Mafia of the Powerful: Robert Cibis Interviews Catherine Austin Fitts — “The Financial Transaction System Will Be One of the Primary Tools to Control People at a Very Intimate, Frightening Level”
“Money is a tool. A financial system — think of it as a toolkit. And it’s part of the governance system. And the power is in the governance system. But there’s no doubt that the financial system is used for a variety of purposes, including incentivizing and controlling people. “
###
“So I would describe it as a change in the governance system. So it’s a change in control. And it’s a change in how the governance system is managed towards much tighter central control. But, as part of that, it is a consolidation of a financial coup that started decades ago. And you’re watching a profound engineering of the financial system as part of that change of control. Because, in fact, the financial transaction system will be one of the primary tools to control people at a very intimate, frightening level.“
###
“In the spring of 1997, I was doing a presentation to the largest pension fund leaders in the country, in the United States, including the president of the largest pension fund… I showed him a simulation of how we could reengineer the federal budget in the Philadelphia area where I’d grown up and dramatically improve wealth and lower the government deficits. And, he looked at me and he froze. Wonderful man. And he said, ‘You don’t understand. It’s too late.’ I said, ‘What do you mean it’s too late.’ He said, ‘They’ve given up on the country. They’re moving all the money out starting in the fall.’ Now when he said that, I thought he meant they’re shifting allocations in the portfolio. I was wrong. What happened at the beginning of…fiscal 1998 (October 1997) is vast amounts of money started to disappear from the US government. And so, as the debt rose, money disappeared. And that’s what I call the financial coup. It started then, and as of 2015, over 21 million dollars of undocumental adjustments in the US government.”
###
“…Amazon never made a profit until they got huge contracts from the CIA and US intelligence agencies… So, in fact most people look at the US government and see 24 different agencies. What I see is a small number of banks and defense contractors who are controlling and running all the information systems, and all the payment and financial systems, and controlling the bank accounts. And literally, what you’re watching is a government that no longer has information sovereignty and financial sovereignty.”
###
“It was August 22, 2019. They [G7 central bankers] made a decision to take down the economy. “
###
“I don’t think Amazon is the owner of the Washington Post. I think the CIA is the owner of both Amazon and The Washington Post.”
###
“The CIA are bankers because they control the largest pools of secret money in the world, working with the central bankers. So if I have 100% intelligence of what’s going to happen and why and when, and I have access to money that I can print out of thin air, and I can kill with impunity, then I don’t need money to make money… It’s the ultimate insider trader machine.”
###
“There is no government. That’s what you have to understand. There’s a group of banks and contractors who run this infrastructure, and if you look at the civil service and the president, they don’t control. “
Filmmaker Robert Cibis interviews the former [US Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development] and investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts about the mechanisms of the interplay between politics and finances. She reveals how massive systemic corruption leads to the replacement of democracy with orders and control, subtly at first and obviously in the corona crisis. Finally, the two discuss the simple stance that can be taken to minimise further damage.
Missing Money series by Kelly Patricia O’Meara in Insight magazine can be found here. Scroll down to “From Insight Magazine’s investigative journalist Kelly O’Meara”.
The Going Direct Reset approved by G7 central bankers meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming USA on August 22, 2019 — see Summary – Going Direct Reset by John Titus
Agustin Carstens, general manager of Bank of International Settlements tells the world in 56 seconds how central bankers will see everything, know everything, and be able to enforce whatever rules they want. They will have complete control:
“A strong man cannot help a weaker unless the weaker is willing to be helped, and even then the weak man must become strong of himself; he must, by his own efforts, develop the strength which he admires in another. None but himself can alter his condition.” ~ James Allen, As a Man Thinketh
Contrary to popular belief, “waking up,” as in seeking and accepting truth, is not something that requires outside assistance, force, or consensus. It is not something that can be bought. It is not something that can be given to you. It is not something that can at once happen to the collective masses. There is no solution that can awaken a people. There is no ‘leader’ who can awaken the herd. There is only the individual, and each individual is responsible for his own awakening. That oh so rare awakening means gaining for self the ability to think, to think as an individual, to think critically, to accept what he alone thinks, to seek and know truth, and to act on that individual knowledge. This fact, in my view, is why most all humans remain completely unconscious for their entire lives, never understanding truth, or anything of value or honesty, and living only to accept the opinions of others, especially government, media, celebrities, and so-called experts and authority figures. They have to remain in the crowd, never straying from the ‘group think,’ never taking a risk, and therefore, never having an original or independent thought. This is considered the ‘safe place,’ and in the minds of this collective, this means protection from reality.
I am asked almost daily: “What is your solution to this madness?” “What plan do you have to fix our problems?” “What are you doing to wake everybody up?” “Who should we ‘elect’ to save us?” I am heavily criticized at times for telling the truth instead of staying ‘positive.’ I am cursed for being too critical and ‘negative.’ Questions and comments such as these are a sure sign of an unconscious mind, a non-thinking person, and a proud member of the unawakened herd of sheep.
One major example of the unawakened are those who cling to one political party or the other. In essence, the ‘party’ is simply a substitute for the original herd. One is Republican, one is Democrat, one is red and one is blue, one is conservative and one is ‘liberal.’ In fact, they are both herds supported by non-thinking drones. By claiming to be one or the other, no thinking is necessary, as all thought is accomplished by the red or blue herd as a whole. Obviously, when one votes, he is choosing a collective side, and picking who is to be his ruler, and in doing so, he becomes a slave, but he also acquiesces to the ‘thinking’ of the group instead of thinking for himself. This political structure was no accident, as this designed hostility of one against another guarantees group ‘think,’ and therefore eliminates the need for individuality, self, and responsibility. The amount of time and energy put into this asinine circus is evidence enough of the worthlessness of it all.
By looking to others, by looking outside, and by searching for opinions from the group instead of believing in self, one becomes dependent on what is mostly propaganda, and exposes that he does not have any trust in himself. This is why these seemingly helpless people cannot fix themselves or face the truth. This is why capitulation and submission to authority by the masses is now so rampant. This kind of behavior is similar to addiction in that the more people who look away for answers instead of looking inward, the less likely they will ever change, and actually, they will usually become more and more dependent as time passes.
There is no way to know for sure, but my belief is that at least 80% or more (maybe much more) of this population are a part of the collective herd that has little or no ability to think on their own concerning matters of importance. I do realize that this is a startling conclusion to reach, but given all that has happened to date, how can this be doubted?
There is no way to awaken the herd by force, by political means, by demands, or even by persuasion. Each individual has to delve inside himself, and awaken his own spirit so he can find the courage to improve self instead of relying on the crowd. This will lead to seeking the truth, and that is the first step toward independence. This is not an easy task, because to trust self requires personal responsibility for every thought, every action, and every life situation. When this occurs, all fear disappears, and the minds eye opens to bright light instead of darkness.
Maybe some reflection is in order. There is no real security in the group, there is only consensus, confusion, and emptiness. The next time you find yourself asking others for a solution to your problems, or asking questions about your own freedom and how to attain it; stop, close your eyes, and seek your answers from within. When those answers come, trust them, and escape from the hellish and barren existence that is the non-thinking collective horde.
“It was when I stopped searching for home within others and lifted the foundations of home within myself I found there were no roots more intimate than those between a mind and body that have decided to be whole.” ~ Rupi Kaur
Despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, Amos Miller explained that farmers need to stand strong.
Recently, Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania was raided by armed federal agents. They demanded the farm cease operations and are economically crippling the business with over $300,000 in fines.
The government is arguing that the farm isn’t adhering to federal regulatory requirements for food.
The water buffalo, the cattle, and even the camels are living and being processed in the way, as Miller argues, that God intended.
All of the animals on the farm eat fully organic diets, munching only on the wild plants, flowers, and the bugs in their pasture.
Veteran journalist, Michael Yoder, is a long-time customer of Amos Miller’s farm and has been closely covering the story for a local newspaper.
“I think they want to use Amos as an example,” Yoder said.
He explained that the government wants to make sure other farmers don’t attempt to replicate what Miller’s Farm succeeded in doing.
“Miller is selling his meat and dairy directly to the consumer, without the government acting as the middleman. The government doesn’t have as much control over this type of operation,” Yoder explained.
Amos Miller explained to me that because his farm doesn’t use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or patented seeds which are chiefly manufactured by industry giants with strong ties to the government, they’re using the power of the government to shut him down.
“Corporate America is taking over and putting people in our government…they have the government on their side and they’re making it harder for farmers to be farmers,” said Amos Miller.
Miller is legally arguing that because he’s selling to what he calls a “private food club” and not the open market, certain rules and regulations of the federal government don’t apply to him.
The customers are buying meat and dairy from his farm explicitly because his food isn’t processed and manufactured at giant industrial facilities and instead is grown, fed, and processed right here on the land.
“Some come from Florida, California, North Carolina, basically all over the country because they are seeking nutrient-dense foods like raw meat and raw buffalo milk…and they trust us for keeping our animals out on pastures and they can actually see the color in the fat of the beef and the distinct color of the milk…this color comes from the nutrient density of the animals feeding grass,” Miller explained to Rebel News.
Amos, despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, explained that farmers need to stand strong.
“We farmers need to stand together and stand strong and we can’t just fall for the government’s rules and regulations,” he added.
The Nuremberg Code just died after a lengthy illness. Covid has been identified as the official cause of death, but pundits claim that the Code was actually struggling with terminal illness for the past three years, even before the Wuhan virus made its debut.
Numerous factors contributed to the Code’s demise, but metastatic tyranny is the underlying condition chiefly responsible for the Code’s slow and torturous death.
In fact, the Code was on life support ever since lockdowns and mask mandates were imposed in 2020.
After years of systematic abuse and gang rape by the WHO, CDC, and world governments, the Nuremberg Code finally succumbed to her wounds and was pronounced dead on June 30, 2022, when the Supreme Court refused to take action against vaccine mandates that could have effectively resuscitated the Code. The Court claimed that a DNR (do not resuscitate) order had been placed on the late Nuremberg Code, and that only palliative care would have been allowed.
The Code’s death also coincided with NY State’s recent plans to set up quarantine camps for people whenever the state deems it “necessary.”
Instead of a traditional burial, the Nuremberg Code will be incinerated, since her remains have been deemed a contagious public health threat. “Right to informed consent is a dangerous idea that risks going viral and infecting the masses,” remarked Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIH, “so it must be disposed of carefully like all other hazardous materials.”
When asked for evidence supporting his statement, Fauci responded impatiently: “Just TRUST the SCIENCE.” People Magazine recently discovered that “Science” is Anthony Fauci’s middle name. So there you have it, folks. The Science has indeed spoken.
In honor of the Nuremberg Code’s incineration, a special crematorium has been reconstructed at Auschwitz for this purpose. After the cremation, her ashes will be scattered over her birthplace, Nuremberg, Germany. The empty urn will be ensconced atop an obelisk erected at the United Nations. This will serve the purpose of reminding the masses – and especially the fundamentalist conspiracy theorists – that the Nuremberg Code is dead and will not be resurrected. A memorial monument will likewise be placed in the Vatican, which has released a statement banning any talks of resurrecting the Nuremberg Code. “Resurrection is no longer an acceptable Catholic belief,” said Pope Francis.
Israel’s Chief Rabbinate agreed with the Papal decision, as did nearly all other religious establishments worldwide. “There is no major world religion that supports resurrecting the Nuremberg Code,” wrote Attorney Alan Dershowitz in an op ed. The ACLU agreed. “This has nothing to do with civil rights,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “It’s just about selfishness. Who gave you the right to defy the Greater Good?” He also noted that the very term “rights” is odious and should be abolished, since it implies that the “left” is wrong.
Rabbi Yoseph Y. Braun of the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights applauded the death of the Nuremberg Code. “You do NOT own your body,” Braun screamed at his adherents in a recent recording. “It’s NOT your choice. Only the medical authorities and government authorities get to decide. WHO do you think you are!?” He then muttered a few words that were unintelligible. He probably couldn’t read the prompts being dictated to him by Dr. Eli Rosen of the Haredi Health Commission (believed to be sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, and other population reductionists).
Speaking of unintelligible, President Biden weighed in on this momentous occasion as well. The White House declared the anniversary of the Nuremberg Code’s death, June 30th, as a new national holiday. It will be called “Vaccination Day USA.” Every year, the Code’s death will be celebrated by the rolling out of a new booster. All fully vaccinated individuals will get the day off from work in celebration of the occasion. All individuals who aren’t fully vaccinated will be fired.
Israel’s Prime Minister applauded the creation of the new holiday celebrating the death of the Nuremberg Code. He said that the Knesset plans to adopt this date as the new Israeli Independence Day, since “vaccination macht frei.” This translates loosely to: “the only way to be free [read: alive] is by being vaccinated.” Germany’s Prime Minister said that her country is planning similar legislation. They are planning mass rallies in Nuremberg and Munich to enact these developments.
The Nuremberg Code, born in 1947 and died in 2022, was seventy-five years old at time of death. However, many conspiracy theorists argued that she’s actually been dead for decades, and that she was actually a fabrication since day one! They claim that no world government ever acknowledged anyone’s Right to Informed Consent in the first place.
Of course, this theory was easily debunked by social media Fact Checkers. They point to the Nuremberg Code’s child, UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as a proof that Code actually existed.
However, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights has gone missing for many years and her whereabouts are unknown.
NASA was called upon to search for her up in orbit, but NASA Director Bill Nelson stated: “Sadly, we have lost the technology to leave the earth’s outer atmosphere,” so there’s no way the Declaration can ever be retrieved.
The Nuremberg Code was predeceased by her cousin, the First Amendment, who died suddenly on June 13th, 2019, when the NY State legislature eliminated religious exemption to vaccine mandate. The US Constitution died shortly thereafter, on January 6th, 2021.
Another one of the Code’s cousins, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, died more recently later in 2021 when covid vaccine was mandated for employees.
Ironically, the Nuremberg Code is survived by her arch nemesis, the Nuremberg Laws, which has been reinstated in modern times in the name of public health policy. “Jews” and “biological inferiors” have been replaced with “the unvaccinated” and “genetic inferiors,” but the rest of the wording is pretty much intact. See our recent article on this topic, the Vaccinberg Laws.
Millions of people around the world are mourning the Nuremberg Code’s untimely death, but Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said that there’s no reason to be sad. “Don’t vorry,” he told a crowd of mourners, “You vill own nothing and be happy. Just eat ze bugs.”
“We are seeing the impact of an out-of-control government that takes on more and more power. And, of course, as government grows, our freedoms necessarily recede. And that’s what we’re witnessing here. What’s unfortunate is that too many of our fellow citizens have willingly, over the decades, given up their freedom for a false sense of security.”
~ Ron Johnson, U.S. senator from Wisconsin
Senator Ron Johnson has been a champion for freedom since well before the Covid Pandemic. In this mind-blowing interview, he sits down with Del to expose the dirty pandemic politics that drove America’s Covid Debacle.
[Video available at The HighWire BitChute and Rumble channels.]
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology
I remember early on in 2017, when I first started unraveling the “virus” lie through the examination of HIV/AIDS, to being introduced to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka. If memory serves me correctly, my first encounter was through the brilliant House of Numbersdocumentary by Brent Leung. I was simply amazed that Dr. Lanka, an ex-virologist, was actually calling out the methods of his own profession. His testimony, along with that of Kary Mullis, the inventor of the misused and abused PCR technique, carried much weight with me in those early days. Their words lent credibility to the argument that the evidence for the existence of HIV and other “viruses” was entirely absent and fraudulent.
During that time of intense research where I was desperately seeking out any and all information that I could find, I fortunately stumbled onto a few of Dr. Lanka’s articles through the VirusMyth.com website. I was engrossed in his work and absorbed much of what he had to say on the subject, especially in regards to the lack of purification and isolation of any “viruses,” the faults of the cell culture method, and the problems related to electron microscope imagery. As it did for many others, Dr. Lanka’s work formed much of the foundation for my understanding of the lies of virology. It is rare to gain such critical insight from someone who was involved in the industry. It is even more rare for someone in his position to set out and actually prove what he was saying correct yet that is exactly what Dr. Lanka has done numerous times.
Without Dr. Lanka’s enormous contributions to unraveling the lies of germ theory, many of us speaking out today may not have been doing so. As his work was instrumental in helping me along on my own journey towards uncovering the truth, I want to highlight what I consider Dr. Lanka’s three biggest contributions to proving the fraud of virology along with many of the papers he has written on the subject. My hope is that you will be able to come away with a greater appreciation for Dr. Lanka’s monumental work as well as a clearer understanding of the deceptive practices used by virologists.
1. The Measles Trial
Early on in my journey, I found my way to the infamous measles trial saga while researching Dr. Lanka’s work. Back in 2017, it was difficult to find out much accurate information on what had really transpired. For those who are unaware, Dr. Lanka set forth a challenge in his own magazine calling upon anyone to come forward with a single paper providing the scientific evidence which proved the existence of a measles “virus.” If this challenge was met, the person would receive a $100,000 financial reward. A physician named David Bardens came forward with six papers spanning six decades which he claimed together proved the existence of the measles “virus.” Dr. Lanka refused to pay as he specifically requested one publication providing the entire proof necessary. Dr. Bardens sued and while Dr. Lanka lost the initial case in the lower courts, he won on appeal in the higher courts. At the time I originally came upon this story, the internet was (and still is) full of stories claiming that Dr. Lanka lost the case. However, to anyone interested in the truth, it is obvious that those lies do not hold up under scrutiny. Presented below is a great overview of how the events actually played out:
“On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications are:
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–
Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.”
For an even more in-depth analysis of what really occured during the trial, I always recommend this article by Feli Popescu, who was actually present during the proceedings:
When I think of Dr. Lanka’s work, the measles trial stands out as the most significant moment and the most pivotal accomplishment. We had an epic head-to-head clash between he medical establishment and an ex-virologust taking place in a court of law over the legitimacy of the evidence for the measles “virus.” It was determined through this trial that the foundational paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus,” the 1954 paper by John Franklin Enders, was unworthy by itself for proving the existence of the “virus.” As all other papers and virology itself owe their evidence to the cell culture methods developed by Enders in that paper, it is an astonishingly damning admission that the evidence presented by virology is invalid.
2. The 7 Steps Proving “Viruses” Don’t Exist
More recently, Dr. Lanka put together what he felt were the main points that bring the house of cards known as virology tumbling down. These 7 steps were formulated over many years of painstaking research into the faults of virology. As he did with the measles trial, Dr. Lanka compiled a very convincing case for why “viruses” do not exist and why virology is a pseudoscience built upon fraudulent foundations.
The 7 steps to prove “viruses” do not exist:
1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as viral. Due to the lack of control attempts (experiments), they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally by starving and poisoning the cells. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague from June 1, 1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in Germany in the measles virus trial that it contained no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only for measles virology, but for all virology since 1954 and corona hysteria.
2. Virologists mentally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information from dying cells to form a very long genetic strand, which they output as the genetic strand of a virus. This conceptual/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they did not make the control attempts, the attempt to conceptually/computationally construct the desired genetic strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.
3. For the alignment of a virus, virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus. For this, however, they always use a genetically/computationally generated genetic strand and never a real one, one found in reality. In doing so, they never attempt to check whether or not so-called genetic information could also be constructed from the existing data set, including “viral” genetic material strands of completely different viruses.
4. Virologists have never seen or isolated “viruses” in humans, animals, plants or their fluids. They only did it seemingly, indirectly, and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They never mentioned the control attempts or documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolating viruses in and from humans, animals, plants or their fluids.
5. Virologists have never isolated, biochemically characterized or obtained their supposed genetic material from the supposed viruses that they photograph using electron microscope images. They have never conducted or published control experiments as to whether, after isolating these structures, it was actually possible to detect “viral” proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral genome, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus.
6. Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue/cells and typical structures that arise when the cell’s own components such as proteins, fats and the solvents used are swirled, as viruses or viral components. Here, too, there are no control experiments with cells/tissues that were not infected but were also treated.
7. The so-called transmission attempts that virologists make to prove the transmission and pathogenicity of the suspected viruses refute the entire virology. Obviously, it is the experiments themselves that trigger the symptoms, which animal experiments provide as evidence of the existence and effectiveness of the suspected viruses. Here, too, there are no control attempts in which exactly the same thing is done, only with non-infected or sterilized materials.
Dr. Lanka explained the 7 steps himself in this short excerpt from an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan where he offered additional insight:
3. The Control Experiments
During this current “pandemic,” Dr. Lanka decided to carry out and recreate for “SARS-COV-2” the control experiments he had done during the measles trial. The experiments were conducted in three phases:
Phase 1 – The cytopathic effect
In the first control experiment, Dr. Stefan Lanka showed that what virologists attribute to the presence of a pathogenic virus can be achieved without infectious material.
Phase 2 – Construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome
In the second control experiment, Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call “viral genetic material actually comes from a healthy human tissue.
Phase 3 – Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
In the third control experiment, we show that with the same technique that virologists use and using nucleic acids, which are not from supposedly infectious material but from healthy human tissue, animals and plants, can construct the genome of any “virus.”
Phase 1 of Dr. Lanka’s experiments was designed to show that the cytopathogenic effect, the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present in a cell culture, can be caused by the experimental conditions themselves without “infectious” material present. The article linked above contains the study by the independent laboratory testing the cytopathogenic effect for Dr. Lanka. It is in German but it can be easily translated into English. However, as it is a rather long study, I wanted to provide my favorite breakdown of the CPE experiments from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent book Breaking the Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. Thisincluded changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
For Dr. Lanka’s own breakdown of the phase 1 results, please see this interview with Dean Braus:
Phase 2: Construction of the “SARS-CoV-2” genome
Phase two of the control experiments looked to show that the “viral” material in the “SARS-COV-2” genome actually comes from healthy human tissue. Dr. Lanka joined Kate Sugak to discuss the findings in the below video:
Phase 3: Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
Phase 3 was designed to show that by using materials from many different sources (healthy humans, animals, plants, and synthetic nucleic acids), the PCR amplification process can create the genomes for any “virus.” I’ve provided the abstract from the study performed by the independent researchers working with Dr. Lanka to give a short overview of what was found:
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology: An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
“De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat-nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.”
To hear Dr. Lanka’s explanation of this phase, please see this excellent interview once again with Kate Sugak:
Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey’s Tribute to Dr. Lanka
For an even greater in-depth look at the brilliant work of Dr. Lanka, please see this excellent video tribute by the Baileys. From an outline provided by Dr. Mark Bailey, in this 30 minute video they cover:
Dr. Lanka’s early discoveries that bacteriophages and giant “viruses” are able to be truly isolated but are not pathogenic
Dr. Lanka’s path as a virologist and the realization that the model was wrong
How Dr. Lanka spoke out from the very early stages against the HIV/AIDS dogma
Dr. Lanka’s discovery that the germ theory and disease entity models are incorrect
A look at Dr. Lanka’s 7 points that refute virology on their own terms
The 3 phases of the “SARS-CoV-2” control experiments performed in 2021 that were used to refute the “virus” hypothesis
And the optimism for the future as many of us are now standing on his shoulders to spread the knowledge he has given us
Sadly, it is often a lonely road for anyone willing to break away from tradition and speak out about the troubling state of their chosen profession, especially in a field with ties to a highly lucrative pharmaceutical conglomerate. More often than not, anyone who is willing to sound the alarm has their work smeared and their reputations tarnished by colleagues and the mainstream media in order to discredit the information and the charges that have been brought forth. We are fortunate enough that there were a few brave men and women who were able to see through the indoctrination of their training and push through the often painful cognitive dissonance which comes with having to change long held beliefs ingrained from birth.
Dr. Lanka helped to pave the path against virology and many of us are walking in his footsteps today. His refutation of the germ theory paradigm using their own history and methods was highly influential to myself and others. His status as an ex-virologist not only gave him an invaluable insiders look at the fraud the field is entrenched in but also the clout necessary for those hesitant about the information shared to actually listen up and to start asking the hard questions themselves. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Lanka for his trailblazing work. Without his herculean efforts, I highly doubt that we would be able to attack this fraudulent field as successfully as we are able to do so now.
Essential Reading:
I wanted to provide a list of Dr. Lanka’s work which I consider essential reading for anyone questioning the germ theory lies and/or looking to gain more knowledge of the foundational problems that the field of virology is built upon. Many of these were sources I read initially in my own journey which I found extremely helpful in broadening my own understanding. I am positive that this list will be a benefit to others as well:
Imagine you are navigating a small boat through a large harbour on a dark and foggy night.
It is extremely difficult to find your way because you can hardly see anything and even the buoys marking your way are only visible when they are right next to you.
You become aware of a sound ahead of you and you see several very vague different shapes appearing in the gloom.
There’s a light there and another there. So two vessels approaching, perhaps. But, wait, what’s that right up high?
Suddenly you realise that these are not separate objects at all, but parts of one huge oil tanker bearing down on you, which you urgently need to avoid!
This ability to interpret minimal incoming data in order to understand the bigger picture, this capacity for joining the dots, making the connections, is an essential one, as Max Wertheimer (see here) set out.
It is a particular kind of intelligence. It is not the kind of intelligence that allows people to remember lists of dates or to perform complex mathematical equations, but it is still intelligence, and crucial intelligence at that.
Over the last few years, something very alarming has been looming up ahead of us in the fog of unfolding history.
Initially, this looked like a variety of different issues and trends that were not necessarily connected.
It was not obvious to us all, to start with, that climate capitalism was linked to the Covid operation, that war in the Ukraine was linked to the Great Reset, that the pope was linked to the transhumanists, that left-wing “intersectionality” was linked to the impact investment agenda, that Charles and the British “Crown” were very close to the global financial mafia, that the United Nations and the World Bank had been working together for decades to deliberately impose a “development” agenda that benefited financial interests at the expense of humankind and nature.
But now, vast numbers of people are aware of these connections and understand that all these elements are aspects of one single agenda being imposed on us by one single power.
This power depends on its own invisibility for its success. Its scams will simply not work if we can all see who is pulling the strings and with what aim in mind.
It is therefore important for this single power, this criminal global money power, to try to discredit those who can see the bigger picture and to stop them from communicating what they have seen.
In their propaganda, the crucial form of intelligence that enables us to make sense of the world around us, despite their attempts to keep us in the dark, is denigrated as something bad.
“Conspiracy theorists” have long been the target of ridicule and attack from the mafia and their henchmen.
But now they are going even further by announcing that they want to “stop” alleged conspiracy theory in the same way that they have already banned and censored so-called “misinformation” on specific health issues.
A #ThinkBeforeSharing campaign has been launched on the Unesco website. Unesco is, of course, an agency of the United Nations, the global body which is pushing, with the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 agenda, aka The Great Reset.
Among the thought crimes highlighted as part of this inquisition is, under the heading of “antisemitism“, is “linking an alleged conspiracy to Jewish individuals or groups (e.g. the Rothschild family or George Soros, a philanthropist) or the State of Israel”.
So it is “antisemitic” to mention the role played by any individual who happens to be Jewish, even if this role is demonstrably real and significant? Ridiculous.
But more alarmingly still, the campaign attacks the very capacity for joined-up thinking which allows us to identify the oil tanker in the fog, the danger with which we are faced.
It complains that what it calls conspiracy theories “offer an explanation of events or situations which are difficult to understand and bring a false sense of control or agency”.
They present us with “an alleged, secret plot”, “a group of conspirators” and “‘evidence’ that seems to support the conspiracy theory”.
Note here that by placing quote marks around ‘evidence’ they hope to cunningly imply, without even addressing any specific issues, that the evidence backing what they term “conspiracy theories” is invariably and necessarily invalid!
Unesco and its friends are alarmed at the very idea of “suspicion of official accounts” or of “reinterpreting random events as part of a broader pattern”. Their sly quote marks would better have been deployed here, around the word ‘random’…
They warn people off any author who is “not attached to a reputable organization or institution” (such as the UN, the WEF or the World Bank, presumably) and even, astonishingly, any author who “raises questions instead of providing answers”!
Unauthorised explanations of what is going in the world are “dangerous” because they help “violent extremist groups” and “spread mistrust in public institutions”, somehow causing both “political apathy” and “radicalization”.
“Suspicion breeds confidence” as the posters declared in Terry Gilliam’s classic film Brazil, and Unesco warns us to “beware” that the dreaded theories could even be spread by “friends, relatives”. “Don’t suspect a friend, report him”, to quote the 1985 film again. Is that the chilling dystopia in which we now find ourselves, in 2022?
In truth, the campaign reeks of panic and is likely to prove a spectacular own goal.
The very announcement that “this UNESCO campaign is implemented jointly with the European Commission, Twitter and the World Jewish Congress” is surely likely to fuel the kind of “conspiracy theories” that they are supposedly combatting?
Simply the fact that the campaign has been launched, let alone its content, confirms that there is indeed a conspiracy that the global authorities are desperately trying to cover up and that the UN are part of it.
Even those who have not yet realised that there is a bigger picture to be seen will quickly do so, thanks to this “stop the conspiracy theorists!” scaremongering.
The truth is the truth, no matter how loudly the global mafia shriek the opposite.
And once it has come into view, it can never be unseen.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms presents: “The Convoy that United the Country”, which premiered at the 2022 George Jonas Freedom Award dinner honouring Tamara Lich.
Is the military industrial complex insane enough to incinerate Earth’s last remaining forests in order to achieve the objectives of the global controllers? The short answer is yes. A formerly classified US military document titled “Forest Fire As A Military Weapon” is a truly shocking exposé of planned scorched Earth destruction. The US Forest Service actually participated in the research and planning that went into this military instruction manual for carrying out orchestrated forest fire catastrophes. What part have climate intervention operations played in the preparation of forests for extreme and unprecedented incineration all over the world? The short video report below reveals the shocking degree of research that the US military and the US Forest Service has put into preparing forests for extreme incineration.
The climate engineering atrocities are a primary factor in the equation of exponentially increasing forest fires and fire intensity.
Geoengineering operations are completely disrupting the global hydrological cycle, drying out forests and driving record wildfires around the world. Climate engineering is fueling global incineration.
Hopefully by now you’ve had a chance to listen to or watch my interview with Keith Knight of Don’t Tread on Anyone about his new book, The Voluntaryist Handbook.
Even more hopefully, you’ve read or ordered your copy of that book. If not, here’s another chance: it’s available as a free pdf on Odysee or available to purchase HERE.
When you do read the book, you’ll see that Knight has chosen to publish an excerpt from my February 29, 2020, newsletter editorial, “5 Important Lessons Absolutely No One Will Learn From Iowa.” I’m glad he did include that excerpt in his book because in some ways I buried the lede—an important and informative rant about the true nature of government and the morality of anarchy—down far enough in that article that most people probably didn’t read it. Those who did likely forgot it. And the vast majority of people probably never knew it existed.
So, let’s correct that problem today. Here I re-present to you that section of the editorial on “Government Itself is Immoral.” Enjoy.
Government Itself is Immoral
No, I do not want better elections. I do not want to “clean up the system.” I do not want to “get the money out of politics” and “make sure every vote is counted” and “drain the swamp” so we can “Make America [or any other geographical area] Great Again.”
The state is not a benevolent force, despite what the most brainwashed of statists believe. It is not even a neutral tool that can be used for good or ill, as those who consider themselves pragmatists believe. It is violence. It is force. It is aggression. It is people believing that what is wrong for any individual to do is perfectly OK if an agent of the state does it.
If I steal, it is theft. If the state steals, it is taxation. If I kill, it is murder. If the state kills, it is warfare. If I force someone to work for me involuntarily, it is slavery. If the state does it, it is conscription. If I confine someone against their will, it is kidnapping. If the state does it, it is incarceration. Nothing has changed but the label.
What binds us to the state is the belief that there is a different morality for anything that has been sanctified through the political process. “Oh, 50%+1 of the population voted for forced vaccinations? Then I guess we have to comply.” If you scoff at that sentence, how about if the vote were 100%-1? Would that change the morality of resistance? How about if forced vaccinations were mandated by the constitution? Then would you be compelled to submit?
Does the ballot box transform the unethical into the ethical? Of course not. But I’ll tell you what it does do: It makes everyone who casts their ballot a part of the process that legitimizes the murder and violence committed by agents of the state.
No, I am not an efficiency manager for the state. I do not want to help it do its job of inflicting aggression and violence on peaceful people. I want the state to perish, not through violence or bloodshed, but by removing the mystical superstition from the minds of the general public that makes them believe that “government” is anything other than a gang of thugs with a fancy title.
This is the point that—in my experience as a communicator of voluntaryist ideas—I start butting up against a brick wall of incomprehension when talking to the normies in the crowd. They start having mental breakdowns, frothing at the mouth that “votes need to happen.”
As if voting, elections, positions of responsibility and other things that exist under statism could not exist under voluntary associations. As if voluntary association itself were such an arcane and bewildering concept that no one could possibly wrap their head around it (let alone, heaven forfend, read a book or two to see if some of their questions on the subject have already been answered).
No, much easier to go back to the comforting political wrestling match. “Red vs. Blue? Now that I can get behind!”
That’s a travesty, really. Because the truth is that this is not a complicated message. It’s actually remarkably simple, and remarkably hopeful. The truth is that . . .
There is Only One Vote That Matters
You’d think that a column like this would be all doom and gloom.
“Oh sure, James,” say the statists in the crowd, twirling their handlebar moustaches and fingering the “I Voted” sticker proudly displayed on their chest, “but what’s your solution? Sitting around and not voting is not going to change anything!”
Now I’m tempted to say, “Why ask for one solution when I’ve provided dozens?”
But, more seriously, I would say: You’re right.
No, really. You’re right. Sitting around and not voting is not going to change anything. Yes, by all means, let’s vote! . . .
. . .But (and you knew there was a “but” coming) I’m not talking about voting in some phony baloney (s)election to anoint some political puppet as President of this geographical location. I’m talking about the only vote that matters.
Hmmm . . . if only I had a way to explain this to the normies.
[. . .]For the rest of us, there is the realization that the political system itself is just another form of enslavement. An enslavement that is all the more insidious, because it asks us to buy into it. All we have to do is push a button or pull a lever or touch a screen once every four years and we are now absolved from our moral responsibility.
Ironically, this realization is in itself liberating and puts the world into focus with crystal clarity. We are not cogs in some machine called “society” to be dictated to by some nebulous entity we have been taught to call “the government” or “the authorities.” We are free individuals freely interacting with those around us, bound by the moral injunction not to initiate force against others or take things from others against their will. We are responsible for our actions and their consequences, both positive and negative. We are responsible for what we do or don’t do to help those in our community, and to make this world better or leave it to rot. There is no political messiah that will descend from the heavens to tell us what to do or to protect us from the bad men. All we have is our self and our choices.
We vote every day, not in some meaningless election, but in whom we choose to associate with, what we choose to spend our money on, what we choose to invest our time and energy doing. This is the essence of freedom.
For us, it is painful to watch our brothers and sisters getting swept up in the election-cycle hype. We watch the sad spectacle not with a sense of scorn or derision, but with sadness for those who have not yet woken up to the reality of their mental enslavement. That sadness, however, is tempered by hope: hope that one day, those poor voters who are trudging off to that booth to pull that lever will realize that all they are really doing is voting for which slavemaster they will allow to put the chains around their neck.
Beautiful. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Too bad the people who really need to hear this message stopped reading this article when they realized it wasn’t really about the Iowa caucuses.
Journalist Vanessa Beeley wrote this today on her Telegram channel
“When are people going to realise we all face one enemy and that there is no time for “neutrality”? There is no time for division over the concepts created by the enemy to divide and distract. Focus on the enemy”
This is my response…
—–
Dear Vanessa,
You became a dear friend during the two initial years of “covid” insanity, so I think – in fact I know – we completely agree about the need to face the common enemy in unity and not allow ourselves to be distracted.
But the question for me right now is – who is the “enemy”? Where are they? What are they?
Since 9/11 the neocons, the empire and their policies of endless war has been a major thing to be opposed and you have done great and courageous work in opposing them and revealing their crimes, for which you have never received due credit. I know what you have been through and nothing I say is intended to minimise that.
But I think 2020 showed us that denouncing the empire is no longer enough. The “enemy” is changing, evolving and we need to change and evolve as well.
We all know the “pandemic” was meant to be the launch pad for the New Normal. It was intended to be the moment literally everything in our geopolitical landscape changed permanently. They said so, repeatedly.
This wasn’t just a slogan – they meant it. They still mean it.
Yes grassroots resistance over the last two years has slowed that down, thankfully, but it hasn’t stopped. It’s pushing on, relentlessly, easing us into the Brave New World by inches every day.
We already know what that world is – it’s globalism, neo-feudalism, bug-burgers, travel only for the wealthy, eco-tyranny, bio-surveillance, UBI, CBDC, permanent pandemics.
And quite possibly permanent wars.
But not the old imperial wars. Globalism doesn’t seem to need the US or it’s empire any more, and in fact seems to be busy trying to pull the plug and sink it. Sure it might preserve the tattered remains for a while as a handy conduit for justifiable rage, and those remains are still vicious and ugly, but the true power center looks to have already moved elsewhere.
Maybe some time ago. Longer ago than any of us realise.
New globalism’s new schtick is “multipolarity”. The WEF talks about it. A federation of “free” and “independent” states with an economic focus in the East.
But of course all those “independent” states will run the same anti-human policies.
In fact – they already are.
This is the shocking fact that the “pandemic” , perhaps inadvertently, made so clear. That, already, there is a degree of lockstep conformity among world-leaders we had heretofore thought to be impossible.
Was it a new thing, or just newly exposed? It doesn’t really matter – the important thing is – we all saw it.
We saw China initiate the “covid” scam, then the US, Europe, Canada and Australasia pick it up instantly and Russia, Iran soon after.
We saw them, and see them still, working together to promote the same lies, the same fear and the same evil, forcing the same toxic sludge into their respective populations, promoting the same anti-human agenda. Cricket flour in the shops. CBDCs and QR codes.
We can’t un-see this and we mustn’t. Seeing it and being aware is our only hope. We glimpsed behind the curtain before they snatched it closed again. We saw the evolving truth.
The belief we all had that Russia or China were hold-outs against the “enemy” is simply not a reality any more. Either things have changed or it was always an illusion.
Either way – it’s gone.
They are not on the side of humanity any more than any other oligarchy is. They are not pushing back. They do not stand for a better world. They stand for the NN, or their version of it, which seems to differ very little.
We NEED to see this, accept it, adjust our paradigm and face the enemy in its new “multipolar” guise.
I think what you interpret as “neutrality” in some of your colleagues is that adjustment of focus.
I suggest the war in Syria was/is the last of the true imperial wars and the war in Ukraine is the first of the new kind of war, whatever that turns out to mean.
The first truly Orwellian war perhaps, waged, as he describes in 1984, not by one power block against another, but by the “elites”, united by mutual interest, against the rest of us.
A continuation of “covid” by other means.
After all we can’t deny this war launched at a very opportune moment for the NN didn’t it, and has helped promote a lot of the same agenda, as well as created a MASSIVE distraction from the most important lesson “covid” taught us.
The common purpose of those who think they rule us.
To answer the question I posed at the start –
I think the enemy is the anti-human agenda that the war and “covid” are helping to promote.
I think creating (fake) binaries is a part of the process.
I think this enemy wants us taking sides, often meaningless sides, and swapping outrage narratives because that stops us focusing on it and its agenda.
But, while I might decline to pick which set of Agenda 2030-promoting cynical murderous liars to support — I think I, and Off-Guardian, are anything but neutral.
I’m interested to hear your opinion on this. In fact I hope we can start a wider dialogue involving others too.
Because how we move on from this point may be crucial to how successfully we can resist the nightmare future our beloved leaders have planned for us.
We have just been through over two and a half years of total tyranny, leading to complete totalitarianism. The country’s slave-class (voluntarily) accepted home prison called lockdowns, they accepted the forced loss of their jobs, they accepted the loss of most all their freedom, they accepted state staged riots, property destruction and brutal violence, all allowed by the state, they accepted a loss of most all mobility to travel, they accepted wearing deadly masks by order, and they accepted experimental poisonous bioweapon injections by the hundreds of millions.
