture tube in which the germs of typhoid multiplied and from which they escaped in the movements from her bowels. When at toilet her hands became soiled, perhaps unconsciously and invisibly so. When she pre-pared a meal, the germs were washed and rubbed from her fingers into the food. No housekeeper ever gave me to understand that Mary was a particularly clean cook. In the Oyster Bay outbreak, which was studied with more particularity than the others, the infectious matter is believed to have been carried from the cook’s hands to the people who were later taken sick by means of ice cream containing cut-up peaches. Mary prepared this herself. In this instance no heat sterilized the washings from her hands. Mary Mallon was kept virtually a prisoner by the Department of Health for three years. At first she was held at the hospital for contagious diseases at the foot of East 16th Street, Manhattan; later she was removed to Riverside Hospital on North Brother’s Island in the East River, between Hell Gate and Long Island Sound.”
“The case is least remarkable for the reason that it was the first of its kind to be worked out in America. It is surprising that nobody bad discovered a carrier before. They are now known to be rather common.
Somewhat similar investigations bad been made in Germany) and I make no claim of originality or for any other credit in her discovery. My interest and experience in the epidemiology of typhoid had been of long standing. I had read the address which Koch had delivered before the Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademie, November 28, 1902, and his investigation into the prevalence of typhoid at Trier 3 and thought it was one of the most illuminating of documents.In fact it had been the basis of much of tile epidemic work with which I had been connected.
Koch’s address was not the only one printed about this time to show that healthy carriers might exist and give rise to typhoid. Conradi and Drigalski4 had anticipated Koch and it was probably on the suggestion contained in their paper to the effect that with their new culture medium they had found typhoid bacilli in the stools of several well persons that Koch’s flying laboratory was sent to Trier and the ground prepared for his Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademic address.
In the Festschrift Zum SeclizigstenGeburstag von Robert Koch, which appeared in 1903, there are several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. About this time Kayser, Klinger and others were publishing in Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheit-smate reports of cases which they found to be due to persons whose condition was much like Typhoid Mary’s. Dr. Simon Flexner kindly called my attention to some of these references after I had concluded my work on the Mary Mallon case.”
After the highly publicized Typhoid Mary case, this idea of asymptomatic carriers simmered in the background over the next century. While there were claims of such a state in certain diseases, this has never been scientifically proven. However, that did not stop Koch’s escape clause from taking a prominent role in the “Covid crisis,” primarily due to a mass testing campaign that was bound to identify positive cases in healthy people using fraudulent tests never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated “virus.” Although all PCR results are false-positives, we can see that even the CDC noted that testing people without symptoms generates false-positive cases. They stated as much under their PCR guidelines for pertussis when recommending not to test those without symptoms:
Diagnosis PCR Best Practices
“However, only patients with signs and symptoms consistent with pertussis should be tested by PCR to confirm the diagnosis. Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results. Asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases should not be tested and testing of contacts should not be used for post-exposure prophylaxis decisions.”
Thus, we can see that the CDC were well aware that testing people without symptoms will lead to an influx of cases labelled as asymptomatic “infections” when they are, in fact, not “infected” or diseased at all. This massive amount of asymptomatic cases of “SARS-COV-2” based upon fraudulent test results has cemented the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier into the minds of the populace. A timely December 2020 review, while reiterating the history of the asymptomatic carrier described above, pointed out the fact that even though asymptomatic infection and transmission has always been a concept waiting it the wings, it has only recently been thrust into the limelight with this “pandemic:”
Invisible epidemics: ethics and asymptomatic infection
History
“Dr Robert Koch was one of the founders of modern microbiology, and his work is particularly well known for a set of postulates (first published in 1890) linking microbes with the causation of infectious disease (Gradmann 2010). Though variously expressed, one of Koch’s initial postulates was that the microbe putatively responsible for a disease should be found in all people suffering from the disease, but not in healthy individuals (Gradmann 2010). Koch soon realised that this did not hold true in all cases, since many potentially pathogenic organisms are frequently found in healthy people. For example, Koch observed that asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid, and malaria could spread these diseases to others, and he is credited for inventing the concept of the carrier state (i.e., in which healthy people asymptomatically carry an infection) (Gradmann 2010).
Public awareness of asymptomatic carriage of infection increased, especially in English-speaking countries, with media reporting of the case of Mary Mallon (known as “Typhoid Mary”) beginning in 1907. Mallon was a cook working in New York who, although showing no signs of typhoid disease herself, spread typhoid bacteria to many other people, resulting in several deaths (Brooks 1996; Soper 1939). For the general population, this revealed an important truth: that “persons, rather than things” (Soper 1939) were the source of many infectious diseases. Despite this Copernican revolution in public health (an epidemiological parallel of the microbiological revolution of germ theory), Mary Mallon and many others found it difficult to believe that healthy people could spread disease. Mallon repeatedly resisted public health restrictions and refused to believe she was infected or posed risks to others. She spent the latter years of her life living in public health confinement on North Brother Island, working as an assistant in the local infectious disease laboratory (Soper 1939).”
Implications for outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics
“Asymptomatic infection was recognised to be a significant factor in the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic, particularly because many of those who were infected—including some women who acquired infection during pregnancy and gave birth to children severely affected by congenital Zika syndrome—showed few or no symptoms (Jamrozik and Selgelid 2018). Although less well recognised, transmission of asymptomatic Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infection (perhaps both camel-human and human–human transmission) may play an important role in the epidemiology of MERS—which is all the more remarkable because people who develop symptomatic MERS infection have a high fatality risk of around 35% (Grant et al. 2019). Asymptomatic infection has also been reported for viruses closely related to the coronavirus that caused the earlier severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. In one study from 2003, around 40% of Chinese wild animal traders had serological evidence of having been exposed to coronaviruses that closely resembled SARS-coronavirus, raising questions about whether people in high risk occupations should be screened for asymptomatic infection to detect potential “spillover” events of pathogens with epidemic potential (Guan et al. 2003). We initiated the November 2018 Brocher Foundation workshop upon which this Special Issue is based partly in light of the growing awareness of such cases of asymptomatic infection—and their ethical implications for policy and practice.
Since that time general awareness of asymptomatic infection has skyrocketed in light of its role in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid19) pandemic, in virtue of which the term ‘asymptomatic infection’ has become highly familiar to ordinary members of the general public. Early data, which were later widely confirmed, suggested that asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 occurs both in cases where the individual transmitting the virus goes on to develop symptoms later (i.e., they were “pre-symptomatic” at the time of transmission) and in cases where they never develop symptoms (Hu et al. 2020). Asymptomatic individuals can, under certain conditions, transmit to large numbers of other people (e.g., one person was shown to infect 71 others) (Liu et al. 2020). The overall degree to which asymptomatic transmission contributes to local Covid19 epidemics likely varies in different contexts and has not always been well-characterised (in part because of the difficulties of identifying all asymptomatic infections during an epidemic). In any case, asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 raises a number of ethical issues similar to those discussed above, including those related to the justification of public health interventions such as screening and isolation for asymptomatic cases.”
While the asymptomatic carrier was made a star of the “Covid” show in order to generate fear and drive compliance towards quarantines, lockdowns, social-distancing, and masking, the message has been entirely inconsistent throughout, and the lack of any valid scientific evidence proving such a carrier state was on full display from the very beginning. At a White House press briefing on January 28th 2020, the idea of asymptomatically transmitting the “novel coronavirus” was floated out there as a possibility. The CDC claimed to have heard reports about asymptomatic cases but had not seen any of the data. At the time, poster boy Anthony Fauci stated that, based upon past evidence from respiratory “viruses” of any type, asymptomatic transmission was never a driver behind any outbreaks or spread of disease:
Asymptomatic transmission
“There’s a difference between someone who has the virus and is about to show symptoms and someone who gets it and never has any noticeable sign. The second type is purely asymptomatic and there was a lot of uncertainty on this point at a Jan. 28 White House briefing. The CDC said there were reports of it, but they hadn’t seen the data.
Fauci put the question into the context of past coronaviruses.
“We would really like to see the data because, if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, etc. But the one thing historically people need to realize is that, even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
However, a few days later on February 3rd, 2020, Anthony Fauci had changed his tune and stated that, based upon a single paper, he had no doubt that asymptomatic transmission was occurring and that the study he had read had laid the case to rest. Unfortunately for Fauci, the conclusive evidence that asymptomatic transmission occurred was based upon false information. The study in question claimed that a woman, who had been in a meeting in Germany with four people who later became ill, was an asymptomatic carrier as she had no symptoms at the time of the meeting and became ill upon her flight home to China. For some reason, the authors of the paper failed to actually speak to the woman and wrote the paper solely based upon what the four patients told them. Ironically, the Robert Koch Institute actually spoke to the woman and confirmed that she was symptomatic at the time of the meeting, thus giving Fauci a nice serving of egg on his face:
“Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”
But now, it turns out that information was wrong.
The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.
But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, officials at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal public health agency, and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)”
In March 2020, a top Chinese health official completely contradicted Fauci by stating that there was no evidence that asymptomatic carriers could spread illness to others:
‘No evidence’ asymptomatic carriers spread coronavirus, Chinese health official claims
“A top Chinese health official sought to allay growing fears over asymptomatic coronavirus carriers on Monday, saying there was “no evidence” they could spread the illness but medical workers should remain alert to the risk.”
Not one to be made the fool, in April 2020, Fauci suggested that there were millions of silent spreaders in the US. In fact, he claimed that asymptomatic infections made up anywhere from 25 to 50% of the infections. He backed his figures up by confidently stating that they were just guessing as they had no scientific data to support these guesstimates. Fauci stated that he wouldn’t have any “scientific” data until mass antibody testing was carried out. He said that it was impossible to know who is infected without symptoms until you test everyone who has no symptoms. This lends credence to the fact that testing people without symptoms will, as the CDC stated with pertussis, create nothing but false-positives:
Fauci once dismissed concerns about ‘silent carriers’ of coronavirus. Not anymore.
At Sunday’s White House briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of “silent carriers” may be unwittingly spreading the coronavirus across the United States because they don’t realize they’re infected.
The idea that at least some coronavirus carriers don’t feel sick isn’t new. But the scale of Fauci’s estimate was.”
“It’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent” of the total, Fauci said. But “right now,” he went on, “we’re just guessing.”
“The first thing to note is that Fauci himself expressed a high degree of uncertainty about his own numbers. “I don’t have any scientific data to say that,” he admitted Sunday. “You know when we’ll get the scientific data? When we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way.”
“Fauci was right to be cautious. As he noted, it’s impossible to say how many carriers never showed symptoms until you’ve tested a bunch of people who never showed symptoms — something that will only happen after the worst of the pandemic is over and scientists start trying to determine, en masse, who does and doesn’t have immunity. (More on that later.)”
“Last week Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield told NPR that “one of the [pieces of] information that we have pretty much confirmed now is that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually remain a asymptomatic.”
In June 2020, the WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of asymptomatic transmission by claiming that it appears to be rare based upon the data that was seen. In fact, she claimed that investigators were not finding any cases of secondary transmission from an asymptomatic carrier to anyone else:
Coronavirus spread by asymptomatic people ‘appears to be rare,’ WHO official says
“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Van Kerkhove said on Monday.
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It is very rare — and much of that is not published in the literature,” she said. “We are constantly looking at this data and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question. It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”
However, by November 2020, Fauci was defiant against the WHO’s admittance that no secondary transmissions were occurring and stated that he was certain that 40-45% of the transmission was due to asymptomatic carriers. Fauci hammered home the point as to why masks, which he had claimed offered no protection in March 2020, were now essential in November 2020:
Anthony Fauci’s Thoughts on Covid-19 Transmission, Treatments, and Vaccines
“Speaking of asymptomatic spread, Fauci says that 40–45% of transmission is due to asymptomatic people unwittingly infecting others. This is why masks are so essential — by wearing one, you protect other people even if you don’t know that you’re infected.”
In December 2021, Fauci was defeated yet again when the “discoverer” of Omicron, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, questioned whether such a thing as an asymptomatic carrier even existed at all. She stated that they had seen no asymptomatic cases of Omicron and then recommended that those without symptoms need not test:
‘There’s no reason to test if you have no symptoms,’ and 2 other findings from the woman instrumental in first identifying omicron
“Notably, Coetzee suggested that asymptomatic cases of the omicron variant are rare, if such a condition exists at all.
Asked during a Christmas Eve interview on MSNBC if “there was not such a thing as an asymptomatic case of omicron,” Coetzee responded: “We haven’t seen it.”
Secondly, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association also told MSNBC on Friday that she doesn’t recommend testing by individuals until, and if, symptoms arise from the variant. “There’s no reason to test if you don’t have symptoms,” she said.”
In another blow to the ego of “Science,” an April 2021 study published by the CDC saw Fauci’s statements contradicted yet again when the researchers found no asymptomatic transmission. In fact, they stated that their findings were in line with other studies and that asymptomatic transmission was unlikely to contribute to the spread of “Covid,” which torpedoed Fauci’s claims of 40-45% of transmission being due to those without symptoms:
Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020
“We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure. Rapid quarantine of close contacts with or without symptoms is needed to prevent presymptomatic transmission.”
Conclusions
“In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred.
The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies (9–11).”
“In conclusion, our study suggests that asymptomatic cases are unlikely to contribute substantially to the spread of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 cases should be detected and managed early to quarantine close contacts immediately and prevent presymptomatic transmissions.”
While Fauci’s claims of asymptomatic transmission were obviously unfounded, there were many asymptomatic cases being generated due to the fraudulent testing, as predicted by the CDC with pertussis. Thus, the perception that asymptomatic people were spreading a “virus” was easily conveyed to the public based upon unscientific data. We can see evidence of the massive amounts of healthy people testing positive for a “virus” by way of the mandatory mass testing data that came out of China throughout the “pandemic.” For instance, in March of 2022, Shanghai reported that over 70% of their cases were asymptomatic.
Why is Shanghai seeing so many asymptomatic Covid-19 infections?
“China is in the grip of an Omicron wave, but about 70 percent of cases reported in March have not had any symptoms.”
“Of the 103,965 locally acquired cases reported in March, only 3,046 had symptoms, according to National Health Commission data. And most of the asymptomatic infections were reported in Shanghai.”
By November of 2022, China was seeing upwards of 90% of their reported cases described as asymptomatic.
China Reports Third Consecutive Daily Record for New COVID Cases
“China reported 35,183 new COVID-19 infections on Friday, of which 3,474 were symptomatic and 31,709 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Saturday, setting a new high for the third consecutive day.
That compared with 32,943 new cases a day earlier — 3,103 symptomatic and 29,840 asymptomatic infections, which China counts separately.
Excluding imported cases, China reported 34,909 new local cases on Friday, of which 3,405 were symptomatic and 31,504 were asymptomatic, up from 32,695 a day earlier.”
By December 2022, China had given up on reporting their overwhelming amount of asymptomatic cases in their daily Covid counts:
China stops publishing asymptomatic COVID cases, reports no deaths
“China’s National Health Commission (NHC) will as of Wednesday stop reporting new asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as many people without symptoms no longer participate in testing, making it hard to accurately tally the total count, it said.”
There were many reasons provided for why China had so many asymptomatic cases but it easily boiled down to their untargeted mass surveillance testing of the entire population. It is clear that if one goes looking for cases, one will find them whether symptomatic or not. In China, it was very much the latter as they were seeing over 98% asymptomatic rates in Shanghai based upon their testing data. This goes against the idea that mass testing would find more symptomatic cases. As more healthy people were subjected to a fraudulent test, the more “healthy sick” people that could be added to the overall totals:
Explainer-Why are Shanghai’s COVID infections nearly all asymptomatic?
“The number of new confirmed community transmitted cases in the major financial hub of Shanghai reached 4,477 on Tuesday, a record high, but only 2.1% showed symptoms. The share of symptomatic cases over the previous seven days was around 1.6%.”
“Following are some explanations for why the rate of asymptomatic cases is so high.
Surveillance Testing
China is also the only major country to do mass, untargeted surveillance testing, which is bound to uncover more asymptomatic cases, although it could also be expected to reveal more symptomatic cases.
“Surely, high levels of testing will pick up more rather than less asymptomatic cases,” said Adrian Esterman, an expert in biostatistics at the University of South Australia.”
Mass testing with fraudulent tests led to a surge in healthy people being fraudulently labelled as asymptomatic carriers. It doesn’t matter that this very act of mass testing, as the CDC stated, increases the likelihood of false-positives (even though they are all false-positives). This perception of a massive number of “infections” of a “virus” regardless of any disease being present only helped to further solidify this illogical concept into the minds of a fearful public as if it were a scientifically proven fact when it is anything but. Ironically, despite their “test, test, test” mantra, the WHO actually claimed that its guidelines never recommended mass testing of asymptomatic people as was being done in China due to high costs involved and the lack of data of its effectiveness:
Analysis: Test, test, test? Scientists question costly mass COVID checks
“WHO guidelines have never recommended mass screening of asymptomatic individuals – as is currently happening in China – because of the costs involved and the lack of data on its effectiveness.”
Thus, we can see that there truly is nothing behind the claim of an asymptomatic carrier of disease other than the fraudulent label provided by technology never meant for diagnostic use, especially on such a massive scale as we witnessed during this “pandemic.” PCR can find anything in anyone and the result is utterly meaningless, as stated by inventor Kary Mullis:
“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
“[PCR is] just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, it doesn’t tell you that the thing you’ve ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
The asymptomatic excuse was created in face of conflicting evidence by a man who wanted nothing more than to protect his prestige and his findings. Robert Koch was under pressure from a growing field of researchers who were either contradicting his own findings or making new discoveries of their own. Koch needed a way to ensure that his own research would stand up to scrutiny. Bending his own logical postulates in order to allow for the asymptomatic carrier to exist allowed for his contradictory findings, as well as those put forward by later researchers, to persevere in the face of any further challenges by opponents:
“Whatever I undertake these days, there will be a bunch of the envious and jealous at hand. They will try to challenge me and if they don’t succeed, try to make me turn away from my work in disgust.”
“Those happy days are gone when the number of bacteriologists was small and each of them could research wide areas in an undisturbed manner…So now in making the most modest and most careful delineation of a research area you will step on the first colleagues’ toes or bump into a second one unintentionally, or come too close to the third’s field of work. Before you even realise it, you are surrounded by opponents.”
It is clear to anyone looking at the idea of an asymptomatic carrier of disease logically that this very notion does not stand up under scrutiny. This nonsense was summed up brilliantly by the late great Canadian researcher David Crowe:
“Someone who believes in the virus can explain this conundrum to me.
“It has been strongly stated that asymptomatic people can be infectious for quite a long time (I can provide references if you don’t believe me, but this has been widely stated). This means that for quite a long time their body has a large quantity of virus particles, otherwise infection wouldn’t be possible. But their body doesn’t react to these particles, an immune reaction would at least result in a fever. But without an immune reaction they can never get rid of the virus particles. And how is it that virus particles running around the body of some people don’t do anything, whereas other people get seriously ill and die? How do all the virus particles in one person know that they shouldn’t mess with the cells to cause symptoms, whereas in another person they all go crazy and cause devastation?
“So we can conclude that (1) Asymptomatic people never get rid of the virus and therefore must be quarantined forever; (2) It’s the virus that’s deficient, not the person, which must mean there are multiple dramatically different strains; or (3) the viral theory is a load of BS.