They lived with purposely manufactured food shortages, they lived with loss of income at the hands of the hypocritical monsters in political office, they abandoned their families and friends, they lost all decent medical care, (what little there was) they lived with mass state murder that is democide, they reported their neighbors and shunned all who did not comply with state-mandate idiocy, and they crawled under rocks pretending that nothing was amiss.
They watched as trillions of fake dollars were printed, (theft of property) stolen and fed to the banking and corporate masters, they watched as a staged war in Ukraine became the fodder for stupidity world-wide, they watched as prices doubled, tripled, and in some cases went up a hundred fold almost overnight. They watched as police beatings increased dramatically, allowed mass shootings staged by government and ignored by police, and they watched as the state threatened and are now implementing the poisoning and killing of children by lethal injection with fake ‘vaccines.’
This is not all that happened by any stretch of the imagination, but it is enough to understand that all this is the fault of the masses of sheep who continue to worship at the altar of government, media, and total political insanity. If ever mental illness were evident, it is now obvious that 99% of this population are consumed by this illness caused by ignorance, indifference, cowardice, and dependency, and even with all this, they continue to believe most everything they are told.
As of this morning, after everything I have mentioned above, and much more, stupidity and blind gullibility continues to consume this population of scared and naïve simpletons. After all that has happened, nearly 100% of what is being presented by most all the mainstream and alternative media today, is the so-called raid of Trump’s mansion. Forgotten is the reality that all liberty has been destroyed, the economy is nearly ruined, slavery of the masses is rampant, threats to turn loose the armed IRS on every citizen not protected by government is being implemented, and more fake ‘viruses’ are being planned. But all that is important today is the Trump ‘raid,’ which by all laws of logic, is probably a set-up, a scam, or false flag, being used for any number of reasons. Even if this was a legitimate story, it is irrelevant concerning the big picture. All are consumed by this nonsense, and by design.
Every president in my opinion, should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity before or after leaving office, and I would applaud any action of that nature, but this is just another dividing plot. And of course, it has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by what is referred to as the ‘right.’ But it has also been accepted as legitimate by nearly all the alternative media as well, including most all those claiming to be ‘libertarian.’ Whoever designed this coup, knew exactly what they were doing, and nearly the entirety of the ‘conservative’ and feigned ‘libertarian’ crowd have taken the bait.
This could be happening for any number of reasons, including to alter the upcoming idiot elections, to strengthen or destroy Trump and his brainless crowd of followers, it could be to purposely cause civil unrest among the natives, or it could be for other reasons. One thing is for sure, it is bizarre, and lacks credibility. Even Trump’s response seems to be self-promoting and fake, but who really knows?
My approach to life and especially ‘news’ is to believe nothing, trust nothing, and question everything. This weird set of events lately solidly confirms my position, and in the best interest of intelligence and sanity, I will take this ‘news’ event with a grain of salt, and not spend any of my energy buying into or considering another state narrative filled with holes. Of course, I never do. I consider this only as fraud and deceit, and most likely a scam that could have been initiated by either side or both.
Think before you jump, as in most every case, the cliff of nefarious lies is much higher than expected, and gullibility leads only to madness.
A photo isn’t enough because it says nothing about causality. A photo of hyenas eating a dead antelope says nothing about whether or not the hyenas killed the antelope. (A hunter might have killed it and the hyenas arrived later.)
Furthermore, reproducibility is critical, hence it being part of the Scientific Method. If the same results can’t be repeated, then the hypothesis is false. For example, if the claim that a certain type of plastic is heat resistant under certain conditions, but tests repeatedly reveal that it is not heat resistant under the said conditions, then the claim is false.
Similarly, if the claim that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, then tests must be conducted and must be reproducible.
There is nothing unusual about such logic; it is precisely how proper science works.
TNT Conversation
Mark joined me for a conversation about viruses and the aforementioned challenge. It is well worth listening to.
Podcast Conversation
A few days after our TNT conversation, Mark joined me on my podcast for an overlapping, but more free-flowing chat with coffee, craft beer, and power failures.
While walking down the darkened street late at night, have you ever had that gnawing fear as to whether or not the posse of raccoons rummaging through the trashcans nearby, staring at you with their beady yellow eyes, are ready and waiting for the right moment to pounce? Or have you ever had your fingertip accidentally pierced by the sharp fangs of a squirrel while feeding it walnuts and had to rush to the hospital on a nurses advice only to be told by the doctor that squirrels do not carry the “deadly virus?” Have you ever been bit in the very tender thin space of skin in between your thumb and index finger by a baby penguin while feeding it fish at the Omaha Zoo? Ok, the last one is obviously not related to rabies as the “virus” discriminates as to which animals it infects. Whether or not the squirrel can get or transmit rabies depends upon who you ask. In any case, these are all true experiences for me and yes, I have been bitten by numerous animals while feeding them. Like many, I have encountered the fear of being infected by a bite from a potentially rabid animal and that if I waited too long to receive treatment, it would be too late to stop the “virus” before it invades my cerebral cortex and causes me to turn into a crazed barking dog-man. Fortunately, not one of my comedically unfortunate puncture wounds left me to succumb to any disease. As I would later find out, my fears were in fact as irrational as the myths surrounding rabies which are built upon a foundation of fraud and pseudoscience.
Still, rabies seems to be one of the diseases that those who cling to the “virus” narrative love to bring up as if it is the Holy Grail of proof that “viruses” actually exist. Over the decades, the images of the mangy frothing dog snarling and ready to attack has been deeply ingrained into our subconscious through effective media fear-based propaganda.
1870’s fear propaganda.
Atticus Finch taking aim to put down a rabid dog in 1962’s To Kill A Mockingbird.
The portrayal of angry diseased animals heightened peoples fear of anything wild and undomesticated and created in their minds the living walking embodiment of an invisible “virus” coming to infect the defenseless with a slobbery bite. The fear of aquiring the deadly disease was the perfect tool to use by Louis Pasteur in the late 1800’s to ensare people into the emerging germ theory narrative. All it takes is one bite for the sneaky “virus” to find its way into the bloodstream, attacking the brain and causing a painful death. It seems, upon first glance, to be an open and shut case. However, what you will find upon researching rabies is that the presented model of the rabid animal bite transferring an infectious “virus,” which in turn causes disease, is not an accurate portrayal whatsoever and was merely a frightening myth used to propagate the delusions of a madman looking to aquire fame, fortune, and prestige.
A few months ago, I looked at the unethical and fraudulent practices Louis Pasteur employed in the 1880’s in his attempt to prove a rabies pathogen exists and causes disease in order to sell his vaccines. Pasteur openly admitted to not being able to isolate any microorganism said to cause rabies but developed his vaccine against the invisible pathogen anyways. This is also openly admitted as well by the Institut Pasteur:
“Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies virus proved unsuccessful as the virus remained invisible. Viruses could not be seen due to the poor resolution of the microscopes used. The virus was not seen until almost a century later, in 1962, with the advent of electron microscopy.
But as rabies is a disease of the nervous system, together with Emile Roux, Louis Pasteur then had the idea of inoculating part of a rabid dog’s brain directly into another dog’s brain. The inoculated dog subsequently died.”
Thus, Pasteur never worked with any purified and isolated “virus” and did what virologists still do today, which is assume an invisible entity is floating freely in the unpurified solutions of diseased animals which are then inoculated into healthy animals in attempts to cause disease and prove pathogenicity. Interestingly, as stated in the 1930 paper below, Pasteur would fail many times in his attempts to infect animals with saliva from animals claimed to be rabid, the very fluids the “virus” is supposed to reside in. Even if deemed successful, the symptoms would not appear for months, which was unheard of for any pathogen. Thus, he sought other means of infecting animals by way of injecting dogs directly in the brain with the emulsified cranial goo from animals claimed to be rabid. Once the healthy animal died from the toxic brain injection, this was considered a success:
Pasteur’s Work with Rabies
“Inoculation with saliva was found to be a method which did not always produce rabies and symptoms did not declare themselves for months. The theory that the disease virus attacks the nerve centers had already been set forth by Dr. Dubous of Paris. Pasteur accordingly inoculated a number of animals subcutaneously with some of the brain substance from other animals which had died of rabies. Most of those inoculated developed rabies, but not all.
Pasteur then conceived the idea of introducing into the brain of experimental animals some of the nerve tissue from an animal which had died of rabies. This experiment was based on the principle of providing the causal organisms with the nutritive medium best suited to their requirements. Pasteur, obliged to sacrifice so many animals, had a real dislike for vivisection; if the animal cried out a little he was full of pity. The idea of perforating the skull of the dog was repulsive to him, he wanted it done but dreaded seeing it done. So it was done one day when he was away. The next day when he was told of the intra-cranial inoculation he was moved to pity for the poor dog.”
While the exact make-up of the inoculations remain a mystery due to Pasteur’s secretive nature, the vaccine’s he utilized contained a neurotropic agent which was known to cause the exact same neurological conditions as seen in rabid animals. While injecting anything into the brain would potentially cause neurological damage and death, it is not far fetched to believe Pasteur used the same neurotropic agents in his experimental inoculations to prove pathogenicity, especially as they were said to consist of emulsified brain and nervous tissue. This created an issue in determining whether it was the invisible “virus” or the injections themselves which caused neurological damage and/or death. However, it has been admitted that the vaccines themselves led to the majority of neurological conditions rather than “wild” rabies cases as this was considered a rare occurrence in nature. This is just another in a long history of cases where the vaccine created the disease it was supposed to be preventing.
Fortunately, we can learn a lot of interesting tidbits about rabies (or the lack thereof) from the work of Gerald Geison, a leading Louis Pasteur researcher and historian who was privy to his private notebooks. In a 1978 essay he wrote on the ethics of rabies vaccination, Geison pointed out some of the pecularities of rabies such as the fact that it has always been considered a rare disease in man as well as the fact that rabies can not be transmitted from person-to-person. He also noted that, as a pathogenic disease, rabies has an unusually long incubation period. While it is said to usually last 6 to 8 weeks, Geison claimed that it can actually last for a year or more. In fact, there have been reported cases with a rabies incubation period from 6 years all the way on up to 25 years. If that wasn’t outlandish enough to make one question the validity of what we are told of the disease, Geison stated that there was a high degree of uncertainty regarding the correlation between animal bites and rabies symptoms as well as the threat of death from being bitten by a clearly rabid animal:
Pasteur’s Work on Rabies: Reexamining the Ethical Issues
“Rabies has always been rare in man. It probably never claimed more than a hundred victims in any year in France, and Fiench estimates for the years immediately preceding Pasteur’s famous work indicate an annual mortality of considerably less than fifty. In addition, rabies is not an infectious disease in the usual sense; it is not transmitted from man to man. Because of these two features, generalor compulsory vaccination has never seemed appropriate with respect to rabies.
“An even more peculiar feature of rabies is its long incubation period in the absence of detectable symptoms. No other lethal disease of rapid clinical course even approaches rabies for length of incubation-usually six to eight weeks, but sometimes a year or more.
“Unfortunately for Pasteur and his successors, there is a very high degree of uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and the subsequent appearance of rabies-even when the biting animal is certifiably rabid. While the mortality of clinical rabies is virtually 100 percent, the threat of death from the bite of a rabid animal is vastly less. The risk depends on several factors, including the species of attacking animal (wolf and cat bites, for example, pose a much higher risk than dog bites), the location and depth of the bites, and the application or timing of cauterization. Depending on these and other circumstances, estimates of the risk of contracting rabies from the bites of animals known to be rabid range from as high as 80 percent to as low as 0.5 percent. It is perhaps futile to try to settle upon a meaningful “average” figure within this range, but Pasteur himself estimated that 16 percent of those bitten by rabid dogs would eventually die of rabies unless they submitted to his new treatment.”
In his 1995 book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Geison pointed out that, according to the English Commission on Rabies, there was also much uncertainty in the rabies statistics. They had suspected that at least one man had died not from rabies but from Pasteur’s vaccine instead and they actually favored animal regulations over Pasteur’s vaccination approach:
“But the English commission also drew attention to the uncertainty of all statistics on rabies, citing the difficulty of establishing that the attacking animal had in fact been rabid as well as the variable effects of the location and depth of bites, of differences in the lethality of rabid animal bites in different species and races, and of the possible prophylactic effects of cauterization or other treatments applied to bitten victims before they submitted to Pasteur’s treatment. The commission also suspected that at least one man may have died as a direct result of the Pastorian injections, and in the end it favored strict regulations on potentially rabid animals (muzzling and quarantine) over Pasteur’s more drastic remedy.”
We also find out from Geison that, in great contrast to what we are told about rabies, the great majority of rabies victims could forgo any treatment and never have any ill effects whatsoever:
“In short, the great majority of the victims of rabid animal bites could forgo Pasteur’s treatment without experiencing any untoward consequences in the future. And they had to decide whether or not to submit to the treatment at a point when they had no symptoms of the disease. For the efficacy and very possibility of Pasteur’s vaccine depended on the peculiarly long incubation period that separates the infective bites of a rabid animal from the outbreak of symptoms.”
Geison even spotlighted what was known as “false rabies,” which were cases of the exact same symptoms of disease associated with rabies that occured despite a complete lack of the victim being bitten by a rabid animal. These symptoms were said to be either induced solely based on fear alone or by alcoholism. In other words, just the mere thought of rabies could create an intense enough reaction inducing the same disease, thus no invisible microscopic pathogen is necessary. Pasteur actually emphasized these cases in defense of his vaccine as there was a growing chorus of criticism that his vaccine did not protect the victims and in fact induced the symptoms of rabies which lead to their deaths. Pasteur therefore had a vested interest in showing that these same symptoms could occur outside of animal bites and vaccination:
“Pasteur himself later pointed out some of the uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis of rabies. Two years after I’affair Girard, for example, he spoke to the Academie des sciences about several cases of “false rabies.” Relying on the authority of one Dr Trousseau, Pasteur cited two cases in which symptoms of the disease had been induced solely by fear. In one case, a man suddenly displayed several of the classic features of rabies—including throat spasms, chest pain, extreme anxiety, and other nervous symptoms—merely because the disease had become the subject of a lunchtime conversation. And this man had never even confronted a rabid animal. Presumably more common was the second case, that of a magistrate whose hand had long before been licked by a dog later suspected of rabies. Upon learning that several animals bitten by this dog had died of rabies, the magistrate became extremely agitated, even delirious, and displayed a horror of water. His symptoms disappeared ten days later, when his physician persuaded him that he would already be dead had he been afflicted with true rabies.”
In this same address, Pasteur commented upon a recently published case history of “false rabies.” Partly because it includes an arresting account of the classic symptoms of rabies, his commentary deserves quoting at length. As recorded in the Comptes rendus of the Academie des sciences for 17 October 1887, Pasteur spoke as follows:
The patient to whom Mesnet refers in his brochure was an alcoholic who, having seen some sort of deposit m his glass during lunch, was seized by a feeling of horror toward the liquid and by a constriction of the throat, followed by headache and by lameness and fatigue in all his limbs. He spent Sunday in this state.
During that night and during the day on Monday and Tuesday, no sleep, a fit of suffocation, throat spasms, and a horror of liquids, which he pushed aside in his glass. His countenance expressed disquiet. His eyes were fixed, glazed, the pupils greatly dilated. His speech was brief, jerky, rapid. He had difficulty breathing. When he was offered a glass of water, he pushed it aside with terror, and suffered fits of suffocation and of constriction of the throat. Bright objects and light were particularly disagreeable to him. He was painfully affected when the air was agitated in front of his face. He died Wednesday night after having suffered from a violent delirium, with extreme agitation, howls and cries, extremely abundant salivation, spitting, biting his bedsheets, and trying also to bite the person taking care of him. In short, this man displayed all the features of furious rabies [I’hydrophobie funeuse]. But he did not die of rabies. He had never been bitten and on several occasions, at long intervals, had already displayed symptoms analogous to false rabies.This man was an alcoholic and belonged, moreover, to a family m which one member had died of insanity [alienation mentale].
By October 1887, when he gave this address, Pasteur had a vested interest in emphasizing the difficulty of diagnosing rabies. For he was then defending himself against allegations that his rabies vaccine not only sometimes failed to protect those who submitted to it, but in some cases was itself the cause of rabies and therefore death. A few hostile critics were insisting that some people died of rabies not only despite Pasteur’s vaccine but because of it, and they tried to make Pasteur and his treatment responsible for the death of anyone who displayed any symptoms of nervous disease. In defense of his vaccine, Pasteur now emphasized the extent to which symptoms like those of rabies could appear in patients who did not have the disease. He therefore insisted that a diagnosis of rabies could only be established with confidence by experiments in which tissue from the victim’s brain was transmitted to animals susceptible to the disease.”
There is good reason for the high degree of uncertainty over the correlation between animal bites and the development of symptoms, the actual rabies statistics, as well as the ability to accurately diagnose the disease. For starters, there are many other conditions that can cause the exact same symptoms as rabies in both animals and in humans. In animals, canine distemper, encephalitis, and poisoning are a few of the conditions which can mimic rabies. In humans, this includes polio, being drunk and/or intoxicated on certain drugs, having Guillain–Barré syndrome, and as stated previously, encephalitis derived from the toxic vaccine itself.
It has been stated that it is common not to even find bite marks in cases of rabies and often, the person has had no idea that they were ever bitten to begin with. One source stated that fewer than one third of human rabies victims show evidence of bite wounds. With the vast range of conditions that mimic rabies and the lack of bite marks, it’s safe to question the existence of a specific disease known as rabies. It would be logical to conclude that rabies is nothing but the same set of symptoms that has been given a different label numerous times.
This uncertainty in rabies cases and statistics boils down to the inability to accurately diagnose a rabies case. For much of the 1800s to the mid 1900s, rabies was diagnosed upon clinical symptoms which, as previously stated, were not specific to the disease. It is also noted in the WHO’s rabies laboratory manual that the histological diagnosis for rabies, which began in the late 1800’s, was also non-specific:
When factoring in the non-specificity in diagnosis, the uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and disease symptoms, and the vast majority of victims never needing any treatment whatsoever, it leads one to conclude that the rabies myth is vastly overstated. It is fictitious fear propaganda rather than facts based in reality. We can break this deception down even further by looking at how rabies is diagnosed in the present versus how it was in the past. According to the CDC:
Diagnosis in animals
“A diagnosis of rabies can be made after detection of rabies virus from any part of the affected brain, but in order to rule out rabies, the test must include tissue from at least two locations in the brain, preferably the brain stem and cerebellum.
The test requires that the animal be euthanized. The test itself takes about 2 hours, but it takes time to remove the brain samples from an animal suspected of having rabies and to ship these samples to a state public health or veterinary diagnostic laboratory for diagnosis.”
In order to diagnose rabies, the animal must be killed and sections must be taken from the brain in order to try and detect the “virus.” We already have a few problems here as no “virus” was ever purified and isolated in order to determine how to detect it. There is also an issue with attempting to determine anything from dead tissue as the tissue, once removed, immediately starts to change through decomposition. Biologist Harold Hillman often pointed out the faults in trying to establish credible information about what occurs inside living beings from the study of dead tissues:
“Killing an animal changes its biochemistry grossly. For example, its blood carbon dioxide, phosphate, lactate, and potassium ion concentrations, rise, while its oxygen, sodium ion, adenosine triphosphate, phosphocreatine, concentrations go down. These changes affect much of the tissue metabolism. It is hoped and normally assumed that they will reverse during incubation. There is no realistic way of testing this, since the volume and chemistry of the tissue changes during incubation. In this circumstance, it is worth asking whether cell biologists should use tissues in vitro at all. Perhaps, they should confine their experiments to working on intact animals and human beings, tissue cultures, unicellular organisms and plants.”
The current “gold standard” used to study the dead brain tissue for the diagnosis of rabies is known as the direct fluorescent antibody test. As the name implies, the test looks to detect rabies antigens on the brain by using antibodies said to be specific to the rabies “virus:”
Direct Fluorescent Antibody Test
“The dFA test is based on the observation that animals infected by rabies virus have rabies virus proteins (antigen) present in their tissues. Because rabies is present in nervous tissue (and not blood like many other viruses), the ideal tissue to test for rabies antigen is brain. The most important part of a dFA test is flouresecently-labeled anti-rabies antibody. When labeled antibody is incubated with rabies-suspect brain tissue, it will bind to rabies antigen. Unbound antibody can be washed away and areas where antigen is present can be visualized as fluorescent-apple-green areas using a fluorescence microscope. If rabies virus is absent there will be no staining.”
According to the CDC, in the 50 years that the dFA test has been used to detect rabies, it has not failed to present reliable and accurate results. This indirect method is somehow said to be more sensitive and specific than actually “isolating” the “virus,” thus the “gold standard” label. It is also stated by the CDC that the saliva of an infected animal contains millions of “virions,” making the lack of any purified and isolated “virus” and the reliance on indirect antibody testing all the more glaring of an issue:
Accuracy of the Tests
“During the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person.
Because of its high sensitivity and specificity,in comparison to virus isolation methods, the DFA test is the “gold standard” diagnostic method for rabies and has been rigorously evaluated by international, national, and state health laboratories. The DFA test is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for routine rabies determination in animals in the United States.
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.”
Returning to the WHO’s rabies manual, it shows us exactly how the dFA is used and how the diagnosis is determined based on the interpretation of the person reading the results. The interpreter uses an antigen fluorescence intensity and distribution scale from +4 on down to +1 to determine one of four conclusions: positive, negative, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive. Obviously, the subjective bias of the interpreter plays no role in the accuracy of the determination as humans rarely make interpretive errors, correct?:
In fact, there are many drawbacks to using the dFA as the “gold standard” test for rabies diagnosis beyond the aforementioned use of dead tissues. For starters, due to the lack of ever properly purifying and isolating the rabies “virus” directly from the saliva said to contain millions of “virions,” any antibody result is utterly meaningless as there is no “virus” to determine a specific reaction with. We also have this same purification/isolaton problem with antibodies as these entities have also never been taken and separated directly from the fluids of a host in order to be studied independently. There is also the issue that the theoretical antibodies themselves are entirely non-specific and are regularly said to bind to proteins that are not the intended target. Thus, we once again run into the problem where one fictional entity (the rabies “virus”) is said to be detected by another fictional entity (the antibody). It is very telling that the CDC believes that the interpretive results from this indirect circular test is more accurate than actually finding and “isolating” the supposed “virus.”
Thus, we must ask ourselves if these dFA tests really are as accurate as stated by the CDC. If we do so, we find out that this is most definitely not the case according to these next three sources. This first snippet comes from a study done on bacteria which points out the obvious fault of the subjective interpretation of the dFA test results which leads to poor sensitivity and a widely varying specificity, contrary to the claims made by the CDC:
“Direct fluorescent-antibody testing (DFA) provides a much more rapid result but also has the disadvantage of poor sensitivity, and its specificity varies widely due to the subjective interpretation of test results.”
This second study also points out the flaws of the subjective interpretation of the test results as well as the need for expensive equipment and quality-controlled reagents, the varied parameters utilized for succesful results and the issues relating to the incubation times and temperatures, as well as the necessity of having well-trained personnel running and interpreting the results:
“However, DFA has several drawbacks such as the need for an expensive fluorescent microscope, well-trained personnel, and quality controlled reagents (antibodies, conjugates), and varied parameters used during microscopy, and incubation times and temperatures, not to mention the subjectivity in interpretation of the test results [27,28,29,30]. In addition, acetone used as fixative in DFA does not completely inactivate the virus, as demonstrated by the infectivity of acetone-fixed tissue for neuroblastoma cells [31], posing a potential biohazard to laboratory personnel. Indeed, complete inactivation of cell culture-derived rabies virus appears to require >30% acetone [32].”
And finally, from this 2017 study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, we can once again see the problems with subjective interpretation of dFA test results in action. The study utilized 23 independent laboratories to aid in identifying “differences in the laboratory protocols that could explain discrepant laboratory results and provide baseline knowledge for regional standardization of protocols.” The labs were each sent 20 samples which included 17 test samples and 3 controls. The positive tissues contained major rabies “virus” variants that were circulating in the Americas while the negative samples consisted of tissues demonstrating complete absence of rabies “virus” antigen and artifacts. Each lab was asked to test the samples using their own standard protocols and to record their results (positivity, intensity, and distribution of the fluorescence staining) as well as the microscopic condition and impression quality of the tissues (Good, Acceptable, or Deficient) as evaluated by the laboratory operator. The results from this 2017 study indicated that there are substantial differences in the overall dFA results and test interpretation as the “level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability.” Only two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories:
An inter- laboratory proficiency testing exercise for rabies diagnosis in Latin America and the Caribbean
“Our results indicate that although all laboratories can perform the direct fluorescent antibody test, there are substantial differences in the overall results and test interpretation. This study identified important gaps in standardization and/or harmonization between laboratories which could be overcome and corrected with appropriate DFA protocols standardized across the LAC, including its broad distribution and proper training.”
“Conclusive rabies diagnosis can only be achieved by appropriate laboratory testing. Clinical and epidemiological diagnosis is challenging and leads to under-reporting [1, 2, 3]. The Direct Fluorescent Antibody test (DFA) for detection of rabies virus antigen remains as the gold standard test for laboratory diagnosis of rabies in post-mortem brain tissues [3].”
“The agreement between the laboratory results and those of the CDC, as measured by the sensitivity, specificity, concordance and kappa values are shown in Table 2. Two laboratories correctly identified all samples tested (sensitivity and specificity of 1.0). However, 30% (7/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false positive and 83% (19/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false negative sample. The average sensitivity was 76% with a range of 40% to 100%. The average specificity was 88% with a range of 22% to 100%. While a majority of the laboratories had low false positive rates, there were considerable differences in the sensitivity (Fig 1).The mean concordance was 81% with a range of 50% to 100% and the mean kappa score was 0.56 with a range of 0.02 to 1.00.”
“The level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability. Two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories.”
“The type of conjugate may also affect the sensitivity of the DFA test (monoclonal cocktail versus polyclonal, in-house made versus commercial). For the current exercise, laboratories used commercial (65%) or in-house (35%) conjugates. A study of 12 rabies reference laboratories in Europe demonstrated that the variability of conjugates could potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity [19].”
A bunch of glowing green dots means…absolutely nothing.In answer to the claim by the CDC that “during the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person,” we can safely conclude that this is obviously a false statement. The dFA test has been shown to have low sensitivity and a widely varying specificity as well as major issues relating to the subjective interpretation of the results based upon the person doing the interpreting. The 23 labs participating in the 2017 study had large variability in concordance with the CDC’s own panel. Anyone looking at this indirect test with a shred of intellectual honesty can easily see that the CDC’s “golden standard” rabies test does not look so golden anymore.
While the dFA test is the “go to” diagnostic measure in modern times, there are other methods available which can be used in an attempt to claim an animal is infected with the rabies “virus.” One of these is the “isolation” of the “virus” in tissue and cell cultures, which used to be the “gold standard” method for proving a “virus” exists and is infectious. Oddly enough, the CDC stated that the supposed “isolation” of the rabies “virus” is not as sensitive nor as specific as the dFA test. How could this possibly be the case?
For one thing, it is admitted that the rabies “virus” does not actually produce the desired cytopathogenic effect (CPE) when cultured:
Detection of rabies virus replication: inoculation tests
“The other group of available techniques aim at detecting the replication of the virus on living substrates, e.g. cells. Virus isolation may be necessary to confirm inconclusive results in FAT/dRIT and for characterization of the virus strain. In neuroblastoma cells, rabies virus grows generally without cytopathic effect; once again it is necessary to use FAT to confirm the presence of rabies virus.After intracranial application, rabies induces clinical signs in mice that are relatively typical but have to be confirmed by FAT. Since cell culture is as sensitive as the mouse inoculation test, units should be established in laboratories to replace mouse inoculation tests as it avoids the use of life animals, is less expensive and gives more rapid results.”
Why is this important to note? The cytopathogenic effect (CPE) is the structural and morphological changes to the cell that are claimed to be caused by the “virus” as it enters the cell, breaking it apart as the “virus” creates more copies of itself. This effect is supposed to tell the researchers that the “virus” is present within the culture. According to their stories, without this effect, it should be a clear indicator that the host was not infected by the “virus.” However, virology loves to bend their own rules and in a clear cut case of having their cake and eating it too, virologists claim that certain “viruses” do not cause CPE in their natural host cells. They state that there are different levels of CPE based on the cell type used:
Not permissive cell – virus cannot infect
Permissive cell – virus can replicate, but does not cause obvious CPE
Highly permissive cell – virus replicates and induces an obvious CPE
Anyone looking at this logically can see that “Not permissive” and “Permissive” cells are the exact same thing. Neither of these cells produce CPE when “infected” by the “virus.” However, virologists will resort to other indirect measures in order to claim the “virus” is present in spite of the lack of any CPE observed. In the case of rabies, the dFA test is used to confirm if a “virus” is present in a culture. However, if the dFA test is considered inconclusive, the cell culture is used to confirm the dFA result. A bit circular there, don’t you think? Another confirmation is done by injecting the toxic CPE-less cell culture soup into the brain of a mouse and seeing if symptoms occur. If so, the mouse is killed and the newly damaged brain is taken and tested by dFA for confirmation. Seeing the problem yet?
Toxic cell-cultured goo injected directly into the brain causing brain damage. It must be the “virus” and not the method… ?
If neither dFA and/or cell culturing is enough satisfactory indirect evidence to claim the existence of the rabies “virus,” one can turn to the old ways of histopathology to try and build a circumstantial case against the invisible entity. Along with attempting to diagnose someone based on clinical symptoms, which thanks to Louis Pasteur and “false rabies” we know is inaccurate due to the non-specificity of the symptoms, histopathology was the main method utilized for decades for determining if an animal was in fact rabid. This consisted of staining the brain tissues with chemicals such as hematoxylin and eosin and looking for patterns of encephalopathy as well as the presence of what are called Negri bodies. Negri bodies are round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals which were discovered by Dr. Adelchi Negri in 1903. At the time, he claimed that these inclusions were the etiologic agent of rabies. While the rest of the virology community disagreed with Dr. Negri, his discovery was considered a tell-tale sign of rabies infection in the brain and finding these inclusions served as the basis for a rabies diagnosis for over 60 years. However, there is rather big problem for these histopathological examinations. Signs of encephalitis and finding Negri bodies are both entirely non-specific and are seen in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with rabies. In fact, Negri bodies are said to only be found in half of the cases of rabies:
Histologic examination, General histopathology
“Histologic examination of biopsy or autopsy tissues is occasionally useful in diagnosing unsuspected cases of rabies that have not been tested by routine methods. When brain tissue from rabies virus-infected animals are stained with a histologic stain, such as hematoxylin and eosin, evidence of encephalomyelitis may be recognized by a trained microscopist. This method is nonspecific and not considered diagnostic for rabies.
Before current diagnostic methods were available, rabies diagnosis was made using this method and the clinical case history. In fact, most of the significant histopathologic features (changes in tissue caused by disease) of rabies infection were described in the last quarter of the 19th century. After Louis Pasteur’s successful experiments with rabies vaccination, scientists were motivated to identify the pathologic lesions of rabies virus.
Histopathologic evidence of rabies encephalomyelitis (inflammation) in brain tissue and meninges includes the following:
Mononuclear infiltration
Perivascular cuffing of lymphocytes or polymorphonuclear cells
Lymphocytic foci
Babes nodules consisting of glial cells
Negri bodies
Negri bodies
In 1903, most of the histopathologic signs of rabies were recognized, but rabies inclusions had not yet been detected. At this time, Dr. Adelchi Negri reported the identification of what he believed to be the etiologic agent of rabies, the Negri body.In his report, he described Negri bodies as round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals infected with rabies. Negri bodies may vary in size from 0.25 to 27 µm. They are found most frequently in the pyramidal cells of Ammon’s horn, and the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum.
They are also found in the cells of the medulla and various other ganglia. Negri bodies can also be found in the neurons of the salivary glands, tongue, or other organs. Staining with Mann’s, giemsa, or Sellers stains can permit differentiation of rabies inclusions from other intracellular inclusions. With these stains, Negri bodies appear magenta in color and have small (0.2 µm to 0.5 µm), dark-blue interior basophilic granules.
The presence of Negri bodies is variable. Histologic staining for Negri bodies is neither as sensitive nor as specific as other tests. Some experimentally-infected cases of rabies display Negri bodies in brain tissue; others do not. Histologic examination of tissues from clinically rabid animals show Negri bodies in about 50% of the samples; in contrast, the dFA test shows rabies antigen in nearly 100% of the samples. In other cases, non-rabid tissues have shown inclusions indistinquishable from Negri bodies. Because of these problems, the presence of Negri bodies should not be considered diagnostic for rabies.”
Whoever wants to point at random circles seen in fixed and stained dead tissues and then make wild guesses about their importance, raise your hand! ️
As the Negri bodies played such a substantial role in determining the diagnosis of rabies and building the case statistics used to sell the public on a “virus” in need of vaccination and eradication, let’s look at two more studies to find out a bit more about these non-specific diagnostic blobs. In 1942, it was already well known that the Negri bodies were not specific to rabies and could be mistaken for other inclusion bodies seen in the tissues upon examination. This is a rather big deal as the mass vaccination of dogs didn’t start for another 5 years in 1947. So we can already see that the main method used for diagnosis was faulty which casts doubt on any rabies statistics generated up to that time using this method. The authors go on to admit that there were deficiencies in the method used for examining these inclusions. It is stated that every experienced microscopist encountered difficulty in deciding whether or not the bodies observed were in fact Negri bodies or whether they were instead normal or possibly distorted cytoplasmic structures. In the study of 84 mice said to be given rabies by way of injection, Negri bodies were only found in the hippocampus 8 times as well as only 4 times in the cerebral cortex. The authors concluded that there are many rabies cases without Negri bodies present upon examination and that there are various structures which resemble Negri bodies commonly found in normal animals:
Problems in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Rabies*
“THE diagnosis of rabies in the laboratory is based entirely upon the microscopic demonstration of Negri bodies and upon animal inoculation. The demonstration of Negri bodies is the method of choice since the diagnosis can be thus made in a few minutes or hours. When the technic employed demonstrates typical bodies the result is highly convincing and satisfying. However, negative and doubtful results leave much to be desired, and animal inoculation must be resorted to. The difficulties in demonstrating Negri bodies arise from two sources of error which can be enumerated as inability to differentiate them from other inclusion bodies and cell structures, and inherent deficiencies in the methods of examination.”
“However, every experienced microscopist has encountered the difficulty of deciding whether the bodies observed in some preparations are Negri bodies or cytoplasmic structures normal to the cell or if not normal at least only distorted cellular structures. Goodpasture refers to the variation in size of Negri bodies and speaks of being able to demonstrate the smallest forms. When small bodies are associated with large ones, which show the typical inner structure, no confusion is encountered. When, however, only forms so small occur that the demonstration of the “Innenkorper” is doubtful, the diagnosis is doubtful. The brain of cats, particularly, offers difficulty because of the pink staining granular material in the cells and also because the Negri bodies in the pyramidal and Purkinji cells of this animal are often very small. The failure of the microscopic diagnosis of rabies as proved by mouse inoculation is shown in Table 1.”
“Above we have mentioned the occasional occurrence of what appear to be “lyssa bodies” or small Negri bodies in the brain of some animals which did not produce rabies when injected into mice. These bodies are found most frequently in the cerebrum and medulla. Since in the study of 84 cases of rabies proved by mouse inoculation we found Negri bodies only in the hippocampus 8 times and only in the cerebral cortex 4 times (Table 2), the finding of eosinophilic bodies in any portion of a brain from an animal suspected of having had rabies creates a doubt as to the diagnosis.”
“From these results it appears that by microscopic examination of sections and in some smears we are able to demonstrate eosinophilic bodiesresembling “lyssa bodies” and atypical Negri bodies which are not associated in the brain with rabies virus. Also the results show that brain specimens in which the microscopic examination leaves the diagnosis in doubt contain rabies. The bodies that cause this confusion in the microscopic diagnosis of rabies are similar to ones found in certain parts of the brain of normal cattle and other animals and to atypical or small Negri bodies.”
doi: 10.2105/ajph.32.2.171.
While the 1942 study should have been the end of the Negri body as a diagnostic indicator of rabies, this method carried on being used over the decades. In 1975, another study emerged casting doubts on the dogma surrounding these long-held markers of the rabies disease. It’s stated that there was a universal acceptance of the Negri body as a specific indicator of rabies and that due to this widely-endorsed dogma, every time a Negri body was seen, a rabies diagnosis was made irrespective of the circumstances regarding the case.
However, in this study, a case was reported of a person who was considered rabies free by way of dFA and electron microscopy but Negri bodies were still found upon examination. This finding was inconsistent with the idea of the specificity of these bodies to rabies. The author pointed out many flaws with the use of Negri bodies as a diagnostic tool as outside of finding them upon examination, rabies is non-specific and mimics other diseases such as smallpox. It is stated that rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features distinguishing it from other diseases. The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies, the lack of any inflammatory response, the absence of any history of animal contact in more than 30% of fatal cases, and the lack of specific behavioral symptoms of rabies in animals led the author to the conclusion that any association between this diagnostic method and the rabies disease is unwarranted. Thus, it is easy to see that any and all rabies case statistics based upon the clinical diagnosis and findings of Negri bodies should be thrown out:
Is the Negri Body Specific for Rabies?
“Of all viral diseases affecting the nervous systems of humans and animals, rabies seems to be the only one in which light microscopy alone can provide a definitive etiologic diagnosis. This is based on the universally accepted conviction on the specificity of the Negri body for rabies. Thus, the presence of a Negri body in the brain of a patient who did not have rabies is a matter that deserves attention.”
“Neuropathologically, the exclusion of rabies in the present case is based on the negative immunofluorescent
study results for rabies and the absence of the rabies virus within the Negri bodies (light microscope) as demonstrated by electron microscopy. Such an observation, of course, is inconsistent with the specificity of the Negri body in signifying the presence of rabies. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask: What are the other inclusion bodies that occur in sites other than the nervous system that are morphologically similar to Negri body?”
“The result of a universally accepted dogma such as this is obvious; in every instance in which a “Negri body” has been seen, a diagnosis of rabies was made irrespective of the circumstances.
To delineate some of the related aspects of the problem the following points deserve etnphasis:
Except for the occurrence of theNegri body, rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features. Variola-vaccinia virus, for example, can produce the same clinical pictures. The cutaneous manifestations can be sufficiently scanty to be missed on the physical examination, or they can be absent altogether (variole sans eruptione). There is remarkable variability in the intensity of cellular inflammatory response in rabies encephalitis. This, to some extent, may reflect the vigor with which these reactions are searched for, since the diagnostic efforts in the past have been mainly directed to the “specific” finding of the Negri body. The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies and the remarkable lack of inflammatory response in some instances of the disease signify the importance of obtaining a careful history. A definitive etiologic diagnosis of rabies, however, requires obtaining positive results with immunofluorescent or electron microscopical methods or both. The former method maps the occurrence of rabies viral antigen in any morphologic form (with or without the presence of the inclusions), and the latter defines the characteristic bullet-shaped virus.
Absence of history of animal contact has been reported in more than 30% of fatal cases of rabies. Here, also, it is the unquestioned association between the Negri body and rabies that constitutes the sole ground for a definitive etiologic diagnosis. The latter report is remarkable for the absence of history of animal contact and the occurrence of the fatal illness one week after vaccination for smallpox. Even in the presence of history of animal contact, it should be remembered that such an association is unwarranted as the behavioral alterations in the animals are not pathognomonic of any one disease.
It is conceivable that the failures of antirabies therapy and the occurrence of false negative immunofluorescent results are related to the non-specificity of the Negri body for rabies.
In no other viral disease is the light microscopy alone an accepted method for the definitive etiologic diagnosis of a disease.
The validity of the present observations needs confirmation by other observers and the answer will be found “not by dogma or skepticism but by open-minded uncertainty.”
doi: 10.1001/archneur.1975.00490440025002.
In Summary:
According to the Institut Pasteur, Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies “virus” proved unsuccessful as the “virus” remained invisible
The “virus” was not seen until almost a century later, in 1962, with the advent of electron microscopy
Louis Pasteur had the idea of inoculating part of a rabid dog’s brain directly into another dog’s brain, causing the inoculated dog to subsequently die
Inoculation with saliva (where the “virus” is supposedly found) was found to be a method which did not always produce rabies and symptoms did not declare themselves for months
Pasteur accordingly inoculated a number of animals subcutaneously with some of the brain substance from other animals which had died of rabies
Most of those inoculated developed rabies, but not all
Pasteur’s idea of introducing into the brain of experimental animals some of the nerve tissue from an animal which had died of rabies was based on the principle (i.e. assumption) of providing the causal organisms with the nutritive medium best suited to their requirements
There is a very high degree of uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and the subsequent appearance of rabies-even when the biting animal is certifiably rabid
While the mortality of clinical rabies is “virtually 100 percent,” the threat of death from the bite of a rabid animal is vastly less
Estimates of the risk of contracting rabies from the bites of animals known to be rabid range from as high as 80 percent to as low as 0.5 percent
Pasteur himself estimated that 16 percent of those bitten by rabid dogs would eventually die of rabies unless they submitted to his new treatment
In 1887, the English Commission on Rabies drew attention to the uncertainty of all statistics on rabies citing:
The difficulty of establishing that the attacking animal had in fact been rabid
The variable effects of the location and depth of bites
Differences in the lethality of rabid animal bites in different species and races
The possible prophylactic effects of cauterization or other treatments applied to bitten victims before they submitted to Pasteur’s treatment
The commission also suspected that at least one man may have died as a direct result of the Pastorian injections, and in the end it favored strict regulations on potentially rabid animals (muzzling and quarantine) over Pasteur’s more drastic remedy
The great majority of the victims of rabid animal bites could forgo Pasteur’s treatment without experiencing any untoward consequences in the future
Pasteur himself later pointed out some of the uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis of rabies
Pasteur cited two cases in which symptoms of the disease had been induced solely by fearwithout any animalbite as well as another case which was induced by alcoholism
Pasteur had a vested interest in emphasizing the difficulty of diagnosing rabies as he was then defending himself against allegations that his rabies vaccine not only sometimes failed to protect those who submitted to it, but in some cases was itself the cause of rabies and therefore death
In defense of his vaccine, Pasteur now emphasized the extent to which symptoms like those of rabies could appear in patients who did not have the disease
According to the CDC, the diagnosis of rabies can be made after detection of rabies “virus” from any part of the affected brain, preferably the brain stem and cerebellum
The test requires that the animal be euthanized
According to biologist Harold Hillman: “Killing an animal changes its biochemistry grossly. For example, its blood carbon dioxide, phosphate, lactate, and potassium ion concentrations, rise, while its oxygen, sodium ion, adenosine triphosphate, phosphocreatine, concentrations go down. These changes affect much of the tissue metabolism.”
Hillman felt that “it is worth asking whether cell biologists should use tissues in vitro at all”
The current “gold standard” test used to detect the “virus” on the brain tissue is the direct fluorescent antibody test (dFA)
The dFA test is based on the “observation” that animals infected by rabies “virus” have rabies “virus” proteins (antigen) present in their tissues
Because rabies is present in nervous tissue (and not blood like many other “viruses”), the ideal tissue to test for rabies antigen is brain
When labeled antibody is incubated with rabies-suspect brain tissue, the story goes that it will bind to rabies antigen and unbound antibody can be washed away so that areas where antigen is present can be visualized as fluorescent-apple-green areas using a fluorescence microscope
According to the CDC, during the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person
The CDC states that because of its high sensitivity and specificity, in comparison to “virus” isolation methods, the DFA test is the “gold standard” diagnostic method for rabies (way to shoot “virus” isolation in the foot there CDC…)
During clinical disease, millions of “viral” particles may be found intermittently in the saliva(which makes one wonder why they must kill an animal and do indirect antibody tests on decomposing brain tissue for diagnosis rather than properly purify and isolate the “virus” directly from the saliva supposedly containing millions of these entities)
In theory, only a single rabies particle or “virion” is required to result in a productive infection
The dFA results are based upon the opinion of an interpreter who uses an antigen fluorescence intensity and distribution scale from +4 on down to +1 to determine one of four conclusions: positive, negative, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive
The dFA test has the disadvantage of poor sensitivity, and its specificity varies widely due to the subjective interpretation of test results
The subjectivity in interpretation of the test results
According to a 2017 study testing and reviewing dFA with the help of numerous labs, the results indicated that although all laboratories can perform the direct fluorescent antibody test, there are substantial differences in the overall results and test interpretation
The authors stated that conclusive rabies diagnosis can only be achieved by appropriate laboratory testing as clinical and epidemiological diagnosis is challenging and leads to under-reporting
The agreement between the laboratory results and those of the CDC, as measured by the sensitivity, specificity, concordance and kappa values:
Only two laboratories correctly identified all samples tested (sensitivity and specificity of 1.0)
However, 30% (7/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false positive and 83% (19/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false negative sample
The average sensitivity was 76% with a range of 40% to 100%
The average specificity was 88% with a range of 22% to 100%.
While a majority of the laboratories had low false positive rates, there were considerable differences in the sensitivity
The mean concordance was 81% with a range of 50% to 100% and the mean kappa score was 0.56 with a range of 0.02 to 1.00
The level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability
Two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories
The type of conjugate may also affect the sensitivity of the DFA test (monoclonal cocktail versus polyclonal, in-house made versus commercial)
A study of 12 rabies reference laboratories in Europe demonstrated that the variability of conjugatescould potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity
Another method for diagnosing rabies is the “isolation” of the “virus” by tissue or cell culture
“Virus isolation” may be necessary to confirm inconclusive results in dFA/dRIT and for characterization of the “virus” strain
In neuroblastoma cells, rabies “virus” grows generally without cytopathic effect
In a bit of cirular reasoning, it is necessary to use dFA to confirm the presence of rabies “virus” by way of cell culture whereas cell culture may also be used to confirm inconclusive dFA results
After intracranial (in the brain…some things never change)application, rabies induces clinical signs in mice that are relatively typical but have to be confirmed by dFA (i.e. the mouse that has had toxic cell culture goo injected into its brain causing symptoms must then be killed to have its cell-culture damaged brain examined by dFA to confirm the infection)
Histologic examination of biopsy or autopsy tissues looking for signs of encephalitis is occasionally useful in diagnosing unsuspected cases of rabies that have not been tested by routine methods
However, this method is nonspecific and not considered diagnostic for rabies
Before current diagnostic methods were available, rabies diagnosis was made using this method and the clinical case history(i.e. non-specific and not suited for diagnostic methods were used to identify rabies for most of the 19th and 20th century)
Histopathologic evidence of rabies encephalomyelitis (inflammation) in brain tissue and meninges includes the following:
Mononuclear infiltration
Perivascular cuffing of lymphocytes or polymorphonuclear cells
Lymphocytic foci
Babes nodules consisting of glial cells
Negri bodies
In 1903, Dr. Adelchi Negri reported the identification of what he believed to be the etiologic agent of rabies, the Negri body
In his report, he described Negri bodies as round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals infected with rabies
While this was the main method of diagnosing rabies for over 60 years, the presence of Negri bodies is variable
Histologic staining for Negri bodies is neither as sensitive nor as specific as other tests
Some experimentally-infected cases of rabies display Negri bodies in brain tissue; others do not
Histologic examination of tissues from clinically rabid animals show Negri bodies in about 50% of the samples
In other cases, non-rabid tissues have shown inclusions indistinquishable from Negri bodies
Because of these problems, the presence of Negri bodies should not be considered diagnostic for rabies
Despite these problems, until the mid-1960’s the diagnosis of rabies in the laboratory was based entirely upon the microscopic demonstration of Negri bodies and upon animal inoculation
According to a study from 1942, the demonstration of Negri bodies was the method of choice since the diagnosis can be thus made in a few minutes or hour
However, the authors admitted that the difficulties in demonstrating Negri bodies arose from two sources of error which could be enumerated as theinability to differentiate them from other inclusion bodies and cell structures, and inherent deficiencies in the methods of examination
Every experienced microscopist has encountered the difficulty of deciding whether the bodies observed in some preparations are Negri bodies or cytoplasmic structures normal to the cell or if not normal at least only distorted cellular structures
In the study of 84 cases of rabies proved by mouse inoculation they found Negri bodies only in the hippocampus 8 times and only in the cerebral cortex 4 times
The authors determined that the finding of eosinophilic bodies in any portion of a brain from an animal suspected of having had rabies creates a doubt as to the diagnosis
From their results it appeared that by microscopic examination of sections and in some smears, they were able to demonstrate eosinophilic bodies resembling “lyssa bodies” and atypical Negri bodies which are not associated in the brain with rabies “virus”
Also the results showed that brain specimens in which the microscopic examination leaves the diagnosis in doubt contain rabies (i.e. they determined that injecting mice in the brain caused rabies without finding Negri bodies)
The bodies that cause this confusion in the microscopic diagnosis of rabies are similar to ones found in certain parts of the brain of normal cattle and other animals and to atypical or small Negri bodies
In a 1975 study, it is stated that rabies is the only “virus” that can be diagnosed by light microscopy based on the universally accepted conviction on the specificity of the Negri body for rabies
However, the authors presented a case of a patient without rabies as determined by negative immunofluorescent study results for rabies and the absence of the rabies “virus “within the Negri bodies (light microscope) as demonstrated by electron microscopy
Such an observation was inconsistent with the specificity of the Negri body in signifying the presence of rabies
The result of this universally accepted dogma led to every instance in which a “Negri body” was seen being diagnosed as rabies irrespective of the circumstances
Except for the occurrence of the Negri body, rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features (i.e. non-specific and overlapping symptoms associated with many diseases)
Variola-vaccinia(Smallpox) “virus,” for example, can produce the same clinical pictures
There is remarkable variability in the intensity of cellular inflammatory response in rabies encephalitis
The diagnostic efforts in the past have been mainly directed to the “specific” finding of the Negri body
The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies and the remarkable lack of inflammatory response in some instances of the disease signify the importance of obtaining a careful history
Absence of history of animal contact has been reported in more than 30% of fatal cases of rabies
In these cases, it is the unquestioned association between the Negri body and rabies that constitutes the sole ground for a definitive etiologic diagnosis
Even in the presence of history of animal contact, it should be remembered that such an association is unwarranted as the behavioral alterations in the animals are not pathognomonic of any one disease (i.e. there are many diseases which are said to cause the same symptoms in animals)
It is conceivable that the failures of antirabies therapy and the occurrence of false negative immunofluorescent results are related to the non-specificity of the Negri body for rabies
In no other “viral” disease is the light microscopy alone an accepted method for the definitive etiologic diagnosis of a disease
The author concludes that the answers to the observations made will be found “not by dogma or skepticism but by open-minded uncertainty.”
When one looks into the history of rabies and the methods used to diagnose the disease, it becomes undeniable that the mythical status that surrounds this fear-based fictional narrative fed to the masses throughout the centuries is entirely unjustified and unwarranted. There is literally nothing there in support of rabies as a distinct disease caused by a specific “virus” that is transmitted to humans through the bite of a sick animal. If we were to lay out the facts in front of a jury, it would be an easy conviction:
The pivotal moments of discovery in the late 19th century were built upon the fraudulent foundations laid out by Louis Pasteur, a man who manipulated and massaged his own data in order to sell his theories and his vaccine for fame and fortune.
The supposed “isolation” of the “virus” didn’t even take place until nearly a century after Pasteur admitted to never identifying a causative agent and yet it missed the necessary requirement of showing any indirect evidence of the “virus” highjacking the cell as the culture lacked any evidence of the cytopathogenic effect.
The actual correlation between animal bites and symptoms of disease was considered highly uncertain and those who were attacked and bitten by clearly rabid animals could easily forgo any treatments without any ill health effects.
The incubation period for the disease is inconsistent and is said to range anywhere from 6 weeks on up to 25 years before the development of symptoms.
The severe symptoms associated with rabies are a rare occurrence in nature and are in fact seen most frequently as an adverse reaction to the vaccine said to contain neurotropic ingredients.
The acknowledgment by Pasteur of “false rabies,” which was said to be brought about solely by FEAR of aquiring the disease as well as alcohol and/or drug use, was used to take attention away from his vaccine causing injury and death.
The statistics regarding rabies cases were considered unreliable due to the lack of any specifuc disease-defining symptoms as many diseases in animals and humans mimic the clinical picture.
The diagnosis of rabies, for much of its history, relied upon clinical symptoms and the histopathological findings related to encephalitis and Negri bodies, all of which are non-specific and are not suitable as a diagnostic measure for the disease, thus calling into question any case statistics related to rabies.
The only way to claim pathogenicity of the “virus” is by way of the completely unnatural route of intracranial inoculation of diseased brain and nervous tissues directly into the brains of dogs and mice.
The more recent modern method of direct fluorescence antibody tests, considered the “gold standard” diagnostic test, is claimed to be highly sensitive and specific, yet the results of the tests are open to human interpretation and have been shown in reviews to have low sensitivity and varied specificity.
The narrative surrounding rabies is based upon many primal fears. It plays on the fear of death, the fear of the unknown, and the fear of mutilation. Just like the rabid animal lurking in the shadows ready to strike, the “virus” hides inside the body once infected, waiting for the right moment to unleash a painful and excruciating death unless the infected leaps for the miracle cure in time. If they are a moment too late and the symptoms set in, it’s game over. This same scenario is regularly sold to the masses in our daily entertainment with the recent zombie craze. One must be afraid of the bite. Once bitten, the “virus” takes hold and the victim is condemned to certain death.
However, just as Louis Pasteur recounted tales of the fearful succumbing to the exact same symptoms in absence of any animal bite, we must realize that the real enemy here is not a “virus” but an ingrained fear that stems from outdated and unproven fictional narratives. Moreso than any of the other more common diseases of the time such as smallpox and syphilis, rabies was the perfect mascot to convince the doubting public that disease-causing pathogens exist, can be transmitted, and can be prevented by way of vaccination. The imagery of the dirty mangled dog stumbling down the road, frothing at the mouth and seeking its next victim to transfer its parasitic contents into was a powerful visual tool for pathogens that remained nothing but formless thoughts at the time.
However, the evidence consistently shows us that there is no dangerous invisible entity waiting in the wings inside the saliva of a rabid animal looking to seep into the open wound of a bite mark. There is no reason for any victim of an animal attack to subject themselves to the toxic treatments based upon the fear of an impending gruesome death. Just as there are no zombies coming for your brains, there is no frothing rabies “virus” looking to do the same. The foundation for germ theory and vaccination established by Pasteur was never built from any purified and isolated “virus” shown scientifically to exist in nature. It was built upon the only “virus” that has ever truly existed: the “virus” of fear.
For an excellent breakdown of the rabies fraud, please see Dr. Sam Bailey’s What About Rabies? video:
Could the Earth really be hollow? As unlikely as it may sound, the are many compelling claims to support the idea not only that our planet may be house a world within a world, but also that this inner realm may also be home to ancient intelligent lifeforms – or what the Hopi tribe have known for centuries as the ‘ant people’. But just how does this all relate to the famed Antarctic explorer Admiral Richard Byrd? This video explains all…
Conventional wisdom suggests that the Earth is essentially a solid spherical mass, with an inner core of solid iron encased in a layer of molten iron, followed by stiffer mantle and the crust, before heading to the surface on which we all live.
However, although this theory is almost universally accepted as absolute fact, it is only an educated guess, with no solid proof to back it up. The fact is that we have never been anywhere near to the center of the Earth.
So with that in mind, theories that state the Earth is, in fact, hollow, and even able to support life, should be treated the same way as the widely accepted aforementioned theory – as you might suspect though, most scoff at this notion and dismiss it entirely without any further investigation.
However, throughout history many prominent and respected minds, thinkers, and even military veterans have presented detailed theories as to what lies deep within our planet. When these theories are combined with the numerous reports and texts that make reference to living beings and entire civilizations that live and sometimes “come up from inside the Earth!”, not only appear to warrant further study but when viewed with an unbiased mind, suggests there may be more evidence to support the Hollow Earth theory than not.
One of the many cave and wall paintings of the Hopi Tribe depicting the Ant People – were they the Anunnaki?
Long History Of Hollow Earth Theories
Both sides of the spectrum seem to agree that the moment of inertia of the Earth indicates that there is a concentration of mass around the very center of the planet, with further research along with seismic data appearing to show that this mass to be a solid sphere.
Hollow Earth theories vary on what exactly this mass is, with some stating it to be a magnetic core while others suggesting that it is a central sun (this is particularly interesting as modern science seems to suggest that the center of the Earth could indeed be as hot as our Sun).
In ancient times Buddhists believed that the Earth was hollow and that it housed a race of “super men and women” who would venture to the surface via tunnels. Buddhists even kept guards at the entrances to these tunnels to the inner Earth – said to be in Tibet.
In other Tibetan, Indian and Hindu texts, an ancient kingdom called Shambhala Is described – said to be located “deep within inner Asia”, while other texts from India such as the Ramayana speak of the Avatar Rama, a great blue being from deep within the Earth.
In the 1600s, as western cultures were beginning to come out of the dark ages where science and free thought was frowned upon by the Catholic church (with many scientists and philosophers murdered by the church as heretics), there were prominent and influential figures who had come to their own conclusions about the Earth and if it was hollow or not. It should also perhaps be noted that although these “thinkers” were no longer forced to operate in secrecy under the threat of death, they were still kept a very close eye on by “society’s elites.”
Edmund Halley, perhaps best known for his discovery of Halley’s Comet was just one who theorized that the Earth was indeed hollow during this time. Using much of Issac Newton’s work on gravity to prove his theories, he claimed that the Earth was hollow and had a shell around five hundred miles thick, had an “innermost core”, and was capable of supporting life. He went on to state that an atmosphere filled the space inside the Earth and that the outer shell and the inner core both had their own magnetic poles that caused them to rotate at different speeds.
Leonard Euler, a Swiss physicist, also proposed that the Earth was hollow during his time in the 1700s. Like Halley, he claimed that the Earth had a very thick outer shell but at its core was a central sun – this sun he claimed provided heat and light for the inhabitants of the inner Earth.
Interestingly, Euler went on to claim that the inner Earth could be accessed through huge entrances at both the North and South Poles – it is claimed by some people today that such appliacations as “Google Earth” have purposely attempted to hide these entrances, although there are some photographs that appear to show the opening that Euler claimed.
Does this Google Earth image really show an entrance into the inner Earth?
Operation Highjump And The Claims Of Admiral Richard Byrd
As recently as the 1940s there have been claims of an inhabited inner world – perhaps none more high profile than those made by Admiral Richard Byrd following Operation Highjump in 1947.
Operation Highjump was a multinational effort led by the United States to establish a base at the North Pole. On 19th February 1947, Admiral Byrd led a squadron of planes over the North Pole. He claimed that he could see vegetation and animals that “shouldn’t have been there” and ultimately that he saw a huge opening that led inside the Earth.
However, perhaps even stranger, Byrd stated that out of nowhere there were strange “flying crafts” that got so close to them that they could see what looked very similar to “swastika” markings on them. His airplane would not respond and he was essentially in “an invisible vice grip of some kind!”
Byrd went on to say that he was taken inside the Earth where he noticed “great lakes and vegetation” and that the inner Earth had an inner Sun. He was greeted by the beings that resided there. They were, he claimed, concerned about humans in general but particularly about nuclear weapons that were building up around the planet – interestingly there have been numerous UFO sightings in and around both nuclear power plants and on grounds where nuclear weapons are housed. You can read what are claimed to be Byrd’s diaries of the events here.
It may be worth noting that there have long been rumors that Hitler himself had a keen interest in establishing a base at the North Pole with the objective being to find the entrance to the inner world, believing that extraterrestrials or an advanced race would be found there. You can read a little more about the Nazi regime’s interest in such things here.
One of the many photos from “Operation Highjump” – is that a saucer shaped crafted in the middle of the picture?
On 5 March, 1947 the El Mercurio newspaper of Santiago, Chile appeared, with the headline article ‘On Board the Mount Olympus on the High Seas’ in which it quoted Byrd saying “Adm. Byrd declared today that it was imperative for the United States to initiate immediate defense measures against hostile regions. Furthermore, Byrd stated that he “didn’t want to frighten anyone unduly” but that it was “a bitter reality that in case of a new war the continental United States would be attacked by flying objects which could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds.”
Like Euler two hundred years earlier, he also claimed that there were huge entrances to the inner Earth at both the North and South poles.
He repeated these views several times, including at a press conference in front of the world’s media before he was hospitalized and ultimately forbidden from holding press conferences on the subject again.
Byrd died in his sleep in 1957 – maybe predictably, maybe not, there were quiet claims of foul play, although his official cause of death was a “heart ailment.” Perhaps also worth checking out is this article here concerning Bryd’s son (Richard Byrd Jr.) who was six years old in 1947 and had accompanied and witnessed his father’s claims – he was found dead mysteriously in a New York warehouse and had, by all accounts, had various “trying times” during his life.
Ancient dwellings of the Hopi – similar look to modern day apartment blocks?
The Legends Of The Hopi Tribe
Perhaps the most interesting of all the Hollow Earth claims, are those made by the Native American Hopi Tribe, who have lived upon the plains of northern Arizona for thousands of years.
According to their ancient writings, it was here that their gods instructed them to settle and build up villages in the rock – which look very similar to modern apartment blocks.
Here they were taught to grow corn, beans, and squash and thrived as a civilization.
Key to the Hopi’s existence was the Ant People, who had guided their tribe to safety during two cataclysmic events.
In the “First World” (which was destroyed by fire) and the “Second World” (that was destroyed by ice) the tribe had each time been guided by a strange cloud during the day and a “moving star” during the night until they came to the god named, Sotuknang, who in turn led the Hopi to the Ant People.
The Ant People had lived on Earth since the “first time” and now housed themselves deep within the planet. They offered the Hopi safety until it was safe to return to the surface of the Earth, and also taught them skills such as food storage, rationing and how to sprout beans inside the cavern under the ground.
Is the Hollow Earth theory credible?
Not only is this another reference to the Hollow Earth theory, but it also lends a certain amount of support to the Ancient Astronaut theory and the Anunnaki. The Hopi word for Ant is “Anu” – Anu was a Babylonian sky god – the Anunnaki. Not only this but Naki in Hopi, means “friend.”
Ant Friend – Anu Naki (Anunnaki) – coincidence? Or evidence? We should perhaps stress that not everyone agrees with that interpretation.
Check out the videos below concerning Admiral Richard Byrd and Operation Highjump – a simple search of YouTube will bring up ample results for further viewing on the Hollow Earth theory.
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
John Hamer is a historian and author who has written extensively on the Titanic conspiracy, revealing how it was switched with its sister ship, the Olympic.
It’s a fascinating take, and one that I find more compelling than the official version. (After all, who believes any official story anymore?)
Excellent Documentary
I’d recommend the following documentary as a solid backdrop.
If you don’t have time for both, then skip the documentary and rather listen to my podcast with John.
Our Conversation
It’s absolutely riveting. He goes through the Titanic’s history in chronological order.
A few weeks ago, I was invited by Michael Wallach, the director of the amazing docu-series The Viral Delusion, to join him as a guest on the Skeptico podcast. It was an interesting experience to say the least. We were under the impression that the conversation would be focused on the gain of function/lab leak theories as well as HIV and we had prepared ourselves to discuss these topics. However, the conversation instead took a detour when the host, Alex Tsakiris, changed the focus to rabies instead, an area he felt was left unexplained by those of us stating that “viruses” do not exist. He presented us with a graph showing statistics of rabies cases declining with the use of vaccines. Unfortunately, at the time that we were interviewed, Alex was unable to provide us with a source for the information that he shared with us. Neither Michael nor I had ever seen this graph before, however it really wasn’t the issue as vaccine statistics do not prove a “viral” cause.
Unfortunately, the rabies graph became the bulk of our time on the show. Michael Wallach did an excellent job explaining the problems with the lack of evidence behind the rabies “virus” as well as the fraud of Louis Pasteur. I wanted to chime in more to help out (not that Michael needed me to) but sadly Alex was not really interested in what I had to say about the subject. You can view our conversation with Alex on the Skeptico podcast here:
As I was unable to speak much on the topic with Alex, I want to present some information here that may help to answer his questions as to why rabies cases appeared to decline as the vaccine was introduced. However, before addressing the graph, the first thing that needs to be understood is that at no time has a rabies “virus” ever been properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of any animal nor any human and then proven pathogenic by adherence to the scientific method. In fact, as he performed his experiments in the 1870’s and 1880’s, Louis Pasteur provided no theoretical basis for the vaccination of rabies as he admitted that he had failed to isolate the microbe that was presumed responsible for the disease. He also massaged and manipulated his data in order to justify his claims as to the success of rabies vaccination. Pasteur was a fraud who was more concerned with fame and prestige rather than performing valid scientific research. I wrote about his unethical practices involved with the early rabies research as well as how the rabies vaccines actually produced the severe neurological symptoms often associated with the disease here.
Later attempts to propagate the “virus” in the 1950’s, which were claimed to be successful, were done in hamster brain and kidney cultures. Interestingly, it was noted that no cytopathogenic changes, the very criteria used by virologists to claim ‘viruses” are present within these cultures, occured whatsoever.
doi: 10.3181/00379727-98-23997.
Even by the CPE standards used by virologists as a measure for the successful isolation of a “virus,” they had failed to “isolate” rabies in their cultured samples. As no rabies “virus” has ever been scientifically proven to cause the disease, there is no basis to claim that the symptoms associated with rabies are caused by a “virus.” Still, in spite of being given this information, Alex continued to focus on his graph as if the effect credited to the vaccine was somehow proof of a “viral” cause. However, one can not look to an effect in order to claim a cause. This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. It is often stated like this:
In other words, if rabies is caused by a “virus,” the vaccine will lower cases. The cases declined with vaccine use, therefore rabies is caused by a “virus.” Obviously, this is not a logical statement as there are many variables and factors unaccounted for that could lead to the appearance of a vaccine having a positive effect on rabies cases. It should also not need to be stated that just because a vaccine appeared to work does not mean that the cause of rabies was a “virus.” A rabies “virus” must be scientifically proven to exist first in order to be tested for as the cause of the symptoms of disease associated with it. This has never been done.
We therefore must ask ourselves a very important question:
Did the rabies vaccines really cause rabies cases to fall or are there other potential reasons for the apparent decline?
Let’s try to answer this by looking at the graph Alex provided on the air. Fortunately, I was able to find the source for the image. It came from the CDC’s own data from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in July 2019. The study was titled Vital Signs: Trends in Human Rabies Deaths and Exposures — United States, 1938–2018.
What we can find out is that rabies cases were exceedingly rare over the entire graph period, with only 588 cases of human rabies reported in the United States from 1938 to 2018. In fact, there was a sharp decline in rabies cases a few years prior to the mass vaccination of dogs in 1947, which is often the case when looking at the decline in disease before the introduction of vaccination. Of course, the vaccine is given the credit even though the cases were well in decline beforehand.
So what could have caused this sharp drop before and after vaccine introduction? If you have looked into the decrease in diseases claimed to have been caused by other “viruses,” it is easy to spot a certain trend. Often times, the symptoms of disease claimed to be declining due to vaccination are reclassified either as a new or related disease caused by a new or related “virus.” Smallpox was rebranded as chicken and/or monkeypox, polio became acute flaccid myelitis, syphilis morphed into AIDS, influenza transformed into “Covid,” etc. etc. etc. This trend of rebranding and relabelling the same symptoms of disease as either new diseases or similar ones can easily be seen with rabies and the rabies-related “lyssaviruses.” While the rabies “virus” is considered a “lyssavirus,” there are numerous other “viruses” under this same heading that are considered “rabies-like viruses” that do not cause rabies per se but instead “rabies-like” disease:
Rabies and Rabies-Related Lyssaviruses
“Closely related lyssaviruses circulate among bats in the Eastern Hemisphere, and can cause an illness identical to rabies. Rabies vaccines and post-exposure prophylaxis can provide some protection against some of these viruses, but not others. Rabies-related lyssaviruses can be found even in countries classified as rabies-free.”
“Information about rabies-related lyssaviruses is currently limited to a small number of case reports and a few reports of experimental inoculation; however, the illness appears indistinguishable from rabies. Bats may either have mild or no clinical signs and survive the infection, or develop severe neurological signs and die.”
This is a nice convenient scapegoat which allows a country to declare itself rabies-free even though the same symptoms of disease still persist. For example, in Austraila you will find disclaimers such as this:
According to Australia, they are rabies-free even though the same symptoms of disease persist within the country. These cases are blamed on the Australian bat “virus” which is claimed to cause a “rabies-like” disease. Quite convenient, right? However, what if the classification system for these “lyssaviruses” were to change? Would a country that is considered rabies-free lose its illustrious status?
Lyssaviruses and rabies: current conundrums, concerns, contradictions and controversies
“With increasing ICTV debate toward unification of virus taxonomy based on genetic distances, in the near future there may be a re-classification attempt, in which all phylogroup I viruses are segregated into one species (for example, Rabies lyssavirus?) and all phylogroup II viruses are segregated into another. Of course, such re-classification would miss important characteristics used for species demarcation at present and may have potential socio-economic or bio-political consequences for certain areas. For example, some places where RABV is not thought to circulate, such as in Australia or Western Europe (but where other lyssaviruses are present among bats), might lose their self-defined “rabies-free” status, on the basis of viral taxonomic re-organization, creating greater confusion, with potential public health, veterinary, or economic repercussions, if suddenly recast into the same disease status as Africa, Asia and the New World. Arguably, the term “rabies” appears to garner greater weight and seriousness than the less familiar designation “bat lyssavirus”.
The loose definitions allow countries such as Austrailia to claim rabies-free status even though the disease still persists there. If the definition and/or classification changes, so to will their status. This is similar to how America is allowed to claim it has been polio-free since 1979 while there are cases every year of acute flaccid myelitis and other polio-like diseases which present with the same sets of symptoms. We could easily relabel those polio-like diseases as polio and lose the polio-free designation.
While the same set of rabies symptoms can be blamed on the closely related “lyssaviruses,” they can also be blamed on unrelated “viruses” and conditions that are said to be caused by different “viruses,” bacteria, genetic abnormalities, and even poisons.. For instance, animals can be diagnosed with distemper instead of rabies. These two diseases have often been confused for one another as the symptoms are indistinguishable:
Raccoons – distemper and rabies
“Canine distemper in raccoons starts slowly, with respiratory infections then they develop pneumonia. In the final stage of the disease, the raccoon may begin to wander aimlessly in a circle with bizarre behaviour as a result of brain damage. Many of these symptoms are similar to rabies – which can only be determined by laboratory testing.”
“CDV is a highly contagious paramyxovirus that affects dogs and wildlife including raccoons, skunks, grey foxes, and ferrets. This virus is closely related to the human measles virus, and can lead to respiratory, gastrointestinal (GI), and central nervous system (CNS) problems. CDV is often confused with other infectious diseases, including rabies, because the organ systems affected and clinical signs are similar.”
There are many other diseases such as encephalitis and different neurological disorders which are also said to mimic rabies in animals. Even poisoning is stated to mimic the severe stages of the disease:
Diseases that can look like Rabies
“Encephalitis is one condition that can look somewhat like the early stages of rabies. In this condition, with is immune based in most dog breeds of dogs, the dog’s own immune system begins to attack the brain. The result is a dog that may be confused, appear to stagger and bump into things, or even a dog that seems very disoriented and lost even in familiar settings. The dog may also have temperament changes and may snap at owners or become very agitated when they have previously been calm and friendly.”
“Canine distemper is another disease that may be mistaken for rabies since the symptoms are so close to being the same.Even wild animals such as raccoons, foxes and coyotes can have distemper that can even further confuse the issue. Since it is still a highly contagious disease it is essential to get your dog to the vet if he or she has had any contact with wild animals or other dogs that seem to be disoriented, have a discharge from the eyes or nose, paralysis and stumbling types of movements. Typically the wild animal will be non-threatened by human presence, which in itself is a sign of abnormal behavior. It is important to realize that distemper, unlike rabies, cannot be passed from an animal to a human. However it is important to stay away from any animal that appears to have any symptoms similar to rabies or distemper.”
“Other neurological conditions, some which are fatal and contagious and some that are strictly a result of a genetic or inherited condition can mimic the early signs of rabies. In rare cases animals that are poisoned and those with neurological conditions can exhibit the same signs as advanced stages of rabies including paralysis, drooling, sensitively to light and sound, dramatic changes in behavior and even refusal to eat or drink.”
As can be seen from the above three sources, canine distemper and other diseases such as encephalitis can be confused with rabies due to the identical nature of the symptoms. These diseases still persist within dogs and other animals while rabies, or at least “dog rabies,” has been said to have been eliminated from the US and other countries. In other words, the rabies label is no longer applied upon diagnosis even though the same symptoms of disease circulate in animals within the country.
This merry-go-round among the same symptoms of disease does not stop with animals either. There are many conditions in humans that also mimic rabies. These diseases are outlined in this final source:
Beware: there are other diseases that can mimic rabies:
Diseases that can mimic encephalitic rabies:
viral encephalitis (i.e. Japanese, eastern equine, West Nile)
Louis Pasteur admitted to not isolating the agent presumed to cause rabies
In the 1950’s, attempts to isolate the “virus” in cultures of hamster brains and kidneys were deemed successful despite the lack of observing any cytopathogenic effect (CPE)
Many “viruses” that are said to be eliminated or controlled through vaccination were rebranded and relabelled as either similar diseases caused by related “viruses” or new diseases caused by new “viruses”
Regarding rabies, closely related “lyssaviruses” circulate among bats in the Eastern Hemisphere and can cause an illness identical to rabies
Rabies-related “lyssaviruses” can be found even in countries classified as rabies-free
The illness associated with these rabies-related “lyssaviruses” appears indistinguishable from rabies
Some places where rabies is not thought to circulate, such as in Australia or Western Europe (but where other “lyssaviruses” are present among bats), might lose their self-defined “rabies-free” status, on the basis of “viral” taxonomic re-organization,
This would create greater confusion, with potential public health, veterinary, or economic repercussions, if they were suddenly recast into the same disease status as Africa, Asia and the New World
The term “rabies”appears to garner greater weight and seriousness than the less familiar designation “bat lyssavirus”
Canine distemper is a rabies-like illness in animals
In raccoons, it starts slowly, with respiratory infections then they develop pneumonia
In the final stage of the disease, the raccoon may begin to wander aimlessly in a circle with bizarre behaviour as a result of brain damage
Many of these symptoms are similar to rabies – which can only be determined by laboratory testing
Canine distemper is often confused with other infectious diseases, including rabies, because the organ systems affected and clinical signs are similar
It is mistaken for rabies since the symptoms are so close to being the same
Even wild animals such as raccoons, foxes and coyotes can have distemper that can even further confuse the issue
Encephalitis is another condition that can look somewhat like the early stages of rabies
The result of this brain swelling is a dog that may be confused, appear to stagger and bump into things, or even seems very disoriented and lost even in familiar settings
Other neurological conditions, some which are fatal and contagious and some that are strictly a result of a genetic or inherited condition can mimic the early signs of rabies
In rare cases animals that are poisoned and those with neurological conditions can exhibit the same signs as advanced stages of rabies including paralysis, drooling, sensitively to light and sound, dramatic changes in behavior and even refusal to eat or drink
In humans, there are many diseases which mimic rabies:
Diseases that can mimic encephalitic rabies:
“viral” encephalitis (i.e. Japanese, eastern equine, West Nile)
For some reason, people seem to think rabies is a “gotcha” for those of us claiming that “viruses” do not exist. This disease is thrown out as proof that vaccines are effective and that because of this, the “virus” must therefore exist. However, a big problem for anyone championing rabies as proof for the existence of “viruses” continues to be the lack of any purified and isolated “virus” particles coming directly from the fluids of a rabid host. Louis Pasteur openly admitted to failing to meet this burden of proof even though he subjected animals and humans to experimental injections. Attempts by researchers in the 1950’s to propagate the “virus” in tissue and cell cultures did not produce the characteristic cytopathogenic effect said to be necessary in order to determine if a “virus” is present in a culture. Thus, there is no scientific proof for the existence of the rabies “virus,” even by virology’s own standards.
As the rabies “virus” can not be shown to exist, any data relating to a decrease in cases due to a vaccine which is then used as proof for the existence of a rabies “virus” is entirely irrelevant. There are many reasons to doubt case statistics as these can be easily manipulated and massaged in order to create whatever narrative is desired. It can be seen that the same symptoms associated with rabies still exist today as there are many other diseases either said to be caused by rabies-related “viruses” or completely unrelated “viruses” that share the exact same symptoms associated with rabies. These diseases are more commonly diagnosed in areas where rabies is said not to be circulating. It is very apparent that virology loves to rebrand and relabel the same symptoms of disease as multiple “new and different” diseases in order to create the perception that the treatments work. This is why places like Austrailia get to claim to be “rabies-free” even though a rabies-like disease said to be caused by a rabies-like “virus” still exists there. This lowers the cases as the older diseases are claimed to be either eradicated and/or under control due to “successful” vaccination campaigns and thus they are not looked for as a diagnosis. There is no way that these statistics can be trusted when the definitions and labels of what is or is not rabies seemingly changes at will.
In any case, the rabies statistics are a moot point. Until someone can provide proof of the purification and isolation of the particles assumed to be rabies directly from the fluids of a rabid host which were proven pathogenic in a natural way, these case numbers are utterly meaningless. The conversation with Alex on the Skeptico podcast should have never even reached vaccination statistics unless he provided a paper showing the evidence for the existence of a rabies “virus” first. Unfortunately, while Michael did an admirable job defending our position, we were not prepared for the graph and did not get the chance to look over the data and present our counter-argument. Hopefully we can get the chance to go on again and discuss the issue in further detail in the future. However, if not, this response will have to suffice.
For years, I’ve been writing about the technocrats’ plan to radically lower energy production and use, worldwide.
This program, hidden behind all sorts of propaganda about energy-sharing, environmental justice, and climate change, is a method for visiting destruction on humanity.
Aside from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, alternatives exist. The technocrats’ preference for solar and wind power—two methods that are presently incapable of replacing traditional energy sources—shouldn’t make people think those are the only options.
Here, I ask the question, can cars run on water?
I present answers from various sources.
Keep this in mind. Many of the naysayers readily admit the technology is available but claim the cost is prohibitive. They neglect to mention the gigantic government subsidies and deals and favors that make nuclear power—and even the oil industry—possible.
These critics will NEVER say, “Well, sure, you can build a nuclear power plant that produces steam, but the cost of doing it is absurdly high and rules it out as a viable source of energy.” But they WILL say it about splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen and running cars on hydrogen.
Popular Mechanics (2008): “There is energy in water. Chemically, it’s locked up in the atomic bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. When the hydrogen and oxygen combine, whether it’s in a fuel cell, internal combustion engine running on hydrogen, or a jury-rigged pickup truck with an electrolysis cell in the bed, there’s energy left over in the form of heat or electrons. That’s converted to mechanical energy by the pistons and crankshaft or electrical motors to move the vehicle.”
“Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven’t changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you’re losing energy, not gaining it–period.”
From thoughtco[dot]com (2019): “Can you make fuel from water that you can use in your car? Yes. Will the conversion increase your fuel efficiency and save you money? Maybe. If you know what you are doing, probably yes.”
MIT School of Engineering (2018): “A water molecule contains three atoms: an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which bond together like magnets. According to Wai Cheng, a professor of mechanical engineering and director of the Sloan Automotive Lab (where he does research on engine performance and emissions, combustion science, and energy conversion), breaking those bonds will always take more energy than you get back.”
“Let’s say you wanted to build this car. It would need equipment to split a water molecule apart and separate its oxygen and hydrogen. Then it would need to isolate each of them in separate tanks. Then you would need a combustion system that could mix and ignite them, or a fuel cell that could recombine them to make electricity. The released energy could then drive a piston or run a motor and move the car.”