“Please help me.”
-David Crowe March 31st, 2020
It is obviously number 3. The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.
If germ “theory” is wrong, there is no sense in pursuing alleged disease-causing sub-microscopic organisms. That’s why the germ theorists don’t want us scratching beneath the surface of the so-called ‘science‘ involving bacteria either.
Let’s have a look at why the concept of “pathogens” is a complete fail on their own terms from Koch’s Postulates through to some modern day animal experiments.
Some guests have argued why there is no such thing as an immune system.
Some guests have thought about alternative causes of illness.
The point is that there are good reasons to question the conventional model of “Rockefeller medicine”. Much of it doesn’t make sense and desperately requires critique.
Blindly believing what the pharmaceutical industry, governments and media preach from their pulpits, after observing the Covid™ scam, is utterly ludicrous. I have become an allopathic atheist. An apostate.
Climate science is drowning in pseudoscience and so is virology.
Andrew Kaufman, who has been on my show a few times before, joined me for the following conversation of conversations.
A beginner’s guide to Germ Theory.
He approached important concepts, including
virus definitions, isolation and fake existence claims;
understanding contagion and “catching” something from somebody;
bacteria and germs in general;
why all vaccines are toxic;
what is disease, actually;
shifting paradigms about health and wellbeing and
the significance of bringing down this house of germs cards.
All images are original artwork of Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
Dangerous Nanoparticles Hidden in Vaccines & Our Environment”: “Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”
“Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”
TCTL editor’s note: As a service to our readers, this article, written in German, has been translated to English with the aid of translation software. Please understand that this is not a perfect translation. I do not speak German. However, the key concepts come through very clearly.
The work of Stefan Lanka and ‘Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered’ challenges the entire paradigm around western medicine’s understand of biology (and the make-believe “science” of virology).
It is vitally important that we come to understand the danger of this long-planned, destructive transformation and total control of humanity and all living beings. We need to awaken to the truth about our own biology and the totality of our multi-dimensional existence. The quality of life for all who inhabit earth depends on sharing real knowledge, questioning the old paradigms built on lies, and the rise of empowered humanity. ~ Kathleen
As has already been learned, the new corona vaccines come with accompanying substances declared as “additives”, the so-called nanoparticles.
Although their high risk potential has already been sufficiently investigated in the past, this is accepted with approval. No consideration is given to the health of the individual, and even possible long-term consequences for those affected are accepted.
By means of continuously running the epidemic mind-frame through clever propaganda, expensive advertising and the generation of social pressure, one pulls out all the stops to get each individual to “roll up their sleeves”.
Yes – to indulge in this vaccine!
One protects even scarcity, in order to awaken needs in the people. And all this despite the fact that it cannot be called effective, let alone safe.
In this article, I share with you various information revolving around the issue of nanoparticles, and can only appeal to your sanity to keep your hands (arm 😉 ) off this vaccine and let others know this as well.
In a nutshell:
Real biochemistry: nanoparticles are extremely reactive, can hardly be degraded and disrupt and destroy all tissues they come in contact with. The body reacts to this disruption for repair purposes by forming globulins, which are misinterpreted by conventional medicine as antibodies.
Why do those responsible claim that nanoparticles are necessary as an additive?
Of special importance are the RNA vaccines, which are additionally equipped with nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles as mini-transporters. But making the right RNA molecule does not mean you have a working vaccine.
” It is difficult to get the RNA into the human body cells,” says Cichutek.
Gene shuttles with nanoparticles are supposed to solve the problem. Measuring only a few millionths of a centimeter, they carry the packaged strands of genetic material through the cell wall and prevent the vaccine from degrading too quickly in the body.
One of the problems in the preparation and administration of mRNA vaccines is the natural instability of mRNA.
In order to prevent, or at least delay, the degradation of mRNA and to deliver the administered (e.g., injected) mRNA to the site of the claimed effect (i.e., into the cells where the ribosomes then carry out the desired protein synthesis), a variety of highly complex additives are used.
So far, meaningful safety studies are available for very few of these additives (Roier S. 2019. Trillium Immunology 3/2019. Retrieved 03.05.2020), and some of the most commonly used adjuvants are related to nanotechnology (e.g., lipid nanoparticles/LNPs), for which in any case only very limited and contradictory experience in human use is available.
The danger of nanoparticles used in food, vaccines and others
The fact that these nanoparticles are extremely controversial and known to pose a high risk is strangely swept under the rug.
But what shocks me personally the most: How can scientists, whose job it is to check how dangerous the use of these nanoparticles and other toxins is in a person’s organism, completely play this down and even endorse it, as if we were dealing with the most normal thing in the world?
Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology, quote:
“In animal experiments, the particles have migrated right into the nucleus of body cells and damaged the genetic information there,”
or
“Their tininess, however, also poses the risk that they are much more likely to overcome natural barriers in the body – such as the blood-brain barrier.”
“It has already been established that when nanoparticles are inhaled, they cause inflammatory reactions in the lungs.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]
[…]
“You always have to ask yourself the question: what happens to it in the organism then? That’s why we are particularly skeptical.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]
-In a study published in the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON).
“Using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticles were observed to settle in the cytoplasm and karyoplasm of lung epithelial and mesothelial cells, but were also found in the mammary fluid. These cases raise concerns that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles can cause severe damage to human lungs without protective measures. Pulmonary fibrosis and foreign body granulomas of the pleura.”
“There is increasing evidence that nanoparticles in polluted air can have a negative effect on our brains.
“Observational studies have shown, for example, that people who live near busy roads and breathe this air permanently have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Toxicological studies must now prove whether there is a direct causal relationship.
“We are currently investigating this at our institute. But we are also wondering whether nanoparticles in products can have harmful effects on our brains.”
[…]
“We have studied several nanomaterials. We were able to detect conspicuous features in nanosilver. This substance is used for detergents or toothbrushes, for example, because it kills bacteria.”
[…]
“Of course, we can’t yet say whether this can lead to illness.”
[…]
“Too little is known yet about whether nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and tissue. We would like to help close this knowledge gap.”
[…]
“Toxicological tests unfortunately cannot always provide one hundred percent certainty. We are dealing here with complex mechanisms of action, some of which have not yet been elucidated. So it can’t be ruled out that a new substance comes onto the market that only afterwards proves to be harmful to health.”
This article from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is dated 04/06/2019.
The Federal Government has knowledge of all this and yet – without regard for just one single life – has approved the new mRNA vaccine and is vaccinating people with it at this very moment and intends to use it on our youngest children as well.
Please forgive me, but the deliberate ignoring of such clear facts, which are known to all involved, can only be glossed over with a heavy heart as an oversight on the part of those responsible.
In this context, I would like to refer to the vaccine Pandemrix, which was used in the so-called “swine flu” pandemic and caused considerable side effects. [Cf. WDR]
Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist, virologist and winner of the measles trial [See our video]), had already warned in 2009, before the use of the then vaccine Pandemrix, shortly before its market launch:
“The strong destructive power of cells by nanoparticles, such as the so-called “auxiliary substance” (adjuvant) MF59 in the flu vaccine for the elderly, is based on the known fact that transport between cells in organs and tissues occurs with particles of this size and the cell cannot distinguish between ‘foreign’ and ‘own’.
“The penetration of the nanoparticles into the cell envelopes damages them and destroys the cells.
“Due to the fact that these nanoparticles are also very stable in the body, it is known that, for a longer time, cells in the body are destroyed. And this reacts with the formation of globulins as a sealing substance of the cells. And this increase of the globulin concentration is claimed by vaccine [manufacturers], against better knowledge, as antibodies and as protection against freely invented pathogens.
“When globulins are present in greater concentration, their binding to all kinds of proteins is detectable.”
The Paul Ehrlich Institute suppressed as long as possible the devastating and inconceivable fact that nanoparticles were already present in other vaccines. Only after diverse pressure was exerted, the PEI had to admit this fact.
“Even if some of these components are located in a size range that is in the nanometer range, they are not technologically targeted nanoparticles, especially not nanoparticles made of metals or plastics.”
Regulatory agencies, including the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), completely ignore this issue.
Note: Amazing that they first denied that nanoparticles were present at all and then, caught, manipulatively tried to wriggle out of it by pretending that they were “not purposefully” manufactured.
Let me tell you something: The task of the Paul Ehrlich Institute is to check from the outset whether harmful substances are present in a vaccination and not to determine only after the child has fallen into the well!
How can we continue to believe such institutions when it comes to our precious health? It is best to leave it alone. I don’t even want to mention the other outrages of the PEI, such as the concealment of the many dead vaccinated babies by the vaccine Hexavac (How safe are vaccines really? – Dr. med [medical doctor] Klaus Hartmann) …
The BioNTech mRNA vaccine is a danger for mankind, for whose side effects including death. Uğur Şahin is personally responsible.
From the point of view of orthodox medicine, the vaccination should not be used.
Because RNA is transformed into DNA by several mechanisms and damages chromosomes.
Because it will hit the body’s own enzymes, which are misinterpreted as components of the virus.
Strictly speaking, the BioNTech RNA vaccine is even more dangerous than nanoparticles themselves, because the RNA to be vaccinated is encased in lipid nanoparticles, and here we find a double-reactive mixture that will accumulate mainly in the brain and cause much more narcolepsy than was the case with the swine flu vaccine.
The vaccine from Mainz (mRNA) contains fats in their non-dissolvable and constantly-very-reactive nano-particle form, including the known allergen, the solvent PEG (polyethanol glycol).
In addition, the vaccine will cause chromosome strand breaks in an unknown number of people, resulting in energy depletion, infertility and disability of offspring if the chromosome breaks also happen in the “germ line” of males and females.
This is the shortest possible description of the vaccine damage for which Uğur Şahin is personally responsible. For sure, there will be an observable number of deaths, which will then be said to have happened as a result of the virus.
With the engrained belief in an evil biology (orthodox medicine), coupled with the collective compulsion for return on investment, one might almost assume that medical professionals actually believe that vaccination could help.
Most practicing physicians have never studied this information and trust the responsible scientists themselves and [do so] completely blindly.
So our task should not be to demonize those responsible, but to point out to them their error.
One of the simplest ways is to look to see if any studies at all have been done on the so-called pharmacokinetic properties.
“Pharmacokinetics describes the totality of processes that a drug undergoes in the body. This includes the drug’s uptake (absorption), distribution in the body (distribution), biochemical conversion and degradation (metabolization), and excretion (excretion).”
In short, what happens to all toxins (disguised as additives) within the organism?
We see that a simple “not applicable” was noted in the SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICINE.
These studies are omitted for just about all vaccines. A statement about whether this vaccine potentially harms the body and how the mixture of the injected material behaves in the body is simply left to fate by those responsible!
If this information does not take your breath away, then I suspect you are not taking it very seriously in other respects either :).
New studies confirm: Various vaccines are contaminated by micro- and nanoscale particles and described as non-biodegradable and non-biocompatible.
Unknown to most people is the fact that today’s vaccines are already contaminated with nanoparticles, as random tests have shown:
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
[…]
“After injection, these microparticles, nanoparticles, and aggregates can remain at the injection site and form swellings and granulomas … However, they can also be transported through the bloodstream, eluding any attempt to guess their final destination … As with all foreign bodies, especially those so small, they trigger an inflammatory response that is chronic because most of these particles cannot be broken down. In addition, the protein corona effect can … due to a nano-bio interaction … generate organic/inorganic composite particles that can stimulate the immune system in undesirable ways…It is impossible not to add that particles of the size commonly observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with DNA …”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas.17 But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…
“As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nanobio-interaction can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable ways. It is impossible not to add that particles, the size often observed in vaccines, can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA.”
Several important questions arise from the results of this 2017 study that demand answers:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally introduced into vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for conventional vaccines UNFORTUNATELY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nanotechnology is already being used to manufacture several vaccines – ostensibly to “improve efficacy.” In fact, the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-vaccine. Does this manufacturing process bring with it the inevitable effect of a hurricane of nanoparticle contamination?
How many cases of brain damage and autism in children can open the door to [seeing] nanoparticle contamination?
Finally, where are these contaminated vaccines being manufactured?
The above study did not attempt to find out. It was outside the scope of the research. It is common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the U.S., vaccines or their ingredients are not domestically produced in many cases. Where does this lead to control safety? For example, in China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals related to product contamination?
The vaccine company is not showing the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending that the questions do not exist.
It would be suicidal to trust the establishment.
Even more explosive in connection with RNA and nano-vaccines is the reference to the Gene Drive Files, which the Heinrich Böll Foundation uncovered a few years ago. These show that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned a PR firm to secretly undermine an important UN process on the subject of synthetic biology.
Although all this is well known, Christian Drosten (Berlin Charité) comes up with the following words: “Gene-based vaccines have potential“.
The only conclusion can be: Prof. Drosten does not know what he is talking about!
The Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health Protection in Industrial Workers confirms “nanotoxicity” on human health
Combined subchronic toxicity of aluminum (III), titanium (IV), and silicon (IV) oxide nanoparticles and their alleviation with a complex of bioprotectors
Summary
“The use of nanoparticles-including metallic nanoparticles-has exploded in industry, commerce, and medicine in recent decades. A Russian research team studied the ‘nanotoxicity’ of three types of metal nanoparticles (titanium, silicon, and aluminum oxide) alone and in combination. Repeated injections in rats showed that all three were “toxic to multiple target organs.”
“For the majority of these effects,” however, the alumina nanoparticles were found to be “most harmful,” even though the aluminum dose was only half that of titanium and silicon. No other publications have reported on the combined toxicity of these metal nanoparticles, despite their ‘potentially hazardous nano-effects on human health’.”
The HELMHOLTZ Center for Infection Research has been exploring other avenues for years: Vaccination without a syringe via nanoparticles through creams to be applied to the skin or application via nasal spray.
Quote:
“The nanoparticles penetrate the skin through the hair follicles and trigger an immune response in the body,” says Hanzey Yasar of HIPS. “Such a vaccine would be very easy to administer and would certainly be well received by the population.”
In it, he describes not only how the safety claims of pharmaceutical manufacturers are made without any scientific study, but also how they can be completely refuted based on scientific evidence.
It is known from medicine that a high concentration of nanoparticles leads to fibrotic changes in lung tissue.
There is also evidence that these particles are associated with respiratory diseases as well as an increase in inflammatory markers and an increased tendency to blood clotting disorders, which can increase the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and strokes.
Nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier and it is unexplored what may be triggered by this.
With the background knowledge that all vaccines are based on a false foundation and do little harm at best — adding to the fact that the dangers of the nanoparticles used are known to the entire science bench as well as to critical colleagues — these dangers must be addressed and cannot continue to be ignored, or suppressed.
Act. If not for yourself, then for the children!
The entire NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered team will support you and answer your questions.
Dear friends, here is the recording of my very interesting conversation with Marvin Haberland. Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany. As a result of a tragedy in his family, he decided to investigate the subject of medicine. This investigation led him to virology, and he eventually discovered that the foundations of virology were based on anti-scientific misconceptions. After realizing this, Marvin decided to act.
Our conversation today will focus on his upcoming trial in Germany on April 26, 2023, in Hamburg. This trial will be the second trial in history designed to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.
References cited in the interview with Marvin Haberland.
Marvin’s letter to the court and his Freedom of Information request:
Transcript of first 25 mins. prepared by TCTL editor:
Katie:
Hello everyone. My name is Katie and today my very special guest is Marvin Haberland.
Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany.
As a result of a health tragedy in his family, he decided to take a deep look at medicine. That exploration led him eventually to virology and, as a consequence, he discovered that the foundations of virology are based on anti-scientific misconceptions.
Marvin decided to do something about this realization.
Our today’s conversation will revolve around his upcoming court case in Germany, which as far as I am aware, will be the 2nd court case in history that aims to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.
So, Marvin, I think it would be great to talk about your story.
What got you interested in the subject of virology and how did you start noticing there is something wrong with it?
Marvin:
Yes, thank you for the invitation.
Katie:
You’re welcome. Thank you for coming.
Marvin:
So, like you said, basically due to a tragedy in my family. So my grandmother, she died when I was studying in the US.
And that got me quite interested in the topic; as she, before she was diagnosed with the cancer, she always asked me, ‘Marvin, you’re always so smart. You’re always researching things. Can you help me?’.
And I was always saying, which I now regret, ‘Grandmother, look, I don’t know. I have no knowledge on this topic. Please go consult the doctors.’ And so on.
I was kind of ignorant, which from today’s perspective, of course, I regret. But this is the way it is.
So when she died, this triggered something in me and I started to then really research the topic of chemotherapy. And I found out that basically it’s not really based on evidence. There are very, very low-quality studies without any control groups. There is always comparing chemotherapy to another chemotherapy, or chemotherapy to chemotherapy plus a new drug. But there is never the zero control group, without any therapy, or very rare to find that.
And actually if you research the real figures, the efficiency of the five-year survival rate is about 2.3% only, which is basically zero because the statistical fluctuations.
So when I found this out it was very surprising to me. And then from that point, I also looked right and left of this topic to nutritionist sciences where I found very, very similar results. And also infectious disease and germ theory. And that got me interested in the field.
Katie:
From when you started your research, what was the first thing that you started to research the virology topic?
Marvin:
Yeah. So first was basically chemotherapy/ cancer, then nutritional sciences. And from that I moved on to virology and I found out about Stefan Lanka’s work.
So basically, first was the measles virus and the early scientific practices, or unscientific practices, of Enders and Peebles in 1954. And then I also researched, of course, Pasteur and Robert Koch, from the really early beginnings of germ theory and vaccinations.
And then from there I moved on to HIV.
I bought the book — I have it here — the ‘Virus Mania’ book from Engelbrecht… and other authors, which got me very interested in HIV also.
And then I discovered there is a pattern in virology. It’s always the same.
So, measles, HIV, SARS-CoV-1… These are repeating patterns which I found very interesting.
And then when covid or corona came up, I immediately did the research.
I remember in January 2020 when this came up, I went to GISAID [China National GeneBank] and other platforms where they upload the genomes. And I tried to figure out — OK, maybe this time they did the correct isolation, the correct scientific procedures.
And I figured out, OK, this is the same like with the swine flu, with the bird flu, with the SARS-1.
So from very early on, I was interested again.
I decided to start to be more active in speaking out and do work in this field to spread the misconceptions and the scientific fraud, basically.
I thought this was important because many people don’t know about this and I felt responsible to share.
Katie:
Let’s talk about the court case and what motivated you to go there, to do it. And what did you do?
This is important. What did you do to get there? And why are you doing it? And what is your goal?
Marvin:
First of all, I got motivated to do it, basically, also by Stefan Lanka who had a court case in 2015 about measles virus.
So little different strategy than mine, but pretty similar.
And he was saying in the beginning of covid, ‘OK, people of Germany, if you get these fines because you’re not wearing the mask or because you are meeting with other people during the lockdown, and so on, just…’. He laid out the basic strategy how to go to court.
And what I did is I just didn’t wear the mask. I had a mask zone directly in front of my house, so I couldn’t even exit my door without wearing a mask, which I didn’t want to do.
And after receiving the fine, I just objected it and I sent the court specific abstract from the law, which is basically the first paragraph, in Germany, of the infectious disease law, which says that every virologist, every institutional authority, has to work according to the status quo of science, scientific practice.
And I am basically saying that in virology this is not at all the case. And they are not following the scientific method. And not any sort of scientific method that is required.
And I sent proof to the court from several different Freedom of Information acts…
I sent one to the University of Melbourne in Australia and several others.
So my argumentation is basically the law is is not fulfilled, and these are my proofs. And this is why I am not willing to pay the fine.
Basically this is just the strategy. And we will see how this goes.
It will be on the 26th of April.
After my first invitation got cancelled. It was originally scheduled the 19th of October last year, but then I received a cancellation letter because the judge apparently got sick.
And now I have the second invitation. So we will see.
And there are many others that do this in Germany, so I have already consulted three other people with the same strategy and all three of these cases got closed.
So basically the people didn’t have to pay anything. But the court did not really issue a official statement. They just closed the case.
So what I want to achieve is official statement by the court. Because if they close my case, basically I cannot do anything about it. I have to accept it. But it has not the effect that I would like to have — basically to have an official statement ‘Yes, indeed, paragraph one of the infectious law of diseases is broken. Virologists are not working according to the scientific method.’ This would be my goal.
Or something else they could say, which is also possible, they could say that the law states that they should work according to the scientific method, but they don’t have to, right?
If the court says something like this and I have to pay the fine, it’s OK for me.
But then I have the official statement ‘Virologists are not obliged to work scientifically’. Which would be fine. This is just about our goal to to share the the situation — how it is.
Katie:
So let’s talk a little bit more about the main problem of virology, so people who are completely new to this, they can understand better the lack of scientific method behind it.
Let’s talk about all of this — about controls and about your Freedom of Information requests.
Marvin:
Sure. So basically, in science how it works is, you observe something in nature and then you come up with a hypothesis on how this could work. And then you try to come up with an experiment to test this hypothesis. And if the experiments support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis turns into a theory, and the theory gets tested over and over and over again. And all experiments support it. OK?
But if the experiment, the outcome, is against the hypothesis, then you falsify the hypothesis. This is basically how it works.
And in virology the hypothesis is fair. OK?
You say that you get sick from some viruses infecting you, coming from the outside. Infectious disease are being spread and so on.
And the experiments should be that you bring together sick and healthy animals or people and you show that you can really transmit this.
Or you try to extract these particles, these viruses, and then you take them and put them in the food or you spread them in the air of the animals or of the humans. And you show, by doing that, that you can replicate the symptoms.
That has never been done in virology.
What they are doing instead of doing it in the way I just stated, is they try to come up with some sort of excuse. They say that they cannot really do it in the correct way because the viruses are too small. Or too little in quantity. Or they only can live inside the cell and so on.
So they try to find excuses why they cannot extract the particle. And then they do some experiments in the lab.
So they never do it in a real ‘in vivo’. They only do it ‘in vitro’ in the lab. They take cell cultures and then they mix a lot of different chemicals, antibiotics and other substances together with fetal bovine serum, cell cultures from monkey kidney cells and so on.
They have a big brew of different components and then they observe that this cell culture basically disintegrates or dies. And they say, ‘OK, this is the proof for a virus’.
But this is impossible scientifically because there are so many variables. There are the toxic antibiotics, the fetal bovine serum.
Then they take off the fetal bovine serum so they remove the nutrition.
Then there is different other chemicals involved — trypsin sometimes and several different steps along the way.
So it’s impossible to say that the result is caused by a virus.
And what is on top of that unscientific — and everyone can understand this: They don’t have the control experiment.
So they are just running all these steps and they are doing what is called circular reasoning. And they don’t have any control.
They are trying to find causative results, cause and effect, but it’s impossible to do it. This is just a correlation. They observe that something happens, but they are not really using the scientific method to come up with the cause/effect relation.
The control experiment would be — for the viewers. You do the exact same experiment. You do the cell culture experiment with the chemicals, same antibiotics, same steps, everything the same. But you don’t add the so-called virus. This would be the only variable that should be different from the other experiment.
And the outcome then should be different.
If the virus would exist, and would be the cause of this cell culture disintegration, thy so-called cytopathic effect, then, only then you would prove that this is the determining variable.
But, of course, as they never have isolated the virus in the first place, they cannot even do this control experiment. It’s impossible.
And this is the big scientific problem.
I am willing to say that on some levels this is also fraud because they know. Because we asked them.
The virologists. Most of them know that the control experiments are missing and are important. They are trying to find excuses why they are not doing them, so they know exactly they should do them.
It’s not that they are unconscious. So I can say that this is basically fraud. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for many virologists. They know exactly about this this issue.
Katie:
So in the court, you are going to point at this exactly — the lack of controls.
Marvin:
The center of the argumentation is the lack of control. And this is the reason why the first paragraph which states that everything should be done according to the scientific method, the recent scientific techniques and so on. And we have the German Association of Science which says that in order to work according to the scientific method, everything has to be controlled, right? Every experimental step has to be controlled and so on.
So this is very easy to then demonstrate to the judge that it has not been done in virology ever.
And I have many proof. Not not only me, many people have done that.
But for my case I have asked the University of Melbourne, in the Doherty Institute, which is their virology institute, basically, and they have published one of the first SARS-Cov-2 isolation publications. And it was the first publication outside of China.
And I asked them very early on if they did the control experiments for every step, including the genome sequencing. And they clearly answered that they did not do it. Very clearly. No excuse. Very, very straightforward. They said no, we didn’t do it for any of the steps.
And then I asked them why did you not perform the controls. And they told me very, very straightforward again. ‘We didn’t have the resources to do it. We were just focusing on the positive culture. And we had to work quickly. And we had no time.’ Basically, this was their answer.
So everyone can see that this is extremely unscientific. And the German Association of Science even clearly states quoting — I’m quoting them basically that they say that nobody should issue any sort of scientific paper, unless they have followed all the scientific steps, even if economic factors, monetary factors or the economic pressure is high. So you should not publish anything before following all the scientific steps.
And I think everyone would agree. So this is, as a proof, is a very good proof. Because usually if you ask virologists around the world, if you ask the official institutions — CDC, RKI, Pasteur Institute and so on — it is very unlikely to to get a straightforward answer like this. It’s very rare to get it. I was very lucky to get this straightforward answer. And this is what I’m using as a main proof. But then I use other proofs as well.
Katie:
Yes. Another question that I had is that there is this group you are working with that is called The Next Level and they help you.
Could you talk a little bit about them, who they are?
Marvin:
So, basically, next level is like a joint venture. We are basically coming out of two different telegram groups or channels that have evolved during covid and we are now working together with different scientists, doctors, engineers (like I am), mathematicians, computer scientists, and so on.
So we are quite a diverse team and what our main focus is basically health topics. So we try to dig deep into virology, germ theory, medications, disease in general, biology and so on. And our focus is the scientific area.
So we try to be very scientific in our articles and our work. And we try to read through papers and explain to the audience why a certain paper, or why a certain scientific document, is methodically not good, or what is the problem with it, why is it not scientific. Or we try to also educate on other health topics. This is what we are doing.
Katie:
This sounds amazing. And I also noticed that Germany specifically, and German-speaking countries are extremely active in this area.
Like there are so many knowledgeable people, a lot of activists, a lot of channels and people talking about it.
I really noticed in Germany, I even had one of my videos, that was translated in German… I think, around 1,000,000 people watched it in German.
I noticed how this topic is really popular and a lot of people are working towards solutions. So we really need to also take example from them.
Marvin:
I’m not really sure why that is in Germany. As in every other country, in Germany you have a lot of people that are just following the western medicine blindly. But you have a lot of people also that are very critical and trying to dig deep into the topics, and educate themselves, and doing the research.
So I think we have just had a history. Many, many scientists — so-called scientists of the past — of these areas came from Germany. Or from Europe basically.
And, we had — with Doctor Stefan Lanka we had a very prominent biologist/virologist who came out to the public and tried to educate and spread the truth basically about the practices, scientific practices, in virology. So that gave the whole movement a boost, I would say, in Germany.
And also he was working together with the Perth Group in Australia, which in the 80s, 90s, were very, very clearly doing a lot of good work in HIV research. So I think this is also part of the reason why, specifically in German-speaking countries, many people are already aware of these topics.
Katie:
So how people can support you and what you are doing this court case and everything that you require to do?
Marvin:
So one support would, of course, to be there at the day. So for everyone maybe who is around Hamburg could come there and just — at the 26th of April — think it’s at 10:45 am. I can share the address later, but that would be great for sure.
And then, of course, you can support our Next Level, so our work what we are doing. We have a website and we also have a magazine that comes out regularly. So you can do any sort of donation.
You can buy the magazine and you can also interact with other critical thinkers in the online forums — telegram — and just support this community. That would be also very great because we are doing a lot of work.
Basically all of us do this in our free time. So we have all our main jobs, and apart from that, we do this in our free time because we are very passionate about this.
We don’t want a future for our families and friends and children and so on that is continuing with this craziness basically. And with these pandemics over and over again, with vaccinations and medical drugs and so on.
It is all going against, basically, our health and is not based on science.
This people really should understand that this is not really scientific.
If you take your time, some hours, weeks, and you really try to figure it out, you will quickly understand that this is not based on science.
This is based on fraud. Sometimes on misinterpretation. OK? Misinterpretation. Very often, due to lacking control experiments, they misinterpreted the results they get. They don’t know what exactly is cause and effect because they don’t have any controls. So they just take it for granted; and this is also unscientific.
Part 1: The New Body Soul Biology (English voice over) Dr Stefan Lanka
In 2021 Interview, RFK Jr. Reveals How Former Pres. Trump, Who Was Very Aware of the Serious Injuries Caused by Vaccines, Asked RFK Jr. to Lead a Commission on Vaccine Safety. Trump Changed His Mind Following Pfizer’s Million Dollar Contribution to His Inauguration
TCTL editor’s note: In 2021, Theo Von interviewed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Clips from this interview are found mirrored around the internet. In this interview, RFK Jr. talked about his meetings with Donald Trump wherein Trump asked RFK Jr. to head a vaccine safety commission. Trump was well aware of the serious dangers and great harm caused by vaccines as he personally knew people whose children developed serious health issues following vaccination. However, Trump changed his mind about the vaccine safety commission following a million dollar contribution from Pfizer to Trump’s inauguration. RFK Jr. was pushed aside and Scott Gottlieb, who was a Pfizer consultant, was selected by Trump to run the FDA. ~ Kathleen
Partial transcript:
Theo Von:
…Trump almost gave you a position… Wasn’t there talk of that? And then it kind of went away…
RFK, Jr.
Well, what happened was he … over the Christmas vacation… 2016, he’s elected right? And obviously the election is in November.
So I was skiing and with my kids in Colorado over Christmas vacation and I got a call from his chief of staff saying the president-elect wants to meet and he wants to talk about vaccines.
So, you know, I’ve been an activist on trying to get safer vaccines for a long time. And, of course, I agreed to meet with him.
So…immediately after getting home, I went … to New York and met with him at Trump Tower. It was about a two hour meeting.
Theo Von:
Had you ever met with him before?
RFK Jr.
I had sued him twice before successfully. And I had met him. And, you know, the lawsuit was not something that had hurt our relationship. I stopped him from building two golf courses in the New York City watershed. And those lawsuits were about two or three years apart.
And he knew me, and he knew my family… When my sister ran for governor of Maryland, he made a big contribution to that.
He contributed to my brother, who was then in Congress. And I had a cousin who was a congressman from Rhode Island, and he made a contribution. He was a big democratic donor at that point.
He called me. He asked me to come in. I had, as I said, about a two hour meeting with him. At that meeting, people were coming in and out of that meeting.
So Steve Bannon was there. Reince Priebus. You remember him? Hope Hill was there. Kellyanne Conway. And Jared Kushner. And both the president’s sons at various times were in that meeting.
Theo Von:
A lot of people.
RFK Jr.:
I had a lot of time alone with President Trump too.
He said that he believed that vaccines were making people sick. Specifically, he had three women friends who were mothers, one who was in the building that day, who had perfectly healthy kids who had gotten … their wellness visits. And they were around two years old.
And the children never were the same after those visits. And they all had been subsequently diagnosed with autism. And he believed that it was linked to vaccines.
And… because he had been open about that during the campaign, hundreds of women had — the same thing that happened to me, that got me into this, you know, this career killing advocacy, vaccine safety advocacy…
People start coming up to you and saying… “This happened to me. This happened to my son.”
“I had a perfectly healthy child who exceeded all his milestones. And I took him in at 16 months and he, you know, he was speaking, he was toilet trained, he had social interactions. And I took him in and he had a shot or a series of shots usually — could be up to nine — and that night, he’s like fever 103.”
I mean the stories were usually all identical. They had a seizure. And then over the next three months, they lose all of their capacity to… their social interactions, their eye contact…
I go in there and he tells me these stories. He wants to do something about it.
Theo Von:
And does he seem serious when he’s saying that?…
RFK Jr.:
Yeah, he was dead serious. And he asked… whether I would run a vaccine safety commission. And then he asked what I would do.
And I said, listen, I don’t think you have to do a big political lift. All I think you need to do is open up the databases and allow independent scientists in there to actually look at the science. Because the HMOs have all the vaccine data down to batch for every child in America. And they also have the medical records.
So all you have to do — in fact… AI can do machine counting and you can do cluster analysis.
And you can figure out very, very quickly whether all of these epidemics — not just of neurodevelopmental diseases like all the ADD, the ADHD… Tourette’s syndrome, narcolepsy… Autism. The allergic diseases, food allergies, peanut allergies… Asthma and then all the autoimmune diseases…
And they’re all listed, by the way, on the vaccine inserts, as vaccine side effects.
Because the only way that you can sue — you know, they passed this law in 1986 and made it illegal to sue a vaccine company for injury.
You still can sue them if they know of an injury that’s caused by their vaccine and they don’t list it on the side effects.
So they list 400 injuries…
But they’re not allowed to list it unless there is significant evidence that it is actually being caused by the vaccine.
FDA is not allowed to allow them to list it unless FDA believes it’s being caused by the vaccine.
Theo Von:
So you have this meeting with Trump, just to get back to that… Did you leave out of the meeting kind of hopeful about it?
RFK Jr.:
Well, I said to him, what do you want me to do? And he said we want you to announce it. Jared Kushner escorted me to the press scrum…
So then I went down and announced it. Talked to the press.
And then a week later, Pfizer made a million dollar contribution to Trump’s inaugural.
And then Trump comes in. And we continue to have some meetings with Fauci — that he had set up, were part of this process and we’re rolling, to get this thing started.
Theo Von:
Did Fauci seem legit when you talked to him?…
RFK Jr.:
Oh, he’s very, very charming…
Listen, Fauci — I’m about to publish a book on Fauci [see “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health”, published by Children’s Health Defense in November 2021]… He’s been there for 50 years, so he’s like J. Edgar Hoover.
And the only way that you last at that agency for 50 years is by carrying water for the pharmaceutical industry.
And under his watch, he’s supposed to prevent autoimmune and allergic diseases. Under his watch, chronic disease has gone from affecting 12% of the American population to 54%. And we take more pharmaceutical drugs than anybody in the world. We pay the highest prices.
He’s made this country Pharmaceutical Nation.
Theo Von:
My brother is allergic to sesame seeds.
RFK Jr.:
…And the way that you get allergies is from the aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine, which is meant — is put in that vaccine to initiate an allergic response.
So if you have sesame seed oil as an excipient in the vaccine, or if you’re eating sesame seeds when you have that aluminum adjuvant in you, it can provoke a permanent allergy…
So anybody who was born after 89 — I think it’s one in 12 now. Autism went from one in 10,000, in my generation, to one in every 34 kids. And it’s the same with all these chronic diseases that are all listed as side effects.
Theo Von:
So the proof seems to be right there.
RFK Jr.:
Well, that’s correlation, which isn’t actually proof. But if you actually go into the scientific literature, the proof is there.
Theo Von:
… So whenever you talked to Trump, you said, okay, let’s open up this database, right, this information…
RFK Jr.:
Yeah… I said you don’t have to do any heavy lifting. You don’t have to go to Congress. You don’t have to change regulations. All you have to do is open up the vaccine safety data link, which is the medical records for the top nine HMOs, and allow independent scientists to go in there. And just open it up so they can start publishing.
Theo Von:
And did he do it?
RFK Jr.:
No, he didn’t. It’s still… locked down.
Tony Fauci makes sure nobody can get in there.
And you know, even when Congress ordered these two scientists … to go in there, and they let them into the place, they gave them one study room. They would not allow them near a copy machine. They allowed them pencils and they had to write down the data. And they cranked the heat in the room up to 105…
So anyway, so Big Pharma stepped in and Trump appoints Pfizer’s lobbyist to run FDA (Scott Gottlieb) and Eli Lilly’s lobbyist is Alex Azar to run HHS. And as soon as they came and they shut us down.
“With hundreds of billions of “viruses” at peak infection, there is absolutely no reason that virologists should not be able to purify and isolate the assumed “viral” particles directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal.”
Last week, I took a look at the very illogical excuse that virologists make in regard to why they are unable to purify and isolate the particles that are claimed to be “viruses” directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. As a reminder, below is the response I received from biologist Thomas Baldwin, who studies “pathogenic” plant “viruses” and goes by the Twitter handle Sense_Strand:
It is claimed that there are just not enough of these “viral” particles within the fluids and thus, the purification procedures will result in too little of the “virus” remaining after these steps are performed. Due to this lack of particles, it is claimed that the “viruses” can not be found in electron microscopy images, and it is for this very reason that the “virus” particles must be grown in cell culture so that the “virus” can replicate to a large enough number in order to be visualized and studied. While I won’t rehash my counterargument here, I will allow Debunked to help me demonstrate why this is a ridiculous excuse:
When virologists claim incredible numbers like that, it is pretty reasonable to conclude that there should be plenty of “viral” particles within the fluids of a sick animal or human in order to purify, isolate, visualize, characterize, and study. Alas, virologists defiantly cling to their laughable excuse in order to cover up for the fact that they just cannot find the assumed “viral” particles anywhere directly within the fluids. While this statement clearly defies logic, the lack of “virus” is only one aspect of the excuse. There is another component that is used to explain why, even if they could purify and isolate the particles, it wouldn’t ultimately matter. Beyond the lack of enough “viral” particles within the fluids, virologists claim that there are not enough “infectious” particles present after purification in order to be able to “infect” an animal or human on order to prove pathogenicity. It is stated that this purification process damages the “virus” and causes it to lose “infectivity.” This excuse was illustrated in a response interviewer Djamel Tahi received from HIV “discoverer” Luc Montagnier:
“I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. So one had a ‘peak’ which was RT. So one has fulfilled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity.”
“I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage.So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much.”
As can be seen, if the particles are purified, it is assumed that they lose their “infectivity.” Thus, virologists must not touch their fragile little “virus” particles too much or they will be damaged and will not work properly. With statements like this, it makes the story about how these non-living entities somehow survive the harsh environmental conditions of the great outdoors in order to invade a body, bypass the hosts “immune system,” and hijack the cells so that it can create more copies of itself, seem rather ridiculous. According to virologists, in order to retain “infectivity,” the “virus” particles must remain unpurified and proceed to be mixed into a foreign animal or cancer cell with toxic antibiotics, antifungaks, fetal calf blood, chemicals and “nutrients,” etc. and incubated for days. However, this is normally not enough to create the necessary “infective” particles, so virologists will remove the top layer of one culture and then add it to another culture with a fresh round of toxic compounds mixed in. This new culture is then incubated further until signs of cell death are observed. Only then can there be enough “infectious viral” particles to visualize and establish pathogenicity.