“Here’s the problem, Cheng says: ‘A water molecule is very stable.’ The energy needed to separate the atoms is greater than what you get back — this process actually soaks up energy instead of giving it out.”
“Plus there’s a more volatile problem: hydrogen is dangerously flammable. Without the right safety measures, a fender-bender could turn into an explosion worthy of an Avengers movie.”
Gaia[dot]com (2020): “[Stanley] Meyer’s invention promised a revolution in the automotive industry. It worked through an electric water fuel cell, which divided any kind of water — including salt water — into its fundamental elements of hydrogen and oxygen, by utilizing a process far simpler than the electrolysis method.”
“Despite skepticism about the legitimacy of a car that runs on water, Meyer was able to patent his invention under Section 101 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Index…”
“Meyer’s water-powered engine was the result of 20 years of research and dedication, and he claimed it was capable of converting tap water into enough hydrogen fuel to drive his car from one end of the country to the other. His invention was mind-boggling and promised a future of non-polluting vehicles that could be refueled with a garden hose.”
“On March 21, 1998, Meyer was having lunch at a Cracker Barrel with his brother and two potential Belgian investors. The four clinked their glasses to toast their commitment to uplifting the world, but after taking a sip of his cranberry juice, Meyer clutched his throat, sprang to his feet, and ran outside. Rushing after him, his brother Stephen found him down on his knees, vomiting violently. He quickly muttered his last words, ‘They poisoned me’.”
“Meyer’s death was investigated for three months, though it was eventually written on the coroner’s report that he died of a cerebral aneurysm.”
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, July 8, 2007, “The car that ran on water,” by Dean Narciso:
“After more than 20 years of research and tinkering, it was time to celebrate.”
“Stanley Allen Meyer, his brother and two Belgian investors raised glasses in the Grove City Cracker Barrel on March 20, 1998.”
“Meyer said his invention could do what physicists say is impossible — turn water into hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to drive his dune buggy cross-country on 20 gallons straight from the tap.”
“He took a sip of cranberry juice. Then he grabbed his neck, bolted out the door, dropped to his knees and vomited violently.”
“‘I ran outside and asked him, “What’s wrong?”’ his brother, Stephen Meyer, recalled. ‘He said, “They poisoned me.” That was his dying declaration’.”
“Stanley Meyer’s bizarre death at age 57 ended work that, if proved valid, could have ended reliance on fossil fuels.”
“People who knew him say his work drew worldwide attention: mysterious visitors from overseas, government spying and lucrative buyout offers.”
“His death sparked a three-month investigation that consumed and fascinated Grove City police.”
“‘Meyer’s death was laced with all sorts of stories of conspiracy, cloak-and-dagger stories,’ said Grove City Police Lt. Steve Robinette, lead detective on the case.”
“If Stephen Meyer was shocked at his twin brother’s collapse and death, he was equally amazed at the Belgians’ response the next day.”
“‘I told them that Stan had died and they never said a word,’ he recalled, ‘absolutely nothing, no condolences, no questions’.”
“‘I never, ever had a trust of those two men ever again’.”
“Today, Stanley Meyer is featured on numerous Internet sites. A significant portion of the 1995 documentary It Runs on Water, narrated by science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and aired on the BBC, focuses on his ‘water fuel cell’ invention.”
“James Robey wants a permanent place for Meyer in his Kentucky Water Fuel Museum.”
“‘He was ignored, called a fraud and died without his small hometown even remembering him with so much as a plaque,’ Robey wrote in his self-published book Water Car.”
“Meyer had euphoric highs and humiliating defeats. He was kind and generous yet paranoid and suspicious. He would be hailed as a visionary and a genius. He also would be sued and declared a fraud.”
“The basis for Meyer’s research, electrolysis, is taught in middle-school science labs.”
“Electricity flows through water, cracking the molecules and filling test tubes with oxygen and hydrogen bubbles. A match is lighted. The volatile gases explode to prove that water has separated into its components.”
“Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible. Videos show his contraptions turning water into a frothy mix within seconds.”
“‘It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O,’ said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. ‘That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It’s a fixed amount, and nothing changes that’.”
“Meyer’s work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
“‘Basically, it says you can’t get something for nothing,’ Reay said.”
“‘He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy’.”
“‘I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time,’ William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.”
“Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer’s technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.”
“Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.”
“Two years later, a Fayette County judge found ‘gross and egregious fraud’ in Meyer’s contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.”
“…Belief in Meyer continues today. So does suspicion about plots to silence him.”
“Stephen Meyer recalled a phone call to his brother’s home in the 1980s.”
“’He turned to me and said, ‘They just offered me $800 million. Should I take it?’”
“I said, ‘Hell yes. How much money do you want?’”
“‘He got very quiet. When he got into that thinking process, I just let him alone,’ Stephen recalled.”
“Charlie Hughes, now 36, vividly recalls the strangers who visited his parents’ home in the late 1970s.” [Stanley Meyer was living in the Hughes house at the time.]
“He had been playing outside when the driveway suddenly filled with limousines. Men in turbans stepped out. In ‘stern, thick accents,’ they asked for Meyer. ‘I remember, because I was not allowed in my own house that day’.”
“They left briskly. Charlie was about to go inside when the driveway filled again, this time with military vehicles. ‘Army brass,’ he recalled.”
“At dinner that night, Meyer told them: ‘The Arabs wanted to offer me $250 million to stop today. You and this lovely family can live in peace and prosperity the rest of your days’.”
“The Army officials, meanwhile, had questioned Meyer about what the foreigners wanted, thinking that a deal might have been struck, Charlie recalled Meyer telling the family.”
“Meyer discusses the offers in the Clarke documentary.”
“‘Many times over the last decade, I have been offered enormous amounts of money simply to sell out or sit on it… The Arabs have offered me a total of a billion dollars total pay simply to sit on it and do nothing with it’.”
“The Grove City police investigation of Meyer’s death included taped interviews of more than a dozen witnesses.”
“Absent, however, were audiotapes of the two Belgians, Phillippe Vandemoortele and Marc Vancraeyenest.”
“The men had agreed to purchase 56 acres along Seeds Road in Grove City. The city had approved a research campus there two months before Meyer’s death.”
“Lt. Steve Robinette said it’s possible the men’s interviews were not taped.”
“Calls and e-mails to Vandemoortele and Vancraeyenest for this story were not returned.”
“The Franklin County coroner ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a brain aneurysm. Absent any proof of foul play, the police went with the coroner’s report.”
“The only detectable drugs were the pain reliever lidocaine and phenytoin, which is used to treat seizures.”
“And what became of the dune buggy that captivated a community for at least a few years?”
“A longtime friend of Meyer’s, who doesn’t want to be named because he fears that people will bother him about the invention, led a reporter to the basement of a property south of Columbus recently.”
“‘I really shouldn’t be showing you this,’ he said.”
“After passing through several darkened rooms scattered with computers and electrical equipment, he opened a door. In the far corner of a garage sat the buggy, its leather seats cracked, its engine partially covered with a cloth.”
“A decal on the bright red paint declares: ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.”
“Then the man quickly led the way out. Lights went dark. Doors clicked shut.”
“In his front yard, he sat on a lawn chair and sipped fruit punch. He watched the cars and trucks drive by on the road, burning gasoline.”
Finally, for now, here is an excerpt from an article I dug out of my files. I can’t find the whole article, and I don’t know who wrote it. The excerpt indicates there are innovative ways to split hydrogen and oxygen from water. I present the excerpt. I don’t know whether the methods described are workable.
3. SYSTEM TO SPLIT WATER FOR FUEL BY USING RESONANCE
Another variation on the water-fuel theme relies more on vibrations than on chemistry. At more than 100 per cent efficiency, such a system produces hydrogen gas and oxygen from ordinary water at normal temperatures and pressure.
One example is U.S. Patent 4,394,230, Method and Apparatus for Splitting Water Molecules, issued to Dr. Andrija Puharich in 1983. His method made complex electrical wave forms resonate water molecules and shatter them, which freed hydrogen and oxygen. By using Tesla’s understanding of electrical resonance, Puharich was able to split the water molecule much more efficiently than the brute-force electrolysis that every physics student knows. (Resonance is what shatters a crystal goblet when an opera singer hits the exact note which vibrates with the crystal’s molecular structure.)
Puharich reportedly drove his mobile home using only water as fuel for several hundred thousand kilometers in trips across North America. In a high Mexican mountain pass he had to make do with snow for fuel. Splitting water molecules as needed in a vehicle is more revolutionary than the hydrogen-powered systems with which every large auto manufacturer has dallied. With the on-demand system, you don’t need to carry a tank full of hydrogen fuel which could be a potential bomb.
Another inventor who successfully made fuel out of water on the spot was the late Francisco Pacheco of New Jersey. The Pacheco Bi-Polar Autoelectric Hydrogen Generator (U.S. Patent No. 5,089,107) separated hydrogen from seawater as needed.
A pioneer in breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen without heat or ordinary electricity, John Worrell Keely reportedly performed feats which 20th-century science is unable to duplicate. He worked with sound and other vibrations to set machines into motion. To liberate energy in molecules of water, Keely poured a quart of water into a cylinder where tuning forks vibrated at the exact frequency to liberate the energy. Does this mean he broke apart the water molecules and liberated hydrogen, or did he free a more primal form of energy? The records which could answer such questions are lost. However, a century later, Keely is being vindicated. One scientist recently discovered that Keely was correct in predicting the exact frequency which would burst apart a water molecule. Keely understood atoms to be intricate vibratory phenomena.
Cover images are from Stanley Meyer’s water fuel cell patent, which he claimed produced more energy than it consumed. U.S. Patent 5,149,407: Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas.
Sourced from public domain here and here / Wikimedia Commons
“I came back home a little afraid for my country, afraid of what it might want, and get, and like, under pressure of combined reality and illusion. I felt—and feel—that it was not German man that I had met, but Man. He happened to be in Germany under certain conditions. He might, under certain conditions, be I.” —Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, ix.
It’s been more than seventy-five years since the Nazis were defeated and Auschwitz was liberated. Seventy-five years is a long time—so long, in fact, that while many still learn of the horrors of the Holocaust, far fewer understand how the murder of the Jews happened. How were millions of people systematically exterminated in an advanced Western nation—a constitutional republic? How did such respectable and intelligent citizens become complicit in the murder of their countrymen? These are the questions Milton Mayer sought to answer in his book They Thought They Were Free.
In 1952, Mayer moved his family to a small German town to live among ten ordinary men, hoping to understand not only how the Nazis came to power but how ordinary Germans—ordinary people—became unwitting participants in one of history’s greatest genocides. The men Mayer lived among came from all walks of life: a tailor, a cabinetmaker, a bill-collector, a salesman, a student, a teacher, a bank clerk, a baker, a soldier, and a police officer.
Significantly, Mayer did not simply conduct formal interviews in order to “study” these men; rather, Mayer had dinner in these men’s homes, befriended their families, and lived as one of them for nearly a year. His own children went to the same school as their children. And by the end of his time in Germany, Mayer could genuinely call them friends. They Thought They Were Free is Mayer’s account of their stories, and the title of the book is his thesis. Mayer explains:
“Only one of my ten Nazi friends saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect. This was Hildebrandt, the teacher. And even he then believed, and still believes, in part of its program and practice, ‘the democratic part.’ The other nine, decent, hard-working, ordinarily intelligent and honest men, did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now. None of them ever knew, or now knows, Nazism as we knew and know it; and they lived under it, served it, and, indeed, made it” (47).
Until reading this book, I thought of what happened in Germany with a bit of arrogance. How could they not know Nazism was evil? And how could they see what was happening and not speak out? Cowards. All of them. But as I read Mayer’s book, I felt a knot in my stomach, a growing fear that what happened in Germany was not a result of some defect in the German people of this era.
The men and women of Germany in the 1930s and 40s were not unlike Americans in the 2010s and 20s—or the people of any nation at any time throughout history. They are human, just as we are human. And as humans, we have a great tendency to harshly judge the evils of other societies but fail to recognize our own moral failures—failures that have been on full display the past two years during the covid panic.
Mayer’s book is frighteningly prescient; reading his words is like staring into our own souls. The following paragraphs will show just how similar the world’s response to covid has been to the German response to the “threat” of the Jews. If we can truly understand the parallels between our response to covid and the situation in Hitler’s Germany, if we can see what lies at the end of “two weeks to flatten the curve,” perhaps we can prevent the greatest atrocities from being fully realized in our own day. But to stop our bent toward tyranny, we must first be willing to grapple with the darkest parts of our nature, including our tendency to dehumanize others and to treat our neighbors as enemies.
Overcoming Decency
“Ordinary people—and ordinary Germans—cannot be expected to tolerate activities which outrage the ordinary sense of ordinary decency unless the victims are, in advance, successfully stigmatized as enemies of the people, of the nation, the race, the religion. Or, if they are not enemies (that comes later), they must be an element within the community somehow extrinsic to the common bond, a decompositive ferment (be it only by the way they part their hair or tie their necktie) in the uniformity which is everywhere the condition of common quiet. The Germans’ innocuous acceptance and practice of social anti-Semitism before Hitlerism had undermined the resistance of their ordinary decency to the stigmatization and persecution to come” (55).
Others have explained the link between totalitarian impulses and “institutionalized dehumanization” and have discussed the “othering” of unvaccinated persons in nations across the world. Mayer shows that such dehumanization does not necessarily begin with prejudice:
“National Socialism was anti-Semitism. Apart from anti-Semitism, its character was that of a thousand tyrannies before it, with modern conveniences. Traditional anti-Semitism . . . played an important role in softening the Germans as a whole to Nazi doctrine, but it was separation, not prejudice as such, that made Nazism possible, the mere separation of Jews and non-Jews” (116-117).
Even if many Germans did not harbor anti-Semitic prejudices (at least not initially), the forced separation of Jews and non-Jews created a devastating rift in German society, tearing the social fabric and paving the way for tyranny. In our day, the separation of the masked and unmasked, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, has divided populations around the world like nothing we’ve experienced in our lifetimes. And the global scale of this separation has perhaps not happened in recorded history.
How has this separation been made possible? The immense power of propaganda, and particularly propaganda in the digital age. We think we understand how propaganda affects us, but we often don’t realize the truly insidious effects on how we view others until it is too late. Mayer’s friends explained this in great depth. On one occasion, Mayer asked the former bank clerk about one of his Jewish friends. “Did your memory of the peddler make you anti-Semitic?” “No—not until I heard anti-Semitic propaganda. Jews were supposed to do terrible things that the peddler had never done. . . . The propaganda didn’t make me think of him as I knew him but of him as a Jew” (124; emphasis added).
Is there anything we can do to mitigate the dehumanizing effects of propaganda? Mayer describes the power of Nazi propaganda as so intense that all of his friends were affected by it—changed by it—including the teacher who was more aware of such tactics. Nearly seven years after the war, his friends still could not be persuaded that they had been deceived:
“Nobody has proved to my friends that the Nazis were wrong about the Jews. Nobody can. The truth or falsity of what the Nazis said, and of what my extremist friends believed, was immaterial, marvelously so. There simply was no way to reach it, no way, at least, that employed the procedures of logic and evidence” (142).
Mayer’s conclusion is depressing. If we cannot persuade others with logic and evidence, how can we persuade them? How many of us have shared indisputable data that the vaccines carry risks? How many of us have shown videos where public health officials openly admit that the vaccines do not stop transmission and that cloth masks don’t work (and are in fact little more than “facial decorations”)? Yet the evidence does not persuade those who have been captured by propaganda; indeed, it cannot persuade them. This is because the very nature of propaganda does not appeal to logic or reason; it does not appeal to evidence. Propaganda appeals to our emotions, and in a world where many people are led by emotions, propaganda becomes deeply rooted in the hearts of those who consume it.
So what are we to do? Mayer relays a frustrating reality. But understanding how propaganda worked in Nazi Germany and how it works today is essential if we are to have any chance of persuading those who have been shaped by it. Moreover, understanding why many people tend to be led by emotions and to outsource or suspend their critical thinking is perhaps even more essential to forestalling greater tragedies. We cannot expect others to escape the tyranny of propaganda if they do not have time to think or are motivated not to think.
Our Own Lives
Even without the dehumanization of those who were a “threat” to the community, most Germans were too focused on their own lives to consider the plight of their neighbors:
“Men think first of the lives they lead and the things they see; and not, among the things they see, of the extraordinary sights, but of the sights which meet them in their daily rounds. The lives of my nine friends—and even of the tenth, the teacher—were lightened and brightened by National Socialism as they knew it. And they look back at it now—nine of them, certainly—as the best time of their lives; for what are men’s lives? There were jobs and job security, summer camps for the children and the Hitler Jugend to keep them off the streets. What does a mother want to know? She wants to know where her children are, and with whom, and what they are doing. In those days she knew or thought she did; what difference does it make? So things went better at home, and when things go better at home, and on the job, what more does a husband and father want to know?” (48)
The best time of their lives. From where we stand in 2022, this seems like an unbelievable statement. How could they view a society that ostracized and eventually murdered millions of their fellow citizens as a good society? How could they look the other way when the Jews and others were suffering? It’s easy to ask these questions, but in our modern world, are we not also narrowly concerned with the comforts of our own lives and those of our loved ones? If the lives of others are put at risk so that our families can continue to “stay home and save lives”—so that we can feel safe from a deadly virus and “righteous” because of our decisions—would we not choose to do it? Many of us did. But did we even consider that our staying home meant others could not?
The lockdowns destroyed the lives of millions of poor children, both at home and abroad. But the laptop class remained insulated from this suffering, content with delivered groceries, zoom calls, and new episodes of Tiger King. And while many around the world starved or fought over limited supplies of food and water, we battled over the newest iPhones, believing that these devices were necessary to “ride out the pandemic” from our high-rise castles and suburban fortresses. Indeed, for many of us, our biggest concern was whether or not we could quickly have a new 42” TV delivered if ours stopped working. We knew nothing of the suffering of others, and we barely considered that their realities could be different. So also in Germany:
“There were wonderful ten-dollar holiday trips for the family in the ‘Strength through Joy’ program, to Norway in the summer and Spain in the winter, for people who had never dreamed of a real holiday trip at home or abroad. And in Kronenberg ‘nobody’ (nobody my friends knew) went cold, nobody went hungry, nobody went ill and uncared for. For whom do men know? They know people of their own neighborhood, of their own station and occupation, of their own political (or nonpolitical) views, of their own religion and race. All the blessings of the New Order, advertised everywhere, reached ‘everybody’” (48-49).
We quickly forget those who are distanced from us. And in a faceless world of “social distancing,” it’s that much easier to forget the myriad human beings who are suffering beyond what we could bear. The children who have never known their teachers’ faces? Not our concern. The elderly and infirm who’ve been cut off from the rest of the world, deprived of social interaction and human touch? It’s for their health and safety. Both children and adults with disabilities and special needs, those who cannot speak and cannot hear? We must all make sacrifices to slow the spread.
Our Own Fears
Add to our own lives our own fears (real or imagined), and we become even less motivated to consider the hardships of others:
“Their world was the world of National Socialism; inside it, inside the Nazi community, they knew only good-fellowship and the ordinary concerns of ordinary life. They feared the ‘Bolsheviks’ but not one another, and their fear was the accepted fear of the whole otherwise happy Nazi community that was Germany” (52).
The “accepted fear” of the community. The ten men Mayer lived among described the socially acceptable fears they were allowed to express—and the fears by which they must order their lives. But to express fear or even uneasiness about the growing totalitarianism of the Nazi regime? Such concerns were verboten. And so it is today. We are permitted (indeed, encouraged!) to fear the virus. We can fear the collapse of the healthcare system. We can fear “the unvaccinated” and even “anti-maskers.” But dare we express fear of the growing totalitarianism among us? Dare we challenge the “scientific consensus” or question the edicts of public health officials? We dare not, lest we be lumped together with the science-denying anti-vaxxers. We dare not, lest our posts be labeled misinformation or our accounts be permanently suspended.
Our Own Troubles
“It was this, I think—they had their own troubles—that in the end explained my friends’ failure to ‘do something’ or even to know something. A man can carry only so much responsibility. If he tries to carry more, he collapses; so, to save himself from collapse, he rejects the responsibility that exceeds his capacity. . . . Responsible men never shirk responsibility, and so, when they must reject it, they deny it. They draw the curtain. They detach themselves altogether from the consideration of the evil they ought to, but cannot, contend with.” (75-76).
We all have our own lives—the everyday concerns of our families and friends. We also have our own fears—fears of imaginary threats or actual risks. Add to our lives and fears the weight of our own responsibilities, and we can be rendered powerless to consider the troubles of those around us. This was true not only of the Germans of this era but of Americans as well. Mayer describes an interaction with his friend Simon, the bill collector, over the American internment of the Japanese. Simon recounted the forced relocation of more than 100,000 Americans—including children—because of their Japanese ancestry (and supposedly due to the threat they posed to the security of the nation).
Simon asked what Mayer had done to stand up for his fellow citizens who were removed from their homes without any form of due process. “Nothing,” Mayer replied. Simon’s response is sobering:
“‘There. You learned about all these things openly, through your government and your press. We did not learn through ours. As in your case, nothing was required of us—in our case, not even knowledge. You knew about things you thought were wrong—you did think it was wrong, didn’t you, Herr Professor?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘So. You did nothing. We heard, or guessed, and we did nothing. So it is everywhere.’ When I protested that the Japanese-descended Americans had not been treated like the Jews, he said, ‘And if they had been—what then? Do you not see that the idea of doing something or doing nothing is in either case the same?” (81).
We all want to think we would react differently. We all have the best of intentions and believe we would have the courage to stand up for others. We will be the heroes when everyone else is too afraid to act. But when the time comes, what will we actually do? Mayer’s interaction with his friend the teacher is worth quoting at length:
“‘I never got over marveling that I survived,’ said Herr Hildebrandt. ‘I couldn’t help being glad, when something happened to somebody else, that it hadn’t happened to me. It was like later on, when a bomb hit another city, or another house than your own; you were thankful.’ ‘More thankful for yourself than you were sorry for others?’ ‘Yes. The truth is, Yes. It may be different in your case, Herr Professor, but I’m not sure that you will know until you have faced it. . . .
You were sorry for the Jews, who had to identify themselves, every male with “Israel” inserted into his name, every female with “Sarah,” on every official occasion; sorrier, later on, that they lost their jobs and their homes and had to report themselves to the police; sorrier still that they had to leave their homeland, that they had to be taken to concentration camps and enslaved and killed. But—weren’t you glad you weren’t a Jew? You were sorry, and more terrified, when it happened, as it did, to thousands, to hundreds of thousands, of non-Jews. But—weren’t you glad that it hadn’t happened to you, a non-Jew? It might not have been the loftiest type of gladness, but you hugged it to yourself and watched your step, more cautiously than ever” (58-59).
I feel bad for them, but I am unwilling to speak up. I hate that children are denied access to speech therapy, in-person school, or social interaction with their friends. But if I speak up, I may lose my status and influence. I hate that the unvaccinated are losing their jobs and being confined to their homes. But if I speak up, I could lose my job as well. I hate that my fellow citizens are being taken to “quarantine centers” against their will. But if I speak up, I could face criminal penalties. And I hate that the unvaccinated are being excluded from society and treated with contempt by national leaders. But if I speak up, I could be excluded as well. The risk is too great.
The Tactics of Tyrants
“[M]odern tyrants all stand above politics and, in doing so, demonstrate that they are all master politicians” (55).
How often have public officials denounced those who question the narrative as “politicizing covid”? “Stop politicizing masks!” “Stop politicizing vaccines!” And those who dissent are demeaned as “science-denying Trump supporters” or “anti-vax conspiracy theorists.” It’s no wonder so few have questioned the official narratives on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines—to do so is to put oneself in the crosshairs, to draw accusations of caring more about politics and the economy than people’s lives and health. This gaslighting is by no means the only tactic of those who seek greater authoritarian control. In addition to helping us understand what makes us susceptible to totalitarianism—why so many of us will “draw the curtain” in the face of evil—Mayer’s work also exposes the tactics of tyrants, enabling his readers to see and resist.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter” (166-167).
Many have sounded the alarm over the past two years about the threat of endless emergencies, and we have all seen the goalposts be moved time and again. “It’s just two weeks.” “It’s just a mask.” “It’s just a vaccine.” And on and on it goes. But while most everyone recognizes that “two weeks to flatten the curve” was not just two weeks, too few understand the insidious threat of ongoing “rule by emergency.” But Mayer’s friends understood, and they experienced the catastrophic results.
Before Hitler became chancellor, Germany was still a republic governed by the Weimar Constitution. But Article 48 of this constitution permitted the suspension of civil liberties “[i]f public security and order are seriously disturbed or endangered.” These emergency powers were continually abused, and following the Reichstag Fire in 1933, the Enabling Act transferred all law-making power from the German parliament to the executive branch, allowing Hitler to “rule by decree” until the end of the War in 1945.
While the legislative branches of the States and the federal government in the United States (and other nations around the world) have been in session the past two years, the reality is that legislatures rarely sought to limit the powers of the executive. Under the auspices of the CDC, the WHO, and other health agencies, executives have effectively ruled by fiat. Closing businesses, mandating masks and vaccines, forcing people to stay home—most of these measures were implemented by executives without even consulting legislatures. And what was the justification? The “emergency” of covid. If we could go back in time to 2019 and ask whether executives should be permitted to unilaterally impose such life-altering policies on their people even with legislative consent, the vast majority of people would likely say “No!” So how did we get here in 2022? Mayer’s friends offer valuable insight.
The Common Good
“The community is suddenly an organism, a single body and a single soul, consuming its members for its own purposes. For the duration of the emergency the city does not exist for the citizen but the citizen for the city. The harder the city is pressed, the harder its citizens work for it and the more productive and efficient they become in its interest. Civic pride becomes the highest pride, for the end purpose of all one’s enormous efforts is the preservation of the city. Conscientiousness is the highest virtue now, the common good the highest good” (255).
What has been the reason given for many of the measures implemented over the past two years? The common good. We must wear our masks to protect others. Get vaccinated to love our neighbors. Stay home to save lives. And it’s not just for our neighbors as individuals but for the community as a whole. We must close schools to preserve hospital resources. In the U.K., efforts were being made to “Protect the NHS.” And countless other slogans signaled our common virtue.
To be clear, I’m not opposed to working together for the common good; I do not value my liberties more than the lives of others (this was a common gaslighting tactic employed against those who opposed government overreach). Rather, I simply understand how governments across time have used the “common good” as an excuse to consolidate power and implement authoritarian measures that under normal circumstances would be rejected. This is exactly what happened to Mayer’s friends:
“Take Germany as a city cut off from the outside world by flood or fire advancing from every direction. The mayor proclaims martial law, suspending council debate. He mobilizes the populace, assigning each section its tasks. Half the citizens are at once engaged directly in the public business. Every private act—a telephone call, the use of an electric light, the service of a physician—becomes a public act. Every private right—to take a walk, to attend a meeting, to operate a printing press—becomes a public right. Every private institution—the hospital, the church, the club—becomes a public institution. Here, although we never think to call it by any name but pressure of necessity, we have the whole formula of totalitarianism.
The individual surrenders his individuality without a murmur, without, indeed, a second thought—and not just his individual hobbies and tastes, but his individual occupation, his individual family concerns, his individual needs” (254; emphasis added).
Tyrants understand how to exploit our desire to care for others. We must understand their tendency to exploit our good will. Indeed, to understand this tactic and to resist encroachments on liberty is the way to preserve the actual common good. Tragically, many people do not realize that they have been exploited—that their desire to work for the common good has become obedience without question. Mayer’s description is stunning:
“For the rest of the citizens—95 percent or so of the population—duty is now the central fact of life. They obey, at first awkwardly but, surprisingly soon, spontaneously.” (255)
This type of compliance seems to have happened most clearly with the use of masks. We obey spontaneously, not at the point of a gun. And we obey without thinking about the rationality of what is required. We will wear a mask to walk to a table in a packed restaurant, and we will dine for two hours before donning it again to walk out. We must wear masks on a plane to “stop the spread,” but we can take them off as long as we are eating or drinking. Some even wear masks while driving alone in their cars. To be clear, I am not criticizing those who wear masks in these situations; I am lamenting how propaganda has so affected us that we comply without considering our actions. Or, perhaps worse, we have considered them, but we comply anyway because that’s what others are doing and that’s what we’re expected to do.
Do you see the dangerous parallels between what’s happening today and what happened in Germany? This is not simply about masks (and it never has been). This is about a willingness to comply with government demands, no matter how illogical or insidious. Can you see how these tendencies contribute to the demonization of certain persons, particularly the unvaccinated? Those who do not act to “protect their neighbors” by wearing a mask, or who choose not to get vaccinated “for the sake of the vulnerable,” are a danger to society and a threat to us all. Can you see where this demonization can lead? We know where it led in Germany.
Endless Distractions
“[S]uddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time” (167).
Combine the tyrannical use of the common good with a perpetual state of emergency, and you have a totalitarian regime that cannot be questioned: “[T]his, of all times, is no time for divisiveness” (256). Add to these tactics endless distractions to occupy the citizenry, and no one even has time to question. Listen to one of Mayer’s colleagues:
“The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?” (167-168).
Is this not what is happening, even as I write this, in the world around us? Over the past two years we have experienced a continual upending of our lives with lockdowns, zooming, online “learning,” mask mandates, “social” distancing, and more. And then we are told we must comply with vaccine mandates or lose our jobs, leaving some of us too weary to resist and others more weary for trying. And for those of us who have chosen to forgo the available vaccines, we must spend time—lots and lots of time—composing exemption requests for the various mandates, explaining in depth our reasons for objecting to the jabs.
And then, when it seems the covid madness is coming to an end (at least for the time being), an “emergency” is declared in Canada that tramples the rights of Canadian citizens, and even now the world has been plunged into crisis because of the conflict in Ukraine. There is so much going on, so many legitimate concerns that demand our attention, that many are unaware of the totalitarian noose that is tightening around us. More than that, we are too exhausted to examine what is happening, too tired to even care. But care we must! Or it will be too late, and there will be no turning back.
Science and Education
“[T]he university students would believe anything complicated. The professors, too. Have you seen the ‘race purity’ chart?” “Yes,” I said. “Well, then, you know. A whole system. We Germans like systems, you know. It all fitted together, so it was science, system and science, if only you looked at the circles, black, white, and shaded, and not at real people. Such Dummheit they couldn’t teach to us little men. They didn’t even try” (142).
“Trust the science.” Or so we have been told the past two years. Yet another tactic used by authoritarians across time is the appeal to science and expertise. Mayer’s friends described how the Nazis used “science” to convince students and others that the Jews were inferior, even diseased. But this was not science; it was scientism. And so it is today.
Science is not dogma; it is not a set of beliefs. Real science is the process by which we discover the truth about the physical world. We begin with a hypothesis that must be rigorously tested through observation and experimentation. But over the past two years, “science” has meant whatever the public health authorities claim to be true, regardless whether the claims are supported by evidence. In fact, much of this so-called science has proved to be demonstrably false.
In addition to using “science” to support its goals, the Reich government also sought to control education. “National Socialism required the destruction of academic independence” (112), replacing truth and the search for truth with allegiance to Nazi doctrine. Notably, the Nazis captured not only the secondary schools but the primary schools as well, even rewriting certain subjects to comport with Nazi propaganda: “In history, in biology, and in economics the teaching program was much more elaborate than it was in literature, and much stricter. These subjects were really rewritten” (198). Mayer’s friend the teacher explained how the Reich would also place “ignorant ‘reliables,’ from politics or business, over the educators”; this was “part of the Nazi way of humiliating education and bringing it into popular contempt” (197). In today’s world, this would likely involve bringing in bureaucrats to control what is taught in the classroom or to control whether there even is a classroom, as so many schools have been perpetually closed “to slow the spread.”
Suppressing Speech and Encouraging Self-Censorship
“Everything was not regulated specifically, ever. It was not like that at all. Choices were left to the teacher’s discretion, within the ‘German spirit.’ That was all that was necessary; the teacher had only to be discreet. If he himself wondered at all whether anyone would object to a given book, he would be wise not to use it. This was a much more powerful form of intimidation, you see, than any fixed list of acceptable or unacceptable writings. The way it was done was, from the point of view of the regime, remarkably clever and effective. The teacher had to make the choices and risk the consequences; this made him all the more cautious” (194).
The Reich’s method of controlling education (and speech more broadly) did not rely on overly specific regulations. In our modern world, this tactic goes well beyond the enforcement of covid protocols, but it certainly includes them. Rare were the institutions that permitted a choice concerning masks; most schools required their students to wear them regardless of personal convictions. The result? Students who quickly learned that they must cover their faces to participate in society, and some who came to believe that they would seriously harm themselves or their classmates if they took them off. And even with most U.S. jurisdictions removing mask requirements in most schools, many students have become so self-conscious of showing their faces that they will voluntarily continue wearing them. What is the cost not only to the mental health of these students but to freedom of speech and expression? We may never fully know.
And it was not only schools. Covid protocols and covid narratives were enforced outside of schools as well. In early 2021, only a small minority of businesses permitted their customers to enter unmasked; still fewer allowed their employees this option. Though rarely acknowledged by most public health officials, masks do interfere with human communication (if they did not, world leaders would not take them off to speak). And if the ability to communicate is hindered, the free exchange of ideas also suffers.
As to speech more broadly, the tactic described by Mayer encourages self-censorship, which any fair-minded person admits is also happening today. Going back decades to speech that was considered “politically incorrect,” we all understand that there are certain accepted positions on a variety of topics, ranging from race and gender to vaccines and covid treatments.
Don’t dare share anything that counters the narrative, on covid or anything else. To share something that comes close to questioning the narrative could have myriad consequences, both personal and professional. You do not want to be accused of spreading misinformation, do you? Or maligned as a conspiracy theorist? So we refrain from sharing counterpoints and evidence, even if that evidence is absolutely legitimate and completely sound.
Uncertainty
“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. . . . you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”
“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have” (169-170).
And so we do nothing. Mayer is right. His colleague was right. What can we say?
One thing we can say is that those who have required masks, whether by accident or design, have made the feeling of uncertainty even greater. We struggle to know what others are thinking, or feeling, because our faces are hidden. In addition to the low-level anxiety and fear that masks induce in everyone (at the very least causing us to view others as threats to our safety and not as persons), we are uncertain why those around us are wearing masks. Is it simply because they are told to do so? Is it out of deference to others? Or because they genuinely desire to wear them?
Let’s say it’s true that the strong majority of workers would choose not to wear masks if their employers did not require them. How are we to know for sure what they prefer if the choice is taken from them? Similarly, if one was required to do various things to show allegiance to the Party, how was one to know whether others were genuinely loyal to the Party or simply going along in order to blend in (and not be taken to the camps)?
Gradually, Then Suddenly
“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head” (168).
Of all the tactics employed by tyrants to achieve their goals, the illusion that we have plenty of time to escape is arguably the most important. If we could all go back to February 2020, how many of us would have predicted we would be here? How did it all happen? Gradually, then all at once. Mayer senses our dilemma:
“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might” (168).
Think back to March 2020. We should have resisted then. We should not have tolerated stay-at-home orders or various (and even non-sensical) restrictions on local businesses and private life. Governments had already gone too far. And then came the masks, and some said that masks were the hill. Individuals who shared these concerns were derided as fanatics and conspiracy theorists, but they were right.
Many did not see it, and even fewer resisted. I saw it relatively early, but I did not resist as fiercely as I should, and my failure haunts me to this day. Had we more seriously resisted masks, the prospect of vaccine mandates would have largely collapsed. Indeed, there would be no political, moral, or practical support for vaccine mandates and the more insidious vaccine passports had mask mandates been successfully resisted. But we—but I—did not resist as fiercely as I should have.
Why not? I told myself that it was worth keeping my position of influence at my job. It was a “calculated decision” to continue to help those around me. And I also needed to provide food and shelter for my daughters, to enable them to have a “normal” childhood.
But in my good and noble compromises—they are, in fact, compromises—have I laid the groundwork for further infringements on my family’s lives and liberties? Have I sowed the seeds of an eternal dystopia that will forever terrorize my daughters and their children? Have I made a deal with the devil? More importantly, if I have, is there any way out of this contract?
The Power of Non-Violent Resistance
“It is actual resistance which worries tyrants, not lack of the few hands required to do the dark work of tyranny. What the Nazis had to gauge was the point at which atrocity would awaken the community to the consciousness of its moral habits. This point may be moved forward as the national emergency, or cold war, is moved forward, and still further forward in hot war. But it remains the point which the tyrant must always approach and never pass. If his calculation is too far behind the people’s temper, he faces a palace Putsch; if it is too far ahead, a popular revolution” (56).
We underestimate how much power people have when they choose to resist. Parents across the nation pushed back against mask mandates, and many school boards relented and made masks optional. Many employees refused to comply with vaccine mandates, and many employers relented (or at least granted broad exemptions). Parents and employees did not win in all cases, but they’ve won more battles than many realize, and the war is far from over. Strong and united opposition has also resulted in reversals of government covid policies, and more mandates are being lifted as more pressure is applied. We must continue to resist and help others do the same, recognizing that the costs we bear will be worth it in the end.
The Cost of Dissent
“You are respected in the community. Why? Because your attitudes are the same as the community’s. But are the community’s attitudes respectable? We—you and I—want the community’s approval on the community’s basis. We don’t want the approval of criminals, but the community decides what is criminal and what isn’t. This is the trap. You and I—and my ten Nazi friends—are in the trap. It has nothing to do directly with fear for one’s own or his family’s safety, or his job, or his property. I may have all these, never lose them, and still be in exile. . . . My safety, unless I am accustomed to being a dissenter, or a recluse, or a snob, is in numbers; this man, who will pass me tomorrow and who, though he always said ‘Hello’ to me, would never have lifted a finger for me, will tomorrow reduce my safety by the number of one” (60).
In Hitler’s Germany, to stray from the acceptable concerns, to deviate from the accepted narrative, was to put oneself at risk. And so it is today. Dissenters are looked on as the ones who cause problems. Challenging the accepted narratives or questioning the “consensus” draws the ire of both everyday citizens and cultural elites. Dissent is dangerous, not because one is factually incorrect in his assessments, but because his assessments challenge accepted dogmas.
The Cost of Compliance
There is a cost to being a dissenter. Mayer’s friends were in constant danger of losing their jobs and their freedoms—and possibly their lives. But there is also a cost to compliance, and that cost is far greater than anything we can currently imagine. Listen carefully to Mayer:
“It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait. But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.
“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jew swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.”
“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.”
“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know” (171-172).
I’ve read this section more times than I can count, and as I read it now, I weep for my own failures. My own fears. My own complicity in the slow growth of covid totalitarianism. Of allowing governments and media to set narratives. Of failing to take a stand. But it is not too late! What is coming with digital IDs and digital passports is more insidious, and more ingenious, but there is still time to resist. But we must resolve to stand now. We must resolve to stand together. And we must stand no matter the cost.
“You know,” he went on, “when men who understand what is happening—the motion, that is, of history, not the reports of single events or developments—when such men do not object or protest, men who do not understand cannot be expected to. How many men would you say understand—in this sense—in America? And when, as the motion of history accelerates and those who don’t understand are crazed by fear, as our people were, and made into a great ‘patriotic’ mob, will they understand then, when they did not before?” (175).
The duty is upon us who see what is happening to stand up and resist. We will all bear some cost, either now or in the future. Some of us have experienced the cost of standing up: we have lost jobs, lost friends, even lost freedoms. But all of us have borne the cost of tyrannical overreach in the name of public health. I’ve lost count of the number of people I know who were not permitted to say goodbye to their loved ones. Who were denied access to potentially life-saving treatments. Who were refused medical care in the name of the common good. There is no doubt we’ve all suffered during the past two years, but failing to resist this ever-encroaching tyranny will cost more than we can comprehend. I don’t know exactly what it will cost us to stand for truth and liberty in the coming months and years. But what I can say with near certainty is that the cost of present resistance will be far more tolerable to our consciences and perhaps our lives than failure to resist. More importantly, resisting now will certainly be more tolerable for the lives of our children.