To the outside observer who looks at this critically and logically, it is clear that all virologists are doing is creating a toxic soup of many foreign and chemical elements in which they get to claim a “virus” resides within. This sludge is then forcefully and unnaturally inoculated into animals in many disgusting ways, either through the nose, the skin, the muscles, the eyes, the throat, the stomach, the brain, or even the testicles. Virologist then determine what is an “infectious” dose based upon how much of this toxic soup is used as an injection into the animal at the time any symptoms appear. Virologists will determine how much “virus” is present in the soup by utilizing either one of two methods: the tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) and the plaque assay. Let’s examine these methods briefly and then see, according to virology’s own theoretical narrative, how many “viral” particles it takes to cause infection and disease. We can then determine whether or not it is reasonable to believe that there are not enough “infectious” particles present after purification and isolation in order to determine pathogenicity.
Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50)
This first method for estimating how many “virus” particles are necessary for “infection” relies on the observation of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) that is created during the cell culture experiment. CPE is an effect that is observed when the cells start to die and break apart during the cell culture process after the cell has been starved and poisoned. To calculate how many “viruses” they believe are present and “infectious,” virologists will use varying “virus” dilutions that are added as an endpoint dilution to host cell populations in a 96 well plate format. They will then incubate these mixtures until a cytopathic effect can be observed. The wells are either inspected by visually counting the CPE in the affected wells or by using assay readouts. Once 3 of the same CPE readings in separate cells for the same dilution are observed, the dose is calculated using one of various mathematical equations. The dilution at which 50% of the cell cultures are “infected” is determined and used to mathematically calculate a TCID50 result:
Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) Assays: How to determine virus infectivity?
TCID50 assays: How do they work?
“50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) assays are virus titration experiments which can be used to quantify virus titers by investigating the cytopathic effects of a virus on an inoculated host cell culture4. Compared to the widely used plaque assays, which are also used in virus quantification, TCID50 assays offer the advantage that even viruses that do not form plaques or infect cell monolayers can be quantified.
In TCID50 assays, varying virus dilutions are added as an endpoint dilution to host cell populations with the same number of cells and incubated until a cytopathic effect can be seen. Here, the TCID50 value represents the amount of virus dilution required to induce cytopathic effects in 50% of wells containing the inoculated cell culture after a defined period of time.
TCID50 assays assess this threshold either by visually counting the number of affected wells or by using cell viability assays as readout. The TCID50value is determined when the cytopathic effect or cell viability assay read-out appear the same for a dilution in 3 separate readings. An example of the application of cell viability/toxicity assays for the evaluation of viral cytopathic effects can be found in the AN 363: Viral cytopathic effects measured in a drug discovery screen.
TCID50 calculation
The results of 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) assays can be analysed by different calculations 5. Several mathematical approaches have been developed for this purpose, including the Reed-Muench 4, Spearman-Kärber or Weil method. The formula after Reed-Muench is depicted as an example below.
Where I is the interpolated value of the 50% endpoint and h is the dilution factor.
Since most often, the exact 50% endpoint is not observed in TCID50 assays, an approximate value can be obtained factoring in the dilutions closest below and above the 50% threshold. Independent of the method, the dilution at which 50% of the cell cultures are infected is determined and used to mathematically calculate a TCID50 result which is expressed as 50% infectious dose (ID50) per millilitre (ID50/mL) after a defined period of time. For example, if 0.2 mL of a 1:10,000 virus dilution infects 50% of the cells in 2 days the titer is expressed as 104 TCID50/0.2 mL in 2 days.”
As can be seen, this method relies on the observation of CPE as evidence of a “virus” and then attempts to calculate how many of these invisible entities reside within the fluids. However, as should be expected when dealing with attempts to count something that can not be seen, this method has its drawbacks. For one, the Poisson distribution that is utilized, which takes the TCID50 value and multiplies it by 0.7, is admittedly only an approximation and is said to not always be true. The serial dilution method itself is also a source of error by its very nature. If any fluid remains at the end of the pipette used to suction out the “virus,” it is said that this can greatly influence the quantification results. Another issue is attempting to keep all of the variables exactly the same across all cultures, which is admitted to not always be the case. Thus, there is a lot of guesswork and assumption involved in calculating the infectious dose of the unseen entity:
Timeless TCID50: One solution to many viruses
From dilutions to titres
“TCID50 values give an indication of how many viruses is needed to have CPE in 50% of the cells. But how to go from this to the actual amount of virus per ml? The formula is quite simple, and it consists in multiplying the TCID50 value by 0.7. This comes from the Poisson distribution applied to viral infection which states that, in a fully permissive cell line, the probability of reaching 50% infection is achieved by a multiplicity of infection of approximately 0.7. This is not always true, but it’s a good approximation for most applications.
The troubles of counting viruses
As accurate as one can be, counting viruses is never easy. First, serial dilutions are -by their own nature- a source of error. Second -and this is particularly relevant for high titres of virus- even the tiniest volume that remains attached to the very end of a pipette tip can carry enough viral particles to make a substantial difference in the quantification. Third, the biological variation of the system is high. Plate the same amount of cells, add the same amount of virus, stop the infection at the same time, and the percentage of infection may be close, but never exactly the same.
Finally, when assessing a treatment that (as you would hope!) decreases virus titres, the amount of virus may fall below the assay detection threshold.”
However, if relying on an indirect effect and spotty mathematical equations to calculate how many “viruses” it takes to “infect” a cell is not to your liking, you may appreciate this next method even less. Plaque assays also rely on the observation of CPE in cultured cells. As the cells break apart and die, the “viral” particles are assumed to travel to neighboring cells, infecting them and creating plaques, or holes, in the dish. The cells are then fixed and stained, killing everything in order to be observed. It is said that the cells that remain adhered to the surface are assumed to be uninfected, and any observed plaques are assumed to arise from cell death caused by “viral infection.” Virologists will look for the dilution that led to the optimal observed plaques; too little dilution leads to too many plaques while too much dilution yields none. The titre is then calculated using arithmetic based on the volume of the aliquot added to the cells and the sample dilution the aliquot was drawn from. The assay is designed so that each plaque represents infection by only a single “viral” particle:
Measuring infectious virus: the plaque assay
Infection and plaque formation
Plaque assays require cultured cells susceptible to infection by the virus of interest. The cells are first seeded onto a surface they can adhere to and grow on, then left overnight to form a confluent monolayer (a cohesive sheet of cells covering the entire growth surface). A virus sample is then diluted several times, and an aliquot of each dilution is added to a dish or well of cells. An incubation period allows the virus to attach to target cells before removing the inoculum. The culture is then covered with a medium containing nutrients and a substance, such as agarose or methylcellulose, forming a gel or semisolid overlay. Infectious virus particles that enter cells and replicate can then trigger the release of progeny virions. The gel restricts particle movement so that newly produced viruses can only infect neighbouring cells. If the virus kills infected cells, the dead (or dying) cells detach and create a hole in the monolayer through lysis or other means. This space – now devoid of cells –is called a plaque and appears as circular spots on the growth surface.
The plaques are allowed to grow until visible to the naked eye. The cells are then fixed with formaldehyde to lock cellular structures while killing the cells and virus. Dyes that stain cells are added for contrast, making plaques easier to see. Purple violet stains the cells purple, while plaques, lacking cells, remain clear. Cells that remain adhered to the surface are assumed to be uninfected, and apparent plaques are assumed to arise from cell death caused by infection. That is why the virus dilutions must be added to confluent monolayers with no gaps that might later be mistaken for plaques.
Viral titre: PFU/ml
Multiple dilutions of the stock sample are analysed to identify one or more dilutions that give rise to a countable number of plaques. At the lowest dilutions, too many infectious particles will destroy large swaths of the cell monolayer or create plaques too numerous and overlapping to distinguish. At the highest dilutions, there may be no plaques at all. At the optimal dilutions, plaques are counted to determine the titre of the original stock sample, typically reported as the number of plaque-forming units per millilitre (PFU/ml).
For a given plaque count, the stock titre can be calculated by simple arithmetic based on the volume of the aliquot added to the cells and the sample dilution the aliquot was drawn from. As a basic example, if 35 plaques were counted when a 0.1 ml aliquot of the 10-5 dilution was added to the cells, the titre of the undiluted stock is 3.5×107 PFU/ml. For reliable titres, each sample dilution should be plated multiple times, at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. Furthermore, multiple dilutions may result in countable plaques. More elaborate formulas incorporating all relevant plaque counts are typically used to calculate titres.
PFU/ml vs IU/ml
The assay is designed so that each plaque results from infection by multiplying a single infectious virus particle. As such, PFU/ml is considered a measure of the number of infectious units per millilitre (IU/ml), with the caveat that one cannot be certain of a one-to-one ratio of plaques to infectious particles in the applied aliquot. Also, be aware that the titre of a sample is specific to the assay conditions used to determine it, as infectivity is influenced by many factors, such as the type of host cell, pH, and culture medium. Titres can differ by several orders of magnitude by changing key assay parameters.”
As with the TCID50, there are some definite drawbacks when trying to “accurately” estimate how much of an invisible entity can cause infection and disease using the plaque assay. For starters, as noted above, the “infectivity” is said to be influenced by many factors within the culture itself. This includes the type of host cell, the pH level, as well as the culture medium used. Thus, the calculated titres can vary wildly by several orders of magnitude just by changing the assay parameters. The determination of what exactly constitutes a plaque is very subjective as well, which can mislead the results. In other words, plaque counting is prone to human error.
Beyond these issues, as noted before, both TCID50 and plaque assays rely on the observation of a cytopathogenic effect in order to claim the presence and infectivity of any “virus.” However, CPE is not specific to “viruses” as there are many known factors that can result in this effect being observed that do not require the presence of a fictional entity in order to explain, such as:
Bacteria
Parasites
Amoebas
Chemical Contaminants
Age of the Cell
Incubation Temperature
Length of Incubation
Antibiotics/Antifungals
It is entirely unscientific to rely on an effect in order to presume a cause. However, this pseudoscientific concept is central to the cell culture method as well as to the processes utilized to guesstimate how many “infectious viruses” are present. In other words, there is no direct evidence any “viruses” are present in any sample used to determine an “infectious” dose. All of these results claiming how much “virus” is present and can ultimately cause an infection are entirely hypothetical and calculated based on the presence of cell death. It is nothing but guesswork.
However, if it wasn’t clear that these numbers are pseudoscientific fraud, a 2003 OSHA White Paper looking at the determination of the infectious dose (ID) may help to sell the fact that virologists honestly have no clue what an infectious dose is. While this refers to calculating ID using animals, the same criticisms can apply to utilizing lab-created cell cultures as a surrogate. The White Paper concluded that there is no clear definition of what an infectious dose is and that there is no single standardized method for determining ID. The extrapolation of data to humans is unreliable and is a poor surrogate for human responses. There are various secondary interactions that can impact the estimates. The “pathogens” vary wildly in “virulence” and data on the ID via route of exposure is unavailable. In other words, virologists just make things up as they go along:
“In summary, the studies described above support ABSA’s position that attempts to develop quantitative values for human infectious dose are not currently feasible. Infectious dose values developed using past studies would not accurately characterize the relative hazard of pathogenic organisms in humans. The reasons for this conclusion are:
• Lack of a clear and universally acceptable definition of the term “infectious dose.”
• There is no single standardized protocol for testing infectious dose in animals, making legitimate controlled comparisons ofstudy results very difficult.
• Extrapolation of infection and toxicity data among animal species and from animals to humans has proven to be unreliable for most biological (and chemical) agents.
• Inbred animal strains are a poor surrogate for predicting human response, as humans are a highly variable outbred population.
• Infectious dose is affected by numerous, complex secondary interactions to include condition of the host, its genetics, and previous exposure to the biological agent or vaccine. Risk estimates must take these and many other factors into consideration.
• Bacteria of a single species can vary widely in virulence and infectious dose. It is not possible to make a broad or generalized statement about the infectious dose of a species of bacteria.
• Infectious dose in part depends on the route of exposure. A complete picture of a single pathogen’s infectious dose profile requires inhalation, percutaneous, oral, im, ip, iv, etc. data. These data are currently unavailable.”
Now that we know that this process for counting the invisible “viruses” is fraught with drawbacks that leave the “accuracy” of these results extremely questionable, let’s take a look at some of these wildly varying estimates in order to see how many particles are necessary to cause an infection according to virology’s fictional narrative. As “SARS-COV-2” is the soup du jour at the moment, here are a few key highlights from a systematic review of many studies attempting to find the minimal ID for the “novel coronavirus.” What you will see from the August 2022 review is that there is absolutely no experimental data for humans, with one study admittedly presenting a hypothetical estimate (technically, they are all hypothetical). The minimal ID for “SARS-COV-2” is extrapolated from animal studies with estimates that vary wildly between the papers:
Minimum infective dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 based on the current evidence: A systematic review
“The main methods for reporting the infective dose were through tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) and by counting plaque-forming units (PFU).33
In TCID50, the viral dose in 5% of inoculated tissue culture made pathological changes or cell death. PFU is estimated of viral concentration in plaque-forming units by measuring the number of particles that form a plaque.34 The minimum infective doses have been summarized in Table 2.
Human studies on infective dose of SARS-CoV-2
“We found no experimental studies that assess the infective dose in human, so we included observational human studies.”
“Finding the minimum infective dose of the virus can be extremely useful in determining the transmission pattern. This represents itself in inconsistent results across the included studies; similar viral load did not cause the same outcome. This indicates that despite having a similar minimum infective dose, the infection rate could differ so this minimum is not the same across the same population. On the other hand, there are some human studies which have shown some hypothetical infective viral dosages.”
Conclusion
“The results of this review suggest that one of the key factors to control the pandemic could be the study of virus transmission. The minimum infective dose is one of the main components of virus transmission. In this study, we have presented a range of minimum infective doses in humans and various animal species, yet such numbers can possibly vary between the individuals based on numerous factors. Measuring the minimum infective dose can provide a clearer overall understanding of the disease and its transmissibility and help better halt its spreading.”
While it is fun to see how much their guesstimates can range between studies, the above paper doesn’t give us a great idea as to what this minimal ID is for “SARS-COV-2” in terms of an actual number of particles it may take in order to cause infection. Let’s see if we can put a number to it based upon what the “experts” are saying:
SARS-CoV-2 Infectious Dose
“Some experts estimate that exposure to as few as 1000 SARS-CoV-2 viral particles can cause an infection. This dose of virus could occur by inhaling 1000 infectious viral particles in a single breath, 100 viral particles in 10 breaths, or 10 viral particles in 100 breaths.”
According to the “experts,” as little as 1000 “SARS-COV-2” particles are enough to cause infection. Where did they get this magical number from? Who knows? However, a separate study gave an even smaller estimate of just 100 “viral” particles:
Review of infective dose, routes of transmission and outcome of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-COV-2: comparison with other respiratory viruses
“An accurate quantitative estimate of the infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 in humans is not currently feasible and needs further research. Our review suggests that it is small, perhaps about 100 particles.”
It appears that virologists have the ability to just pull any ID number that they want out of thin air. When we factor in their other imaginary numbers, such as those who are at “peak viral infection” harboring 10 to 100 billion “viral” particles while breathing out 10 million “viruses” per breath, it seems rather illogical to claim that there would not be enough “infectious virus” after purification in order to prove pathogenicity.
Examining the issue a bit further, let’s look at a few other sources and see just how little “virus” is said to actually be necessary in order to cause an infection. According to virology’s pseudoscientific narrative, would you believe that just one airborne particle can cause you to become infected? That is exactly what we are told by this next source which dealt a fatal blow to mask supporters everywhere. The researchers based their claim upon theoretical modeling (aren’t they all), and concluded that only one airborne particle is enough to cause infection and disease:
What if just one airborne particle was enough to infect you?
“For some diseases, exposure to just a single airborne particle containing virus, bacteria or fungi can be infectious. When this happens, understanding and predicting airborne disease spread can be a whole lot easier.
That’s the result of a new study by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist who developed a new theory of airborne infectious disease spread. This research, which appears in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology, demonstrated good agreement with data from Q fever, Legionnaire’s disease and Valley fever outbreaks. The authors hope to use it to understand and mitigate COVID-19 spread.”
Unfortunately, the authors did not give us any idea as to how many “viral” particles would be in one airborne particle. Hypothetically, it could be one “virion” or it could be quite a few more. Let’s see if we can get some concrete guesstimates as to how many of the “viral” particles it may take to cause infection and disease. According to the CDC, “norovirus” only requires a few particles in order to cause infection and disease:
About Norovirus
“People with norovirus illness can shed billions of norovirus particles. And only a few virus particles can make other people sick.”
When looking to insect “viruses,” researchers set up an experiment with two “marked virus variants.” They exposed a population of caterpillars to both variants, and based upon these results, established a probability model to determine that it is theoretically possible for just one “virus” particle to cause infection and disease:
One Virus Particle Is Enough To Cause Infectious Disease
“Can exposure to a single virus particle lead to infection or disease? Until now, solid proof has been lacking. Experimental research with insect larvae has shown that one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease.”
“Based on the assumption that every virus particle operates independently from all other virus particles,the researchers set up a probability model. This model predicts how many virus particles have caused an infection and how many different virus genotypes are present in infected hosts, such as plants, insects or people. The results of the infection experiment with the susceptible insects are in agreement with the model predictions. From this it can be derived that the virus particles have an independent effect, and that a single virus particle can indeed cause infection and/or disease.”
We have now officially gone from 1000 “viral” particles to just one particle. Let’s see if any other sources make such a bold claim. In a CDC study that looked to establish a quantifiable estimation of how many “variola” (a.k.a. smallpox) particles are necessary to cause infection, the researchers concured that only one “virus” particle was sufficient to cause infection and disease:
The infectious dose of variola (smallpox) virus.
“Quantitative estimation of an individual’s risk of infection due to airborne pathogens requires knowledge of the pathogen’s infectious dose, in addition to estimates of the pathogen’s airborne concentration and the person’s exposure duration. Based on our review of the published literature on poxvirus infection, we conclude that the infectious dose of variola (smallpox) virus is likely one virus particle and that infection can be initiated in either the upper respiratory tract or pulmonary region. Studies of airborne transmission of poxvirus in monkeys and rabbits show that primary infection can occur in both regions of the respiratory tract. A quantitative study of poxvirus inhalation transmission in rabbits indicates that the deposition of one pock-forming unit (PFU) carried on respirable particles can cause infection. Findings in both in vitro and in vivo studies of the number of virus particles comprising a PFU are consistent with a “one-hit” phenomenon–namely, the cellular uptake of just one virus particle can lead to infection of a cell or an area of cell growth, creating a pock (an infected area of cells). Variability in virulence among different virus strains may involve differences in the probability of infection per virus particle, where a highly virulent strain has a probability close to one of successful infection for each virus particle.”