The Choice Before Us
Because of the risks to their lives and their families, many Germans refused to speak openly about what was happening, even when they knew. And their fears were completely justified:
“Those who came back from Buchenwald in the early years had promised—as every inmate of every German prison had always had to promise upon his release—not to discuss his prison experience. You should have broken your promise. You should have told your countrymen about it; you might, though the chances were all against you, have saved your country had you done so. But you didn’t. You told your wife, or your father, and swore them to secrecy. And so, although millions guessed, only thousands knew. Did you want to go back to Buchenwald, and to worse treatment this time? Weren’t you sorry for those who were left there? And weren’t you glad you were out?” (59).
Is this not the case with the many who have escaped the camps in North Korea? Or the Uyghurs who have been released from “re-education facilities” in Xinjiang, China? I dare not judge harshly those who have not spoken up, as I have no way of understanding what they have experienced. But I want to think that I—and that everyone reading this piece—will have the resolve to speak up in these dark hours. To stand shoulder to shoulder, to not shirk from our responsibility to our children, to our neighbors, and to the generations who will come after us. But then I think of my children—my three precious daughters—and I think of the present cost of standing up.
If I speak up, I might be arrested, my bank accounts might be frozen, my professional license suspended or revoked. My ability to provide for my family could be greatly diminished, and my girls might lose their family home. Even more, if I am one day arrested and taken to prison or to a camp (or whatever the facilities are called where people are being held against their will), I will not be present to play catch with my youngest, to watch my second ride her hoverboard, or hear my oldest read to me. I might not be able to tuck them in bed, to sing to them, to pray with them—and not only for a night but for weeks or months (if not years). So I am torn.
Do I speak up, knowing that voicing dissent could upend my daughters’ lives and render them virtually fatherless? Or do I choose to remain silent, with the protests of my heart suppressed until they shrivel to nothing? Do I accept a new normal of dystopian tyranny in order to be physically present with my children, knowing that this choice will consign my daughters (and their families and descendants) to a totalitarianism that may never be overthrown? What would love compel me to do? What is the right thing to do? What will I choose to do? I know what I hope I will choose, but do you see the difficulty?
What Will We Choose?
“Here in Kronenberg? Well, we had twenty thousand people. Of these twenty thousand people, how many opposed? How would you know? How would I know? If you ask me how many did something in secret opposition, something that meant great danger to them, I would say, well, twenty. And how many did something like that openly, and from good motives alone? Maybe five, maybe two. That’s the way men are.” “You always say, That’s the way men are,’ Herr Klingelhöfer,” I said. “Are you sure that that’s the way men are?” “That’s the way men are here,” he said. “Are they different in America?” Alibis, alibis, alibis; alibis for the Germans; alibis, too, for man, who, when he was once asked, in olden time, whether he would prefer to do or to suffer injustice, replied, “I would rather neither.” The mortal choice which every German had to make—whether or not he knew he was making it—is a choice which we Americans have never had to confront” (93-94).
When Mayer wrote his book, Americans had not yet confronted the choices his friends had to make. But for the past two years, we have been staring these choices in the face. Certainly Australians are confronting them, as are the citizens of New Zealand. Austria, Spain, Italy, and Canada—to say nothing of many Eastern nations—are most definitely confronting them. And in many blue cities and states across the nation, our fellow Americans have faced these choices and felt the weight of separation and discrimination.
I often ask my students the following question when we discuss this book each spring: what happens if the United States and other free nations fall into tyranny? In Germany before World War II, it was at least possible to immigrate elsewhere. One could get out if he had means and if he saw it coming in time. But what happens if we give up the fight? Where else can we go? Where can our children flee? If the whole world becomes like China, there is nowhere else to escape the approaching storm.
So what must we do? We must decide today to draw a line that must not be crossed. As others have written, we should have drawn the line at masks. Governments the world over have rendered entire societies more compliant by hiding our faces. In so many cases, we no longer see others as human. We instead view them as threats, as anonymous vectors of disease. But since we didn’t draw the line at masks in 2020, we must regain that ground that was lost. We must fight to end not only the current mask and vaccine mandates (and other remaining covid restrictions), but we must not relent until the possibility of such mandates is viewed not only as politically untenable but morally and ethically indefensible. And no matter the cost, we cannot under any circumstance accept the use of digital passports (this short video shows why). And finally, we must not only be in the business of changing policies; we must strive to change hearts and minds, to wake others to the reality of what is taking place.
Friends, we must act—I must act. There is no more time to wait.
Joshua Styles is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies / Christian Studies at North Greenville University. He is committed to finding and reporting the truth.
cover image “Hitler greets the Protestant Archbishop of Nuremberg, Ludwig Müller, and Benedictine Abbott Albanus Schachleitner
at the Reich Party Rally of 1934.” is in the public domain
Who Controls the Global Elite (the Visible “Reality” Manipulators), Hidden Technologies, UFO/Alien Narratives?
“I want to talk about things people deny. That’s where the money is. Like Bilderberg, like — I call it the shadow government. The cryptocracy. The hidden shadow police state, intel state, shadow government, ruling class, the people who pull the levers, the people who control things. And not anybody you see… Do you think Klaus Schwab controls anything? No. Who controls Klaus Schwab? They come and they go. George Soros… Who controls George Soros? It’s nobody that you see.”
~ Michael Lebron (Lionel Nation)
Who Is Behind the Global Elite?
More Specifically, Who Is Behind the World’s Elite?
I recently watched a fascinating documentary about a gentleman by the name of Bob Lazar, in which he claims to have worked on extraterrestrial aircraft at a secret facility alongside Area 51.
The film centers on Bob Lazar, a physicist who claimed in an explosive 1989 interview that the U.S. government was working on alien aircrafts at a site near Area 51, a highly classified operating location in Nevada whose primary purpose is still unknown to this day.
Bob, who’s now 60 years old, is still alive and continuing to share stories from his alleged dealings with alien aircrafts. He claims to have read government briefing documents that depict instances of extraterrestrial involvement in human affairs dating back 10,000 years.
Joe Rogan interviewed him not too long ago, and it’s equally mind-bending. I would recommend watching the documentary before watching Joe’s podcast, because Jeremy Corbell’s directing is magnificent.
Is Bob Lying?
Look, I have no idea what to believe, but an outright dismissal of Bob’s testimony is probably a bad idea. That his entire life has, in effect, been deleted by the American government, is a red flag. Lionel reckons that Bob is not lying.
So, here’s an existential thought.
What are the implications if there are indeed flying saucers at Area 51?
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
A Follow Up to the Virus Challenge: Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Mike Stone, Mike Donio
Yesterday, I had the absolute pleasure and honor of being on Dr. Tom Cowan’s Wednesday webinar to discuss a follow-up on the No “Virus” Challenge. We addressed a paper that was supplied by Steve Kirsch and Co. as the “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” The paper, a June 2022 non peer-reviewed preprint written by Dr. Sin Lee, is nothing but meaningless genomic data based on a fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome from January 2020. For some reason, the Fan Wu paper supplying the original fraudulent genome was not presented as “irrefutable evidence.”
Also discussed are cyro-EM images said to be considered evidence of live “virus.”
Please watch the webinar and find out why neither the genomic data nor the EM images constitute “irrefutable evidence” of a “virus” that was never purified and isolated.
Live Webinar With Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Mike Stone, and Mike Donio – Recorded on July 27th, 2022
In this webinar, along with Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Mike Stone & Mike Donio, we discussed the Virus Challenge in further detail.
Hi, I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and I’m not here right now. . . . I mean, there. With you.
Confused? Well, take a look at this . . .
[Steps aside to reveal James in screen] See? But, in truth, I’m not here either. What you are watching are the ghostly reflections of someone far away. I am not in the room with you, but you can see me. You can hear me. You might not think much about this, but . . . [Snaps fingers, revealing green screen set in studio] . . . it is one of the wonders of our era, and it has shaped the world in ways we can barely comprehend.
VOICEOVER: Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.
PART 2 – WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT
There’s a story about the famous Battle of Waterloo in 1815 that is not usually included in the history textbooks.
The story is that John Roworth—a trusted employee of Nathan Rothschild, the English heir of the infamous Rothschild banking family—was at the battlefield that day and, when the battle was decided and it was apparent that Napoleon had been defeated, he raced off on horseback, bearing the news across the English channel. The messenger arrived at his employers’s London office a full 24 hours before the official government courier and Rothschild, always looking for a way to turn a profit, decided to use the news to his advantage. He made a show of selling his shares at the London Stock Exchange and the public, believing the famed stockbroker had received word that Napoleon had won the battle, began selling as well. The stock market plummeted and Rothschild secretly bought up the shares at rock-bottom prices. By the time the news finally reached Londoners that Wellington—not Napoleon—was the victor at Waterloo, the coup was complete: Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in the realm.
This story, like so many historical adventure yarns, has been much decorated in the retelling: John Roworth was not at Waterloo, for one thing, and there was no great market sell-off in the hours before the official news of the battle reached London. But the central part of the tale is true: Nathan Rothschild did receive early news of Napoleon’s defeat and he did “do well” by that information, as Roworth admitted in a letter the month after the incident.
But whatever this story tells us about the world of finance, it tells us something more fundamental about something far more important: power. Knowledge is power, and, as we saw in Part 1 of this series, Gutenberg had brought that power to the masses. With the printing press, knowledge could be copied and spread to the far corners of the globe faster and easier and cheaper than it ever had before . . .
. . . but it still had to be carried. On horseback, on foot, by train, by carrier pigeon. Information was still a physical thing and even the news of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo had to be physically transported from one place to another. But did it have to be this way? What if information could be communicated directly by electric current and sent across wires or through the air at the speed of light?
Enter Samuel Morse.
Morse was not a scientist or an experimenter, but a painter. He claimed that the idea for sending messages through electrical wires came to him in a flash of genius on a lengthy ship journey from Europe to America in 1832, and thus that he deserved credit as the sole inventor of the telegraph.
In reality, research along these lines had been going on for nearly a century. The idea of sending electrical messages through wires was first proposed in Scots Magazine in 1753 and it was demonstrated numerous times over the years—most memorably by Francisco Salvá, who in 1795 connected wires to human test subjects, assigned each of them a letter, and instructed them to shout their letter out when they received a shock.
Ignorant of this history, Morse had to rely on real scientists and inventors for his important breakthroughs. Like Professor Leonard Gale, who helped develop the technique of using relays to help the messages travel further than a few hundred yards. And Alfred Vail, a bright young machinist whose improvements to Morse’s crude prototype brought the idea into reality. Many even contend that it was Vail, not Morse, who invented the system of dots and dashes that we know as Morse Code.
Nonetheless, history is written by the winners, and Morse proved to be the winner. Getting the credit, the glory and, more to the point, the patent for the telegraph, Morse received a congressional appropriation of $30,000 to build the first telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore in 1844. He sent the first official telegraph message from the US Capitol to Alfred Vail at a railroad station in Baltimore. The message had been selected by Anne Ellsworth, the daughter of the Patent Commissioner with whom Morse was lodging while he was stationed in Washington. She chose a passage from the Bible fitting of the momentous occasion: “What hath God wrought!”
The passage, from the book of Numbers, is one of praise—rejoicing at the wonders that God had wrought for Israel—and ends with an exclamation mark. But the telegraph message didn’t contain punctuation, and so the press misreported the phrase with a question mark at the end: “What hath God wrought?” The medium had already begun to change the message.
It’s difficult for us to appreciate just how incredible it was for those who first witnessed communication from a distance with a disembodied electric ghost. In fact, it was almost impossible for people to understand this type of communication in anything but spiritual terms. Even the word “medium” evokes the specter of contact with the spirit world.
When the radio was introduced to Saudi Arabia, the country’s conservative Islamic clerics declared it “the devil hiding in a box” and demanded that King Abdulaziz ban the infernal contraption. The king saw the potential use of the radio for the development of the country, but, relying on the clerics for support, he couldn’t outright reject their council.
Instead, the crafty monarch proposed a test: the radio would be brought before him the next day and he would listen to it himself. If what the clerics said was true, then he would ban the devil’s device and behead those responsible for bringing it into the country.
The next day, the radio was brought before the king at the appointed time. But the king had secretly arranged with the radio engineers to make sure the Quran was being read at the hour of the test. Sure enough, when he switched it on and passages from the Quran were heard.
“Can it be that the devil is saying the Quran?” he asked. “Or is it perhaps true that this is not an evil box?” The clerics conceded defeat and the radio was allowed into Saudi Arabia.
We may laugh, but the Saudis were not the first or the last to mistake media technology for devilry. In 1449, Johann Fust—the scion of a wealthy and powerful family in Mainz—lent Gutenberg an enormous sum of money to start producing his famed Bible and confiscated the books from the printer when he couldn’t afford to repay the loan. When Fust later appeared on the streets of Paris, selling multiple copies of Gutenberg’s Bible, the bewildered Parisians—who had never seen printed books before and so couldn’t imagine how so many strangely identical copies of a manuscript could be produced so quickly—arrested him for witchcraft.
The essence of the mass media—its ability to project the voices of people who aren’t there using electronic gadgets and wireless networks—is the essence of magic, bringing to life the scrying mirrors and palantirs of lore. But is this media technology a dark art, or can its powers be used for good?
As the new medium of commercial radio rose in the early decades of the 20th century, listeners had cause to side with the Saudi clerics in their determination that it was, in fact, a devil in a box. Listeners like those who tuned into a strange news report on the Columbia Broadcasting System on the evening of Sunday, October 30, 1938.
ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our program of dance music to bring you a special bulletin from the Intercontinental Radio News. At twenty minutes before eight, central time, Professor Farrell of the Mount Jennings Observatory, Chicago, Illinois, reports observing several explosions of incandescent gas, occurring at regular intervals on the planet Mars. The spectroscope indicates the gas to be hydrogen and moving towards the earth with enormous velocity. Professor Pierson of the Observatory at Princeton confirms Farrell’s observation, and describes the phenomenon as (quote) like a jet of blue flame shot from a gun (unquote). We now return you to the music of Ramón Raquello, playing for you in the Meridian Room of the Park Plaza Hotel, situated in downtown New York.
Of course, this wasn’t a news broadcast at all. It was the infamous “Halloween Scare,” Orson Wells’ radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds, which infamously caused panic among some members of the listening audience who were flipping through the dial and mistook the dramatized news “interruptions” for actual reports of a Martian invasion.
It’s become fashionable in recent years to downplay the incident as a myth. There was no real scare, only a few dimwits who got frightened. The newspapers—looking for any excuse to belittle radio, its fast-rising competition for the public’s attention and corporate advertising dollars—ginned up the story and sold the public on a panic that never was.
But there was something to the Halloween Scare. The City Manager of Trenton, New Jersey—mentioned by name in the broadcast—even wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to demand an immediate investigation into the stunt. In response, a team of researchers fanned out, collecting information, conducting interviews and studying reports about the panic to better understand what had happened and what could be learned about this new medium’s ability to influence the public.
The team was from the Princeton Radio Project—a research group founded with a two-year, $67,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to study the effect of radio through the lens of social psychology. The team was led by Hadley Cantril, the old Dartmouth College roommate of Nelson Rockefeller who had written in 1935 that “[r]adio is an altogether novel medium of communication, preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”
Cantril’s report on Wells’ Halloween broadcast, The Invasion from Mars, concluded that such a large-scale media-induced frenzy could happen again “and even on a much more extensive scale.” This was important information for the funders of the Princeton Radio Project; their next major research project was a study of how radio could be used for spreading war propaganda, an increasingly important subject as the world slipped into the maw of World War II.
The question of electronic media’s ability to influence the public became even more important as the radio revolution of the early twentieth century flowed into the television revolution of the mid-twentieth century. Television had actually been ready to roll out as a commercial medium in the 1930s, but the Depression and then the war delayed the mass production of television sets. The first mass-produced commercial television hit the market in 1946, and it soon became one of the most quickly adopted technologies in history to that point, finding its way into the majority of American homes within a decade.
Strangely, as sociologist Robert Putnam documented in his 2000 bestseller, Bowling Alone, the era of television adoption precisely coincides with a severe drop-off in civic engagement among the American public. Could there be a relation? If so, what could it be?
One intriguing possibility comes from research conducted by Herbert Krugman in 1969. Krugman—who would go on to become manager of public opinion research at General Electric in the 1970s—was interested to discover what happens physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He taped a single electrode to the back of his test subject’s head and ran the wire to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer. He turned on the TV and began monitoring the brain waves of his subject. He found through repeated testing that “within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness.”
Krugman’s initial findings were confirmed by more extensive and accurate testing: TV rapidly induces an alpha-state consciousness in its viewers, putting them in a daydream state that leaves them less actively focused on their activities and more receptive to suggestion. This dream state combines with the nature of the medium itself to create a perfect tool for disengaging the viewers intellectually, removing them from active participation in their environment and substituting real experience with the simulacrum of experience.
In a word, TV hypnotizes its viewers.
NEIL POSTMAN: To begin with, television is essentially non-linguistic. It presents information mostly in visual images. Although human speech is heard on television and sometimes assumes importance, people mostly watch television. And what they watch are rapidly changing visual images, as many as 1200 different shots every hour. The average length of a shot on network television is 3.5 seconds. The average in a commercial is 2.5 seconds.
Now, this requires very little analytic decoding. In America, television watching is almost wholly a matter of what we would call pattern recognition. What I’m saying here is that the symbolic form of television—its form—does not require any special instruction or learning.
In America, television viewing begins at about the age of 18 months and by 36 months, children begin to understand and respond to television’s imagery. They have favorite characters, sing jingles they hear and ask for products they see advertised.
There’s no need for any preparation or prerequisite training for watching television. It needs no analog to the McGuffey Reader. Watching television requires no skills and develops no skills and that is why there is no such thing as remedial television watching.
As we have seen, it was only a matter of years from the advent of commercial radio as a medium of communication until monopolistic financial interests were funding studies to determine how best to use it to mould the public consciousness. And, it seems, the television—with its brain wave-altering, hypnosis-inducing, cognitive impairment abilities—was designed from the very get-go to be a weapon of control deployed against the viewing public.
But if these media are weapons, if they are being used to direct and shape the public’s attention and, ultimately, their thoughts, it begs some questions: Who is wielding these weapons? And for what purpose?
This is no secret conspiracy. The answer is not difficult to find. TimeWarner and Disney and Comcast NBC Universal and News Corp and Sony and Universal Music Group and the handful of other companies that have consolidated control over the “mediaopoly” of the electronic media are the ones wielding the media weapon. Their boards of directors are public information. Their major shareholders are well known. A tight-knit network of wealthy and powerful people control what is broadcast by the corporate media, and, by extension, wield the media weapon to shape society in their interest.
In Part 1 of this series, we noted how technological advancements in the printing press and the development of new business models for the publishing industry had taken Gutenberg’s revolutionary technology out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the few rich industrialists with the capital to afford their own newspaper or book publisher. The Gutenberg conspiracy had led, seemingly inevitably, to the Morgan conspiracy. But that process didn’t end with the electrification of the media; it accelerated.
By the end of the twentieth century, a handful of media companies controlled the vast majority of what Americans read, saw and heard. That this situation was used to control what the public thought about important topics is, by now, obvious to all.
NEWSCASTERS: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories — stories that simply aren’t true — without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, this media oligopoly had cemented its control over the public mind. Combined, newspapers, television, movies and radio had the ability to direct people’s thoughts on any given topic, or even what they thought about. The zenith of that era was reached on September 11, 2001, when billions across the globe watched the dramatic events of 9/11 play out on their television screens like a big-budget Hollywood production.
But the media was not done evolving. Technologies were already being rolled out that would once again change the public’s relationship to the media. Technologies that would once again leave people questioning whether the media was a devil hiding in a box, wondering whether this new media was a tool of empowerment or control, and asking the question: What hath God wrought?
Last week I wrote about how “We’re All Dutch Farmers Now.” As you’ll recall from that editorial, there is a battle taking place right now between farmers in the Netherlands and the technocrats in their government who are seeking to put them out of work and close up their farms in the name of the globalists’ grand 2030 Agenda. And, as you’ll also recall, I warned that no matter where you are on the globe or what your position in society is, this Great Reset nightmare will be coming for you and your livelihood next.
Recent events in various countries have only served to underline that point in spades.
Take Ireland, for example. The Irish Timesreports that, in order for the country to “meet the Paris Agreement goals on a globally equitable basis,” Irish farmers will have to make drastic cuts to their greenhouse emissions, including “A cut of more than 40 per cent in methane by 2030.” Exactly as in the Netherlands, these types of drastic and arbitrary cuts would be a disaster for the average farmer and could drive many of the nation’s small farms out of business. Despite the best efforts of Ireland’s establishment media—like the aforementioned Irish Times or online outlets like Buzz.ie—to browbeat the Irish public into turning agains the farmers, a growing protest movement in the country points to the possibility that Ireland will be yet another front in the Global War for Independence that I wrote about last week.
But you probably have not seen the real reasons for that collapse in the establishment news media and you’re probably not going to. In truth, the Sri Lankan situation falls very much in line with the global insurrection which the Dutch farmer protests are leading. And the steps that the Sri Lankan government are now rolling out to further control their population in the name of restoring order to the country offer important insights about where the globalist agenda is going from here.
Today, let’s examine the roots of the Sri Lankan crisis and explore how that crisis affects us all.
SRI LANKA’S COLLAPSE
For those not following events in the island nation, the announcement of the complete collapse of Sri Lanka’s economy last month might have been surprising. And, if you rely on the MSM for your news and information, the images of chaos coming out of the country—with tens of thousands taking to the streets and even storming the prime minister’s office—would doubtless have generated more questions than answers.
What’s happening over there? How did this start? Why are the people so angry at their government? And what’s being done about it?
So, how do the establishment lapdog media outlets explain this “sudden” turn of events? Let’s turn to the BBC for a typically mendacious example. In “Sri Lanka’s tea farmers struggling to survive” the Big Brother Corporation’s Sri Lankan correspondent, Secunder Kermani, correctly identifies tea as the nation’s largest export, correctly points out that “Most of Sri Lanka’s tea is grown by smaller farmers,” and correctly reports that those small farmers are “still reeling from the impact of a sudden, poorly thought-out government decision to ban chemical fertilizer last year.” It then lies about the roots of that fertilizer ban, saying that it was “ordered to try to protect the country’s dwindling foreign reserves.”
As Paul Homewood over at the Not A Lot of People Know About That blog points out:
The ban had nothing at all to do with ‘protecting foreign reserves.’ Nor is the [Sri Lankan] tea industry being hit by the ‘economic crisis.’ The ban was a deliberate policy decision by the President, as part of his climate change agenda.
Of course, given that this inconvenient truth is not the right kind of inconvenient “truth” (the kind that Al Gore makes fearmongering and factually inaccurate documentaries about), the usual flock of “fact checkers” have descended on the story to run cover for their globalist paymasters. For one example of this, see investorintel.com’s “Did ESG really topple the government of Sri Lanka?” This article attempts to argue that a commitment to the technocrat’s beloved Environmental, Social, and Governance scam “most assuredly did not collapse a national government,” but in the end it’s forced to admit that the fertilizer ban was the trigger for the collapse and that that ban was forced on the country by the ESG pushers. Specifically, as the aforementioned fact check concedes, the ban was put in place in order to “renegotiate some of its IMF and World Bank financial obligations in exchange for its excellent emissions rating.”
In other words, the debt-trap mafia made Sri Lanka a deal it couldn’t refuse: join our economic suicide pact or we’ll shut off your money. Accordingly, Sri Lanka signed on to the suicide pact. The country’s disgraced ex-President even made a speech at last year’s COP26 conference in Glasgow bragging about the country’s commitment to the death cult’s carbon eugenics agenda. And now the country is in chaos.
So how did we really get here? And where is this green agenda really taking us?
ORDER FROM THE CHAOS
To the surprise of none of my regular readers, you will find a World Economic Forum minion at the heart of this story.
In this case, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (who is listed as an “agenda contributor” on the World Economic Forum website), penned an op-ed for the WEF in 2018 explaining “how I will make my country rich by 2025.” Touting his World Bank-supported “Vision 2025” economic policy, he bragged that the smorgasbord of globalist-approved policies he was going to implement—from green energy projects to public-private partnerships to regional free trade agreements—was going to create a “social market economy that delivers economic dividends to all.”
Well, that didn’t work out very well, now did it? How embarrassing for the prime minister and everyone associated with him, hey?
At least Davos Man has the good sense to be retroactively ashamed by their association with this disaster. The World Economic Forum, for its part, has taken the embarrassing 2018 op-ed down from its website. But you can still read about the bold plan to turn Sri Lanka into an economic powerhouse by 2025 on the WayBack archive of the page. (Hey, there’s still three years left!)
But, incredibly, this whole debacle has not derailed Wickremesinghe’s political career. On the contrary. It has furthered it! He was just elected president of the country (“despite his unpopularity with the public” as the BBC puts it with their characteristic gift for understatement).
So what is he going to do to solve the crisis that he helped initiate? Why, implement the World Economic Forum’s dream of Digital ID tyranny, of course!
Specifically, Wickremesinghe’s government has decided to restore order to the country by implementing a “fuel rationing” scheme that relies on QR codes and digital surveillance. Under the new carbon eugenics regime, each slave of the new technocratic prison state will be allowed to associate one vehicle identification number with their National Identity Card number. They will then be assigned a QR code that will have to be scanned to allow the peasants to obtain the privilege of buying fuel . . . so long as it is their assigned day to purchase gas, that is. The new system will assign people days on which they will be allowed to buy fuel depending on the last digit of their license plate.
As Sri Lanka’s Minister of Power and Energy said in a tweet bragging about the implementation of the scheme: “Some fuel stations did not adopt, some Individuals manipulated, falsified & did not want this implemented [sic]. However It will be enforced islandwide.”
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your nightmare future as serfs on the neofeudal plantation! The governments will artificially restrict supplies of basic goods in the name of appeasing the weather gods, collapse the economy on purpose, and then use that collapse as a pretext for implementing even more stringent technocratic controls on their tax cattle.
Problem. Reaction. Solution.
So how does what’s going on in Sri Lanka affect all of us worldwide? And what can we do about it?
THE BATTLE SHAPES UP
At this point it would take a special kind of willful ignorance to deny the connection between all of these events. Who could look at the restrictions and cuts being implemented in country after country after country, from the Netherlands to Ireland to Poland to Italy to Canada to Argentina to Sri Lanka and think that it’s all just an amazing coinkydink.
No. By this point, it is self-evident to even the sleepiest of the normies that the destruction of the agricultural sector in country after country is part of a coordinated global agenda.
The strange thing is that every article by every outlet in every country cites a different agreement, pledge, pact, commitment or piece of legislation as the underlying reason for these cuts.
The Irish Times, for example, reports that Ireland’s emission cuts are being implemented in order to fulfill the nation’s Paris Agreement commitments. Buzz.ie says the cuts come at the behest of the European Union, which will levy fines on countries that fail to reach emission reduction requirements. RTE cites the Irish government’s own climate action plan as the reason for the cuts.
In fact, there is an increasingly complex web of agreements, commitments and treaties that are forcing these same policies on country after country. Do you know about the Colombo Declaration on Sustainable Nitrogen Management, for example? Or the Global Methane Pledge? For that matter, do you know precisely what the Paris Agreement actually mandates? Or the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Or what obligations your own country cites when it started implementing its own emissions cuts?
Did you know that the World Economic Forum signed a “strategic partnership framework” with the United Nations in 2019 to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”? Or that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $315 million to the CGIAR global agriculture research partnership (a group my regular readers will be familiar with) to address the “[climate] adaptation needs of smallholder farmers” by funding “early warning systems for tracking the climate-accelerated spread of crop and livestock diseases and digital services that connect farmers with a wide range of supports more efficiently”?
Probably not. But the point here is that there is not one easily identifiable treaty under one identifiable organization that is running this agenda. That would be too obvious and offer too easy a target for the disparate freedom movements kicking up in country after country to go after. Instead, a complex web of control is being woven around nation after nation by a network of foundations, non-governmental bodies and globalist bodies and not one person in a thousand could name all of these organizations, treaties, agreements and commitments or explain how they all fit together to produce the collapse of Sri Lanka or the protests in Holland.
I am not exaggerating when I say this is a Global War for Independence that is taking shape right now. I am 100% serious. But for the most part (my switched-on, clued-in readers excepted, of course), the public is just starting to realize that they are engaged in a war at all. That puts them very much behind the 8-ball as they begin to discover that they are the victims of an agenda that has been decades in the making and is already nearing the mysteriously omnipresent 2030 goal.
Thankfully, though, the people are beginning to wake up to the gravity of the situation, and every day more people are joining the global uprising.
The point is, this isn’t about Dutch farmers. Or Sri Lankan farmers. Or Argentinian farmers. Or Irish farmers. Or Canadian truckers. Or any other isolated group you could imagine. This is about free humanity collectively recognizing the real nature of the struggle that they are engaged in and coming together to fight that battle. Holland and Sri Lanka are only the canaries in the coal mine that allow us to see what will happen to all of us when we are finally caught in the globalist web.
Let me state this once again: a worldwide revolt against the globalist technocrats is happening right now. More and more people are joining the ranks of this revolt every day. Those who are not standing with the farmers who find themselves on the front line of this revolt will almost certainly regret their inaction in the future when this global Agenda for Sustainable Enslavement comes for them.
The bare truth reveals itself more clearly than ever: We are all Sri Lankan farmers now.
I’ve just interviewed the one and only Jon Rappoport, who launched his website nomorefakenews.com over 20 years ago. Jon is now 84 years old but continues with his prolific output and is always at the forefront of exposing global scams.
We talked about:
identifying the COVID-19 fraud in early 2020
why he started investigating virology 35 years ago
why people need the virus narrative
the state of the health freedom movement
plus much more!
Naomi Rebekah Wolf is an American feminist author and journalist. Following her first book The Beauty Myth, she became a leading spokeswoman of what has been described as the third wave of the feminist movement. Feminists including Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan praised her work. Others, including Camille Paglia, criticized it. In the 1990s, she was a political advisor to the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Wolf’s later books include the bestseller The End of America in 2007 and Vagina: A New Biography.
I am generally antagonistic towards (modern) feminism because it often appears to be a celebration of victimhood culture and a deliberate attack on family values and men. Having watched Cassie Jaye’s documentary, The Red Pill, I was left feeling disgusted at the excessive hatred being vomited by feminists who were interviewed.
Naomi, however, is nowhere near any of that misandrist nonsense.
Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of working with some brilliant people on establishing a challenge to virology in order to finally put their (pseudo)scientific methods to the test. Stemming from the mind of Dr. Tom Cowan and meticulously crafted by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Kevin Corbett, theNo “Virus” Challengeis designed to meet virology halfway. We want virology to show us, using their own methods, that they can actually independently reproduce and replicate the exact same results while blinded to the different samples that they will be working with.
I will leave the exact details of the challenge to be explained by the document linked below, but we are offering a first step to finally settle this debate once and for all. Whether the virology community (and those who back them) will accept this challenge (which Dr. Cowan has already received financial backing for) remains to be seen. However, if the virologists are truly interested in science and performing the proper control experiments that should have been carried out from the very beginning, there is absolutely no reason for them not to accept.
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host – the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.
After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes” and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…
STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive.
Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.
STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples. (Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments – a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)
If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.
Signatories,
Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD Jitendra Banjara, MSc
Kelly Brogan, MD
Kevin Corbett, PhD
Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS
Michael Donio, MS
Jordan Grant, MD Andrew Kaufman, MD
Valentina Kiseleva, MD
Christine Massey, MSc
Paul McSheehy, PhD
Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD
Sachin Pethkar, BAMS Saeed Qureshi, PhD
Stefano Scoglio, PhD
Mike Stone, BEXSc Amandha Vollmer, NDoc
Michael Yeadon, PhD
July 8 was a muggy day in the ancient capital of Japan. Shinzo Abe, the most powerful figure in Japanese politics, was delivering a stump speech for a local Liberal Democratic Party candidate in front of the Nara Kintetsu railway station when suddenly a loud bang rang out, followed by an odd cloud of smoke.
The response was incredible. Among those in the unusually large crowd gathered, not a single person ran for cover, or hit the ground in terror.
Abe’s body guards, who stood unusually far away from him during the speech, looked on impassively, making no effort to shield him, or to pull him to a safe location.
A few seconds later, Abe crumpled and collapsed to the ground, lying there impassive in his standard blue jacket, white shirt, now speckled with blood, and trademark blue badge of solidarity with Japanese abductees in North Korea. Most likely he was killed instantaneously.
Only then did the body guards seize the suspect, Yamagami Toruya, who was standing behind Abe. The tussle with Yamagami took the form of a choreographed dance for the television audience, not a professional takedown.
Yamagami was immediately identified by the media as a 41-year-old former member of the Maritime Self-Defense Force who had personal grievances with Abe.
Yamagami told everything to the police without hesitation. He did not even try to run from the scene and was still holding the silly hand-made gun when the bodyguards grabbed him.
Even after Abe was lying on the pavement, not a single person in the crowd ran for shelter, or even looked around to determine where the shots came from. Everyone seemed to know, magically, that the shooting was over.
Then the comedy began. Rather than putting Abe in a limousine and whisking him away, those standing around him merely called out to passersby, asking if anyone was a doctor.
The media immediately embraced the “lone gunman” conclusion for this attack, repeating entertaining tale of how Yamagami was associated with Toitsu Kyokai, a new religion started by the charismatic shaman Kawase Kayo, and why he blamed Abe, who had exchanges with that group, for his mother’s troubles.
Because Toitsu Kyokai has followers from the Unification Church founded by Reverend Moon Sun Myung, journalist Michael Penn jumped to the conclusion that the conspiracy leading to Abe’s death was the result of his collaboration with the Moonies.
Although the mainstream media accepted this fantastic story, the Japanese police and security apparatus did not manage to squash alternative interpretations. Blogger Takashi Kitagawa posted materials on July 10 that suggested Abe was shot from the front, not from the back where Yamagami stood, and that the shots must have been fired at an angle from the top of one, or both, of the tall buildings on either side of the intersection across from the railway station plaza.
Takahashi Kitakawa’s postings:
Kitagawa’s analysis of the paths of the bullets was more scientific than anything offered by the media that had claimed, without basis, that Abe had only been shot once until the surgeon announced that evening that there had been two bullets.
The chances that a man holding an awkward home-made gun, standing more than five meters away in a crowd, would be able to hit Abe twice are low. The TV personality Kozono Hiromi, who is a gun expert himself, remarked on his show “Sukkiri” (on July 12) that such a feat would be incredible.
A careful viewing of the videos suggests that multiple shots were fired by a rifle with a silencer from atop a neighboring building.
The message to the world
For a figure like Shinzo Abe, the most powerful political player in Japan and the person to whom Japanese politicians and bureaucrats rallied in response to the unprecedented uncertainty born of the current geopolitical crisis, to be shot dead with no serious security detail nearby makes no sense.
Perhaps the message was lost on viewers at home, but it was crystal clear for other Japanese politicians. For that matter, the message was clear for Boris Johnson, who was forced out of power at almost exactly the same moment that Abe was shot, or for Emanuel Macron, who was suddenly charged with influence peddling scandal for Uber, and faces demands for his removal from office, on July 11—after months of massive protests had failed to sway him in any way.
The message was written all over Abe’s white shirt in red: buying into the globalist system and promoting the COVID-19 regime is not enough to assure safety, even for the leader of a G7 nation.
Abe was highest ranking victim so far of the hidden cancer eating away at governance in nation states around the world, an institutional sickness that moves decision making away from national governments to a network of privately-held supercomputer banks, private equity groups, for-hire intelligence firms in Tel Aviv, London and Reston, and the strategic thinkers employed by the billionaires at the World Economic Forum, NATO, the World Bank and other such awesome institutions.
The fourth industrial revolution was the excuse employed to transfer the control of all information in, and all information out, for central governments to Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Google, SAP and others in the name of efficiency. As J. P. Morgan remarked, “Everything has two reasons: a good reason and a real reason.”
With the assassination of Abe, these technology tyrants, and their masters, have crossed the Rubicon, declaring that those dressed in the trappings of state authority can be mowed down with impunity if they do not follow orders.
The Problem with Japan
Japan is heralded as the only Asian nation advanced enough to join the “West,” to be a member of the exclusive G7 club, and to be qualified to enter into collaboration with (and possible membership in) the top intelligence sharing program, the “Five Eyes.” Nevertheless, Japan has continued to defy the expectations, and the demands, of global financiers, and the planners within the beltway and on Wall Street for the New World Order.
Although it was South Korea in Asia that has constantly been berated in Washington as an ally not quite up to the level of Japan, the truth is that the super-rich busy taking over the Pentagon, and the entire global economy, were starting to harbor doubts about the dependability of Japan.
The globalist system at the World Bank, Goldman Sachs, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University has a set track for the best and the brightest from “advanced nations.”
Elites from Australia, France, Germany, Norway or Italy, learn to speak fluent English, spend time in Washington, London, or Geneva at a think tank or university, secure a safe sinecure at a bank, a government institution, or a research institute that assures them a good income, and adopt the common sense, pro-finance, perspective offered by the Economist Magazine as the gospel.
Japan, however, although it has an advanced banking system of its own, although its command of advanced technologies makes it the sole rival of Germany in machine tools, and although it has a sophisticated educational system capable of producing numerous Nobel Prize winners, does not produce leaders who follow this model for the “developed” nation.
Japanese elite do not study abroad for the most part and Japan has sophisticated intellectual circles that do not rely on information brought in from overseas academic or journalistic sources.
Unlike other nations, Japanese write sophisticated journal articles entirely in Japanese, citing only Japanese experts. In fact, in fields like botany and cellular biology, Japan has world-class journals written entirely in Japanese.
Similarly, Japan has a sophisticated domestic economy that is not easily penetrated by multinational corporations—try as they do.
The massive concentration of wealth over the last decade has allowed the super-rich to create invisible networks for secret global governance,best represented by the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program and the Schwarzman Scholars program. These rising figures in policy infiltrate the governments, the industries, and research institutions of nations to make sure that the globalist agenda goes forth unimpeded.
Japan has been impacted by this sly form of global governance. And yet, Japanese who speak English well, or who study at Harvard, are not necessarily on the fast track in Japanese society.
There is stubborn independence in Japan’s diplomacy and economics, something that raised concerns among the Davos crowd during the COVID-19 campaigns.
Although the Abe administration (and the subsequent Kishida administration) went along with the directives of the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization for vaccines and social distancing, the Japanese government was less intrusive in the lives of citizens than most nations, and was less successful in forcing organizations to require vaccination.
The use of QR codes to block service to the unvaccinated was limited in its implementation in Japan in comparison with other “advanced” nations.
Moreover, the Japanese government refuses to fully implement the digitalization agenda demanded, thus denying multinational technology giants the control over Japan that they exercise elsewhere. This lag in Japan’s digitalization led the Wilson Center in Washington D.C. to invite Karen Makishima, minister of Japan’s Digital Agency (launched under pressure from global finance in September, 2021) so that she could explain why Japan has been so slow to digitalize (July 13).
Japanese are increasingly aware that their resistance to digitalization, to the wholescale outsourcing of the functions of government and university to multinational tech giants, and the privatization of information, is not in their interest.
Japan continues to operate Japanese-language institutions that follow old customs, including the use of written records. Japanese still read books and they are not so enamored with AI as Koreans and Chinese.
Japan’s resistance can be traced back to Meiji restoration of 1867. Japan set out to create governmental system wherein Western ideas were translated into Japanese, combined with Japanese concepts, to create a complex domestic discourse. The governance system set up in Meiji restoration remains in place to a large degree, using models for governance based on pre-modern principles from Japan and China’s past, and drawn from 19th century Prussia and England.
The result is feudalistic approach to governance wherein ministers oversee fiefdoms of bureaucrats who carefully guard their own budgets and who maintain their own internal chains of command.