“On balance, we believe there is adequate in vitro and in vivo evidence that infection can be produced by a single particle of variola virus. Across different experimental systems the number of poxvirus per infectious unit has been found to vary, but it appears that favorable conditions enable all virus particles to infect (Overman & Tamm, 1956; Parker, Bronson, & Green, 1941; Sprunt & McDearman, 1940).”
The CDC has also stated that only one “viral” particle from rabies is enough to cause infection and disease:
Rabies
“During clinical disease, millions of viral particles may be found intermittently in the saliva. In theory, only a single rabies particle or virion is required to result in a productive infection.”
This one “viral” particle is supported as well by OSHA in regard to the Ebola “virus:”
Ebola
“In areas of Africa where Ebola viruses are common, suspected reservoirs include primate and bat populations. While there are no known animal reservoirs of the disease in the U.S., there is concern related to possible spread of EVD among human populations due to the availability and reach of global travel. Under certain conditions, exposure to just one viral particle can result in development of EVD. Depending on the strain and the individual infected with the disease, EVD may be fatal in 50-90 percent of cases.1”
It is clear that, according to virology’s own pseudoscientific narrative, only one “viral” particle is theoretically necessary in order to cause infection and disease. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to assume that there are not enough infectious “viral” particles remaining after purification and isolation directly from the fluids to be used in order to prove pathogenicity. The reason this excuse is presented is because virologists are unable to recreate disease using just the fluids from a sick host. In order to even attempt to show pathogenicity, they claim that the unpurifued fluids must be added to a foreign animal or cancer cell along with antibiotics, antifungals, fetal calf blood, chemicals, “nutrients,” etc. and then injected unnaturally into an animal either through the nose, the blood, the throat, the skin, the brain, the stomach, the eyes, the feet, and/or the testicles. There is nothing natural or scientific about this process.
However, as virology is pseudoscience, it falls back on unfalsifiable concepts in order to excuse away the lack of scientific evidence. Instead of being able to find the “virus” particles directly in the fluids, they get to claim that there is not enough “virus” there despite their own numbers making this an impossibility. As virologists know that they can not prove pathogenicity using nothing but the assumed “viral” particles, they get to claim that the purification process creates a yield loss and that the “viruses” lose infectivity. Therefore, virologists get to excuse away that they can not show that the particles created after the cell culture experiment ever existed within the fluids of a sick host to begin with. They get to explain away that they can not prove pathogenicity using nothing but the assumed “viral” particles without culturing. Yet, despite their excuses, the numbers supplied by virologys own pseudoscientific narrative fail them. With hundreds of billions of “viruses” at peak infection, there is absolutely no reason that virologists should not be able to purify and isolate the assumed “viral” particles directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. If only one “viral” particle is necessary theoretically in order to cause infection and disease, there is no reason virologists cannot use a purified sample to prove pathogenicity naturally via the scientific method. By their own admission, all it takes is just one particle to cause infection and disease. One particle from a sea of billions.
“It is also clear that the dramatic events of the past three years, events that have devastated the lives of many people all over the world, are based on this very misconception that so-called pathogenic viruses exist. This misconception has been around for a very long time, and it has led to damaging public health measures, the most notorious being vaccines, which have themselves harmed and killed millions of animals and people during their long and sordid history.
—~~~
TCTL editor’s note:
In the video below, Samantha Bailey reads the written statement “Why Are We Doing This?” which was signed by Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Mark and Samantha Bailey.
Following that reading, each of the four makes a brief personal statement about why they continue to speak out about lies at the foundation of virology.
Sadly, the level of rancor between those in the “freedom” community taking the “no-virus” position and those taking the “pro-virus” position has reached higher and higher levels.
Videos, Instagram posts and tweets are put out by both sides claiming to “debunk’ the other side or sometimes to just call names.
Mikki Willis, the producer and director of the documentary series Plandemic, has created a new video urging unity among those who claim to be on the side of freedom, along with a subtle accusation that dissenters against this unity are classic disinformation agents.
Given this background, we, as some of the recognized leaders of the “no-virus team,” thought it would be a good opportunity to reconnect and even restate why we are doing this.
Why we will not just be good team players and participate in the growing worldwide movement fighting for the universal principles of freedom, bodily autonomy and the ability to guide one’s life based on one’s own beliefs and decisions? Why keep speaking out?
It seems obvious to us and, in fact, has been a guiding principle throughout our entire lives that a life based in freedom and integrity must have a solid, factual foundation. In other words, if the foundation is not based on the truth, as best we can see it, our entire lives are based on mistruths and are in danger of collapse at any moment.
Imagine building a relationship, a family, a homestead based on love between two people when the reality is that, rather than love, there is distrust, suspicion and even ill will. Sooner or later, that life will collapse into ruins.
This is the same with a financial system based on fiat currency, an agricultural system based on inattention to the health of the soil, or a medical system based on anti-scientific medical hypotheses.
After careers of examining medical research and theories and three years of intensive investigation into the question of whether particles or, perhaps better said, entities known as viruses actually exist, it is our clear conclusion that no such particle has ever been shown to exist, let alone cause any disease in plants, animals or people. For us, this conclusion stands as a clear fact.
It is also clear that the dramatic events of the past three years, events that have devastated the lives of many people all over the world, are based on this very misconception that so-called pathogenic viruses exist. This misconception has been around for a very long time, and it has led to damaging public health measures, the most notorious being vaccines, which have themselves harmed and killed millions of animals and people during their long and sordid history.
—This carnage needs to stop.
People need to experience the world with new eyes and with a new concept of life, biology and health. This new conception can begin only when we realize, once and for all, that the idea of contagious, pathogenic viruses, or viral-like entities of any sort — natural, lab created, clones or otherwise —is simply a scientific misconception, or possibly a fraud.
Why we are doing this is straightforward: It’s so that no woman, man, child or animal ever has to be subjected again to abuse based on a long, bankrupt theory of biology and medicine.
We have nothing personally to gain from this quest. No prestigious awards are coming our way, and we likely will get nothing but further scorn and derision from colleagues, public institutions, and the general media.
Yet, when we think of our children, grandchildren, our friends, our families, our beloved animals, and animals in labs who are tortured and killed in this clearly futile effort to demonstrate the “reality” of viruses, everything in our being cries out, “this must stop.”
Therefore, we ask all people of good will to accept the following challenge. Please send us any genuine scientific information that demonstrates that viruses exist and cause disease.
We are not interested in any comments about our motivations or the consequences of our quests for us personally. Absent that evidence, we and our good friends will keep going. We believe that the future for all of us depends on it.
Dr. Thomas Cowan
Dr. Andrew Kaufman
Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey
Time marker 5:03 — Dr. Tom Cowan:
So we’ve been talking a fair amount about why we’re doing this. The this being talking about the fact that there’s no virus, never had a virus that’s been shown to exist or cause any disease.
So what difference does it make?
So there’s obviously a whole lot of reasons including all the social distancing and the masks and the viral vaccines and the devastation of the adults and the lives of children.
But one thing that we haven’t, unfortunately, talked about much is its effect on the animals and the widespread frank torture and mutilation of millions of animals in labs and so-called science experiments all over the world.
And for whatever reason, I hadn’t appreciated this so much until I actually have animals of my own. And I think you could see our three cats and six chickens and we’re getting three goats this week.
When you realize all the mutilated animals, the ferrets with the cell culture stuffed down their throats, the 15,000 monkeys that were allegedly killed by Sabin to make an ineffective and dangerous polio vaccine.
When you realize all the mutilated dogs that have been left in dumpsters, which I’ve heard from many people who actually witnessed this themselves, the mice who’ve been injected with debris into their brain.
And you realize that all these experiments have no possible benefit. They’re just basically sadistic, torturing of innocent animals.
And at some point in your life, everything cries out to say this has to stop.
Time marker 7:04 — Dr. Andrew Kaufman:
Hello, I’m Dr. Andrew Kaufman. And today I’m here to answer the question why is it important to me to tell the whole truth about viruses? Meaning that they don’t actually exist or cause disease.
When faced with a lot of opposition and resistance to this message, you know, why am I communicating this over and over and sticking to this position.
And my answer is simple and I can answer in one word which is justice. But let me explain.
So if we look up the definition of justice, it means the maintenance or establishment of that which is just.
And I have here the definition of the word just from Merriam Webster: “Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.” Fact or reason.
So those are the two principal aspects that need to be established and known in order to bring about justice. Fact and Reason.
Now justice, for me, is a guiding factor in my life’s work or my mission.
What I would want to achieve and leave as my legacy on earth at the end of my life is related to bringing about justice.
So earlier in my career, this led me to the specialty of forensic psychiatry because I had learned that there was a great injustice perpetrated on the mentally ill individuals of the world. And this was so-called the deinstitutionalization movement which took people out of mental institutions — which at least were established with some purpose of helping and supporting and bettering those individuals — into the homeless crisis as well as jails and prisons.
So I was specifically going to try and help those mentally ill individuals who were essentially warehoused in jails and prisons, even without perpetrating any immoral crimes.
So many of them are there for things, because they were homeless, for example. So when it was really cold out, they went inside a storage facility to stay warm and escape frostbite. But that was trespassing so they ended up incarcerated, for example. And I’ve seen individuals in that scenario.
So this principle of justice has been a guiding force for me in my life. And it’s no different in the era of covid, where as I wanted to use fact and reason to make an opinion and see what is just with relationship to the announcement of this pandemic which occurred in 2020. And so, of course, I used my reasoning abilities to establish what are the facts.
And that led me to look at the initial fact, which was the establishment of this so-called virus that was causing this pandemic. Everything downstream of that was based upon this assumption.
And what I found out was that this assumption did not have a factual basis. And I simply applied logic and reason, and application of the scientific method to see that the experiments used to establish this basis of a new disease were simply unscientific and false.
And this helped me, of course, have a unique understanding of everything that occurred over the past several years. And I could easily look through the lens of judgment and see what was just and what was unjust in terms of people’s reactions, especially the government and various industries.
And this leads ultimately to holding the perpetrators of this tyranny accountable.
And one of the criticisms that has come from some of the health freedom leaders have been that if we look at the truth that there was no virus, that somehow that lets people like Anthony Fauci off the hook. But it’s actually the opposite because until we establish a factual basis of the crimes that were committed — and namely, in my opinion, they were the complete fabrication of an imaginary new disease that allowed justification of tyrannical policies that reduce freedom and inhibited commerce and allowed all types of manipulation to occur.
And we, to this day, don’t really know who are the main leaders behind this psychological operation that established this false disease, not based on fact. But perhaps if we hold people like Anthony Fauci accountable for participating in this charade that we can extract information and find out who the originators are. And that would be the only way to establish a true justice and accountability for what we’ve experienced.
And I know that going forward it continues to be the utmost important element in our analysis is to establish the facts and to use reasoning to understand what’s going on.
And of course this is true, especially with respect to our health.
So I hope this provides some inspiration to see how important it is to really get to the bottom of this issue.
Time marker 13:10 — Dr. Mark Bailey:
For more than three years I have researched the virus hypothesis, digesting virology textbooks and thousands of publications — from Ivanovsky’s claimed tobacco mosaic virus in 1903 through to Fan Wu’s claimed novel coronavirus in early 2020.
Virology’s world is arcane and most people have barely scratched the surface, content to believe viruses exist and often outraged that we would question such a thing.
However, we did question and haven’t stopped after we broke away from our conventional training and examined this issue for ourselves.
When I completed A Farewell to Virology, even I was surprised at the patent lack of evidence for these alleged infectious particles. It wasn’t just a few areas where the virologist evidence was lacking. It was in every area.
The techniques have shifted over the past century as their own experiments have consistently refuted themselves.
Now their remaining “evidence” lies in inadequate methodologies, uncontrolled studies and media releases.
Some time ago, we witnessed a move away from genuine experimental studies and into what I suspect is their final resort — genomics and proteomics.
But as I wrote in A Farewell to Virology, this approach is built on bankrupt foundations and will only delay the wider realization that the virus model is done for.
In the meantime, the carnage will continue for those still inside the viral paradigm. Experiencing disease, detecting genetic sequences, looking at electron microscopy images or obtaining test results — whether they be through the PCR or alleged antibodies — do not require the existence of viruses, as we and others have repeatedly exposed.
Mankind can make up stories to explain these various phenomena, but cannot change the underlying principles, no matter how sophisticated the technology.
I don’t know how much of the virus fallacy is a misconception, and how much is outright fraud.
It probably doesn’t matter because what is important is that more people are waking up to the fallacy and rejecting the virus and germ theory models outright.
Like our family, they have worked out that none of the touted solutions, whether they be public health measures, vaccines or drugs, offer any benefit to our well-being.
They can see the destruction to humanity, the animals and the environment based on this fraudulent war against imaginary infectious particles.
The real enemy is fear and ignorance, something each of us must overcome. Our world does not need to be feared, with the insight that nature does not make mistakes. And this divine biology is always pro-life and for our benefit.
We may still be in the minority, but we are already victorious as we share this new freedom, wisdom and prosperity with the next generation.
Time marker 16:10 — Dr. Samantha Bailey
In 2020, I first started questioning the covid-19 fraud because I could see that people were fearing for their lives.
The public were being told to stay indoors, to obtain food only from corporate outlets, to avoid relatives and neighbours, all while staying close to their phones and TVs to keep up to date with government announcements.
The fear of the supposed virus was clearly out of proportion with reality. My gut feeling was that I had to try to reduce people’s fear by researching the science honestly and presenting my findings to anyone that would listen.
Our research into SARS-CoV-2 quickly morphed into searching for evidence for the existence of any virus. By mid 2020, it was apparent to us that the key scientific evidence was absent and the level of the fraud was massive.
The powers that shouldn’t be had been building up to the staging of a huge pandemic like covid-19 for decades. Finally, they had their formula correct and almost everyone was complying with the new totalitarian rule under the mistaken belief of contagion.
The key to unravelling the fraud lay with explaining the viral delusion as well as the lies of germ theory to allay the public’s fear.
I investigate the science and follow the trails wherever they may lead. I then release my findings to the public so that I can sleep at night.
I want my children to have a life where they do not live in fear of nature, where they can understand the true causes of disease and how to be healthy through right thinking and right living.
It is a joy to watch them grow to their full potential and I hope that many more people will share the benefits of ignoring the virus model and its associated carnage.
On March 15, 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a global alert warning of a new virus spreading through Asia and causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), a potentially fatal disease, similar to pneumonia. Photos from China depicting ballet dancers and bridal parties wearing white masks appeared in western newspapers while health departments across the country issued notices to hospitals detailing the symptoms of the new virus and asking for immediate notification of suspect cases. Until the global alert, reports referred to an “unknown virus” first striking in Guangdong Province, China, although some reports place the origin in the Philippines. With the March 15 WHO report, the SARS virus became official and reports of new cases came flooding in.
By late May, officials had reported over 8,000 cases worldwide, with almost 700 deaths.1 Of the 65 suspected SARS victims in the US, all but a few had traveled by airplane to areas where the outbreak has been most severe, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. The Chinese economy has taken a hit and some Chinese airline routes were virtually empty due to SARS fear.2
Serious Drama
The SARS outbreak has revived discussion of forced quarantine. According to a study by the American Public Health Laboratory Association and quoted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, few cities have enough hospital space to quarantine patients in the event of a large-scale outbreak of an infectious disease like SARS. According to Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown University’s Law Center, public health laws date back to the 19th century and are “wholly inadequate to deal with an emergency.”
“The need for public health law reform is urgent,” said Mr. Gostin. “It should have provisions for surveillance, vaccination, treatment, isolation and quarantine in a way that gives decisive powers to health authorities while respecting the Constitution.” So far, all but one of the SARS victims has submitted to voluntary isolation. The one exception, a New York man, was involuntarily contained until his symptoms passed. Federal quarantine law now includes SARS among its disease guidelines.
Mr. Gostin was the author of the draconian Emergency State Health Powers Act, which has been adopted (fortunately in softened form) by 22 states. According to Gostin, “The need for effective state compulsory power is beyond doubt. But that’s not a given in our country, which is now so tied to the rhetoric of individual rights. It seems we’ve lost the tradition of the common good.”3
Kill the Carrier
In China, a country where the “rhetoric of individual rights” is lacking, the government has announced it would kill SARS carriers who refused quarantine.4 Malaysian officials threatened imprisonment.5 In Hong Kong, officials motivated by the “tradition of common good” have suggested that “families of SARS patients be rounded up, and sent to quarantine camps.”6 In Nanjing, China, 10,000 have been quarantined, and in Beijing 16,000 as of May 6, 2003.7
Official Disease Definition
SARS means “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.” This wide-open definition encompasses many diseases common in the affected regions. Symptoms range from flu-like to pneumonia.8 Dr. Frank Plummer, director of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada stated, “Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose.”9
The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined SARS in the following way: a) a person presenting after 1 November 2002 with history of high fever (greater than 100.4° F) and cough or breathing difficulty; or b) a person who was not autopsied but with acute respiratory disease and who has been in close contact within 10 days of someone who had SARS.10
This definition alone should give thoughtful readers cause to question the SARS phenomenon. Firstly, is a temperature of 1.8 degrees F over normal really a “high fever”? The CDC used “mild fever” in their case definition. Secondly, should WHO install a historical bias before the history of SARS is even written? WHO has made it impossible to place the discovery of SARS before November 2002, or even think of it as preceding that date, thus guaranteeing its status as an “emerging epidemic.”
In the US, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines SARS differently: a) Illness of unknown aetiology [cause not already ascertained] and onset after February 1, 2003, AND, b) Temperature over 100.5 degrees F, AND, c) respiratory illness, AND, d) Recent contact with a SARS patient or travel to epidemic region.
This defines the new epidemic as an arrival from southeast Asia, China or Toronto. This definition obviates any need to test for the SARS virus in patients who contracted pneumonia before February 2003, AND, who had not traveled to the Orient or met such a traveler. With this definition, the diagnosis of any SARS-like case, determined previously to be of non-viral origin, would be secured from contradictions. The usual one-disease, one-cause theme for epidemics is thereby maintained.
SARS Virology
Due to the wide-ranging definition, the only unique quality of SARS is the associated virus. But association is not enough and a single association is not a rigorous, convincing proof.
On April 16, 2003, WHO announced that SARS virus, a member of the coronavirus family, was definitely causative for the disease. The report referred to a study carried out by a team led by Dr. Albert Osterhaus, the director of virology at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam. Media reports used the terms “unequivocal,” “definite,” and “beyond a doubt” to describe the work at Erasmus.