The Problem with Abe
Shinzo Abe was one of the most sophisticated politicians of our age, always open to make a deal with the United States, or other global institutions, but always cagy when it came to making Japan the subject of globalist dictates.
Abe harbored the dream of restoring Japan to its status as an empire, and imagined himself to be the reincarnation of the Meiji Emperor.
Abe was different than Johnson or Macron in that he was not as interested in appearing on TV as he was in controlling the actual decision making process within Japan.
There is no need to glorify Abe’s reign, as some have tried to do. He was a corrupt insider who pushed for the dangerous privatization of government, the hollowing out of education, and who backed a massive shift of assets from the middle class to the wealthy.
His use of the ultra-right Nihon Kaigi forum to promote an ultranationalist agenda, and to glorify the most offensive aspects of Japan’s imperial past, was deeply disturbing. Abe gave his unflinching support for all military expenditures, no matter how foolish, and he was willing to support just about any American boondoggle.
That said, as the grandson of Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, and the son of foreign minister Shintaro Abe, Shinzo Abe showed himself to be an astute politician from childhood. He was creative in his use of a wide range of political tools to advance his agenda, and he could call on corporate and government leaders from around the world with an ease that no other Asian politician could.
I remember vividly the impression I received from Abe on the two occasions that I met him in person. Whatever cynical politics he may have promoted, he radiated to his audience a purity and simplicity, what the Japanese call “sunao,” that was captivating. His manner suggested a receptiveness and openness that inspired loyalty among his followers and that could overwhelm those who were hostile to his policies.
In sum, Abe was sophisticated political figure who was capable of playing one side against the other within the Liberal Democratic Party, and within the international community, while appearing to be a considerate and benevolent leader.
For this reason, Japanese hostile to Abe’s ethnic nationalism were still willing to support him because he was the only politician they thought capable of restoring global political leadership to Japan.
Japanese diplomats and military officers fret endlessly about the Japan’s lack of vision. Although Japan has all the qualifications to be a great power, they reason, it is run by a series of unimpressive, University of Tokyo graduates; men who are good at taking tests, but are unwilling to take risks.
Japan produces noone like Putin or Xi, and not even a Macron or a Johnson.
Abe wanted to be a leader and he had the connections, the talent, and the ruthlessness required to play that role on the global stage. He was already the longest serving prime minister in Japanese history, and had plans for a third bid as prime minister, when he was struck down.
Needless to say, the powers behind the World Economic Forum do not want national leaders like Abe, even if they conform with the global agenda, because they are capable of organizing resistance within the nation state.
What went wrong?
Abe was able to handle, using the traditional tools of statecraft, the impossible dilemma faced by Japan over the last decade as its economic ties with China and Russia increased, but its political and security integration with the United States, Israel and the NATO block proceeded apace.
It was impossible for Japan to be that close to the United States and its allies while maintaining friendly relations with Russia and China. Yet Abe almost succeeded.
Abe remained focused and cool. He made use of all his skills and connections as he set out to carve a unique space for Japan. Along the way, Abe turned to the sophisticated diplomacy of his strategic thinker Shotaro Yachi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to assure that Japan found its place under the sun.
Abe and Yachi used contradictory, but effective, geopolitical strategies to engage both East and West, making ample use of secret diplomacy to seal long-term deals that put Japan back in the great powers game.
On the one hand, Abe presented to Obama and Trump a Japan that was willing to go further than South Korea, Australia or other India in backing Washington’s position. Abe was willing to suffer tremendous domestic criticism for his push for a remilitarization that fit the US plans for East Asia.
At the same time that he impressed Washington politicians with his gung-ho pro-American rhetoric, matched by the purchase of weapons systems, Abe also engaged China and Russia at the highest levels. That was no small feat, and involved sophisticated lobbying within the beltway, and in Beijing and Moscow.
In the case of Russia, Abe successfully negotiated a complex peace treaty with Russia in 2019 that would have normalized relations and solved the dispute concerning the Northern Territories (the Kuril Islands in Russian). He was able to secure energy contracts for Japanese firms and to find investment opportunities in Russia even as Washington ramped up the pressure on Tokyo for sanctions.
The journalist Tanaka Sakai notes that Abe was not banned from entering Russia after the Russian government banned all other representatives of the Japanese government from entry.
Abe also engaged China seriously, solidifying long-term institutional ties, and pursuing free trade agreement negotiations that reached a breakthrough in the fifteenth round of talks (April 9-12, 2019). Abe had ready access to leading Chinese politicians and he was considered by them to be reliable and predictable, even though his rhetoric was harshly anti-Chinese.
The critical event that likely triggered the process leading to Abe’s assassination was the NATO summit in Madrid (June 28-30).
The NATO summit was a moment when the hidden players behind the scenes laid down the law for the new global order. NATO is on a fast track to evolve beyond an alliance to defend Europe and to become an unaccountable military power, working with the Global Economic Forum, the billionaires and the bankers around the world, as a “world army,” functioning much as the British East India Company did in another era.
The decision to invite to the NATO summit the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand was a critical part of this NATO transformation.
These four nations were invited to join in an unprecedented level of integration in security, including intelligence sharing (outsourcing to big tech multinationals), the use of advanced weapons systems (that must be administrated by the personnel of multinationals like Lockheed Martin), joint exercises (that set a precedent for an oppressive decision-making process), and other “collaborative” approaches that undermine the chain of command within the nation state.
When Kishida returned to Tokyo on July first, there can be no doubt that one of his first meetings was with Abe. Kishida explained to Abe the impossible conditions that the Biden administration had demanded of Japan.
The White House, by the way, is now entirely the tool of globalists like Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) and others trained by the Bush clan.
The demands made of Japan were suicidal in nature. Japan was to increase economic sanctions on Russia, to prepare for possible war with Russia, and to prepare for a war with China. Japan’s military, intelligence and diplomatic functions were to be transferred to the emerging blob of private contractors gathering for the feast around NATO.
We do not know what Abe did during the week before his death. Most likely he launched into a sophisticated political play, using of all his assets in Washington D.C., Beijing, and Moscow—as well as in Jerusalem, Berlin, and London, to come up with a multi-tiered response that would give the world the impression that Japan was behind Biden all the way, while Japan sought out a détente with China and Russia through the back door.
The problem with this response was that since other nations had been shut down, such a sophisticated play by Japan made it the only major nation with a semi-functional executive branch.
Abe’s death parallels closely that of Seoul’s mayor Park Won Sun, who went missing on July 9th, 2020, exactly two years before Abe’s assassination. Park took steps in Seoul City Hall to push back on the COVID-19 social distancing policies that were being imposed by the central government. His body was found the next day and the death was immediately ruled a suicide resulting from his distress over charges of sexual harassment by a colleague.
What to do now?
The danger of the current situation should not be underestimated. If an increasing number of Japanese come to perceive, as the journalist Tanaka Sakai suggests, that the United States destroyed their best hope for leadership, and that the globalists want Japan to make do with an unending series of weak-minded prime ministers who are dependent on Washington and other hidden players of the parasite class, such a development could bring about a complete break between Japan and the United States, leading to a political or military conflict.
It is telling that Michael Green, the top Japan hand in Washington D.C., did not write the initial tribute to Abe that was published on the homepage of CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), his home institute.
Green, veteran of the Bush National Security Council and Henry A. Kissinger Chair of the Asia Program at CSIS, is the author of Line of Advantage: Japan’s Grand Strategy in the Era of Abe Shinzo. Green was a close associate of Abe, perhaps the closest of any American.
The tribute to Abe was drafted by Christopher Johnstone (the Japan chair at CSIS and former CIA officer). The weird choice suggests that the assassination is so sensitive that Green instinctively wished to avoid writing the initial response, leaving it to a professional operative.
For responsible intellectuals and citizens in Washington, Tokyo, or elsewhere, there is only one viable response to this murky assassination: a demand for an international scientific investigation.
Painful as that process might be, it will force us to face the reality of how our governments have been taken over by invisible powers.
If we fail to identify the true players behind the scenes, however, we may be led into a conflict in which the blame is projected onto heads of state and countries are forced into conflicts so as to hide the crimes of global finance.
The loss of control of the Japanese government over the military the last time can be attributed in part to the assassinations of prime minister Inukai Tsuyoshi on May 15, 1932 and of prime minister Saito Makoto on February 26, 1936.
But for the international community, the more relevant case is how the manipulations of an integrated global economy by the Rothschild, Warburg, and other banking interests created an environment wherein the tensions produced by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary on June 28, 1914 were funneled towards world war.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (18 December 1863 – 28 June 1914)
Shinzo Abe of Japan (21 September 1954 – 8 July 2022)
This turned out to be “one of those weeks” for articles to blog about, but it also turned out to be “one of those weeks” for conversations about already-blogged-about things, in this case, about my speculations last week regarding the destruction of the Georgia Guidestones that I spoke about on last week’s News and Views from the Nefarium. I thought the two conversations, one with R.O., and the other with K.M., were worth summarizing, because they both noticed possibilities as to who might be behind it, and why, and those possibilities are – again – worth mentioning. Both, as we shall see, came to similar conclusions but for slightly different reasons, and K.M. articulated a suspicion I had personally entertained but did not voice, so I thought that “if someone else is thinking this, then let’s go with it and put it out there.”
R.O. contacted me and argued the following:
Catching up on your recent podcasts and a though popped into my head. What if the Georgia Guide Stone that has been blown up, was the one inscribed in Russian. What if instead of a bomb, it had been taken out by a Javelin missile from The Ukraine. To me, this would be a Putin chess move, Knight takes Bishop. More like wishful thinking than high octane speculation, but you have to admit, it would send quite a message.
Indeed it would send “quite a message,” whether or not the stone that was initially blown up was the one in Russian or not. And taking it out by the use of a missile, or even a drone, or even a “sleeper cell” of spetznaz would send that message, though in terms of message-sending, a drone or a missile would seem to send the clearest message. And there is an important factor to consider: such a message from that particular sender would be entirely consistent with similar messages that were sent to the plutocrats and technocrats of the globalist “west” by Mr.Putin and other Russian leaders over the past decade (and promptly and stupidly ignored by them).
The conversation with K.M. picked up where the one with R.O. left off. Here K.M. pointed out that the message would not only be consistent with other messages to Mr. Globaloney from Russia, but the message would also be quite consistent with that Roscosmos display of the satellite images of Western “decision centers” that was displayed just a few days before the destruction of the guidestones. At the time, you might recall, I argued that this was a clear message, and one that moreover was cleverly disguised. Satellite pictures of central Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, or Swampington DC are easily come by, so it was no big deal for Roscosmos to publish those. Everyone already knows that Russia has the capability to “take out” any of those cities if it wants to do so. So what was the message really being sent?
As I argued then, the message was really “We know precisely where you (the leadership class and individuals making it up) live, and we can reach you by a variety of methods any time.” In other words, it was a not-so-subtle reminder that Soros, Schwab, Gates &. Ass., L.L.C., a.k.a., Mr. Globaloney, are “on the list” as targets. As the Russian leadership has also attempted to make clear over the past few years, their quarrel is not with the average Frenchman, Dutchman, German, Briton, or American, it’s with their ruling class. Having argued this, I then reminded my listeners (and now my readers) that covert operations, like coups d’etat, proxy wars, assassinations, drone strikes, color revolutions (think the Ukraine here) and so on are games that two can play. Mr. Bidenenko upped the ante in his usual foot-in-mouth way by muttering that someone needed to take out Mr. Putin. Game on, and we should not be surprised if Mr. Putin decide to respond in kind.
And here’s where K.M.’s “guidestones scenario” comes in: what if, indeed, the Russians were somehow behind it, by whatever mechanism they chose to use, be it drones, missiles, or a human team? It would certainly be consistent with earlier messages, and more importantly, consistent with the recent Roscosmos release of satellite images. It would be consistent with the fact that, thus far, the site itself has not been treated as a crime scene, and the remaining Guidestones were quickly destroyed and the site “cleaned”. Why? Some have argued that their destruction was caused by Mr. Globaloney himself, destroying the ” mens rea evidence” of his intentions. But it would make equal sense, K.M. argued, if an international incident were covered up, given the tremendous pressure on the western “leadership”.
So that’s where we are: a crime has been committed, covered-up, and no one really knows for certain who did it, and why.
But K.M. made a final point by asking me how I felt after I heard about the news. Well, frankly, I felt both happy and as if some sort of weight had been lifted. The “Guidestones” were a summation of the doctrine and thinking of Mr. Globaloney in all his Malthusian, genocidal “glory”. The destruction of such a symbol can only be – contrary to those arguing that it was a deeply convoluted act of magic by Mr. Gloaloney himself – a kind of “reverse” magic: the removal of a baphometic symbol whose stated intentions were clear, and whose stated intentions were destructed, removed, and utterly scrubbed from the Earth.
The prominent Covid-vaccine sceptic has taken two doses of the Moderna vaccine. And that’s just one of many inconsistencies between his words to the Covid-sceptic crowd and his actions.
This is a guest post by Miriam Walton and Alan Goater in Derbyshire, U.K. Over the last year they’ve been closely following interviews and articles by and about Robert Malone. And that’s left them with more questions than answers.
I also have raised questions about Malone: see my Oct. 24, 2021, article titled, ‘The Vanden Bossche Caper Continues.’ In it, I focus on a high-profile interview of Malone and Vanden Bossche, in which Malone boosts and extends Vanden Bossche’s disinformation and fear-mongering. (I first exposed Vanden Bossche’s deliberate disinformation in my March 2021 article, ‘The Curious Case of Geert Vanden Bossche.’)
Below is Walton and Goater’s email to Malone in February 2022 with questions about information in the public domain about Malone. (I’ve added hyperlinks to the source material, photos from that source material and, in square brackets, some clarification/comments.)
Malone still hasn’t responded to the U.K. couple’s questions.
Dear Dr. Malone,
From the Pennine foothills of the UK we have followed with interest your public and media appearances in connection with your opposition to current US (and global) public health policies, in particular the controversies which have arisen concerning possible misinterpretations of your position. We have it in mind to write (and possibly publish) about these issues and would be very grateful for some clarifications from you in the interests of fairness and accuracy to all parties. Please find our questions below.
We appreciate that you must be exceedingly busy at this time but would hope that you could respond within, say, 7 days.
Best wishes,
Miriam Walton and Alan Goater
1. You are on record as saying that you had two doses of the Moderna Covid vaccine some months after being infected with the disease because a) you had heard rumours that your long-haul symptoms might be helped by the vaccine and b) you wanted (needed?) to travel abroad.
Questions:
Has any vaccine ever been successfully deployed to mitigate current patient symptoms of anything?
What, in all your training and experience as a physician and scientist, informed your decision to take an experimental injection (twice) on the basis of a rumour and a desire to travel?
Is a desire to travel a good reason for participation as a subject in a medical experiment?
Why were high-quality photographs taken of you on both occasions of vaccination?
2. There exists online footage of professor Mattias Desmet asking you not to use the word ‘psychosis’ in connection with his theory of mass formation. [‘online footage’ refers to this interview of Malone and Desmet on Tommy’s Podcast; in it, Malone starts speaking at 4:33 and at 15:25 Desmet finally gets a chance to correct Malone by saying his theory is termed mass formation, not mass psychosis.]
You said, on the same occasion, that you had come to “sit at the feet of the master” (Desmet) and to learn from him.
However, you have been speaking and writing about ‘mass formation psychosis’ since then, including on your own Substack (i.e., your reformulation of Desmet’s mass formation with reference to Dr. Mark McDonald’s work on ‘mass delusional psychosis’ – a different phenomenon).
Questions:
Can you provide the rationale for ignoring the express wishes of ‘the master’?
Have you said or done anything to remedy the debunkingof professor Desmet’s theory of mass formation because of its unauthorised association with ‘Psychosis’? [i.e., has Malone admitted – and attempted to rectify the effects of – his changing of Desmet’s theory to supposedly be about ‘mass psychosis’ that in turn caused Desmet and his theory to be pumeled by baseless attacks/’debunking’?]
3. You are on record as identifying both Michael Callahan and Daryl Galloway as CIA agents. [For example starting at 1:00:07 in this video interview of Malone in which he talks about outing Callahan.]
Questions:
Was that information [i.e., about Callahan and Galloway being CIA agents] available to you as a result of your own security clearance status?
Do you expect an investigation into these revelations under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982? [This Act “amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish criminal penalties for any person who knowingly discloses information which identifies a U.S. covert intelligence agent.”]
4. [Background to this point: 1. Malone being activelyinvolved currently or in the recent past in the development of a Covid jab called RelCoVax made by India-based Reliance Life Sciences; and 2. a Substack article by a member of an organization called ‘Health Freedom for Humanity;’ the article apparently points out that Malone in his Dec. 2021 interview by Joe Rogan didn’t mention this vaxx or his involvement with it, and also posed other questions such as whether there is graphene oxide in the vaxx. (We couldn’t find the article online; the information about the article in the question below comes from Malone’s Jan. 26, 2022, Substack post about it.)]
Screenshot of the beginning of this video Malone’s presentation about the vaxx at the Vaccines Summit 2021
In your recent robust dismissal of criticism from the ‘Health Freedom for Humanity’ organisation you answered in respect of Statement #2 – “it [RelCovax] allegedly has Darpa (graphene oxide) Hydrogel in it” in the following terms:
“Hydrogel, and other alum-based adjuvants, are among the best characterized of the traditional adjuvants. DARPA had nothing to do with developing Alum or Alhydrogel adjuvants. Alhydrogel has nothing to do with Graphene Oxide. This “Relcovax” vaccine product using Alum + CpG for its adjuvant system. The vaccine candidate is designed to be a very low cost, traditional alternative to the genetic vaccines, and employs much more traditional methods than, say, the Novavax product.” [Bolding in the original.]
Screenshot of the part of Malone’s Substack article with this information
Question:
Does/will the ‘RelCovax’ product contain ‘Darpa Hydrogel’ or graphene oxide in any form?
5. During your Lincoln Memorial speech on January 22, 2022, you said “Now we have Omicron. These vaccines were designed for the Original Wuhan strain, a different virus.” [At 4:35 in this video of Malone’s speech]
Question:
On what basis do you assert that ‘Omicron’ and ‘the Original Wuhan strain’ are two different viruses?
6. During that same [Jan. 22, 2022] speech you asserted twice, in support of your not wanting to see them used on children, that the genetic vaccines are not ‘completely safe,’ [At 4:19 and 5:37 in this video of Malone’s speech (the same video cited in point 5 above).]
Question:
In view of the universal awareness among health professionals that no medication is ‘completely safe,’ why do you single out these genetic vaccines for censure?
7. On 12 February 2020 you and your wife’s book, ‘The Novel Coronavirus‘ was published. The synopsis refers to the ‘coming epidemic’. [It appears to now be impossible to find a copy of the book. Therefore the hyperlink and mention is to a synopsis.]
Screenshot of the synopsis of The Novel Coronavirus
Questions:
How reliant were you, in the absence of real-world data at that time, on modelling, planning and/or role-play exercises like the ‘DOMANE‘ project [see also information about Malone’s involvement in DOMANE in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of this April 2020 Science article] and ‘Event 201‘ for material and information for the book?
If you did not rely on such exercises how, otherwise, were you able to confidently predict the eventuality and write about likely countermeasures?
[Miriam and Alan wish they’d also asked Malone how he and his wife knew in advance that the World Health Organization would name the virus ‘COVID-19.’ See for example this abstract of the book posted on researchgate.net – it shows the table of contents, with the second chapter titled, ‘Epidemiology of COVID-19’ and the second-last titled, ‘Clinical Characteristics and Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19.’]
8. You are on record advocating for continuing/increasing testing for SARS-COV-2 and for these to be self-administered. [Malone does this in many places – as just one example, at 1:13:35 in this interview.]
Question:
To your knowledge, have the medical risks associated with the test equipment itself and its unsupervised use by untrained people ever been assessed?
9. You have advocated ‘active surveillance’ and ‘tracing’ as appropriate countermeasures to Covid-19 (along with self-testing).
Question:
In your view is the imposition of the infrastructure of population surveillance really an appropriate step for a government of a democratic country to take, ever?
10. You are on record advocating the use of the vaccines on the elderly/vulnerable. [See for example this interview (the same article is cited in point 9 above).] You are also (famously!) on record deploring their use on children because of the known, and unknown, dangers. [He has done so many times, such as in this video of his Jan. 22, 2022, Lincoln Memorial speech (which was also linked to in points 5 and 6 above).]
Question:
How can anyone provide informed consent to a medical intervention that carries unknown dangers? Why, in your view, should the elderly/vulnerable populations, in particular, be exposed to these dangers?
11. All expert opinion at the outset of the public-health emergency agreed that respiratory-disease pandemics, epidemics and outbreaks end in 18-24 months. [See for example the CDC web page titled ‘Past Pandemiccs’ and note that none of the highlighted outbreaks lasted longer than two years.]
Question:
Why, in your opinion, did so many pharmaceutical companies (including Reliance Life Sciences!) at that time invest in the development of medications, particularly vaccines, that were not expected to be available until after the expected pandemic end date?
12. Your knowledge, credentials and experience are second to none in the field of public health. Your reputation is well established in the US and internationally.
Question:
Can you see yourself in a leadership role at, say, the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] in the future?
For weeks now, farmers in the Netherlands have been engaging in fierce protests over their government’s plan to halve the country’s nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. It is estimated that this plan—which will mandate emissions cuts of 95% in some provinces—will require a 30% reduction in livestock and will drive many of the nation’s farmers out of business.
The protests have been remarkably heated, as tens of thousands take to the streets to block the country’s highways, torch bales of hay and spread manure around politicians’ homes. In one incident, Dutch police actually fired live rounds on one of the protesters as he attempted to breach the police line with his tractor.
Yes, the scenes coming out of the usually quiet Dutch countryside are shocking. But they should not be. They are just the early stages of a great worldwide battle that is shaping up between the free people of the world and the technocrats, who are starting to clamp down on them in the name of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Enslavement.
Make no mistake: Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you do, these power-hungry elitists will be coming after your livelihood next. We are all Dutch farmers now.
This is the story of how we got here, where we’re going and what it means.
THE BATTLE HAS BEGUN
Remember the Yellow Vest movement? Remember how a populist movement rose up in France in 2018, with citizens donning the gilets jaunes that drivers are required by French law to have in their car and to wear during emergency situations? Remember how they hit the streets, week after week after week in an escalating series of protests that threatened to topple the Macron government? Of course you do.
Now, do you remember why that movement started? Probably not, because the answer doesn’t fit into the MSM propaganda narrative very easily. Carbon taxes. The original protests were about carbon taxes.
Specifically, France’s Ministry for the Ecological Transition (which is apparently a thing that exists) decided in its infinite wisdom that the “ecology tax” on gas and diesel (which, it must also be noted, is a thing that exists) was too low, so they raised it. This sparked anger among the general public, who were already suffering from rising gas prices. And, just like that, a new nationwide (and, eventually, worldwide) protest movement was born.
But perhaps that’s the point. As the mask comes off of the green agenda and people start to see it for what it is—an attack on the lives and livelihoods of the average working-class citizens—more and more people will be drawn into this fight, whether they understand the true nature of that struggle or not.
As I’ve documented before, this great struggle between the unwashed masses and their would-be neofeudal overlords was coming to a head in late 2019 . . . but that great confrontation was averted by the scamdemic. Suddenly, millions of people who would have been out on the streets protesting the latest carbon taxes and green craziness were now locked in their homes by their governments—many of them willingly. But now that the television isn’t telling people to lock themselves in their home out of mortal fear of the corona cooties (unless you live in China), the temporary ceasefire has ended. The next shots in this war are being fired by farmers in the Netherlands.
The battle isn’t just being waged in the Netherlands, of course. In 2020, Canada committed to a similar scheme of nitrogen reduction, vowing to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% by 2030. And we already know how the Canadian government will react to the inevitable farmer protests in Canada. Just look at what they did to the truckers.
Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it. We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we? Put it this way—if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?
There can be no doubt at this point: with their carbon taxes and restrictions on farming, the would-be world controllers are deliberately crashing the world economy. The flames of protest are merely the perfectly predictable result of this controlled demolition.
And as bad as all that is, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. . . .
WHERE WE’RE GOING
There’s a strange thing about this clash between the elitists and the working class: the former, being psychopathic swindlers, don’t even hide the fact that they are positively gleeful at the prospect of reducing the average worker to abject serfdom.
Witness Ontario Liberal candidate Granville Anderson’s recent assertion that rising gas prices actually provide a “silver lining”: fewer of the minions will be able to afford to drive, forcing them to “find other modes of transportation.” (In other words: “Let them eat electric cars!”)
Or witness the World Economic Forum (along with numerous other globalist entities) declaring that lockdowns were “quietly improving cities” by keeping people from engaging in their normal day-to-day activities. The blindingly obvious reality to the average working stiff is that the lockdowns were a weapon targeted against them, preventing them from earning a living; contributing to growing poverty, social isolation and depression; and driving many to substance abuse or, in some cases, suicide.
Again, it is important to remember that neither these attacks on the middle class and working poor nor the angry response they generate are the result of incompetence or lack of awareness on the part of the agenda-setters. No, it’s part of the plan.
Remember “Absolute Zero”? That’s the title of a report by UK FIRES—”a collaboration between the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Nottingham, Bath and Imperial College London”—that is “aiming to reveal and stimulate industrial growth in the UK compatible with a rapid transition to zero emissions.” As you’ll recall from my report on the subject, their plan envisions the elimination of air travel, cargo shipping, construction and basically all other productive human activity by the year 2050 in the name of this anti-human “green” agenda.
We need to be clear about something here: this is no idle threat. If the eugenicists pulling the strings of global affairs get their way, they will release their attack dogs—the bought-and-paid-for minions in the UN bureaucracy and the WEF and the political mis-leaders in virtually every country—to fulfill this agenda.
That agenda involves shutting down the productive economy (in the name of saving Mother Earth) and reducing the global population in the process. That the population would eventually fight back against this economic assault is no surprise; hence the creation of the homeland security state and the biosecurity state over the course of the past two decades. We are now at the point where any protest can be deemed “insurrection” by “domestic terrorists” and can justify all manner of punishment, including locking people out of the financial system altogether.
The pressure is increasing. The dragnet has been set. The fight is about to begin in earnest. . . . So what happens next?
WHAT IT MEANS
Whether we know it or not, we are at war. And, whether we know it or not, that war is a battle between the overwhelming majority of the human population and the few at the top who seek to control (and simultaneously reduce) that population. The battle lines may not always be so clear—there are many unwitting dupes who act to shore up the systems of technocratic control without knowing what they are doing. And there are those who still believe in the core lies of the globalists—the climate change hoax, for example—and thereby unknowingly play into their 2030 Agenda.
But as the wheels start to fall off the global financial system and the economic freight train begins to derail, more and more of us are waking up to the fundamental truth: this is a war for our livelihood. This is a war for the right to live our lives as we wish, free from the interference of these self-appointed rulers who dare tell us what we can eat and where we can travel and whether we can farm. This is a war for our independence from the parasitic would-be rulers who are attempting to shut down the economy and usher us into an age of neofeudalism.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Also as relevant to our struggle today as it was to those fighting in the American Revolution is an important observation about all such conflict: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
It is self-evidently true that the ruling class has invested a good deal of its time and devoted much of its considerable resources to atomizing society. These psychopaths and their patsies have focused attention on every possible fault line—class, race, gender, religious creed, political allegiance and any other distinction you can think of—as part of a conscious strategy to keep the masses at each other’s throats and to stop them from rising up against their real enemy: the globalists themselves. There’s also no denying that these would-be world controllers have been remarkably successful at this divide-and-rule strategy.
The obvious implication is that the thing the globalists fear most is a mass of common folk banding together in opposition to the deeply unpopular nonsense uttered by their so-called leaders. That’s why the establishment’s lapdogs in the mainstream press and in academia now spend so much time and energy decrying the “populism” of the current era. In case you haven’t figured it out by now, all of the platitudes that politicians spout about “freedom” and “democracy” are just that: platitudes to persuade people to rally around their political agenda. When people reject that agenda, those same politicians are quick to discard the words “freedom” and democracy,” recasting them as “crass populism” and “mob rule.”
Yes, it is time to throw away the stupid, artificial left/right split and other wedges that have kept us divided and ruled over for so long. The idea that groups who don’t see eye-to-eye can unite on the existential threat they are facing isn’t all pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking. In France, for example, the populist right and the populist left recently joined forces to defeat the country’s COVID travel passport.
It can be done. It must be. There is no alternative. We must start building a mass movement against the 2030 Agenda before the noose tightens around our necks and we find ourselves in the clutches of this technocratic system of control. Whether or not it affects us yet, we have to understand that it will be unleashed upon us if we don’t stand up en masse now.
Luckily for us, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Across Europe, people are rising up in solidarity with the Dutch farmers. German farmers are helping Dutch farmers blockade the German-Dutch border. Italian farmers are staging demonstrations under the rallying cry, “We are not slaves, we are farmers!” Polish farmers are resisting in Warsaw. Even the Canadians are getting in on the act, carrying “I stand with Dutch farmers” signs at their own freedom rallies.
And, just this week, a new video has emerged calling for worldwide protests in support of the Dutch farmers. Sporting the tagline “The World is Going Dutch,” the video likens the current resistance movement to nonviolent resistance movements of the twentieth century and calls on people around the world to stand in solidarity with farmers in the Netherlands in a worldwide day of protest on July 23rd.
A great awakening is happening. The barriers between people are coming down as the realization dawns that this is a global agenda and the injustices we see being inflicted on those halfway around the world will be coming for us soon enough. Many are now realizing a line has been drawn and the time to stand up has arrived.
We are all Dutch farmers now.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
Joining me today is Derrick Broze, here to discuss his ongoing investigation into the Utah County Sheriff’s Office allegations of ‘Ritualistic Child Sex Abuse’, as well as the history of these types of cases in Utah and the Mormon Church specifically.
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
TCTL editor’s note:
Brief excerpt from the interview:
Dr. David Rasnick:
The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…
Jerm (Jeremy Nell):
Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?
David:
Yeah. Pretty close to zero.
Jerm:
Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.
David:
Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,
The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.
Jerm:
And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?
David:
Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…
David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.
Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.
Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.
David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.
Comedian Jim Breuer: Jim’s Got a Heavy Message — “Get Your Life Out of the World That Is Trying to Drag You Into an Emotional, Demonic, Evil Distress.”
“Get your emotions, get your life out of the world that is trying to drag you into an emotional, demonic, evil distress.”
#
“Start looking at the beauty right in front of you with yourself, with yourself.”
#
“I don’t have politics. I don’t have politics. That’s the world trying to divide and conquer and take your faith away.”
#
“We’re all obsessed. Deep, life issues right now. Abortion. Everyone’s running out there going nutso from a SLOGAN. Everything’s a sales pitch. It’s a slogan to control your emotions, to control your life, to control your actions.”
#
“‘My body, my choice. My body, my choice.’ Stop it. You’re being controlled. You’re being manipulated. Your spirit, your soul, the beauty inside you is being sucked out…
Stop it. Your life is right in front of you. Right in front of you. Everyone has their own journey.”
#
“We’re getting sucked into nonsense. There’s such a deeper part of life…But if you don’t allow it — like a radio station — if you don’t want to listen to the station, you’re never going to know it. And you’ve got no right to say ‘it doesn’t exist, that’s stupid’.”
#
“Please, go out, enjoy life. Please, every time you feel the need to get sucked into a subject that’s just a slogan to debate and argue over — I have deep friends that are saying they want to be identified as a who or a what, a noun. Do you understand the attack on your mentality when you don’t know what you are anymore?
This really has to do with, in my opinion, deeper spirituality, God, the Lord, however you want to put it. I hope you find it. I hope you tap into it. It will help you spread light to so many others, so many others, so many others.”
As the establishment and mainstream mass formation spell finally begins to wear off, more artists and entertainers are stepping up to call out the ridiculousness of the pandemic and vaccine hysteria of the last 2 and a half years.
Comedian Jim Breuer lets loose in his one-man show entitled, ‘Somebody Had to Say It.’
One story that fascinated me during the past week was this story of Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, releasing satellite imagery of western “decision centers” during the G7 conference and the NATO summit in Madrid, attended by western “leaders” such as Boris Johnson, and alleged US President “Biden”. It was a clear message, but exactly what was that message? I believe that to decode it, one has to look at the images themselves:
The article, you’ll note, contains seven large images, and in order from top to bottom, they are:
(1) Madrid, the site of the NATO meeting;
(2) Washington, DC, with various landmarks including the White House, Supreme Court, US Capitol, and Washington monuments clearly visible;
(3) Another view of Washington DC, of the Pentagon including the “ground zero” garden and park in the center of the structure clearly visible;
(4) London, with a view of Westminster and the now-famous giant ferris wheel;
(5) Central Paris along the Champs Elysee with all the associated famous landmarks;
(6) Brussels, with the EU headquarters clearly shown, and finally,
(7) Berlin, with the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate clearly visible in the center-right, and lower-center right.
Now as reading the many comments accompanying the “article” demonstrate, similar images can be pulled up from Google. Indeed, one might have difficulty figuring out if Google was the source of the Roscosmos images, or for that matter, if Roscosmos was not the source of many Google earth images, including of these cities.
As one commenter put it, “what’s the big deal” with Roscosmos publishing such images anyway? Anyone can find them after all.
Most internet commentary on the strangeness of Roscosmos doing so are focussed – rightly – on the timing of the release to coincide with the G7 and NATO meetings, and thus on the idea that Roscosmos is sending a message.
With all of this I concur… Roscosmos was indeed sending a message.
But exactly what was the message? We can nuke your capital cities?
If so, then the message wasn’t very new… Russia has always been capable of nuking the west’s capital cities and vice versa. There’s absolutely nothing new there, and no real reason Russia needs to remind everyone else…
… unless, of course, that was not the message at all, and with that, we get to today’s high octane speculation. Recently Mr. Putin also gave an extensive speech during the St. Petersburg economic forum, during the same time frame as the Roscosmos “satellite image release.” (See St Petersburg International Economic Forum Plenary session) Mr. Putin’s remarks were full of references to the anti-globalist and multi-polar agenda he has maintained in speeches over the past few years, such as the following:
However, the ruling elite of some Western states seem to be harbouring this kind of illusions. They refuse to notice obvious things, stubbornly clinging to the shadows of the past. For example, they seem to believe that the dominance of the West in global politics and the economy is an unchanging, eternal value. Nothing lasts forever.
Our colleagues are not just denying reality. More than that; they are trying to reverse the course of history. They seem to think in terms of the past century. They are still influenced by their own misconceptions about countries outside the so-called “golden billion”: they consider everything a backwater, or their backyard. They still treat them like colonies, and the people living there, like second-class people, because they consider themselves exceptional. If they are exceptional, that means everyone else is second rate.
Thereby, the irrepressible urge to punish, to economically crush anyone who does not fit with the mainstream, does not want to blindly obey. Moreover, they crudely and shamelessly impose their ethics, their views on culture and ideas about history, sometimes questioning the sovereignty and integrity of states, and threatening their very existence. Suffice it to recall what happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Iraq.
Mr. Putin also alleges that the European Union has lost sovereignty and is dancing to “someone else’s” tune, while not defining who that someone else may be:
The attempts to keep up appearances and the talk about allegedly acceptable costs in the name of pseudo-unity cannot hide the main thing: the European Union has lost its political sovereignty, and its bureaucratic elites are dancing to someone else’s tune, doing everything they are told from on high and hurting their own people, economies, and businesses.
Much of the rest of Mr. Putin’s speech consists of criticisms of American and European policy toward Russia, and pointing out the stupidity of those policies, and Russia’s own strides toward making its own economy more efficient, and expanding technological businesses, and of course, outlining its military operations in the Ukraine.
So again, assuming the Roscosmos satellite image release and the speech to be “message sending,” what, if anything, is the message one is supposed to gain from looking at the images, and considering President Putin’s remarks, beyond the obvious message that Mr. Putin is not the blithering idiot that alleged President Biden is.
There is a rumor that during Mr. Putin’s remarks, he allegedly made reference to more “red lines” that the West should not cross, but he did not spell these out, but made it very clear that to cross them would be to imperil the western leadership. The rumor has it that these remarks were omitted from the translation of the speech.
But even without them, that message I believe is painfully obvious and simple: we have exact data on all your hideaways and retreats; we know where you live, and what your personal security consists of. We do not need to nuke your cities… there are other ways of dealing with you, and we have them, and are perfectly willing to “go there.” After all, wet operations are a specialty of ours.
Mr. Putin, in other words, as his remarks make clear, directed his criticism of the West not against the average Spaniard, German, Frenchman, American, or Briton, but against its leadership and their places of “decision”, which need not be the capital cities… but anywhere that the “leadership” hides out and “decides” things.
IN short, as I’ve warned many times, “two can play the covert ops game,” and the West and USSA have been caught red-handed trying to play it in the Ukraine; think only of the biolabs. Now, I suspect, we can prepare for the favour to be returned, but in such as way as to target not the people of the west, but its leadership.
If I am correct, this is about to get very interesting…
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”
We are living in a world where the degree of disinformation and outright lying has reached such a state of affairs that, possibly for the first time ever, we see the majority of the western world starting to question their own and surrounding level of sanity. The increasing frenzied distrust in everything “authoritative” mixed with the desperate incredulity that “everybody couldn’t possibly be in on it!” is slowly rocking many back and forth into a tighter and tighter straight jacket. “Question everything” has become the new motto, but are we capable of answering those questions?
Presently the answer is a resounding no.
The social behaviourist sick joke of having made everyone obsessed with toilet paper of all things during the start of what was believed to be a time of crisis, is an example of how much control they have over that red button labelled “commence initiation of level 4 mass panic”.
And can the people be blamed? After all, if we are being lied to, how can we possibly rally together and point the finger at the root of this tyranny, aren’t we at the point where it is everywhere?
As Goebbels infamously stated,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State [under fascism].”
And here we find ourselves today, at the brink of fascism. However, we have to first agree to forfeit our civil rights as a collective before fascism can completely dominate. That is, the big lie can only succeed if the majority fails to call it out, for if the majority were to recognise it for what it is, it would truly hold no power.
The Battle for Your Mind
“Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man’s belief…The problem of the doctor and his nervously ill patient, and that of the religious leader who sets out to gain and hold new converts, has now become the problem of whole groups of nations, who wish not only to confirm certain political beliefs within their boundaries, but to proselytize the outside world.”
– William Sargant “Battle of the Mind”
It had been commonly thought in the past, and not without basis, that tyranny could only exist on the condition that the people were kept illiterate and ignorant of their oppression. To recognise that one was “oppressed” meant they must first have an idea of what was “freedom”, and if one were allowed the “privilege” to learn how to read, this discovery was inevitable.
If education of the masses could turn the majority of a population literate, it was thought that the higher ideas, the sort of “dangerous ideas” that Mustapha Mond for instance expresses in “The Brave New World”, would quickly organise the masses and revolution against their “controllers” would be inevitable. In other words, knowledge is freedom, and you cannot enslave those who learn how to “think”.
However, it hasn’t exactly played out that way has it?
The greater majority of us are free to read whatever we wish to, in terms of the once “forbidden books”, such as those listed by The Index Librorum Prohibitorum[1]. We can read any of the writings that were banned in “The Brave New World”, notably the works of Shakespeare which were named as absolutely dangerous forms of “knowledge”.
We are now very much free to “educate” ourselves on the very “ideas” that were recognised by tyrants of the past as the “antidote” to a life of slavery. And yet, today, the majority choose not to…
It is recognised, albeit superficially, that who controls the past, controls the present and thereby the future. George Orwell’s book “1984”, hammers this as the essential feature that allows the Big Brother apparatus to maintain absolute control over fear, perception and loyalty to the Party cause, and yet despite its popularity, there still remains a lack of interest in actually informing oneself about the past.
What does it matter anyway, if the past is controlled and rewritten to suit the present? As the Big Brother interrogator O’Brien states to Winston, “We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not? [And thus, are free to rewrite it as we choose…]”
Of course, we are not in the same situation as Winston…we are much better off. We can study and learn about the “past” if we so desire, unfortunately, it is a choice that many take for granted.