Osterhaus reported that his team infected one group of monkeys with SARS virus, a second group with the metapneumonvirus (also found in some SARS patients), and a third group with SARS virus and then the metapneumovirus. The monkeys infected with the metapneumonvirus alone developed mild symptoms, compared to the “full-blown disease” seen in the first group. The third group “did not develop a more serious version of SARS.” From this Osterhaus concluded, “the coronavirus alone is capable of causing the typical symptoms…”11
Virology in Doubt
Press releases about the “definitive” Erasmus study, distributed by AP, WHO, Nature Magazine and others, cannot be taken seriously without further details. Here are a few unanswered questions:
a) Since laboratory virus stocks are poisoned with antibiotics, or are derived by a process that utilizes poisons, then which poisons were present in Erasmus University virus stocks?
b) Were the toxicities of virus stocks included in the assessment of the study results?
c) How was the virus stock obtained?
d) Was a comprehensive test for other viruses performed on the experimental stock?
e) Are the laboratory-produced viruses chimeric viruses, that is, synthetic viruses?
f) What quantity of virus medium was applied to each monkey; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?
g) What concentration of viruses were applied; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?
h) How was the medium applied; would the application method be possible in real-world conditions?
i) Which chemicals were added to the medium in addition to antibiotics? Do these interact or promote the toxicity of other chemicals in the virus stock?
j) How many monkeys were in each group? Were there enough for a valid assessment?
k) What was the condition of each monkey prior, during and at the conclusion of the experiment? Monkeys have been regarded as poor experimental subjects because of their intelligent sensitivity, and maltreatment received from handlers and distributors. Stress alone, incurred by the monkeys due to cruelty, cage conditions and poor nutrition, can cause illness or susceptibility.
l) Was the virus used in the experiment actually “isolated”? The word, when used by virologists, means something entirely different from the meaning assumed by non-virologists (including doctors), and this word serves as the basis for misinformation regarding virus proof. The details of “isolation of the virus” need to be explained.
m) Were any of the experimental animals, or tests, rerun after unexpected results occurred? What were the circumstances?
At this writing, one further detail of the Erasmus study has been obtained, “Osterhaus and colleagues completed the final ones [Koch Postulates] when they infected two macaque monkeys with the virus from a SARS patient and isolated it from the animals.”12
So, the “definite” proof is based on two monkeys injected with the supposed SARS virus. What happened to independent confirmation, randomized controls, and probability analysis that determine the possibility that a test on two monkeys is valid? The hyped language, the major institutions and funding sources involved, juxtaposed against the meager number of monkeys in the experiment, point to extreme bias in the search for a microbial demon. I look forward to more details of the Erasmus study.
As of late May, tests for the virus in Toronto “failed to spot a targeted virus in 30% to 50% of infected patients.”13 This was attributed to inaccurate testing methods, not the absence of the virus. Nevertheless, no matter how often SARS virus is found, the virus is present only in trace amounts and not in quantities large enough to cause disease, leaving infection and pathology in doubt.14
Convenient Scapegoats
In spite of the nagging inconsistencies in the viral theory for SARS, scientists and the press have gone one step further with reports that SARS originated in a live meat market in China’s Guangdong province in November, 2002. Researchers in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China found a virus that is “almost identical” to the human SARS coronavirus in six masked palm civets (cat-sized animals) and a raccoon dog sold in these open air markets,15 a convenient discovery that will bring official pressure on China’s traditional farmers and food-sellers, now in competition with new, “sanitary” western-style supermarkets.
Viral demons are fair game for the media. Dramatic realities merge with scenes from class B sci-fi movies, as doctors and nurses scream through hospital wards, airports are closed and police round up infected carriers. In China, such dreadful acts are all too real. In addition to the proposed human executions, millions of cats, dogs, farm animals and wildlife may be slaughtered to stop the deadly viral plague. Precedent is found in Britain’s Mad Cow and Hoof and Mouth epidemics, and supposed viral epidemics in Malaysia and Taiwan during 1997-1998. In this scenario, medical workers come to the rescue like soldiers, heroically primed to save lives with deadly force.
The pharmaceutical companies, of course, are playing a leading role. Roche, “the global leader in the $22-billion-a-year clinical-diagnostics market” is developing a test that should be able to “flag SARS in the first days of an infection, possibly even when the virus isn’t causing symptoms.” This will allow officials “to identify superspreaders (patients whose SARS infections are highly transmissible) before they become superspreaders,” says a Roche executive.16 As all diagnostic tests generate false positives, anyone suffering from a fever and a cough risks being branded as a modern Typhoid Mary should he or she submit to such a procedure.
SARS Critics
In spite of the fearful headlines, the SARS paradigm has met widespread criticism.
An insider, Dr. Frank Plummer, spilled the beans: “The director… told The Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.”17
Plummer stated, “we are finding some of the best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are negative [for the SARS virus]. So it’s puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small–only detectable by very sensitive PCR.
“That’s what the majority of labs [nasopharyngeal swabs] around the world are testing, it’s where you find most respiratory viruses. It’s strange [that there’s so little virus there] because it seems to be transmitted by close contact.”
After the announcement of the Erasmus study, Plummer stated, “Once you conclude that this coronavirus is the sole cause of SARS then you move into a different phase and you move to test only for it. . . to the exclusion of other things. And I think. . . at least based on what we’re seeing in Canada. . . it’s a little early to do that. We are in many ways behaving as if this is the cause.”18
According to a CBC news report, “No classic respiratory or bacterial respiratory pathogen was consistently identified. Scientists have not definitively shown the new coronavirus causes SARS. To do that, they need to see the virus in infected lung samples from all patients and show the virus causes SARS in an animal model.”19 Implicit in this statement is the fact that SARS symptoms are not unique to the disease, or that tests were finding other (non-SARS) pathogens in the victims, or tests were not consistently performed for other pathogens.
Jon Rappoport, an independent journalist who has written for CBS Healthwatch, writes, “This [SARS] insanity is multiplied beyond all sense when you consider that, in Canada, they are now finding the [SARS] coronavirus in ZERO PERCENT of diagnosed SARS cases.”20
Nicholas Regush, veteran journalist of ABC News, admits no contact with Rappoport, yet writes, “We’re in very deep trouble… the COMING OF SARS. Having been a member of the reporting classes for many years, I can’t say that I’m surprised. More like disappointed. Disgusted. Outraged.”21
Fintan Dunne, who edits a website entitled www.SickOfDoctors.com, is also critical: “More of the hype machine and further global economic damage, over a spurious syndrome which is a drop in the disease ocean.”22
Dr. Donald Low, one of Canada’s leading infectious disease experts and a key member of the SARS containment team, described WHO’s policies for Toronto as “a bunch of bullshit” and “inappropriate.”23
According to Peter Duesberg, the well-known microbiologist at the University of California at Berkeley, the list of badly diagnosed, yet strongly hyped epidemics is lengthy: Ebola, Hepatitis C, AIDS, SMON, and others.24 According to the German virologist Stefan Lanka, the list of pseudo-epidemics is nearly endless.25
Toxicology
The orthodox SARS paradigm completely omits and avoids toxicology for good reason: SARS disease symptoms are identical to pesticide and air pollution disease symptoms. And these poisons correlate in time and place with SARS epidemics.
Only virology holds SARS together, and by including toxicology, the virus theory of SARS can be entirely rebutted.
Airline Pesticides
As the SARS syndrome “appears to be spreading via air travel, the CDC advised travelers to postpone any non-essential travel to affected areas, which include China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to WHO.”26
What most travelers don’t realize is that airlines routinely apply pesticides to airplanes, especially those on Asian routes. Airlines call their pesticide application “disinsection.” A US Department of Transportation memo describes two methods of application: “Either spray the aircraft cabin, with an aerosolized insecticide, while passengers are on board or treat the aircraft’s interior surfaces with a residual insecticide.” 27
On August 2, 2001, CNN reported on a lawsuit filed by United Airlines stewardesses for damages caused by pesticides sprayed in United Airlines planes on Australian and New Zealand routes.28 No further mention of the lawsuit has appeared in the press.
However, on March 17, 2003, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) announced: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks. . . pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by US airlines, sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.”29
Details on airline pesticide protocols for southeast Asian airline flights emerge from the US Department of Transportation memo: “Guam requires disinsection, but permits the residual method, of all flights from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and, during certain months, of flights from Taiwan, Korea and Japan.”30
The pesticides used in airlines are synthetic pyrethrin pesticides (pyrethroids), which in some countries have been banned from agricultural use.31 SARS symptoms are nearly identical to those of pyrethrin pesticides, as shown in the table on Page 19.
There are other chemical risks found in aircraft. Diana Fairechild, who worked decades for the airline industry and spent years litigating against that industry over issues related to pesticide protocols, describes the liabilities of airline travel on her website.46
Airport Pollution
Airports are notoriously air polluted. A single airliner at take-off emits tremendous volumes of pollutants.47 JFK airport in New York City, has its own oil refinery on the airport grounds, nearly two football fields in area. How common is that practice? Oil refinery emissions correlate exceedingly well with recent so-called viral disease epidemics. The West Nile virus epidemic was first noticed in the neighborhoods beneath one of the busiest take-off lanes in the US, La Guardia Airport, New York City.48
Industrial Emissions
The greatest SARS epidemic region in the world is the Guangdong province of China. That heavily populated province also vies for position as the most highly polluted region on earth, due to the presence of oil refineries, metal smelters and other chemical industries in a country with lower environmental standards.
Writing for The Atlantic Monthly, Mark Hertsgaard describes Guangdong province as “A fiendish laboratory experiment that was mushrooming beyond control. . . . Shanxi, a day’s journey west of Beijing. . . the land. . . scalped, the water poisoned, the air made toxic and dark. . . . At least five of the cities with the worst air pollution in the world are in China. Sixty to 90 percent of the rainfall in Guangdong. . . is acid rain. . . people’s lungs and nervous systems are bombarded by an extraordinary volume and variety of deadly poisons. One of every four deaths in China is caused by lung disease.”49 Hertsgaard found that total suspended particulates (an air pollution index) can be, in some cities in China, 12 times higher than in New York City. Obviously, non-viral forms of SARS exist in Guangdong. SARS is far from atypical.
Deforestation by fire can also cause the respiratory problems associated with SARS. Huge fires are set or occur accidentally in Singapore, Malaysia and China. Major fires ravaged southeast Asia in September 2002, just two months before officials announced the SARS epidemic.50
Tan Ee Lyn (Reuters) describes the air environment in Hong Kong and southern China, the major SARS epicenters: “[Title:] CHINA: September 9, 2002, Thick smog shrouds Hong Kong, health warning issued. [Text:]Hong Kong–Thick smog blanketed Hong Kong last week, a clear sign that the territory and southern China are still a long way from cleaning up their bad air. The government urged people with respiratory problems to avoid heavily congested traffic areas and cut back on outdoor physical activity.”
Toxicology = Virology
Even if a perfect (according to the rules of virology) laboratory proof for virus causation existed, such proofs still involve high use of artifice, far from the reality of everyday life. Even if SARS virology could have isolated and properly identified a real virus, questions still remain. A SARS virus may be a natural endogenous virus (from within) serving a normal adaptive function. It might not be the infectious, exogenous virus (from without) as described by media hype.
Not well known, but well established, is the fact that virus-like genetic material (RNA) is often expressed from poisoned cellular tissue as an adaptive and defensive response to poisoning.51 Expressing virus-like genes is part of the cellular “SOS response” of cells engaged in accelerated genetic recombination.52 The so-called SARS virus can be interpreted as such a genetic expression occurring in humans, as well as the exotic animals, palm civet cats and raccoon dogs sold in Guangdong live animal markets and recently found positive for SARS.
Virus Is Us
The cutting-edge biochemist, Howard Urnovitz, views SARS virus as human genes rearranged by pollution stress: “I do not see a virus. I see a unique and complete rearrangement of genomic elements. For example, when I look at what is believed to be the gene sequence coding for the spike protein of this coronavirus, I see a complicated gene rearrangement of a region of human chromosome. As I did in our studies of Gulf War Syndrome, when I see gene rearrangements like this, I immediately search for an associated catastrophic environmental event that could have caused such genomic rearrangement.”53 (Emphasis added.)
SARS epidemics correspond strongly with such “catastrophic environmental events.”
SARS Redefined
SARS is not a unique disease, since its symptoms coincide with pyrethrin poisoning and air pollution diseases.
Orthodox science damns itself by beginning with a virus hypothesis when toxicological evidence is plentiful. Orthodox journalism promotes the discovery of the “SARS virus” with little criticism of the virology and a deafening silence regarding toxicology.
Apparently the virus paradigm is a necessary cover for industrial pollution. WHO’s promotion of the virus disease paradigm is a tremendous boon for industry, which requires free disposal of industrial wastes into the lungs. . . correction. . . the atmosphere.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that SARS is the direct result of regional industrial pollution, airport pollution, with an optional coup de grace from pyrethroid pesticides applied directly upon the passengers or as a residue vapor. Essentially, airlines are enclosed, fabric-filled containers where air is circulated several times before it is vented to the outside. They are not the kind of chamber that environmentalists would prefer to enter following “disinsection.” SARS, like St. Louis virus (SLE), West Nile Virus (WNV) and non-toxicological asthma definitions guarantee spin control for emerging epidemics.
Neenyah Ostrom discusses the general relationship between pollution in China and the SARS virus– and the relation between poisoning and cellular RNA: “But Guangdong and Hong Kong share another distinction: They are in perhaps the most polluted area on the planet. Should we be asking questions like, what new types of pollutants have been introduced into this gene-swapping microenvironment? So, the question becomes: Is pollution a causative agent in SARS?”
If SARS disease is another semantic flag for industrial pollution, then SARS functions by punishing the economy of polluting regions without specifically placing blame on powerful industries. Military groups have long employed such a method–where the group is punished to correct individual behavior. Within industry, SARS will bring about a reassessment of economic priorities (industrial need versus human worth) without the complications of public blame games.
Sidebars
West Nile Virus
West Nile Virus (WNV) arrived in New York City in 1999 and soon grew into an “epidemic” characterized by a sea of contradictions.54 Medical press agencies proclaimed the “first arrival of the West Nile virus to the Western Hemisphere”55 but a more accurate description of the situation would be the “first testing of the West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere.”
Mayor Giuliani personally announced the epidemic. He also announced the immediate commencement of a six-week pesticide spray campaign over the city, dispensed by helicopters. Meanwhile, the TV and newspaper headlines chanted, “The Deadly Virus.” The disease was at first attributed to the St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLE) but a few weeks later blame shifted to West Nile virus.
The United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) issued a press release one year later “confirming” the pathological effect of WNV on crows. This was hyped and widely distributed. Having read many other virological studies, I found the USGS results incredibly odd. The crows were injected intramuscularly with a virus extract and a few days later all met death. The filter used to separate the virus from tissue extract was nearly six times the diameter of the virus.56 Nearly all non-injected crows in the same cage also died. The success of the experiment was too convincing to be true, especially for a study that did not employ the common, harsh, intracranial injection method. The study outcome was also odd because WNV had been considered a mild virus and not especially dangerous to birds. The USGS laboratory ignored my repeated inquiries for the published details. After going through another scientist, who contacted the USGS, I received an emailed response from the USGS indicating low confidence for their study. The agency indicated their study would not be published or discussed and they expressed an intention to perform a better experiment in the future. I doubt they would want to take a chance on another such experiment.
SLE and WNV epidemics occur annually in air-polluted petrochemical regions (such as eastern New Jersey and St. Louis) during the warm spring and summer months, with an apex in July and August. The incidence correlates daily with air pollution brought to ground level by warm air and loss of convection efficiency for exhaust sources. SLE epidemics have a long history in the US (in petrochemical regions) and these epidemics don’t spread infectiously to other regions. The two great epicenters for WNV/SLE disease are the two great petrochemical industrial regions in the US–southern Louisiana and New Jersey.
During the summers of 1999 and 2000, air pollution levels reached record levels, correlating with the incidence of “West Nile virus” cases, both human and avian. The gasoline additive MTBE represents perhaps the greatest production volume for any industrial poison in the US, yet it has received little publicity. The public became aware of its dangers only when the EPA suggested that MTBE be phased out on July 27,1999. That date also represents the apex of the West Nile virus avian epidemic for 1999.63
Like so many widely dispensed industrial poisons, the physiological effects of MTBE have only become known through usage on the public. However, Dr. Peter Joseph correlated MTBE with neurological disease in his 1997 study, “Changes in Disease Rates Following the Introduction of Oxygenated Fuels.” Neurological symptoms also characterize West Nile virus disease. Avian mortality further distinguishes this “viral” disease. Yet, avian mortality is an early warning system for human air pollution disease, as evidenced by the traditional air assay test, the “miners’ canary.”
Legionnaires’ Disease
Another acute respiratory disease is Legionnaires’ disease, also characterized by sloppy science. The disease was claimed causative for 182 casualties and 29 deaths within a few days in 1976 at the bicentennial celebration of the American Legion at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia.
After several months of study, CDC scientists announced the discovery of Legionella bacteriumas as the cause for Legionnaires’ disease. Virologists Peter Duesberg and Brian Ellison relate the story.57 “One month before the CDC isolated the bacterium, a US House of Representatives Investigative Committee held hearings excoriating the CDC for not having looked for toxic chemicals as a possible cause of the 1976 epidemic. Chairman John Murphy of New York sharply attacked the investigation because ‘The CDC, for example, did not have a toxicologist present in their initial team of investigators sent to deal with the epidemic. No apparent precautions were taken to deal with the possibility, however remote at the time, that something else might have been the cause.’”
According to Duesberg, “The evidence indicates Legionella is actually quite harmless. Since 1976, CDC and public health investigators have found the bacteria all over the country, in water cooling towers, condensers, shower heads, faucets, humidifiers, whirlpools, swimming pools and even hot-water tanks, assorted plumbing, mud, and lakes. The bacterium is so universal that between 20 percent and 30 percent of the American population has already been infected, yet virtually no one ever develops Legionnaires’ disease symptoms.” Calling the organism Aguanella–indicating it is simply water-borne–wouldn’t serve the CDC’s purpose. Quite by chance, the CDC’s interpretation happens to protect the chemical industry, which sells poisonous deodorants, pesticides, antibiotics, carpets, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and beverages to hotels–and airlines.
Two SARS Disease Paradigms: Comparison of Symptoms
Symptom
As SARS Virus32-35
As Airline Pesticide Poisoning
(mostly Pyrethrin formulations)36-45
Coughing
Yes
Yes
Malaise
Yes
Yes
Fever
Yes
Yes
Headaches
Yes
Yes
Nausea
Yes
Yes
Vomiting
Yes
Yes
Rash
Yes
Yes
Respiratory distress
Yes
Yes
Respiratory failure
Yes
Yes
Neurological dysfunction
Yes
Yes
Cardiac dysfunction
Yes
Yes
Irritability
Yes
Yes
Diarrhea
Yes
Yes
Pneumonia
Yes
Yes
Lung damage (as measles symptoms, see below)
Yes
Yes
Dyspnoea (breathing difficulty related to hypoxemia)
Yes
Yes
Hypoxemia (low oxygen level)
Yes
Yes
Proteinaceous pulmonary edema
Yes
Yes
Leukocyte inhibition
Yes
Yes
Increases sodium ion permeability in tissue
Not Listed
Yes
Affects nasal, windpipe and lung surfaces
Yes
Yes
Shock
Not Listed
Yes
Seizures
Not listed
Yes
Salivation
Yes
Yes
Neurological damage
Yes
Yes
Muscular stiffness
Yes
Not listed
Like measles (Syncytial lung)
Yes
Yes*
Like flu
Yes
Yes
Like common cold
Yes
Yes
Like mumps
Yes
Yes*
*In terms of listed symptoms
SARS – Other Theories
Len Horowitz, PhD, author of Emerging Viruses: SARS is simply the flu, which kills 36,000 people annually in the US. Death comes to those whose immunity has been compromised by drugs and vaccines.58 The media has created great fear among the public by grossly overstating mortality rates and exaggerating the danger to healthy individuals.
Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, president of the London-based Institute of Science in Society: SARS is a highly infectious disease caused by a new bacterium of the Chlamydia family that was created accidentally through genetic engineering. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering. The artificial constructs created by genetic engineering are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes, creating the possibility of new, highly virulent micro-organisms.59
Marshall Smith, Editor, BroJon Gazette: The SARS virus, like all flu viruses, is a variant caused by the rural Chinese custom of raising flocks of geese side-by-side with herds of swine. If a pig is ill with a porcine flu and then eats droppings from an avian-virus-infected goose, the result is a new cross-species flu virus with the outer lining of a pig and the inner viral core of a goose. Whether or not this theory is correct, Smith’s advice is sound: Do not suppress a fever. Fever is the body’s way of preventing the invading virus from reproducing and spreading massively throughout the body. Unfortunately, most cold and flu medications reduce fever, setting the stage for massive viral proliferation. Unfortunately, the current definition of SARS may cause many people to take drugs to suppress fever, in order to avoid quarantine.
Linda Saif, professor of food animal health at Ohio State University: Coronavirus causes cough and pneumonia, so-called shipping fever, in animals packed together in cattle cars. The stresses of air travel–large numbers of people together in small spaces, being away from home, being close to other strangers, moving across time zones, rushing to catch flights–are conditions that make the coronavirus dangerous to humans as well.60 (Saif does not explain why airline travel, which has been a fact of life for millions of people for the last 40 years, has not caused SARS until recently.)
Richard Fisher, senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington-based think tank: “. . . there are compelling reasons. . . to at least ask whether there might be any linkage between SARS and China’s biological-warfare efforts.”61
Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University: The SARS virus comes from outer space, hitched a ride on a comet and then drifted down to earth.62
References:
Washington Post, May 24, 2003
AP, May 15, 2003. “SARS has caused more damage to the global airline industry than the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq combined, the world’s airline association said Thursday.”
NY Times 5/5/03
“China has threatened to execute or jail for life anyone who breaks SARS quarantine orders and spreads the deadly virus intentionally.” Beijing (Reuters), May 15, 2003
“Malaysia ordered a quarantine for 203 citizens, mostly low waged earners, who had visited a SARS-infected produce market in Singapore and warned that it would imprison those who would break the orders.” www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/24sars1.htm
“Rotterdam-led scientists confirm virus as cause of SARS”, Bio Aspects Newsletter, Vol 6, April 24, 2003, www.geneyous.nl/docs/BioASPects20030424.html#article-marktontwikkeling1
“Tests Confirm Coronavirus Is Sars Source”, Patricia Reaney, May 15, 2003, NIH/Reuters, MedlinePlus
Fortune Magazine, 5/26/03
www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04
Washington Times, February 24, 2003
Fortune Magazine, May 25, 2003
Walgate 4/11/03, Ibid
“Containment Controversy”, Global Sunday, 4/25/03, an interview by Troy Reeb with Dr. Frank Plummer, Global Sunday, www.canada.com/national/globalsunday
“Scientists make small steps in identifying cause of SARS”, CBC NEWS, April 10, 2003, www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/10/sars_sci030410
Neenyah Ostrom, “Why is SARS Such a Mystery? Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, Parasite – Why Can’t Researchers ID the Bug?”, March 20, 2003, www.chronicillnet.org
Aviation Policy, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/disin.htm
“United Sued Over Pesticide In Planes”, August 2, 2001, CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — Flight attendants are being sickened by exposure to pesticides that are sprayed on airplanes serving Australia and New Zealand, a lawsuit filed against United Airlines claims,” www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/02/unitedairlines.pesticides.ap/index.html
“Airline Passengers Are Sprayed for Bugs”, March 17, 2003: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks… pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by U.S. airlines sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.” PANNA mentions Asian routes as specifically at risk for this procedure.
“Aviation Policy”, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/
Cynthia Olsen, “A Safe Alternative Treatment for Head Lice”, Alive Magazine, October 2000, “Pyrethrins have been banned from agricultural use as a pesticide.”
CDC Case Definition for SARS (March 22, 2003): Measured temperature > 100.5F; cough; hypoxia; shortness of breath; pneumonia; acute respiratory distress.
Gavin Joynt and Charles Gomersall, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)”,
Tamer Fouad, M.D., SARS Symptoms: “headache, muscular stiffness, loss of appetite, malaise, confusion, rash, and diarrhea. Early laboratory findings include low platelet and white blood cell counts. In some cases, those symptoms are followed by pneumonia in both lungs, sometimes requiring use of a respirator.” The Doctor’s Lounge.NET. http://thedoctorslounge.net/medlounge/articles/sars
Maggie Fox, April 10, 2003 (Ibid). Early SARS symptoms: like flu, measles, mumps.
Olsen, 2000, Ibid. Symptoms listed for permethrin (a type of synthetic pyrethrin used on airlines): “Side effects include vomiting, respiratory failure, pneumonia and asthma.”
Becky Riley, “Flyers Beware: Pesticide Use on International and U.S. Domestic Aircraft and Flights”, Northwest Coaltion Against Pesticides (NCAMP), 1998, “… “in-flight spraying, Airosol Aircraft Insecticide, says that acute health hazards of exposure to the product include dizziness, skin irritation, and frostbite, and that overexposure due to inhalation may cause temporary central nervous system effects: dizziness, headache, confusion, stupor with the exclusion of oxygen and with grossly excessive overexposure. Additional warnings state that individuals with preexisting diseases of the cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures, and to heart irregularities (Airosol Company, 1992).”
Ibid, “Two other U.S.-registered permethrin-containing products with labeled aircraft uses, but theoretically not for use in passenger cabins (though this is far from clear from reading the product labels), are Dragnet FT Termiticide/Insecticide and Flea Insecticide. According to information provided by the FMC Corporation, manufacturer of the above products, symptoms of overexposure to both of the products include hypersensitivity to touch and sound, tremors, and convulsions. Overexposure of animals via inhalation has also produced symptoms such as squinting eyes, irregular and rattling breathing, and ataxia (loss of muscular coordination). Inhalation of stoddard solvent vapors [present in both of the above products] may cause dizziness, disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, and eye and skin and mucous membrane irritation (FMC, 1998; FMC, 1993).
Ibid. Airline pesticides: “Organophosphates are efficiently absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and skin penetration. Symptoms of acute exposure to organophosphates include: headache, nausea, dizziness and anxiety, followed by muscle twitching, weakness, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, tightness in the chest, and coughing. Severe organophosphate poisonings can lead to incontinence, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions, and life-threatening respiratory failure (US EPA, 1989).”
Ibid. “Bendicarb: Highly toxic carbamate nerve poison (US EPA, 1989). Causes eye irritation. Exposure (poisoning) symptoms include tightness in chest, sweating, stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea (US EPA, 1979).”
Ibid. Piperonyl butoxide (used on aircraft): “Classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen (US EPA, 1998-3). In animal tests, causes liver tumors and lung damage, hemorrhages, and anemia (Takahashi, 1994).”
“MSDS: Permethrin,” Universal Crop Protection Alliance LLC, “…moderate eye and skin irritation… Eye: There may be moderate stinging, tearing and redness… mild skin irritation… Disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation… High oral doses can result in damage to the liver and kidneys… Long term feeding studies in animals resulted in increased liver and kidney weights, induction of the liver microsomal drug metabolizing enzyme system, and histopathological changes in the lungs and liver.”
Shirley A. Briggs and Rachel Carson Council, Inc., “Excerpts From Basic Guide To Pesticides”, Pyrethroid symptoms: “tremors; exaggerated startle response; hyperthermia [fever]”
Lance C. Villers, MA, NREMTP, “Managing organophosphate exposures”, Texas Dept. of Health, EMS Management, OP Symptoms: “respiratory depression, bronchospasm, bronchial secretions, pulmonary edema, muscular weakness, resulting in hypoxemia.” www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems/MJCEPesticideExp.htm
INCHEM, “Pyrethrin”, Symptoms: “cough, wheeze, dyspnoea, bronchospasm or pulmonary oedema.”, Chemical Safety Information From Intergovernmental Organizations. www.inchem.org
“Airports create smog; a single 747 arriving and departing… produces as much smog as a car driven more that 5,600 miles, and as much NOx as a car driven almost 26,500 miles (source: Natural Resources Defense Council).” Queens College School of Earth and Environmental Science www.qc.edu/EES/ENSCI111/Air/air.html
Jim West, “The Dangers of MTBE-Gasoline Additive: Its Connection to the West Nile Virus”, Townsend Letter For Doctors And Patients, July 2002, v228, p64-76.
Mark Hertzgaard, “Our Real China Problem”, The Atlantic Monthly, November 1997.
Ralph Scobey, M.D., “Is Human Poliomyelitis Caused By An Exogenous
Virus?”, Archive Of Pediatrics (April/May,1954) v71, p111. From Jim West’s
analysis of Scobey, www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm
Mark Ptashne, A Genetic Switch (1992), p62. Cell Press and Blackwell Scientific Publications, 50 Church St., Cambridge, MA 02138
“Dr. Urnovitz rejects the theory of a coronavirus as being the cause of SARS”, May 14, 2003. www.chronixbiomedical.com/Research/press_release3.html
Eric Ammerman , Senior Public Health Sanitarian, Monroe County Department of Health. “Experts agree that WNV most likely arrived in the Western Hemisphere as some ‘accidental tourist’ aboard a ship or in an airplane.”
“A panel appointed by the EPA is set to report on Tuesday that use of the much-debated ingredient M.T.B.E. . . should be ‘reduced substantially’. .. ” The New York Times, July 27, 1999.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2003.
“It is abundantly clear that the incessant reporting about so-called ‘pathogens’ that can ‘infect’ us, continues to promulgate the idea that ‘viruses’ are not only real, but they are also pathogenic and therefore pose a risk to our health. This serves to keep many people confused and fearful – which is of course part of the intention of such reporting.”
An article posted on the BBC website on 5th April caught my eye because it provides yet another example of why it is so important to not only expose the lies about ‘viruses’ being pathogens, but to also refute the claims by many voices in the ‘alternative health movement’ that the ‘no virus’ position is divisive and of no real importance.
I strongly disagree that it is divisive and of no importance.
In fact, I would say that it is absolutely central to our ability to live in freedom that we understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a pathogenic ‘virus’ – or any other so-called ‘germ’ for that matter – because it enables us to live without fear and to take responsibility for our own health.
The aforementioned BBC article, entitled Rare tick disease found in England, health officials say, begins with the following claim,
“A virus carried by ticks, which is common in many parts of the world, is now present in the UK and health officials are reminding the public how to avoid bites from the tiny bugs.”
The idea that it is ‘now’ present in the UK would seem to be contradicted by a later statement in the article,
“But the tick species which carries the virus is widespread in the UK.”
There are similarities with the claims about this tick and those about the mosquitoes that are claimed to cause malaria, because they are also said to be widespread in the UK; a situation that raises the obvious question: Why are there no cases of malaria in the UK? Maybe they have not yet added malaria to their list of ‘diseases’ to scare us with!! But if they do, rest assured I am ready with my rebuttal!
The problem with ticks is claimed to be that they could cause tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), although the BBC article states that the risk is ‘low’. Which raises the question of what is the purpose of this article if the risk of health problems is low? I would suggest it is merely another fear-mongering exercise!
There are other similarities with these ticks and mosquitoes, one of which is that they are not born with ‘viruses’, but, according to a page entitled The Lifecycle of a Blacklegged (Deer) Tick on the TickTalk website,
“Ticks do not hatch with any diseases or infections, however the smaller animals that they typically feed on at this stage of their life can carry disease-causing pathogens.”
Note the use of the word ‘can’ with respect to the ability of the animals they feed on to carry pathogens.
The web page also makes the statement that,
“If a larva feeds on an infected animal, the pathogen can be transmitted to the tick and they become a carrier.”
It is interesting that a so-called ‘infection’ can happen in both directions because, according to the BBC article,
“While feeding, they can transmit viruses and infections that cause disease, with the most common being Lyme disease – a bacterial infection which can be treated with antibiotics.”
The vital question that needs to be asked is: Where is the evidence that animals carry the ‘pathogens’ in the first place and that these ‘pathogens’ are passed to ticks during a blood meal?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the answer.
However, it should be noted that there is to be increased ‘testing’, as the BBC article states,
“The UK Health Security Agency has recommended changes to testing in hospital so that any new cases can be picked up quickly.
Enhanced surveillance for the virus is now being carried out in England and Scotland, where there is one probable case of tick-borne encephalitis.”
Unsurprisingly, the types of ‘test’ used seem to be either PCR or antigen tests, neither of which have been proven to be able to detect the existence of a pathogen or to show that a pathogen was the cause of a person’s health problem.
Another really interesting question that does not seem to be asked – or answered – is: How can the tick transmit a virus that is said to cause serious health problems to a human but not be adversely affected itself? To simply state that the tick is a ‘carrier’ is woefully inadequate and parallels the nonsense of ‘asymptomatic carriers’, which I have discussed in earlier articles.
Furthermore, there is no explanation for the claim that the tick is able to receive a ‘virus’ from the few drops of blood it draws from an ‘infected’ animal. Surely the odds of that happening are minuscule – unless the animal is riddled with ‘viruses’, in which case the animal would be extremely ill, according to the mainstream view of ‘infections’. This clearly makes no sense.
Nor is there proof for the claim about the process by which the ‘virus’ passes to a human host when the tick is drawing blood, because this would involve the virus travelling to the human body from the tick’s body, which is in the opposite direction to the flow of blood.
There is an attempt at an explanation of this process in a 2013 study article entitled Tick salivary compounds: their role in modulation of host defences and pathogen transmission, which states that,
“Pathogens exploit tick salivary molecules for their survival and multiplication in the vector and transmission to and establishment in the hosts.”
The answer to the question about transmission is that no ‘virus’ does this; because, as I have repeatedly shown, there is no evidence for the existence of ‘pathogenic viruses’.
I am not denying that tick bites cause reactions and can make some people feel unwell and experience various symptoms.
Although I cannot possibly speculate on what does cause these problems, I can share some information I have found.
The first piece of information involves the use of ‘insect repellants’, such as DEET, which is recommended by the NHS. Interestingly, it is claimed that scientists do not know how DEET works to repel insects. Although DEET has not been found to be particularly toxic, it has been found to be an irritant, which may explain why some people react to this substance.
I would strongly suggest, therefore, that people research the ingredients of insect repellants before using them, as it is possible that these chemicals enter the body through the open wound of the tick bite and thereby cause a reaction.
It is also reported, such as in the 2013 study article mentioned above, that ticks inject ‘salivary molecules’ into the host to ‘modulate’ the response. Maybe some people react strongly to these ‘molecules’ for various reasons, which may depend on the overall health of their body.
There is, however, another aspect to this fear-mongering about ticks, which is an alleged connection to ‘climate change’, as can be seen in this comment in the BBC article,
“They speculate that infected ticks may have been brought into the UK by migratory birds because of climate change.”
This is nonsense!
I am NOT denying that the climate changes. What I am denying is the claim that human activities are driving changes in the climate as the result of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no evidence to support such a claim.
What I would also like to emphasise is that the environment has been and is still being damaged; but a substantial proportion of that damage is due to pollutants, none of it is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, carbon dioxide is essential for life – without it, plants would die; and so would we.
Do people who are making every effort to reduce their ‘carbon footprint’ not understand this?
I will return to the topic of ‘climate change’ at some stage because again we are being made to fear the wrong ‘enemy’.
Back to the ‘ticks’. The most important point to make is that they are not ‘infected’ with any virus or bacterium that can be transmitted to humans or animals and make them ill.
Bacteria, which are claimed to be the cause of Lyme disease, another ‘tick-borne disease’, have similarly never been proven to be the cause of any disease. This is important because the NHS website advises people, if bitten, to,
“…clean the bite area with antibacterial wash/soap and water, and monitor it for several weeks for any changes.”
Antibacterial products are, by their very nature, toxic and therefore harmful. The application of antibacterial substances is another likely cause of health problems after a bite.
It is abundantly clear that the incessant reporting about so-called ‘pathogens’ that can ‘infect’ us, continues to promulgate the idea that ‘viruses’ are not only real, but they are also pathogenic and therefore pose a risk to our health. This serves to keep many people confused and fearful – which is of course part of the intention of such reporting.
And it is for this reason that people need to recognise that they are being made to fear ‘germs’ – an invisible ‘enemy’. But, in the case of a ‘virus’, this enemy has never been proven to exist in the way it is described.
I would dearly love to write about other topics, but the ‘germ theory’ lie needs to be dismantled – once and for all – a task that I do not accept is unimportant or ‘divisive’.
Cover image credit: Nel_Botha-NZ
(Photo of oxpeckers, native to sub-Saharan Africa. They feed on ticks, larvae
and other parasites that infest large mammals such as the giraffe shown in the image.)
Bombshell Vax Analysis Finds $147 Billion in Economic Damage, Tens of Millions Injured or Disabled
A new report estimates that 26.6 million people were injured, 1.36 million disabled, and 300,000 excess deaths can be attributed to COVID-19 vaccine damages in 2022 alone, which cost the economy nearly $150 billion.
Research firm Phinance Technologies, founded and operated by former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd, Yuri Nunes (PhD Physics, MSc Mathematics) and Carlos Alegria (PhD Physics, Finance), split the impact of the vaccines into four broad categories to estimate the human costs associated with the Covid-19 vaccine; no effect or asymptomatic, those who sustained injuries (mild-to-moderate outcome), those who became disabled (severe outcome), and death (extreme outcome). Data on vaccine disabilities and injuries comes directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), while the excess death figures are derived from official figures on deaths in the US via two different methods (methodology here).
It’s important to note that people in one category (injured, for example) can move into latter categories of severity – which this analysis does not take into consideration.
“We need to remember that not only are these groupings an attempt to characterize different levels of damage from the inoculations, they are not static and could interact with each other,” reads the report. “For instance, there might be individuals who had no visible effects after vaccination but nonetheless could still be impacted.”
“Individuals with mild injuries from the inoculations could, over time, develop severe injuries to the extent of being disabled, or an extreme outcome such as death.”
🚨🚨Estimated 2022 US Vaccine Damage Report:
Estimated Human Cost: ✅26.6 million Injuries ✅1.36 million Disabilities ✅300k excess deaths
In analyzing each of the above categories, Phinance used absolute excess lost worktime (see previous report) to determine that the direct economic cost of vaccine injuries was $79.5 billion in 2022, and $52.2 billion for those with severe disabilities.
For deaths, Phinace used the average yearly absolute rise in excess deaths since 2021, which was 0.05% for the 25-64 year-old demographic, which amounted to $5.6 billion in lost productivity.
In total, they found a total “economic cost” of $147.8 billion in 2022 due to the Covid-19 vaccines.
As Dowd notes, these figures are just what can be currently measured, as things like “The knock effects such as lost productivity due to a worker being present but working at say 50%-75% of capacity is missed plus burn out from those picking up slack.”