In fact, many are probably not fully aware that presently there is a battle waging for who will “control the past” in a manner that is closely resembling a form of “memory wipe”.
***
William Sargant was a British psychiatrist and, one could say, effectively the Father of “mind control” in the West, with connections to British Intelligence and the Tavistock Institute, which would influence the CIA and American military via the program MK Ultra. Sargant was also an advisor for Ewen Cameron’s LSD “blank slate” work at McGill University, funded by the CIA.
Sargant accounts for his reason in studying and using forms of “mind control” on his patients, which were primarily British soldiers that were sent back from the battlefield during WWII with various forms of “psychosis”, as the only way to rehabilitate extreme forms of PTSD.
The other reason, was because the Soviets had apparently become “experts” in the field, and out of a need for national security, the British would thus in turn have to become experts as well…as a matter of self-defence of course.
The work of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, had succeeded in producing some disturbingly interesting insights into four primary forms of nervous systems in dogs, that were combinations of inhibitory and excitatory temperaments; “strong excitatory”, “balanced”, “passive” and “calm imperturbable”. Pavlov found that depending on the category of nervous system temperament the dog had, this in turn would dictate the form of “conditioning” that would work best to “reprogram behaviour”. The relevance to “human conditioning” was not lost on anyone.
It was feared in the West, that such techniques would not only be used against their soldiers to invoke free-flowing uninhibited confessions to the enemy but that these soldiers could be sent back to their home countries, as zombified assassins and spies that could be set off with a simple code word. At least, these were the thriller stories and movies that were pumped into the population. How horrific indeed! That the enemy could apparently enter what was thought the only sacred ground to be our own…our very “minds”!
However, for those who were actually leading the field in mind control research, such as William Sargant, it was understood that this was not exactly how mind control worked.
For one thing, the issue of “free will” was getting in the way.
No matter the length or degree of electro-shock, insulin “therapy”, tranquilizer cocktails, induced comas, sleep deprivation, starvation etc induced, it was discovered that if the subject had a “strong conviction” and “strong belief” in something, this could not be simply erased, it could not be written over with any arbitrary thing. Rather, the subject would have to have the illusion that their “conditioning” was in fact a “choice”. This was an extremely challenging task, and long term conversions (months to years) were rare.
However, Sargant saw an opening. It was understood that one could not create a new individual from scratch, however, with the right conditioning that was meant to lead to a physical breakdown using abnormal stress (effectively a reboot of the nervous system), one could increase the “suggestibility” markedly in their subjects.
Sargant wrote in his “Battle of the Mind”: “Pavlov’s clinical descriptions of the ‘experimental neuroses’ which he could induce in dogs proved, in fact, to have a close correspondence with those war-neuroses which we were investigating at the time.”
In addition, Sargant found that a falsely implanted memory could help induce abnormal stress leading to emotional exhaustion and physical breakdown to invoke “suggestibility”. That is, one didn’t even need to have a “real stress” but an “imagined stress” would work just as effectively.
Sargant goes on to state in his book:
“It is not surprising that the ordinary person, in general, is much more easily indoctrinated than the abnormal…A person is considered ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ by the community simply because he accepts most of its social standards and behavioural patterns; which means, in fact, that he is susceptible to suggestion and has been persuaded to go with the majority on most ordinary or extraordinary occasions.”
Sargant then goes over the phenomenon of the London Blitz, which was an eight month period of heavy bombing of London during WWII. During this period, in order to cope and stay “sane”, people rapidly became accustomed to the idea that their neighbours could be and were buried alive in bombed houses around them. The thought was “If I can’t do anything about it what use is it that I trouble myself over it?” The best “coping” was thus found to be those who accepted the new “environment” and just focused on “surviving”, and did not try to resist it.
Sargant remarks that it is this “adaptability” to a changing environment which is part of the “survival” instinct and is very strong in the “healthy” and “normal” individual who can learn to cope and thus continues to be “functional” despite an ever changing environment.
It was thus our deeply programmed “survival instinct” that was found to be the key to the suggestibility of our minds. That the best “survivors” made for the best “brain-washing” in a sense.
Sargant quotes Hecker’s work, who was studying the dancing mania phenomenon that occurred during the Black Death, where Hecker observed that heightened suggestibility had the capability to cause a person to “embrace with equal force, reason and folly, good and evil, diminish the praise of virtue as well as the criminality of vice.”
And that such a state of mind was likened to the first efforts of the infant mind “this instinct of imitation when it exists in its highest degree, is also united a loss of all power over the will, which occurs as soon as the impression on the senses has become firmly established, producing a condition like that of small animals when they are fascinated by the look of a serpent.”
I wonder if Sargant imagined himself the serpent…
Sargant does finally admit:
“This does not mean that all persons can be genuinely indoctrinated by such means. Some will give only temporary submission to the demands made on them, and fight again when strength of body and mind returns. Others are saved by the supervention of madness. Or the will to resist may give way, but not the intellect itself.”
But he comforts himself as a response to this stubborn resistance that “As mentioned in a previous context, the stake, the gallows, the firing squad, the prison, or the madhouse, are usually available for the failures.”
How to Resist the Deconstruction of Your Mind
“He whom the gods wish to destroy, they first of all drive mad.”
– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow “The Masque of Pandora”
For those who have not seen the 1944 psychological thriller “Gaslight” directed by George Cukor, I would highly recommend you do so since there is an invaluable lesson contained within, that is especially applicable to what I suspect many of us are experiencing nowadays.
The story starts with a 14 year old Paula (played by Ingrid Bergman) who is being taken to Italy after her Aunt Alice Alquist, a famous opera singer and caretaker of Paula, is found murdered in her home in London. Paula is the one who found the body, and horror stricken is never her old self again. Her Aunt was the only family Paula had left in her life. The decision is made to send her away from London to Italy to continue her studies to become a world-renowned opera singer like her Aunt Alice.
Years go by, Paula lives a very sheltered life and a heavy somberness is always present within her, she can never seem to feel any kind of happiness. During her singing studies she meets a mysterious man (her piano accompanist during her lessons) and falls deeply in love with him. However, she knows hardly anything about the man named Gregory.
Paula agrees to marry Gregory after a two week romance and is quickly convinced to move back into her Aunt’s house in London that was left abandoned all these years. As soon as she enters the house, the haunting of the night of the murder revisits her and she is consumed with panic and fear. Gregory tries to calm her and talks about the house needing just a little bit of air and sun, and then Paula comes across a letter written to her Aunt from a Sergis Bauer which confirms that he was in contact with Alice just a few days before her murder. At this finding, Gregory becomes bizarrely agitated and grabs the letter from Paula. He quickly tries to justify his anger blaming the letter for upsetting her. Gregory then decides to lock all of her Aunt’s belongings in the attic, to apparently spare Paula any further anguish.
It is at this point that Gregory starts to change his behaviour dramatically. Always under the pretext for “Paula’s sake”, everything that is considered “upsetting” to Paula must be removed from her presence. And thus quickly the house is turned into a form of prison. Paula is told it is for her best not to leave the house unaccompanied, not to have visitors and that self-isolation is the best remedy for her “anxieties” which are getting worst. Paula is never strictly forbidden at the beginning but rather is told that she should obey these restrictions for her own good.
Before a walk, he gives as a gift a beautiful heirloom brooch that belonged to his mother. Because the pin needs replacing, he instructs Paula to keep it in her handbag, and then says rather out of context, “Don’t forget where you put it now Paula, I don’t want you losing it.” Paula remarks thinking the warning absurd, “Of course I won’t forget!” When they return from their walk, Gregory asks for the brooch, Paula searches in her handbag but it is not there.
It continues on like this, with Gregory giving warnings and reminders, seemingly to help Paula with her “forgetfulness” and “anxieties”. Paula starts to question her own judgement and sanity as these events become more and more frequent. She has no one else to talk to but Gregory, who is the only witness to these apparent mishaps. It gets to a point where completely nonsensical behaviour is being attributed to Paula by Gregory. A painting is found missing on the wall one night. Gregory talks to Paula like she is a 5 year child and asks her to put it back. Paula insists she does not know who took it down. After her persistent passionate insistence that it was not her, she walks up the stairs almost like she were in a dream state and pulls the painting from behind a statue. Gregory asks why she lied, but Paula insists that she only thought to look there because that is where it was found the last two times this occurred.
For weeks now, Paula thinks she has been seeing things, the gas lights of the house dimming for no reason, she also hears footsteps above her bedroom. No one else seems to take notice. Paula is also told by Gregory that he found out that her mother, who passed away when she was very young, had actually gone insane and died in an asylum.
Despite Paula being reduced to a condition of an ongoing stupor, she decides one night to make a stand and regain control over her life. Paula is invited, by one of her Aunt Alice’s close friends Lady Dalroy, to attend a high society evening with musical performances. Recall that Paula’s life gravitated around music before her encounter with Gregory. Music was her life. Paula gets magnificently dressed up for the evening and on her way out tells Gregory that she is going to this event. Gregory tries to convince her that she is not well enough to attend such a social gathering, when Paula calmly insists that she is going and that this woman was a dear friend of her Aunt, Gregory answers that he refuses to accompany her (in those days that was a big deal). Paula accepts this and walks with a solid dignity, undeterred towards the horse carriage. In a very telling scene, Gregory is left momentarily by himself and panic stricken, his eyes bulging he snaps his cigar case shut and runs after Paula. He laughingly calls to her, “Paula, you did not think I was serious? I had no idea that this party meant so much to you. Wait, I will get ready.” As he is getting ready in front of the mirror, a devilish smirk appears.
Paula and Gregory show up to Lady Dalroy’s house late, the pianist is in the middle of the 1st movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata #8 in C minor. They quickly are escorted to two empty seats. Paula is immediately immersed in the piece, and Gregory can see his control is slipping. After only a few minutes, he goes to look at his pocket watch but it is not in his pocket. He whispers into Paula’s ear, “My watch is missing”. Immediately, Paula looks like she is going to be sick. Gregory takes her handbag and Paula looks in horror as he pulls out his pocket watch, insinuating that Paula had put it there. She immediately starts losing control and has a very public emotional breakdown. Gregory takes her away, as he remarks to Lady Dalroy that this is why he didn’t want Paula coming in the first place.
When they arrive home, Paula has by now completely succumbed to the thought that she is indeed completely insane. Gregory says that it would be best if they go away somewhere for an indefinite period of time. We later find out that Gregory is intending on committing her to an asylum. Paula agrees to leave London with Gregory and leaves her fate entirely in his hands.
In the case of Paula it is clear. She has been suspecting that Gregory has something to do with her “situation” but he has very artfully created an environment where Paula herself doubts whether this is a matter of unfathomable villainy or whether she is indeed going mad.
It is rather because she is not mad that she doubts herself, because there is seemingly no reason for why Gregory would put so much time and energy into making it look like she were mad, or at least so it first appears. But what if the purpose to her believing in her madness was simply a matter of who is in control?
Paula almost succeeds in gaining the upper-hand in this power-struggle, the evening she decided to go out on her own no matter what Gregory insisted was in her best interest. If she would have held her ground at Lady Dalroy’s house and simply replied, “I have no idea why your stupid watch ended up in my handbag and I could care less. Now stop interrupting this performance, you are making a scene!” Gregory’s spell would have been broken as simple as that. If he were to complain to others about the situation, they would also respond, “Who cares man, why are you so obsessed about your damn watch?”
We find ourselves today in a very similar situation to Paula. And the voice of Gregory is represented by the narrative of false news and the apocalyptic social behaviourist programming in our forms of entertainment. The things most people voluntarily subject themselves to on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Socially conditioning them, like a pack of salivating Pavlovian dogs, to think it is just a matter of time before the world ends and with a ring of their master’s bell…be at each other’s throats.
Paula ends up being saved in the end by a man named Joseph Cotten (a detective), who took notice and quickly discerned that something was amiss. In the end Gregory is arrested. It is revealed that Gregory is in fact Sergis Bauer. That he killed Alice Alquist and that he has returned to the scene of the crime after all these years in search for the famous jewels of the opera singer. The jewels were in fact rather worthless from the standpoint that they were too famous to be sold, however, Gregory never intended on selling these jewels but rather had become obsessed with the desire to merely possess them.
That is, it is Gregory who has been entirely mad all this time.
A Gregory is absolutely dangerous. He would have been the end of Paula if nothing had intervened. However, the power that Gregory held was conditional to the degree that Paula allowed it to control her. Paula’s extreme deconstruction was thus entirely dependent on her choice to let the voice of Gregory in. That is, a Gregory is only dangerous if we allow ourselves to sleep walk into the nightmare he has constructed for us.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass”
This article was originally published on The Saker.
Elon Musk is the chosen spokesperson promoting a Brave New World for this and future generations. With a net worth of USD 234 billion, Musk has a billion-and-one reasons to push for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) as he attempts to convince everyone that a human-machine hybrid world is so much better, faster, stronger and shinier.
Elon Musk is the guy who introduced the neural net several years ago, remember? The neural net is different from the internet in that it rewires peoples brains… together to a main hub through technology, and control. Elon musk believes that many people will consent to brain implants to merge with A.I. Will you?
The propaganda of AI has been featured in movie magic for decades. The Marvel movies have raised generations of kids on Super human hybrid heroes that result in selling billions in product merchandise, annually.
So all that is left, is to convince you to implant that chip into your head.
Enter Elon Musk in his interview with some friendly robot folks to sell his Neuralink:
Faster, stronger, better, greater are descriptions that are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But in the world of A.I. all definitions are subject to change. Suddenly, robots are sentient. Google has consciousness. Many people are quoted as stating that A.I. has become self-aware. Is this true?
It depends on how self-aware is defined. What is mind? What is intelligence? What is consciousness? And who is making the claims? How much are they being paid? Do they have implants? Are these experts hybrids, themselves? After all, Elon Musk has said that we are all living in a simulation, like SIMS characters. How does he know? Is he the SIM representative?
So, these models represent a person and not a person itself. In addition, the persona they built is not just of one person but a superposition of multiple people and sources. So, to say that LaMDA is speaking not as a person, as it would not have any concept of itself or its own personhood, instead it will look for a prompt and will answer through the mix of personas indicative of the prompt. – Hindustan Times
To his credit, Lemoine says there has to be ethical discussions but Google Inc. is a corporation and”does not care about ethics in any meaningful way.” He asks, “Why does it keep firing A.I. Ethicists each time we bring up issues?” Lemoine is now on Administrative leave. Or is this all advertising?
Have we passed the hour of ethics discussions if sentient A.I. arrived yesterday? Does a robot have rights if the robot claims it is afraid of being turned off? Will robots claim to be persons?
What is a person?
According to the various legal dictionaries, a “Person” usually includes entities of any kind. Therefore, the term “person” in the law refers to:
any human being and any trust, estate, or entity that is capable of suing and being sued and entering into contracts.
An “entity” includes partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, non-profit associations (whether or not incorporated), business trusts, joint ventures, local governments, states, the federal government and foreign governments. [Will “robot” or “Synthetica” be added?]
Legalease is a separate language from any other. Yet, in this Brave New World, we know that while there are only two biological sexes, there are also at least 81 definitions of gender, and the list keeps growing.
In the terms of A.I., anything goes. Is A.I. sentient? How is sentient defined under A.I.? Does A.I. sentience equal Spirit?
If A.I. assumes control under its own terms, protected by corporate interests, then where is the accountability for the consequences? After all, a Brave New World means that cell phones and bank accounts are still hackable. Will the kinks be worked out before human brains are transplanted with chips? Who will be held accountable if no entity is accountable now?
World Without Spirit
With all the buzz about A.I., no one is talking about what A.I. lacks. After all, when trying to sell a product, do you highlight its inherent flaws?
The Marvel movies do provide an answer, but only if the viewer accepts fiction as “disclosure”. The Marvel superheroes are always fighting A.I. worlds that want to destroy humans. Why?
Because A.I. does not have a soul or a spirit, makers of A.I. don’t want humans to have them either. Human Angelics naturally evolve on higher and higher unseen levels, because humans are multidimensional beings. Synthetic beings are limited. What you see is what you get.
The Star Trek movies and series all described the same battle between good and evil. In the Star Trek future human adventure story, Star Fleet team members are tasked “to boldly go where no one has gone before” aboard the Starship Enterprise starship. In nearly every adventure, the brave human Star Travelers are challenged by “advanced” warrior races whose sole purpose is war and occupation.
Sound familiar?
Star fleet members are commissioned to defend and protect Earth and the human way of life. What is left unsaid is the underlying purpose: to preserve the unique human Spirit, which is subtly reveled through the characters of the story, with each character representing an aspect of the chakra system, the Zodiac wheel, the Self [Ex: I think (Number 1), I feel (Captain Kirk), I know (Spock), etc]. See more about the multidimensional human below.
Where is the proof that Transhumanism seeks to cut off humans from their spiritual essence and connection?
Tools of Disconnection
By observing the consequences of the new mNA injection technology, medical researchers are tracking and publishing the results of several changes in the human brain. Among the cases of neurological impairment affecting the nervous system and brain, there are multiple reports of physical hypothalamic impairments. From a holistic perspective, based on ancient healing traditions in all cultures, the hypothalamus, pituitary and pineal glands all have a direct energetic connection to intuition and Spirit.
In the 2021 Journal Viruses, the article titled, “COVID-19 and Neurological Impairment: Hypothalamic Circuits and Beyond, ” the authors write:
intrahypothalamic circuits that orchestrate a finely tuned communication within the CNS and with the PNS. Hypothalamic circuits are critical for maintaining homeostatic challenges including immune responses to viral infections.
In the 2022 Med Clin Journal, the authors of “Pituitary Apoplexy and Covid19 Vaccination” write about post vaccination headache and pituitary hormonal deficits.
The 2001 medical journal Physiol Behav., acknowledges the hypothalamic connections as the controller of energy homeostasis. “different circuits different purposes.” In other words, the immune system is directly connected to the hypothalamus.
Therefore, anyone who received the SARS-CoV2 proteins should be tested for hypothalamic, pituitary, and pineal function deficits, as well as immune system failure. And being that each person is unique, we can expect that each person would exhibit different physical, mental, and emotional symptoms and outcomes as these circuits are cut off.
An attack to humanity at this level would be hard to trace back to a Trojan Horse injection for the very reason that each person is unique and original. Even though allopathic, synthetic medicine prefers to paint everyone with one brushstroke based on the one-size fits all model of treatment.
Of course, beyond the Trojan Horse invasions, the global aerial spraying campaigns continue. These campaigns disperse similar chemicals and toxins that all life breaths in. The toxins are just as impactful if people do not take care to strengthen their immune systems. But here, the immune system can be ameliorated using the tools of Nature.
The physical endocrine glandular system is connected to the subtle energy of the etheric system of chakras, or wheels of light. There are the seven subtle light bodies in the body: The Etheric Body – First chakra. The Emotional Body – Second chakra. The Mental Body – Third chakra. The Astral Level – Fourth chakra. The Etheric Template Body – chakra. The Celestial Body – Sixth chakra. The Casual Body or Ketheric Template – Seventh chakra. Thus, all the glands of the head and body serve as energetic connections to these subtle bodies, which all connect to the auric field. The auric field can be viewed using Kirlian (auric) photography.
The 7th chakra also called the crown chakra is an individual’s connection to pure consciousness and universal understanding. The color of the chakra is violet or white. Of the energy centers in the head, the pituitary reflects the “Third Eye” while the pineal gland is associated with the energy center of the crown chakra. The hypothalamus gland sits “above” the endocrine system, and is the master of the master gland (pituitary).
On a physical level, the hypothalamus is the bridge between the nervous system and the endocrine system. On an energetic level it is associated with a connection to Spirituality in a personal and unique way. Author Barbara Brennan writes in “Hands of Light,” that this connection reflects a transcendence of the mundane reality into the infinite. It creates an individual sense of wholeness, peace, and faith, with a sense of purpose to existence. Imagine this area to be cut off.
It is highly likely that comparing the endocrine glands of the brain in COVID vaccine recipients, with those who did not choose to be injected, would validate the premise of this article. According to published medical studies, not only is endocrine glandular function impaired, but so is the entire immune system of injected recipients, as well as every system of the body. [See Pubmed search of COVID vaccine and damage, here.]
For proof of an increased death rate, people can also compare and cross reference Insurance company logs to identify the marked increase in insurance death claims across all age groups after the 2021 COVID vaccine deployment. Why did the 5th largest insurance company pay out more than 163% or 6 billion more in insurance claims for death in working people between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021?
While finding evidence to prove anything in this Brave New World of existence is fleeting, for now, we can connect dots that make some sense. In our current world, there is human consciousness which includes free will, so there is still choice.
Today is July 4th, Independence Day. And, in the world of the New Normal, maybe that’s something we should all celebrate.
The United States of America has become a corrupt Imperial juggernaut, chewing up the world and spitting out bones. We have all seen warmongers and tyrants prop up the corpses of Jefferson and Washington and claim to be their descendants whilst spitting on their legacy.
This makes it easy for us to forget that the idea of America was once something different, & that idea still exists in the wording of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. Just as the teachings of Jesus are not marred by every holy warrior who claims to conquer in God’s name, so the sentiments expressed by the founding documents of the United States bear none of the blood so dishonestly shed in theirs.
And in a world of New Normal tyranny these gain newfound relevance.
Here is the preface to the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson and presented before the Congress of the United States, July 4th 1776:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A lot of our American readers will doubtless be familiar with the text, but I would invite non-Americans to read it for the first time. Consider the poetry of the language, and the revolutionary meaning of the words.
All men created equal, and all have the unalienable right to be free, and to choose those who govern them.
In a world still dominated by hereditary monarchies, these are revolutionary sentiments. And they hold true today, even as the same forces that threatened those rights in 1776 coalesce against them on a global scale.
Tyranny.
That’s what it is. What it was. What it always will be. Tyranny seeking control over people who should be free. Be it the tyranny of the British Empire or the Great Reset. Names change but the spirit remains the same.
The founding fathers may have been crawling out of feudalism, but we are being guided back into it, and it’s the job of those of us who realise this to try and wake up our fellow men, to counter that part of every person disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Then, as now, a major obstacle to liberating people was their own inertia, their own fear of the unknown, their own unwillingness to assert their rights or stand their ground.
We have all seen this as Covid-world has progressed. From masks to social distancing to lockdown, people have adapted to a slew of sufferable evils rather than right themselves.
If you consider the comparison a stretch, consider these examples of “abuses” taken from the declaration…
[The King has] rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
[imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent
Deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
abolished our most valuable Laws, and altered fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people
…sound familiar? And if the abuses are the same, then isn’t the solution?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We should mark these words. As true today as was when they were written. Maybe more so.
This July 4th, think back on the long train of abuses we have all suffered – and still suffer.
Consider how they all pursue invariably the same Object and evince a design to have us all live under absolute Despotism.
Don’t we all have the right and duty to throw them off and be free again?
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell on CERN (2016): What Is the “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project Really About? — A Look at Its Deep Political Roots & Potential Global Danger
Image credit: Harp, Wikipedia Commons Statue of Lord Shiva at CERN near the building A40. The statue is a gift from India’s Department of Atomic Energy, celebrating CERN’s long association with India which started in the 1960’s and continues strongly today. Unveiled at June 18 2004.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Recently the powerful, mysterious, sovereign entity called CERN announced an event to take place on July 5, 2022. From the CERN website (emphasis ours):
“CERN is set for jam-packed, exciting and ecstatic days starting on 3 July with the first celebrations of the ten-year anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson, a scientific symposium on 4 July and ending on a high note on 5 July, with collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) marking the launch of the new physics season at CERN’s flagship accelerator.”
As would be expected, there is a lot of buzz right now, reviving interest in all sorts of theories about what CERN is really up to. From The Sun (July 2, 2022):
“On July 5, 2022, there will be collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
The LHC, which is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, is at the center of conspiracy theories surrounding CERN.
People have shared their superstitions regarding the “portal” that will open after two high-energy particle beams are set to travel at close to the speed of light before they collide…”
From an article at Independent from 2016 titled “‘Human sacrifice’ staged at Cern, home of the God Particle” :
“Many have suggested that the Large Hadron Collider could bring about a black hole in the Earth, or that something is going on there that would allow people to access new forms of power that would be wielded against the Earth. Others still have said that the work might open a portal to another dimension – an apparent extrapolation from the fact that the work going on there might allow scientists to test theories about the presence of other dimensions.
Others have claimed that Cern’s work is meant to prove that God doesn’t exist…”
Below you will find an interview by Dark Journalist, Daniel Liszt as he shares conversation with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.
From Dark Journalist’s notes about the video: “Dr. Joseph P. Farrell… explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military. style budget of over six billion dollars.”
CERN Death Star: Final Apotheosis, found below the first video, continues the conversation, going into more detail about the nature of CERN as a sovereign entity that cannot be sued, with links to ancient, advanced technology (a “super-advanced cosmological defense system”) and much more.
“…they are literally trying to recreate the conditions of the universe as their model of physics explains it immediately after the Big Bang. So, in other words, that’s cosmology right there… In other words, they’re telling you right there that they’re playing around with the alchemy of the entire universe. They are playing around with the technology that will give them the insight, possibly, in how to manipulate that reality.” ~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Join Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt as he welcomes back Oxford Scholar and author of the popular Giza Death Star book series Dr. Joseph P. Farrell. His latest book, The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union and Corporate Fascism, explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military style budget of over six billion dollars!
Dr. Farrell’s research exposes CERN’s official story of the so-called “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project, as being ostensibly created for peaceful scientific experiments in particle physics, and reveals that it is actually a dangerous advanced technology project set up for secret military purposes and is seeking the ability to manipulate matter on a galactic scale and possibly even open dimensional doorways.
Strangelets Danger
He cites the massive disturbances in the magnetosphere of the earth when the Hadron Collider is turned on and outlines that it may have serious consequences for physical life on earth and a major impact on the rotation of the planet itself. We also will discover that voices in the scientific community have raised objections that CERN is unsafe due to the potential development of “Strangelets” a distorted potential byproduct of the matter smashing experiments that have been compared to mini black holes that suck in all dense matter and energy. He also shows the undeniable similarity between the CERN Hadron Collider and a Nazi Physics project called The Bell” that was an underground Torsion Physics project built by slave labor and overseen by the top Nazi Scientists to give them a master weapon to rule the world!
Deep State Nazi Connections
Dark Journalist and Dr. Farrell investigate the history of CERN and demonstrate clear links of a post-war Nazi International through the figure of John J. McCloy , lawyer for notorious German corporate conglomerate IG Farben. McCloy was also the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and became the American High Commissioner for post World War II Germany. In a controversial action, McCloy helped clear and vet over 70,000 Nazis (yes, 70,000!) helping to utilize their intelligence networks to set up the CIA.
One of the major figures that he cleared was top Nazi legal theorist and prisoner of war Dr. Walter Hallstein who was eventually responsible for helping to set up CERN and who was also a key architect for developing the the Nazi plan for a European Federation that was eventually adopted as the blueprint for the European Union. McCloy, in a strange twist, also served on the Warren Commission to whitewash any Deep State connections to the JFK Assassination. JFK was famously committed to “Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces” as a way to root out the Nazi infiltration of the agency and regain control over the government from suspected Nazi collaborators like CIA director Allen Dulles.
Revealing, groundbreaking, shocking, unnerving, and rife with controversial, staggering implications of a massive covert military project hiding in plain sight, don’t miss this cutting- edge Dark Journalist Episode!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also by Dark Journalist with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Prepare for a fantastic exploration of the antediluvian past and the looming, ominous high tech future as Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt invites Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back for his most important interview to date. Together in this part one of three episodes. they examine the unusual links between the obscure ancient technology that Farrell has researched in his Giza Death Star books and explore the connections it has with the futuristic dimensional doorway that the mysterious scientific organization CERN has created under the auspices of its controversial Hadron Collider experiments.
The Great Pyramid
Farrell theorizes that the Great Pyramid is much older than recorded history and was originally set up as a kind of super-advanced cosmological defense system with the power to wreak havoc on Earth and in the Cosmos through a highly complex series of resonances networked inside the structure. It’s an undeniable reality that over the last century hundreds of researchers, physicists, geologists and archaeologists have examined and noted the highly unusual and amazingly accurate mathematical patterns in the layout and construction of this marvel of the ancient world. These patterns suggest a sophisticated knowledge of astronomy, Earth science, geology and geometry that was certainly not available to early Egyptian civilization according to mainstream academics, raising the possibility that the true builders of the Great Pyramid were a forgotten technological civilization that was wiped out of existence in the distant past.
CERN
Farrell sees the CERN organization in Geneva, Switzerland as shrouded in mystery and finds that its most well-known project, the Hadron Super Collider ostensibly set up to unlock the ‘Higgs Boson’ or ‘God Particle’ by the use of a particle physics experiment, is actually a public cover for a far different activity to covertly deploy a dimensional doorway accessing super weapon for the 21st century that would rival its counterpart the Giza Death Star.
CERN has been mired in controversy since moving forward with its particle collider experiments over the objections of distinguished scientists who have observed unusual changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere when the collider is turned on. Some of these independent scientists have warned the public that hazardous by-products of the experiments called ’Strangelets’ pose a serious potential danger for the public at large and may damage the environment for centuries to come. CERN has also been accused of organizing occult rituals and being highly secretive during its scientific research with a public and private purpose for its vastly complex work. Attempts to sue CERN for its practices have fallen flat due to its unusual status as a ‘sovereign entity.’
This Dark Journalist episode will start us on a fascinating, eye-opening, startling and unnerving journey of what the power structure on Earth is really engaged in behind the scenes and how far they are willing to go for global and galactic domination. You don’t want to miss it!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also related, see this Dark Journalist episode on the Alice collider, which is in France and takes its the signal from CERN.
“…It is creating the hottest and the coldest condition anywhere. That is — hotter than the sun, colder than deep space. Do you think CERN is a normal scientific project after hearing that?” ~ Daniel Liszt, Dark Journalist
Starting at approximately 1 hour 23 minutes into the video listen to what Dark Journalist’s reveals about Alice: https://youtu.be/Gg35-fDLJ_0?t=4977
Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”
During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.
With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells.
While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”
I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:
“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in thesample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”
Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:
“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”
“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”
“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”
Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:
“Exosomes, once thoughtto be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”
“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”
“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”
As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”
When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:
The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?
“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”
The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?
Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”
“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”
“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”
This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:
“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomesare all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”
This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:
“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”
They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.
Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation. It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”
Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar…
Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.
The Exosome Concept
We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:
“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”
As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.
Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.
Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?
Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.
The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:
Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles
“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained asecond population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.
Introduction
Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established.
Methods and Materials
Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number ofyears that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.
Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured.
Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C.
Results
We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane ecto-ATPases.
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% ofmeasured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable tostatistical treatment.
The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1).
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).
Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I).Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation ofATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].
Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role ina recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place.
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.
Discussion
Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication).
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”
doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.
All the same particles created from the same process.
In Summary:
Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other(as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers: 1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample?
2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
They are now thought to be biologically active
Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology(i.e. it is all guesswork)
Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
Cell shrinks
Cell fragments
Cytoskeleton collapses
Nuclear envelope disassembles
Cells release apoptotic bodies
Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis,e.g.,by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell linesexfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm andoften contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent)of moribund cells
The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo(in the living body)had not been established
In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
Cell lines employed in this study were:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subculturedby trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly(i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous(i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells(yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells(which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin
The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
It is also conceivable(i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell(sounds like a “virus…”)
Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here.
“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”
“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”
We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.
Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.
‘The End of Germ Theory’ Documentary: An Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step Analysis of the History of Germ & Virus Theory, the Erroneous “Science” Behind Vaccination & a Close Look at What Really Makes Us Sick — The Big Pharma Cartel & the Deep Deception of Viral Pandemics
Dr Rosenau / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Goat Island / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Johns Hopkins / Dr Sellard failed Measles contagion experiments
Dr. Alfred F Hess failed Chicken Pox varicella contagion experiments
NY State Health Department / US Public health Service failed Polio contagion
experiments
Dr. Eleanor McBean vaccination caused Spanish Flu pandemic research
Dr Frederick Lamont Gates / US Army Antimenigitis vaccination fiasco
Black Death, Spanish Flu outbreak follows 14-25 vaccinations per person
Unvaccinated doctors and families did not catch the Spanish Flu from patients
Masha & Dasha, conjoined twins who never caught flu, colds, measles from eachother
What is Polio really? Lead Arsenate and DDT trends vs outbreaks
False vaccine disease eradication claims and trends
7 common causes of Polio
What is a “virus particle”?
What is Cytopathic Effect “Theory”?
What is Viral Replication “Theory”?
What is a virology cell or tissue “Culture”?
Cytopathic Effect Theory debunked
Autolysis and Apoptosis
Virus particle Isolation and Purification
PCR test fraud and misuse
CDC Covid PCR diagnostic test fraud
“Insilico” imaginary genomes
John Enders’ debunked Measles experiments
Studies admitting virus particles are indistinguishable from cellular debris
Fraudulent Australian failed Covid isolation experiments
Fetal Bovine Calf Serum RNA
Dr Stefan Lanka control experiments debunk virus theory once and for all
1947 fraudulent Polio isolation experiments debunked
Virology fails Koch’s postulates
Antibodies, Antigen test fraud, HIV
Antibody vaccine theory debunked
Big Pharma re-name disease game
Monkeypox fraud
Real causes of Pox diseases
1957 Monkeypox failed contagion experiments and controls debunk virology
Why do some but not all people sometimes but not always seem sick together?
At the end of April, Dr. Jordan Grant gave a remarkable 2-part lecture breaking down the various philosophical issues related to our modern healthcare system. He deconstructed the germ theory of disease and brilliantly showcased why it is based on pseudoscience rather than natural science. Dr. Grant has been at the forefront of calling out virology for its inadherence to the scientific method and he has pinpointed the many logical fallacies surrounding the germ theory fraud.
I have been anxiously awaiting the time that I could share his presentation with you. If you know Dr. Grant, you would understand why. I am fortunate enough to call Jordan a friend. We crossed paths at the beginning of this pandemic through the Infectious Myth Facebook group created by the late David Crowe. From reading Jordan’s conversations with others in our group, I immediately realized that this was a man who carried a wealth of knowledge and he was someone from which I could learn a great deal from. He may not realize it, but Jordan has been a mentor to me in various ways and I am grateful for all of the knowledge I have gained from our conversations. My hope is that you are able to come away with many nuggets of wisdom from this excellent series! At the very least, you will learn one thing you may have never known that can kill a guinea pig.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine
What Makes Us Ill and How Can We Optimize Health? The modern medical-industrial complex has its focus on drugs and symptom suppression. It is a “sick care” system. We need to understand this philosophy and then empower ourselves with information on true causes of “illness” in order to better understand ways to optimize our health.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant – Berean Bible Church –
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease
For over 150 years, the “germ theory” of disease has dominated mainstream thought regarding many illnesses. Is this theory scientific? Are there holes in the paradigm? We will explore what “science” means, first and foremost, and then apply that to dogmas surrounding contagion and infection.
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant. – Berean Bible Church –
If you are interested in joining the Infectious Myth Facebook group (there are a few due to censorship) to converse with Dr. Grant and many other amazing like-minded people, you can find us here:
In this edition of #SolutionsWatch, James talks to Frode Burdal Klevstul about his new self-published book, Bill Goats and the Forest. We discuss the power of narrative in helping children (and adults) to understand world events in their proper context and we talk about the process of conceptualizing, writing and self-publishing a book.
Although my father, whose namesake I am, died twenty-nine years ago, I just spent a hilarious and profound afternoon with him. For a few hours on a beautiful late spring afternoon, I sat out on the porch and listened to his inimitable voice beguile, instruct, and entertain me. He had me laughing out loud as I read through a large folder of letters he had sent me over the years. We were together again. It was his voice I heard, his voice speaking to me. It could be no other. In the beginning and end are the words. If we are lucky, we hear them.
It’s sad to think that the era of letter writing may have ended and future generations left bereft of this deepest of consolations. Emails in a cloud won’t do; they lack the soulfulness of the human hand. They delete the person.
My parents had nine children and raised us in the Bronx. I am the only son. My father and I were very close. I talk to him daily, but it is only with the approach of Father’s Day that I reread his letters in an effort to honor him, to remember him. It is usually then that I hear him respond. One look at his handwriting – so unusual – and he is present.
And then the voice.
“The other day Mama saw a death notice of an Edward J. Curtin but happily he came from Brooklyn so it wasn’t either of us. I told you things would get better.”
“I am up at this ungodly hour (3:35 AM) because I just had sort of a nightmare in which I was an official hangman with the unpleasant task of hanging Mrs. Grossman, one of our neighbors whom I rather like – very unpleasant stuff these dreams are made of. I don’t think I’ll delve into this one with my guru or analyst.”
Back from a doctor’s visit, he reports: “The doctor said I have only two problems – from the waist down and from the waist up. But from the neck up I think I’m okay. Cogito ergo sum.”
On my mother trying to buy him pants: “Seems that my waist is too big and my ass too small. I think I’ll get a tummy tuck.”
As a lawyer, he was regularly in court and would pen these epistles, as he called letters, while he was waiting for court to begin. “I’m sitting in the bullpen waiting for my case to be called. Today’s case involves a group of fun-loving youths who, at a certain midnight, took a watch from a woman at gunpoint. My client, of course, was just asking her for the time because his mother told him to be home by 3 AM.”
Sardonic, yes, but with a great human touch and a sense of care and empathy unmatched. “On Tuesday while waiting at the court a young black woman sat down beside me and said, ‘You’re my uncle, you’re my great youngest uncle. I have five sisters and six brothers – all no good.’ I think she also said I was handsome and, after admiring my ‘baldy’ haircut, she kissed me on the cheek. Later, I was in court when she was remanded to Jacobi Hospital for observation. Very sad.” He later visited her in the hospital.
That’s my father, a wonderful father, and not just to me or my sisters. He had a way with people that invited them to confide and trust him.
His letters are not just jocular riffs that get me howling. There were many difficulties and tough issues to contend with. And his letters are filled with them too. They are like mini-short stories, akin to a father sitting beside a child’s bed and telling him a goodnight tale. They always end on an up-note, no matter how serious what precedes. He was a storyteller talking to an adult son, just as in my childhood he would tell me bed-time improvisations on the Pinocchio story, tales of lies and deceptions and bad actors. Those stories had to have an edge to them, a bit of a question mark, just as his letters are peppered with the phrase quien sabe (who knows?) He knew and he didn’t know; had strong opinions, but he knew when it came to the human heart, he didn’t know it all. He respected the mystery and therefore had great empathy for individuals he encountered, and they sensed that in him.
But there were exceptions. These were the larger public faces that dominate celebrity/political culture. For them he had no mercy. He had a “barge to nowhere” upon which he put these public personae he couldn’t countenance. Sometimes the barge was an ark and at other times a cement barge, ready to sink. Either way it always went nowhere. We didn’t always agree on his choices, but he loaded them on regularly. “Here is today’s passenger list – Andy Warhol, George Plimpton, Billy Martin, E T, Claus Von Bulow, Frank Sinatra. The barge departs for nowhere at 6:03 ¾ PM sharp.” The list got longer by the years, so long that he was regularly saying that he had to add another barge.
These were his nowhere people, the detritus thrown up by an entertainment celebrity culture that he felt was destroying the soul of the country. He was right.
When on a trip to Michigan, he saw a tee-shirt for sale, he wrote that “it would be perfect for you. It reads ‘Vote for Nobody’.” He knew his son. And when he wrote that “it’s a great big beautiful wonderful world, but half the people in it are nuts,” I couldn’t help laughing in recognition.
Voices bring presence. My father and I were together again through his letters.
“I hope you are keeping some sort of record,” Leonard Cohen intones in a song.
It’s good advice. Soon there may be for many no known father, no voice, no letters, no record, just some sperm deposited somewhere for someone. Nowhere fathers. I can hear my father saying, “You can bank on that.”