I’ve grown increasingly frustrated about the way debate is controlled around the topic of origins of the alleged novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, and I have come to disbelieve it’s ever been in circulation, causing massive scale illness and death. Concerningly, almost no one will entertain this possibility, despite the fact that molecular biology is the easiest discipline in which to cheat. That’s because you really cannot do it without computers, and sequencing requires complex algorithms and, importantly, assumptions. Tweaking algorithms and assumptions, you can hugely alter the conclusions.
This raises the question of why there is such an emphasis on the media storm around Fauci, Wuhan and a possible lab escape. After all, the ‘perpetrators’ have significant control over the media. There’s no independent journalism at present. It is not as though they need to embarrass the establishment. I put it to readers that they’ve chosen to do so.
So who do I mean by ‘they’ and ‘the perpetrators? There are a number of candidates competing for this position, with their drug company accomplices, several of whom are named in Paula Jardine’s excellent five-part series for TCW, Anatomy of the sinister Covid project. High on the list is the ‘enabling’ World Economic Forum and their many political acolytes including Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern.
But that doesn’t answer the question why are they focusing on the genesis of the virus. In my view, they are doing their darnedest to make sure you regard this event exactly as they want you to. Specifically, that there was a novel virus.
I’m not alone in believing that myself at the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, but over time I’ve seen sufficient evidence to cast strong doubt on that idea. Additionally, when considered as part of a global coup d’état, I have put myself in the position of the most senior, hidden perpetrators. In a Q&A, they would learn that the effect of a released novel pathogen couldn’t be predicted accurately. It might burn out rapidly. Or it might turn out to be quite a lot more lethal than they’d expected, demolishing advanced civilisations. Those top decision-makers would, I submit, conclude that this natural risk is intolerable to them. They crave total control, and the wide range of possible outcomes from a deliberate release militates against this plan of action: ‘No, we’re not going to do this. Come back with a plan with very much reduced uncertainty on outcomes.’
The alternative I think they’ve used is to add one more lie to the tall stack of lies which has surrounded this entire affair. This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus which, crucially, caused massive-scale illness and deaths. In fact, there hasn’t.
Instead, we have been told there was this frightening, novel pathogen and ramped up the stress-inducing fear porn to 11, and held it there. This fits with cheating about genetic sequences, PCR test protocols (probes, primers, amplification and annealing conditions, cycles), ignoring contaminating genetic materials from not only human and claimed viral sources, but also bacterial and fungal sources. Why for example did they need to insert the sampling sticks right into our sinuses? Was it to maximise non-human genetic sequences?
Notice the soft evidence that our political and cultural leaders, including the late Queen, were happy to meet and greet one another without testing, masking or social distancing. They had no fear. In the scenario above, a few people would have known there was no new hazard in their environment. If there really was a lethal pathogen stalking the land, I don’t believe they’d have had the courage or the need to act nonchalantly and risk exposure to the virus.
Most convincingly for me is the US all-cause mortality (ACM) data by state, sex, age and date of occurrence, as analysed by Denis Rancourt and colleagues. The pattern of increased ACM is inconsistent with the presence of a novel respiratory virus as the main cause.
If I’m correct that there was no novel virus, what a genius move it was to pretend there was! Now they want you only to consider how this ‘killer virus’ got into the human population. Was it a natural emergence (you know, a wild bat bit a pangolin and this ended up being sold at a wet market in Wuhan) or was it hubristically created by a Chinese researcher, enabled along the way by a researcher at the University of North Carolina funded by Fauci, together making an end run around a presidential pause on such work? Then there’s the question as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?
I also need to point out that the perpetrators have hermetic control of the mass media via a Big Tech and government stranglehold documented in part here, here and here. That’s why they’ve found it so easy to censor people like me. If a story appears on multiple TV networks, it’s because they’re either OK with it or it has been actively planted. It won’t be genuine. They never tell the truth. I don’t think they’ve told the truth since this coup began and probably much earlier. Most so-called journalists have lost sight of what truth ever was.
I believe that the perpetrators (who could be all or any of Gates, Fauci, Farrar, Vallance, CEPI, EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA and numerous others) planted the controversy about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 because a little embarrassment of the establishment was a small price to persuade most of us that there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t. (And they have got away with it to date.)
I have colleagues who do not believe what we’ve been told (i.e. that a virus has been experimentally constructed) is even possible technologically. I don’t have the background to assess that idea. But the rest hangs together for me in a way that no other explanation does.
To this point, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive Sasha Latypova, speaking with Robert F Kennedy Jr on his podcast of last Thursday, March 16, describes the extensive evidence of the contracts and relationships that were in place before the Covid era. Contracts were signed for billions of dollars in February 2020. Not only would the required production never happen (from a standing start, to sign such a large commitment is ridiculous) but it cannot be done. She estimated that approximately one kilogram of DNA was required. There isn’t that much medicinal grade DNA on the planet at any one time. That’s because it’s hard to do, very expensive, wholly bespoke and difficult to store for long periods. Also, the amounts of any specific DNA sequence required and held in store by commercial suppliers would be milligrams or perhaps grams at a stretch. So it was always completely unfeasible, regardless of how much money was thrown at the problem, to have accomplished what they claim to have done in a short time.
Consequently, no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned. In itself, that rules out a natural emergence of a pathogen, unless divine providence occurred. Logically we’re left with a leak or, as I argue, a lie plus a PsyOp. The former may or may not be possible, but what isn’t arguable is that something like this could be done and would be likely to run smoothly, with a real pathogen. Almost any outcome but the one presumably wanted is likely if a pathogen is released. I can reach no other conclusion than that it’s fake.
In closing, I’m not saying people weren’t sick or that they didn’t die in huge numbers. I’m arguing only about the causes of illnesses and deaths. People were made sick and some killed by all the pre-existing causes, amplified by fear, resulting in immunosuppression and then a host of revolting actions. Note even the official overlap of signs and symptoms of ‘Covid-19’ and existing illnesses. Notably, they chopped antibiotic prescriptions in the US by 50 per cent during 2020. They ensured large numbers of frail elderly people were mechanically ventilated, a procedure which, in such subjects, is close to contraindicated. Some were administered remdesivir, which is a poison for the kidneys. In care homes, they were given midazolam and morphine, respiratory depressant drugs which in combination are all but contraindicated in patients with breathing difficulties. If used, close monitoring is required, most usually automated alarm systems attached to vital cardiorespiratory monitoring, including fingertip monitoring for blood gases. That didn’t happen in care homes.
I believe the main reason for the lies about the novel virus is a desire for total predictability and control, with the clearly articulated intention of transforming society; beginning by dismantling the financial system through lockdowns and furlough, while the immediate practical goal of lockdown was to provide the causus belli for injecting as many people as possible with materials designed not to induce immunity, but to demand repeat inoculation, to cause injury and death, and to control freedom of movement. I’m sure they’re pretty content with getting at least one needle into 6,000,000,000 people.
Note that though an estimated 10-15million have been killed with poisonous ‘vaccines’, these are the but first of many mRNA injections to come. The indications are that ways to force you to accept ten more have been anticipated, because that’s the number of doses your government has agreed to purchase. Purchasing what? Well, it’s already been mooted that all existing vaccines are to be reformatted as mRNA types. If this happens, I don’t believe anyone injected ten more times is likely to escape death or severe, life-limiting illnesses. Inducing your body to manufacture non-self proteins will axiomatically induce an autoimmune attack by your own body. Your disease will be related to where the injected dose goes and of course the consistency of that injected product. They’ve been horribly erratic so far. It’s not certain they ever could have been made and launched if they had been subject to the usual quality requirements and not granted ’emergency use’ authorisations. Of course, as we now know, the regulators played an important role beyond lying for the US military, the organisation which made the original orders for ‘vaccines’, and set all the contractual conditions for companies such as Moderna and Pfizer.
The chickens are coming home to roost right now in the banking system.
As I always say, I cannot know much for sure. I don’t have a copy of the script of this, the greatest crime in history. But, whatever Covid actually is, I don’t believe that what was called influenza disappeared conveniently in early 2020. It’s another lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.
To those who sense that all is not well but are unwilling to make the psychological leap to the diabolical world I believe we’re now living in, I point out the asymmetry of risk. If you follow the official narrative and I’m right, you and your children will lose all your freedoms and probably your lives. If you believe what I’m saying and I’m wrong, you’ll be laughed at. These options aren’t faintly balanced. A rational actor should cease believing what we’re being told. It’s not a safe position, keeping your counsel and your head down. It’s the most dangerous thing you could do.
“The cabal of pandemic fraudsters must be laughing. As cartoonist Bob Moran quipped, gain of function is really gain of fiction. To date, there is no actual evidence that viruses can be made more lethal, despite the huge amounts of research grant money awarded and theoretical reports.”
Why Wuhan? For the most deadly pandemic since the Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, an enormous but hardly known metropolis from the Chinese interior was the source. The official story was zoonotic transmission of a bat coronavirus, blamed on poor hygiene at the city’s wet market.
While I saw from the outset the malevolent plot of Covid-19 to erect an authoritarian regime through an exaggerated threat to lives, I was temporarily drawn to the alternative explanation. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded by the US government for ‘gain of function’ viral research, seemed an obvious origin. While the lab leak was dismissed as conspiracy theory by political leaders and most mainstream media, investigative journalism by Ian Birrell in the Mail on Sundayreported lax practices and broken seals in the Wuhan laboratory, despite its intended operation at the highest level of biosecurity.
I suggested a laboratory accident in my report Year of the Bat, written for Civitas think-tank during the first lockdown. But months later I changed my mind, having listened to the likes of Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire, doctors Sam Bailey and Tom Cowan, Jeff Berwick of Dollar Vigilante, and seasoned conspiracy theorist David Icke. In his Perceptions of a Renegade Mind, Icke argued that it was easier to enact a technocratic coup with a fake rather than real virus. A released pathogen would be unpredictable, likely to lose lethality, and scientific analysis would soon diverge from an initially contrived consensus.
Why didn’t medics and scientists see the scam? Covid-19 was, in my view, a carefully planned emergency, in which normal standards of science and ethics would be overridden. As the new virus began to spread in January 2020, Christian Drosten and colleagues in Germany provided the concrete foundation for the entire edifice, by identifying a genetic sequence through PCR testing, enabling screening for the disease. Incredibly, this paper was approved by peer review in 24 hours. Testing kits were already available in bulk supply across the world – one of many curious instances of readiness for a nasty viral surprise.
Doctors and health authorities uncritically accepted the existence of Covid-19 and its testing standard. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, emphasised that this tool should not be used for diagnostic purpose, and that with high level of amplification of samples, almost anything in the atmosphere could be found by the test. Perhaps too conveniently, Mullis died in August 2019.
Instead of the widely depicted CGI rendering of a sphere with spikes (like a naval mine, but typically coloured in a sinister deep purple), the reality of SARSCOV2 is a code for a genetic sequence generated with ‘next generation’ genomic sequencing software found in human beings here, there and everywhere. It may be merely dead cellular material, possibly more prevalent with seasonal respiratory infection. This code, rather than any viral sample, was all that Pfizer and Moderna used to produce their ‘vaccines’.
The origins of Covid-19 has become a major talking point recently, after the Department of Energy suggested that, after years of denial by the US government, that a lab leak was ‘possible’. The hypothesis was then elevated to ‘probable’ by FBI chief Christopher Wray. Cue a deluge of ‘told you so’ from the sceptical margins.
As lamented by Patrick Henningsen on UK Column News (3 March 2023), some of the most respected and influential dissidents are riding on the crest of this wave of sudden Covid-19 revisionism. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine inventor, tweeted on the ‘narrative collapsing’, asserting that ‘the lab leak killed millions of people’. Stanford University professor of medicine Jay Bhattacharya, initiator of the Great Barrington Declaration, saw a belated shift ‘from putative conspiracy to legitimate science’. Fox News and Republican politicians such as Rand Paul renewed their calls for prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci and demand for reparations from China.
According to Henningsen, the lab leak is nothing but an official conspiracy theory. The narrative, far from collapsing, is unwittingly reinforced by halfway house sceptics. Everything reported on mainstream media is for a purpose, serving the ‘progressive’ agenda. What may appear as mea culpa is a staged performance involving well-remunerated fall guys such as Fauci, and British health secretary Matt Hancock.
Not only does the lab leak cause obfuscation and futile debate, it fools unwary sceptics into perpetrating the big lie. If you fall for this tale, you fall for everything founded on the fundamental falsehood of a ‘novel’ (and possibly manmade) virus. It diverts attention from the iatrogenic scandal of the vaccines, while also preparing the ground for a global pandemic treaty. Instead of fumbling politicians with their petty squabbles and egos, the unelected and unaccountable World Health Organisation will assume control of every nation’s public health response to any future threat of a contagion. This will be justified by the many ‘mistakes’ governments made with Covid-19, as now being highlighted in mass media. By the same token, it also serves to excuse any ‘mistakes’ by governments and the pharmaceutical firms, as they can simply say they were trying to react quickly to a potentially engineered pathogen from an unregulated lab in Wuhan.
The cabal of pandemic fraudsters must be laughing. As cartoonist Bob Moran quipped, gain of function is really gain of fiction. To date, there is no actual evidence that viruses can be made more lethal, despite the huge amounts of research grant money awarded and theoretical reports.
As the dust settles on Covid-19, even the sceptical community has much to learn. They are not always as ‘awake’ as they believe.
The stunning confluence of events and coincidences suggests that the Covid-19 global pandemic took years of planning. If so, it was the work of misanthropic geniuses who saw the potential for a power grab through a global campaign of fear and control, leading to a ‘new normal’ of digital surveillance and constraints on population and resources. The true sequence of events was in reverse. Rather than a virus leading to a vaccine leading to digital identity, the end point was achieved by mass vaccination, for which a virus was invented. Covid-19 arose not from a laboratory, but from a laptop.
The medical system in the UK, known as the NHS, is currently in crisis and I wholeheartedly agree!
But the real nature of the crisis is not how it is portrayed by the mainstream media, which is demonstrated by a January 2023 BBC article entitled The NHS crisis – decades in the making that states,
“The NHS is in the middle of its worst winter in a generation, with senior doctors warning that hospitals are facing intolerable pressures that are costing lives.”
The article adds that,
“The health service was already under pressure – the result of long-standing problems – but Covid, flu and now strike action by staff have all added to the sense of crisis this winter.”
Strike action by staff was not restricted to the early winter months, further strikes have occurred very recently. On 12th March, the BBC reported the then impending 3-day strike by junior doctors in an article entitled Why are doctors demanding the biggest pay rise?
“On Monday, thousands of junior doctors in England will start a 72-hour strike. They want a 35% pay rise. Yet doctors are among the highest paid in the public sector. So why do they have the biggest pay claim?”
A key concern will be that these strikes will cost lives.
A 13th March BBC article entitled I’ve never seen the NHS this bad – junior doctor refers to the conditions suffered by junior doctors that include workplace pressures and financial difficulties.
These conditions are not exclusive to junior doctors!
The point of these reports would seem to be to foster public sympathy and support for the junior doctors and deepen people’s concern for the future of the NHS.
The ‘official’ view of the pressures on the NHS is endorsed by a June 2022 opinion article entitled The steady crisis across the NHS published in the BMJ, which claims that the main issue is ‘chronic workforce shortages’ and states,
“The NHS has shown in the past that it can deliver rapid improvements to patient care when it has enough staff to tackle these challenges. If we want to break the cycle of consistently poor performance, the government needs a fully funded workforce plan for the whole health and social care system.”
The emphasis in these articles is clearly on the idea that doctors save lives and that they need better pay and working conditions, without which they would be unable to provide the proper level of care for their patients, as the 13th March article indicates,
“More pay and better working conditions would allow doctors to retain a work-life balance and would allow them to deliver the care they wanted to deliver, he said, adding taking industrial action was a “last resort” for doctors.”
The problem is that this is not an accurate view of the real problems and the inability of the NHS to provide adequate ‘healthcare’ to patients and enable them to be restored to health.
One of the alleged ‘problems’ that face the NHS, and every other ‘health service’ based on the practices of ‘modern medicine’, is expressed by the January BBC article, which states that,
“Advances in medicine over recent decades have meant people are living longer.
That is a success story. But it means the NHS, like every health service in the developed world, is having to cope with an ageing population.”
This is a misleading perspective – to put it mildly!
I must make it absolutely clear that I am not denying that there are some situations in which doctors absolutely do save lives – these situations mainly occur at the scene of accidents or emergencies or within the A&E (accident & emergency) department of hospitals. This is where the NHS provides an invaluable service.
However, can it really be claimed that the NHS and all other medical systems based on ‘modern medicine’ actually save lives in situations other than accidents and emergencies?
The evidence strongly suggests that this is not the case.
In response to a June 2000 article in the BMJ entitled Doctors’ strike in Israel may be good for health is a comment dated March 2001 with the intriguing title Doctor strikes, lowered mortality – Happens every time which includes the following,
“The 1960’s saw physicians in Canada go on strike and the mortality rate dropped.
Los Angeles physicians associated with a USC hospital went on strike in the 1970’s and the mortality rate dropped.
Physicians went on strike in South America (Columbia?) later that same decade and the mortality rate dropped.
Physicians have now gone on strike on 3 different occasions in Israel –in the 1950’s, again in the 1970’s or 80’s and now in the the year 2000. In all 3 occasions the mortality rate has dropped, on one or two occasions by 50%.”
In a December 2008 study article published on PubMed and entitled Doctors’ strikes and mortality: a review, the authors report their review of strikes around the world between 1976 and 2003 and state, with respect to the 7 studies they found that matched their criteria,
“All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.”
One of the ‘reasons’ given is that elective surgeries were halted during the strikes. But this does not explain why mortality reduced – surely a lack of doctors ought to result in higher mortality!
For an explanation of why mortality decreases when doctors strike, I would remind readers of the phenomenon known as ‘iatrogenesis’ and recommend the July 2000 JAMA article by Dr Barbara Starfield MD entitled Is US Health Really the Best in the World? In her article, Dr Starfield shows that Americans are by no means the healthiest in the world, despite the huge costs of healthcare in that country. (The links to all articles can be found in the References at the foot of this article.)
I would also recommend people read the Death by Medicine study by Gary Null et al. that includes the chart in the image below.
The conclusion, which may be unpalatable to many people – although that does not make it untrue – is succinctly stated by the author of the March 2001 BMJ article,
“Conclusion? I’m sorry to say, but conventional, allopathic, (drug and surgery happy) physicians remain very, very dangerous to our health…”
The sad truth is that ‘modern medicine’ is not a ‘healthcare system’. Instead, as more people are discovering for themselves, it is a ‘sick-care’ system that merely manages symptoms but never truly allows people’s bodies to heal. The reason for this is because ‘modern medicine’ is based on a faulty paradigm and relies on our continuing ignorance of this fact to perpetuate that flawed system.
The empowering truth, by contrast, is that the human body is an amazing living organism that has the ability to self-heal – but implementing this understanding within our lives requires us to reclaim responsibility for our health and not outsource our healthcare to flawed systems that have no understanding of the body’s innate self-healing abilities.
Few of us were born when the forces for milk pasteurization launched the first major attack on Nature’s perfect food. In 1945, a magazine called Coronet published an article, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” blaming raw milk for an outbreak of brucellosis in a town called Crossroads, U.S.A., killing one-third of the inhabitants. The Reader’s Digest picked up the story and ran it a year later.
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