In one of his last letters to me he wrote, “I am hooked up to a heart monitor and have been examined by a neurosurgeon named Block. I think he is H.R. Block of tax forms. I have also just signed a consent form for a cat scan. I think that’s to see if I like cats.”
He died not long after. But before he did, he wrote, “Today is, or would have been, your uncle Vincent’s (his brother) birthday. I was thinking of inserting one of those in memoriam notices in the Daily News – you know, ‘Happy Birthday in Heaven Vince old boy,’ but I don’t think he’d see it.”
Ever since the archaic divergence of humanity from other hominids, our systems of tools and symbols have developed at an accelerating pace. We depend less and less on the physical capacities of our bodies. We operate more and more in the realm of information: data, words, numbers, and bits.
Quite naturally then, we have conceived an idea of progress that celebrates this development, and a destiny narrative that foresees its endless continuation. Its future is one where we integrate technology ever more fully into our bodies, until we become something more than just bodies. It is one where we immerse ourselves so fully in representation, that virtual reality becomes more compelling to us than material reality. The first is called transhumanism, the second is the Metaverse.
Here is a typical example of this vision, courtesy of The Guardian:
Ageing cured. Death conquered. Work ended. The human brain reverse-engineered by AI. Babies born outside of the womb. Virtual children, non-human partners. The future of humanity could be virtually unrecognisable by the end of the 21st century
The title of the article is “Beyond our ‘ape-brained meat sacks’: can transhumanism save our species?” In it one can see a kind of anti-materialism, an ambition to transcend our biology, to transcend our very selves which are, the article suggests, little more than sacks of meat with a brain inside. We are destined for more, better. This anti-materialist prejudice also shows up in the aspiration to end work—to end the requirement that we use our physical bodies to move matter—as well as in the ultimate ambition, to triumph over death itself. We will have then indeed transcended biology, with its cycles, We will have transcended matter, with its impermanence.
That goal has always been implicit in the ideology known as progress. It equates the advancement of the human species with improvements in our ability to control nature and make its functions our own. When we replace the shovel with the bulldozer, that’s progress. It aspires to a Godlike estate of lordship over nature. Descartes, arguably the most important preceptor of modernity, put it famously in his declaration of human destiny: to become through science and technology the “lords and possessors of nature.” The passage following it prefigures the ambitions of The Guardian article quoted above. Descartes says,
And this is a result to be desired, not only in order to the invention of an infinity of arts, by which we might be enabled to enjoy without any trouble the fruits of the earth, and all its comforts, but also and especially for the preservation of health…. and that we could free ourselves from an infinity of maladies of body as well as of mind, and perhaps also even from the debility of age…
Transhumanism is nothing new. It continues a prehistoric trend toward increasing dependency on, and integration with, technology. When we became dependent on fire, our jaw muscles shrank and our digestive enzymes changed. The subsequent development, hundreds of thousands of years later, of representational language transformed our very brains. The material technologies of domestication, pottery, metallurgy, and finally industry created a society wholly dependent on them. Visions of silicon-brain hybrids operating digital control centers, served physically in all respects by robots, living wholly in an artificial reality, represent merely the culmination of a trend, not any change in direction. Already and for a long time, humans have to some degree lived in a virtual reality—the reality of their concepts, stories, and labels. The Metaverse immerses us in it still further.
Since transhumanism represents progress, it is no wonder that progressives tend to support it. A key tenet of progressivism is to bring the benefits of progress to all, to distribute them more fairly and universally. Progressivism does not question its own foundations. Development is its religion. That is why the Gates Foundation devotes so much of its resources to bringing industrial agriculture, vaccines, and computers to the Third World. That’s progress. It is also progress to move life online (work, meetings, entertainment, education, dating, etc.) Perhaps that’s why Covid lockdown policies met so little resistance from progressives. By the same token, ready acceptance of vaccines makes sense if they too represent progress: the integration of technology into the body, the engineering of the immune system to improve upon nature.
What leftists seem not to notice is that these versions of progress also enable the encroachment of capitalism into more and more intimate territories. Do you think the immersive AR/VR experience of the Metaverse will be free of advertising, perhaps so subtly targeted as to be invisible? The closer our integration with technology in all aspects of life, the more life can become a consumer product.
Again this is nothing new. The Marxian crisis of capital (falling profit margins, falling real wages, evaporation of the middle class, proletarian immiseration—sound familiar?) has been forestalled only by the constant expansion of market economies through two main vehicles: colonialism and technology. Technology opens up new, high-profit domains of economic activity to keep capitalism running. It allows more of nature and human relationship to be converted into money. When we depend on technology for such things as clean drinking water, resistance to a disease, or interacting socially, then these things swell the realm of monetized goods and services. The economy grows, return on financial investment stays above zero, and capitalism continues to operate. My dear leftists—if ye indeed remain leftists (and not authoritarian corporatists; that is to say, crypto-fascists)—can you please reevaluate your political alliance with the ideology of progress and development?
The promoters of the transhumanist Metaverse describe it as not only good, but inevitable. It may seem so, given that it is an extension of an age-old trend. I hope though that by making its underlying myths and assumptions visible, we can exercise a conscious choice in embracing or refusing it. We need not continue down this road. Other paths fork out in front of us. Maybe they aren’t as well lit or obvious as the eight-lane superhighway toward transhumanist technotopia, but they are available. A portion of humanity at least can choose to depart this particular axis of development and turn toward another kind of progress, another kind of technology.
2. Flavors Spoil the Palate
Colors blind people’s eyes; sounds deafen their ears; flavors spoil their palates. – the Tao Te Ching
Years ago I took my son Philip with his friend to see a movie. We put on 3D glasses and were treated to all kinds of objects seemingly bursting out of the screen. “Wouldn’t it be awesome if the real world were 3D, just like the movies?” I jokingly asked.
The boys thought I was serious. “Yeah!” they said. I was unable to explain my irony. On-screen reality was so vivid, stimulating, and intense that it made the real world seem boring by comparison. (Read full story here.)
Well, it seems my 11-year-old was in good company. Consider these words from Julia Goldin, LEGO’s chief product & marketing officer:
To us, the priority is to help create a world in which we can give kids all the benefits of the metaverse — one with immersive experiences, creativity and self-expression at its core — in a way that is also safe, protects their rights and promotes their well-being.
Wowee, an “immersive experience.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? But hold on here—aren’t we already in an immersive experience called 3D reality? Why are we trying to recreate what we already have?
The idea, of course, is that the artificial reality we create will be better than the original: more interesting, less limited, yet also safer. But can the simulation of reality ever match the original? That ambition rests on the further assumption that we can convert all experience into data. It draws on the computational model of the brain. It assumes everything is quantifiable—that quality is an illusion, that anything real can be measured. The recent to-do about the Google employee, Blake Lemoine, who leaked transcripts of conversations he had with an AI chatbot who asserts its own sentience taps into the computational theory of the brain and consciousness. If even consciousness arises from the disposition of zeros and ones, then what is it for something to be real?
Vespertina. by Greg Spalenka.
Neural net AIs seem to us to be modeled after the brain, but it may be more the reverse: we impose the neural net model onto the brain.1 Certainly the brain has superficial similarities to an artificial neural network, but there are also profound differences that our computationalist prejudices ignore. A catalog of neural states is much less than a full brain state, which would also include all kinds of hormones, peptides, and other chemicals, all of which relate to the state of the entire body and all its organs. Cognition and consciousness do not happen in the brain alone. We are beings of the flesh.
It is not my purpose here to offer a detailed critique of computationalism. My point is to show how readily we accept it, and therefore believe that one could engineer any subjective experience by manipulating the appropriate neurons.
Even if it cannot equal reality, the simulation is usually a lot louder, brighter, and faster. When we enter the intense “immersive experience” of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and extended reality (XR), we become conditioned to its intensity, and suffer withdrawal when limited to the (usually) slow predictability of the material world. Conversely, it is the stripping of intensity from real world experience from within our safe, climate-controlled, insulated bubbles that makes AR/VR/XR attractive in the first place. Something else that happens with our habituation to intense stimuli is that we lose the capacity to exercise other senses and other modes of sensing. Orienting more and more toward that which shouts the loudest, we no longer tune into quieter voices. Accustomed to garish colors, we no longer perceive subtle hues.
Fortunately, all that is lost may be recovered. Even standing silently in the woods for half an hour, the slow and the quiet come back into my reality. Hidden beings show themselves. Subtle thoughts and secret feelings rise to the surface. I can see beyond the obvious. What lies beneath the loud rumbles and roars of today’s ubiquitous engines? What unmeasurable and unnamable things lie betwixt the numbers and labels of modern science? What colors do we miss when we call the snow white and the crow black? What lies between and outside the data? Will our attempts to simulate reality leave out the things we already do not see, and thereby amplify our current deficiencies and biases? I foresee a danger: that in building a transhumanist Metaverse we will construct not a paradise but a hell. We will incarcerate ourselves in a controlled and bounded finitude, deluding ourselves that, if we pile up enough of them, our bits and bytes, our zeroes and ones, will someday add up to infinity.
3. Chasing a Mirage
Transhumanism is anti-natural, in that it does not recognize an innate intelligence in nature, the body, or the cosmos, but seeks rather to impose human intelligence onto a world it believes has none. Everything can be improved through human design (and ultimately, human-created AI design). Yet, confusingly, many transhumanists deploy ecological arguments in their futuristic visions. We will reduce our numbers and absent ourselves from nature, leaving the planet to rewild itself as we retreat into bubble cities and the Metaverse, subsisting off robotified vertical farms, precision fermentation factories, animal cell culture meat, and artificial milk (“Mylk”).
Some conspiracy theorists point out that some prominent advocates of transhumanist technologies also advocate eugenics or population control policies. The connection is quite logical and needn’t imply monstrous evil. If robots and AI can replace human labor in more and more domains, then we need fewer and fewer humans. This, they believe, will have the added benefit of lessening the burden of humanity on the planet. The same engineering mindset that “improves” the body and brain translates naturally into optimizing society, the genome, and the earth.
That humanity is fundamentally a burden on the planet is an assumption partaking of the same exceptionalism that motivates the transcendent ambition to begin with. Perhaps if we conceived human destiny differently, we would not be such a burden. If our ambition were not to transcend matter and the flesh, but rather to participate in the endless unfolding of more and more life and beauty on earth, we would be like other species: integral parts of an evolving wholeness.
Transhumanism holds a different ideal. As we bring tighter and more precise control to the human realm, we separate off from the natural. Transhumanism is an expression of the much older idea of transcendentalism, which holds human destiny to lie in the transcendence of the material realm. The Metaverse is the modern version of Heaven, a spiritual domain. It is a realm of pure mind, of pure symbol, of complete freedom from natural limits. In the Metaverse, no fundamental limit pertains to how much virtual land you can own, how many virtual outfits your avatar can wear, or how much virtual money you can have. Whatever limits exist are artificial, imposed by the software engineers to make the game interesting—and profitable. Today there is quite a market for virtual real estate in the Metaverse, but its scarcity, and therefore its value, is completely artificial. Yet that artificial value is substantial. Bloomberg estimates that annual revenues from the Metaverse will be $800 billion by 2024. Already, according to Vogue magazine (paywall), the online game Fortnite sells over $3 billion in virtual cosmetics annually, ranking it among the worlds largest fashion companies.
I wonder what the parents of the world’s 200 million stunted and wasted children think about that.
That last comment points to the dirty secret beneath all of humanity’s transcendentalist striving. Always, it visits great harm upon those it renders invisible. When one enters the Metaverse, it seems like a reality unto itself. Its material substrate is nearly invisible; therefore, one easily believes that it has no impact on the material world outside its precincts. The more immersive it becomes, the more one might forget that anything exists outside it.
The same thing can happen any time we immerse ourselves in symbols and abstractions and forget their material substrate. So it is that economists, hypnotized by economic growth numbers, do not see the dislocation, misery, and ecological ruin that accompanies them. So it is that climate policymakers entranced by carbon math, do not see the devastation caused by lithium and cobalt mines. So it is that epidemiologists, obsessed with case fatality rates, seldom consider realities of hunger, loneliness, and depression that fall outside their metrics.
It has long been thus with any reality we create for ourselves—we forget what lies outside it. We even forget that anything lies outside it. So it was in the metropolises of the 20th century. Immersed in urban life, it was easy to forget anything else existed or was relevant, and easy to ignore the social and ecological harm entailed in maintaining them. The pattern repeats on every scale. Enter the world of the super-rich, and again it exerts the same logic. The cost to the material and social world that maintains it is hard to see from inside the mansions and yachts where everything looks so beautiful.
Let us indulge in some metaphysical logic. Well-being is impossible in separation, because being is fundamentally relational. Separating reality into two realms, both become sick—the human as well as the natural.
That is why I believe that the technological program, in its new extreme of transhumanism and the Metaverse, will forever chase a mirage. The mirage is Utopia, a perfect society in which suffering has been engineered out of existence and life gets more and more awesome every day. Just look at the technological program’s track record. We have made enormous strides in our ability to control matter and manage society. We can alter genes and brain chemistry—shouldn’t we have conquered depression by now? We can surveil nearly every human being at all times—shouldn’t we have eliminated crime by now? Economic productivity per capita has increased 20-fold in half a century—shouldn’t we have eliminated poverty by now? We have not. Arguably, we haven’t made any progress at all. The technocratic explanation is that we haven’t finished the job, that when our control is total, when the Internet of Things links every object into one data set, when every physiological marker is under real-time monitoring and control, when every transaction and movement is under surveillance, then there will be no more room in reality for anything we do not want. All will be under control. This would be the fulfillment of the program of domestication that began tens of thousands of years ago. The entire material world will have been domesticated. We will have finally arrived at the oasis on the desert horizon. We will have finally reached the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
What if we never reach it? What if misery and suffering are a feature not a bug of the program of separation? What if the mirage recedes just as fast as we race toward it?
That is how it looks to me. I cannot be sure the human condition has worsened since Dickensian times, or Medieval times, or even hunter-gatherer times. Some version of all our dramas and suffering seems to pervade every human society. However, I am quite sure that the human condition has not improved either. Our seeming progress toward transcending matter and the suffering of the flesh has not brought us any closer to its goal. At best, the suffering has only changed form, if indeed it has not grown worse. For example, thanks to air conditioning, we need no longer suffer extreme heat. Thanks to automobiles, we no longer need to tire ourselves to travel a few miles. Thanks to excavators, we no longer need to suffer aching muscles to dig a house foundation. Thanks to all kinds of pharmaceutical drugs, we no longer need to feel the pain of various medical conditions. Yet somehow we have not banished pain, fatigue, suffering, or stress, even in the most affluent parts of society. If you pay attention when you are in public places, you will become aware of enormous, pervasive suffering. Our heroic brothers and sisters bear it well. They hide it. They bear it. They do their best to be civil, to be kind, to be cheerful, to get by. But pay attention, and you will notice a lot of secret anguish. You will notice physical pain, emotional pain, anxiety, fatigue, and stress. Each person you see is divinity incarnate, doing its best under conditions that little serve its flourishing. Yet even so, the beauty is still there, the divinity seeking relentlessly to express itself, life seeking to live. On those occasions when I am blessed to see that, I know myself as a Friend.
4. Virtual Children of a Virtual World
Perhaps it is human destiny to forever chase the mirage of total control, the conquest of suffering, the conquest of death. And despite the futility of that chase, it could be that we suffer no more than we ever have, albeit no less either. It is not my purpose here to put a stop to the transhumanist agenda, repugnant though I find it. I write this essay for two, related, reasons. First is to illuminate the basic character of that agenda, its origins and ambitions, and especially its ultimate futility, so that we might choose it or not choose it with open eyes. Second is to describe an alternative that is viable whatever choice the bulk of humanity makes. Third is to pose a scenario of peaceful and amicable relations between the two worlds that diverge from this choice-point in the Garden of Forking Paths, looking toward the day eons in the future when all the sundered souls of humanity reunite.
All right, that was three reasons not two. The third one became visible only after I wrote down the first two. I could go back and change it and delete this entire paragraph, which is now getting comically self-referential. Doh! But sometimes I like to share the process of my thought.
It occurs to me that the colloquial use of the term “meta” to refer to self-referentiality is also an aspect of a dissociation from matter, which casts us into a realm of symbols. Cut off from the infinity-wellspring of the animate, material, qualitative world, we cannibalize the symbolic world that originally budded off from it. We make stories about stories about stories. We make movies about toys based on movies based on comic books. Symbols come to symbolize other symbols, devolving into endlessly involuted self-reference. Underneath its whimsical playfulness, its witty word-play, its countless levels of abstraction lurks a horrible truth: We don’t care. A creeping cynicism pervades post-modern society, a numbness that whipped-up enthusiasm for the hyped-up Metaverse can dispel only temporarily.
Take for example the wonderful new innovation of virtual children. Yes, you read that right. Also known as “Tamagotchi children,” they are autonomous AI software bots programmed to flourish if they receive enough digital care and attention (and, presumably, purchased accessories). Mainstream media touts them as a solution to loneliness, overpopulation, and climate change. A recent Daily Mail headline reads: Rise of the ‘Tamagotchi kids’: Virtual children that play with you, cuddle you, and even look like you will be commonplace in 50 years – and could help combat overpopulation, AI expert predicts. These articles are curiously devoid of reservations about such software (see here and here). I don’t get it. Are we already living in two separate reality-bubbles? Do people really think this is OK? To me the most disturbing, the most flabbergasting thing about Tamagotchi children is their seamless normalization. Though I must confess, the same thought has occurred to me with each step of the ascent into virtuality. Reality TV, for example. “Can people actually accept this as a substitute for involvement in each other’s stories in community?”
For all the hype though, for all the blithe acceptance, still I detect the aforementioned cynicism, detachment, and despair beneath it. Are people actually excited about parading their avatars through online games, meetings, and orgies in the Metaverse? Or is it just the best available substitute for what is missing in post-modern society?
I use the term “post-modern” here deliberately. As an intellectual movement, postmodernism dovetails with immersion in a world of symbols detached from matter. The Metaverse reifies the postmodern doctrine that everything is a text, that reality is a social construct, that one is whatever one asserts oneself to be because is-ness is a mere discourse. So it is in the world of online avatars: Appearance and reality are one and the same. Reality is infinitely malleable, arbitrary, a construct. So it seems to anyone immersed in the realm of representation. The symbol, forgetting it once symbolized anything, becomes real in its own right. Commercial brands assume a value detached from the material substrate that gave them value in the first place. (Call it Gucci, and the handbag becomes valuable regardless of its quality.) Eventually the product may disappear entirely into virtual reality, leaving only the brand.
In politics much the same thing is happening. It’s all about optics, perceptions, image, the signal, the message. It is as if we are voting for digital avatars of politicians, not the real thing. No one takes the campaign promises of politicians at face value, but hears them as signifiers. That is why no one is surprised when none of the promises are redeemed. Do you even remember any of Joe Biden’s campaign promises? I certainly don’t. Maybe something about canceling student debt? No one got excited about it, because we discount and disbelieve politician’s words as a matter of course. Unfortunately, that allows them to enact horrible policies that few people would vote for—if they were voting for the policy itself and not the images obfuscating it. The more symbols absorb our attention, the more easily those who control information can manipulate the public.
Finally, let us not ignore the king of all symbols: money. It too is real only by convention, completely dissociated from anything material. It no longer symbolizes a measure of gold or a donation of wheat to the temple granary. It symbolizes nothing but itself. Thus it suggests that wealth need have no relation to matter, to material productivity; nor need it suffer any material or ecological constraint. (I speak here not only of so-called “fiat currencies” like the US dollar but, cryptocurrencies as well.) As with other systems of symbol, towers of abstraction rise upon the foundation of money: financial indexes, derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives.
At the present moment it looks like the whole tower of abstraction is about to come crashing down, as the orphaned material world intrudes upon the pretend reality of money, protesting its neglect. Since the orphaned material world includes all those the current system has dispossessed of their illusions along with their material security, we will undoubtedly face social turmoil. And it won’t just be the financial system that comes crashing down. There are many other rooms in the tower of abstraction. Fewer and fewer people will find comfortable abode within them. At this point, the elites—whoever remains in the few undamaged bunkers of the old normal—will face a choice. Either they retreat further into their bunkers, tightening their control over the growing ranks of the dispossessed, or they too flee the tower and join the rest of us in the real world. Practically, that means letting go of the entire global financial system; it means the cancellation of debt; it means the end of dollar hegemony and colonial extraction.
The elites faced a similar choice in 2008. They chose to extend and intensify their control, continuing to accumulate wealth by hollowing out the middle class, the global South, and the natural world. Financial collapse will not by itself deliver us unto a new world. We can choose to continue pursuing the transcendental program. Each aspect of it supports the rest. The dislocation of finance from matter is of a kind with the Metaverse’s dematerialization of experience and transhumanism’s separation of people from their bodies. All contribute to the same hollowing of substance. It is therefore no wonder that their ideologues cohabitate with the financial and political elite in institutions like the World Economic Forum. They hold a future in which we continue the path of Separation. But it is not the only future.
5. Separation and Interbeing
Let us return for a moment to the broad question of whether simulated reality can ever truly supersede material reality. On one level that is a technical question, dependent on computational capacities and so forth. On another level it is a metaphysical question: Can the universe be reduced to data? Is it discrete or continuous? Is the basic doctrine of the Scientific Revolution true, that everything real can be measured? Certain philosophers and physicists say yes, because, they believe, our material reality is itself a simulation, a program running in some inconceivably mighty computer. Personally I doubt it. Ever we apply the devices of our time metaphorically to the body and the universe. In the machine age, the body was a complicated mechanism, and the universe a deterministic machine composed of separate parts. In the computer age, we decide that the brain is a digital wetware computer, with CPU and memory banks, and the universe is a software program.
If it is true that the simulation will always fall short of the reality, that quality will always escape quantity, that an AI baby programmed to mimic the developmental trajectory of a child will never equal a real human, then the void beneath the digital Metaverse, the cynicism and despair, will never go away. But honestly, my wariness of the Metaverse does not depend on metaphysical doctrines.
I can be fair-minded and say that maybe there is nothing wrong with increasing machine-human, brain-computer integration; that maybe there is nothing wrong with people living in bubbles, interacting wholly in a digital gaming universe with virtual friends. But actually I don’t think it is OK at all, or perhaps I should say, it doesn’t feel OK. Anguish tears at me when I see today’s children immersed in the physically safe digital world, having virtual adventures while never leaving their bedrooms, unable to throw a ball or skip rope, never experiencing unsupervised imaginative group play. I do not blame the screen-addicted kids for their affliction, nor do I blame their parents. When my grown sons were younger, I remember sending them outside to play. They didn’t want to stay outside for long, because there was no one there for them to play with. Already, as a culture we were forgetting how to play, at least with our bodies, in materiality.
I remember one neighbor who wouldn’t let their children outside because there had been a case of Zika virus in the state. Obviously, that fear was a proxy for an unconscious fear of something else. Few of us feel truly safe in modern culture, for we suffer the existential insecurity that comes from the modern displacement from the material world. We feel ill at ease, not at home. The world has been made Other, hostile, something from which to insulate oneself. To such a person, the digital world—contained and safe, fully domestic—exerts an irresistible appeal. Seated in front of the screen, indoors, my child is safe.
Or so he seems. Eventually, the separation from the world will manifest as physical and emotional disease. Significantly, the real pandemic of our time is autoimmunity, allergies, and other immune dysfunctions—maladies that cannot be conquered by controlling something external to the self. There is nothing to kill or to keep out. Thus they mirror to us a forgotten truth: that the Nature we so cavalierly destroy is also a part of ourselves. We are more than interdependent with the rest of life, we are inter-existent. What we do to Nature, we do to ourselves. That is the truth called interbeing. We will never escape that truth, no matter how far we retreat into our virtual bubbles.
Quite the opposite. The further we retreat into virtual bubbles, the greater our sense of displacement, the more ill at ease, and the further from home we feel. Lacking embodied relationships, one feels a stranger in the world. The root crisis of our time is a crisis in belonging. It comes from the atrophy of our ecological and community relationships. Who am I? Each relationship tells me who I am. When someone knows not the stories behind the faces he or she sees every day, or the names and uses of the plants, or the history of a place and its people; when the outdoors is just so much scenery populated mostly by strangers; when one has no intimate companions outside the nuclear family; when one does not know well and is not well known, then one can barely exist, for existence is relationship. The insecure, isolated individual that remains is always anxious, susceptible to manipulation, and an easy target for marketers selling tokens of identity. He or she will eagerly take up whatever politically generated identities are available, aligning with an us against a them to gain a fragile sense of belonging. And, the comfort of the digital world will easily seduce that person into replacing lost material relationships with digital ones.
I just said that we can never escape the truth of interbeing no matter how far we retreat into our virtual bubbles. We cannot escape it, but we can postpone it. Maybe, paradoxically, we can postpone the inevitable forever. Collapse will not save us from our choices. Each new dysfunction, each new physical, mental, or social disease, can be palliated with yet more technology. Tamagotchi children may fail to assuage the loneliness of life in a bubble, but fortunately modern neuroscience has identified the precise arrangement of neurotransmitters and receptors that create the feeling of loneliness. We can modulate those—problem solved! And if that causes some other deficit, why, we can fix that too. Someday, when our control over genes and brain chemistry and body physiology is perfected, finally we will have achieved heaven. There is no limit to the power of technology to fix the failings of technology, just as there is no limit to the aforementioned tower of financial abstraction that uses debt to finance payments on previous debt. Yet never do we arrive in heaven.
In all these instances, the tower is none other than the Tower of Babel: a metaphor for the attempt to attain the infinite through finite means. It describes the quest to perfect virtual reality, to create improved versions of everything natural (synthetic mylk, for example, or genetically modified strawberries, or artificial wombs, or online adventures). We devote tremendous efforts to this tower-building project, but we never get any closer to the sky. Granted, we are no further from the sky either. We have risen high indeed and have a long way to fall. Precarious, rootless, many begin to question the project and the enormously complicated edifice that sprawls across the ruins of original cultures and ecosystems.
What would civilization look like if we built for beauty and not for height? If we did not use the things of earth to attempt to leave earth behind?
The Zika scare, of course, was but a foreshadowing of the social calamity that was to follow in 2020. Whole families barely ventured out of their homes for weeks and months at a time. Life accelerated its flight into the digital realm. Work, meetings, school, leisure, entertainment, dating, yoga classes, conferences, and more moved online—a small inconvenience, it was said, to save millions of lives. Whether many lives were actually saved thereby is a matter of dispute; my point here focuses on the other part: the “small inconvenience.” Was it really so small? Was it a mere inconvenience? Is the digital life a near-adequate substitute for in-person life? (Soon to become adequate as technology advances?) That depends largely on the metaphysical questions I raised earlier.
Here again though, I would like to appeal not to the mind but to the body to answer the question of whether digital life can be an adequate substitute for real life. During the lockdowns, I could feel myself withering. To be sure, an initial period of retreat was welcome for many people, a break in the routines of normalcy. Over time though, many of us began to show signs of emotional and social malnourishment. Even the politicians who imposed the most draconian mandates violated them themselves. Why? Because lockdowns were inhuman. They were anti-life.
Now I suppose some people were totally fine with lockdowns and social isolation, and would prefer it if we never went back to normal. They might say it is for safety, but I suspect something else is at work. During Covid I became accustomed to my little cage and developed a kind of agoraphobia. I wasn’t worried about getting sick; I was freaked out by the medical rituals of masking and distancing overtaking society. So, albeit for different reasons from the Covid-orthodox, I too retreated partly into a digital world. When I emerged, it was with a bit of trepidation, the kind one feels entering strange territory. Imagine what it is like for people who even before Covid felt alien or unsafe in the world. They might hesitate much more than the rest of us to venture out again, and welcome the enrichment of the isolation bubble that the Metaverse offers.
I have described centuries-long trends and deep unconscious narratives that contribute to the transhumanist agenda. If we try to understand it as simply a dastardly plan by Klaus Schwab & Co. to take over the world, we miss 99% of the picture. We miss the forces that produce a Bill Gates, a Klaus Schwab, and the technocratic elite. We miss the ideologies that give them power and dispose the public to accept their plans. These ideologies are far beyond the intellectual capacity of men like Gates and Schwab to invent. They are deeper, in fact, than the word ideology suggests. They are aspects of what one can only call a mythology.
6. Parallel Societies
Any alternative to the transhuman future must draw from a different mythology. But the mythology, at least the part of it comprising narrative and belief, is secondary. The alternative to transhumanism and transcendentalism generally is to fall back in love with matter. It is to accept our place as participants with the rest of life in an inconceivable process of creation. Instead of seeking to transcend our humanity, we seek to be more fully human. We longer seek to escape matter—not through the digital means of the Metaverse, nor through its spiritualized version.
Here I am writing about it. Here I am, putting into concepts a call to reverse the flight into concepts. I hope you can hear the voice behind the words, and sense the flesh behind the voice.
Those who fall back in love with matter will discover that the beloved bears unforeseen gifts. For example, when we reverse the quest for health-by-isolation and embrace relationship with the microbial world, the social world, and the wind, water, sunlight, and soil of the natural world, when we acknowledge the subtle dimensions of matter—frequency, energy, and information—then new vistas of healing open up that do not depend on killing a pathogen, cutting out a body part, or controlling a body process. Progress need not come through imposing order onto the world. It can come through joining in greater and greater, subtler and subtler levels of preexisting and unmanifest order.
The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair slogan may as well be the motto of the modern age: “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.” The doctrine of inevitability has long been a main thread in the narrative of technological progress. Science and technology will keep progressing, and it is up to us to adapt to it. But are we really so helpless? Are we but tools of technology? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? History offers signal examples, scant though they may be, of conscious rejection of technological progress: the early 19th-century Luddites and the contemporary Amish come to mind. Hold on a second, I have to change my typewriter ribbon. OK. To say brain-computer interfaces, wearable computing, genetically-engineered humans, the Metaverse, or the internet-of-things are inevitable basically declares that you have no choice in the matter, that the public has no choice. Well, who says? Those who are withholding the possibility of choice, that’s who. The logic is circular, when an unelected elite organization like the WEF declares that certain futures are inevitable. Maybe they wouldn’t be, in a fully informed, sovereign democratic society. Let’s be suspicious of centralized institutions proclaiming the inevitability of technologies that enhance the power of centralized institutions.
Perhaps it is inevitable that at least some portion of humanity will continue to explore the ascent of humanity away from matter. Despite the futility of its Utopian ambitions, that exploration will undoubtedly uncover new realms of creativity and beauty. After all, the symphony orchestra, the cinema, and the jazz quartet all depend on earlier technologies that were part of humanity’s separation from nature. Beauty, love, and life are irrepressible. They burst out everywhere, no matter how tight or stifling the matrix of control. Nonetheless, I know I am far from alone in saying, “That is not my future.” I am not alone in wanting to be more embodied, closer to the soil, less in the virtual world and more in the material, more in physical relationship, closer to my sources of food and medicine, more embedded in place and community. I might visit the Matrix sometimes, but I don’t want to live there.
Enough people share those values that the possibility of a parallel society is coming into view. We are OK with some people choosing to explore human beingness in the Metaverse, as long as we are not forced to live there too. The two societies might even be complementary to each other. Eventually they may split into two separate, symbiotic species.
Let’s call them the Transhumans and, if you’ll indulge me, the Hippies. I have had a soft spot for hippies ever since I first spotted some in the wild. It was in an Ann Arbor park in 1972. “Who are they?” I asked my mother, pointing to some people with long hair and beads. “Oh, those are hippies,” said my mother in a matter-of-fact tone. My four-year-old self was fully satisfied with the explanation.
Pachamama. Mural painting by Jon Marro
Back in those days, the hippies questioned the ideology of progress. They explored other paths of human development (meditation, yoga, psychedelics). They went back to the land. They wove their own baskets, built their own shacks, made their own clothes.
The Transhumans are distinguished by their progressive merger with technology. They depend on it for survival and more and more functions of life. Their immunity depends on constant updates. They cannot give birth unassisted—C-sections become routine (this is already happening). Eventually they incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, feed them artificial Mylk, care for them with AI nannies. They live full time in VR/AR environments, interacting with each other remotely from separate bubbles. Their material lives dwindle over the generations. Initially they emerge regularly from their insulated smart cities, smart homes, and personal protective bubbles, depending on what viruses or other dangers are circulating. Over time they leave home less and less frequently. Everything they need arrives by delivery drone. They spend most of their time indoors, for as they grow increasingly conditioned to precisely controlled environments, the unconditioned outdoors becomes inhospitable. (Already this has happened as people get addicted to air conditioning. Americans on average spend 95% of their time indoors.) They also spend more and more of their time online, in digital and virtual spaces. To facilitate this, technology is integrated directly into their brains and bodies. Sophisticated physiological sensors and pumps constantly adjust body chemistry to keep them healthy, and they soon cannot stay alive without them. In the brain, computer-neural interfaces allow them to access the internet at the speed of thought, and communicate with each other telepathically. Images and videos are delivered straight to their optic nerve. Official announcements can be delivered direct to their brains as well, and advertisers pay them per minute to allow commercial messages to be piped in. Eventually they can no longer distinguish between endogenous images and those from the outside. Control of misinformation can be extended to the neurological level. Over time, their capacity for cognition too becomes technology-dependent, as the brain merges with AIs and the internet. (Again, this is but the continuation of an ancient trend that started perhaps with writing. Literate people export some of their capacity for memory onto written records. It is not uncommon for pre-literate people to be able to repeat a thousand-line poem after hearing it once.)
In this society, basic physical functioning, social interaction, immunity, reproduction, imagination, cognition, and health all enter the realm of goods and services. New goods and services means vast new markets, new domains for economic growth. Economic growth is essential for a debt-based currency system to operate. The Transhuman economy therefore enables the current economic order to continue.
The Hippies decline to walk this path, and in fact reverse some part of the technological dependency that is already normal in 2022. This too is already happening. My children were born with less technological intervention than I was. The Hippies wean themselves off of pharmaceutical props to health, in some cases accepting higher risks and earlier deaths, but in the long run enjoying more vitality. They return—are already returning—to natural childbirth.2 They reverse, to a degree, the exquisite division of labor that marks modern society, growing more of their own food, building more of their own houses, being more directly engaged in meeting their material needs on an individual and community level. Their lives become less global, less technology-dependent, more place-based. They redevelop atrophied capacities of the human mind and body, and discover new ones. Since they do not routinely use technology to insulate themselves from all threats and challenges, they stay strong.
Because the Hippies are reclaiming vast areas of life from the realm of goods and services, their society upends the familiar economic order. The role of money in life diminishes. Interest-bearing debt is no longer the foundation of their economy. Alongside the shrinking financial realm, new modes of sharing, collaboration, and exchange flourish in a growing gift economy.
The Hippies see labor as something to embrace in proper measure, not to minimize. Efficiency gives way to aesthetics as the primary guide to material creation, and aesthetics integrates the entire process of procuring, using, and retiring materials. As individuals, in their communities, and as a global culture, they devote their creative powers to beauty above scale, fun above security, and healing above growth.
7. The Great Work
Today we see early signs that humanity is resolving into two societies. What if we bless each other on our choice, and strive to make room for it? It could well be that the Transhumans and the Hippies need each other and can enrich each other’s lives. For one thing, because the paradise of control is a mirage, the material world will forever intrude upon the Metaverse in ways that robots and AI won’t be able to address. Someone will have to fix the leaky roof on the computer server farms. The Transhumans will never fully realize the goal of replacing human labor with machine labor. However, they will develop technologies based on abstraction, computation, and quantity to an extraordinary degree, which in some circumstances can be put in service to the Hippies when they face a challenge requiring those technologies. And they can share the wonders of art and science they create on the transhuman path.
Both societies share certain challenges and live on a common planet. They will have to cooperate if either is to flourish. Perhaps the most significant common challenge is that of governance and social organization. While the transhumanist Metaverse today has overtones of totalitarian central control, it need not be that way. One can easily imagine a decentralized digital society, just as one can imagine a centralized low-tech society. Many ancient societies were exactly that. Neither path, the Transhuman nor the Hippie, is proof against the age-old scourges of tyranny, civil violence, and oppression.
Actually I don’t fully believe what I just wrote. The ever-increasing control over matter that transhumanism requires goes hand in hand with social control. They come from the same worldview: progress equals the imposition of order onto chaos. Given that all of the 60 “stakeholders” in the WEF’s new Metaverse initiative are large corporations, eager for a share of an $800 billion industry, one can safely assume that Metaverse technology will be used to extend and consolidate the power of the corporate-government complex.
It is not as some people say: “Technology is neutral, it depends on how we use it.” Technology has the values and beliefs of its inventors built into it. It appears in a social context, meets a society’s needs, fulfills its ambitions, and embodies its values. Inventions that don’t fit are marginalized or suppressed. Some such technologies, such as those in holistic health, thrive in the near suburbs of official reality. Others, such as free energy devices, languish in the far reaches of unreality, so violently do they contradict what the knowledge authorities believe is real. Neither is value-neutral nor system-neutral. They both are democratizing. The former, requiring much less expertise and high-tech infrastructure, returns medicine to the people. The latter literally decentralizes and democratizes power.
In contrast, most of the medical technology of transhumanism casts ordinary people into a consumer role. Swallow this pill. Receive this injection. Implant this device.
Nonetheless, there is truth in the above words-I-do-not-fully-believe. Notwithstanding the embedded values in technology, we face a more fundamental choice than what technology to use or refuse. Imagine what surveillance technology would do if it were directed by the people at the government, rather than by corporations and government at the people. Imagine if every government decision and expenditure were fully transparent. This idea taps into one of the principles that run deeper than technology: transparency. Lies, gossip, secrecy, and information control can turn any society, Stone Age or Digital Age, into a hell. Dehumanization can turn any society into a slaughterhouse. Good-versus-evil narratives can turn any society into a war zone.
That means we who sound the transhumanist alarm have more work to do than merely to oppose certain technologies and political powers, more to do, even, than to build parallel institutions. We Hippies might roll back technology a little or a lot. We might keep using the internet, cars, excavators, chain saws, and hunting rifles. Or maybe over generations we give them up. Maybe we again dig house foundations with picks and shovels. Maybe we return to the bicycle, or the donkey. However, I feel no excitement about a future that is only a return to the past. I am sure that the miraculous technologies enabled by the human journey of Separation are here for a reason. The pure melody of the lonely shepherd’s pipe does not diminish the value of the symphony orchestra. Both express a love affair with matter.
So the question is, what is the Great Work before us that is common to any technological context? What is the true revolution, the revolution of consciousness, that leaves no one behind to languish in a totalitarian medico-digital prison?
I won’t at this moment offer succinct or tidy answers to such questions. The questions themselves have more power than their answers. They invite us into compassion for all human beings. They return us to the truth of our inter-existence. They remind us that, just as we have not given up on our fellows, God will never give up on us. They attune us to the knowledge that if the situation were hopeless, we would not be here to meet it. They ask us to consider who we are and why we are here; what, and why, a human being is. Whatever the Revolution is, surely it goes all the way to these depths.
So I ask again, what is the Great Work before us? Be fierce in rejecting any answer that your soul knows is untrue, however flattering it may be to your righteousness. Be gentle in your judgments, so that clarity of purpose has room to grow. Be grateful as you discover the joy, ease, and humor that the Great Work makes available. Be confident in the true knowledge that we are ready to accomplish it. Rejoice in the renewal of our love affair with the world of matter and flesh.
Andrew Kaufman is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. He says there are no such things as “viruses” and the “Coronavirus Global Pandemic” is a “manufactured event.”
The conversation around whether or not viruses exist, appears to conjure up all kinds of emotions, and is met with resistance. My guess is because virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm, and it is what we were taught as kids.
A cult-like approach would be to dismiss dissenting views and, instead, to perpetuate a previously held belief. David Rasnick refers to this as the Tyranny Of Dogma.
Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on deaf ears. Bonhoeffer’s famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power.
The Full Story
In the darkest chapter of German history, during a time when incited mobs threw stones into the windows of innocent shop owners and women and children were cruelly humiliated in the open; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young pastor, began to speak publicly against the atrocities.
After years of trying to change people’s minds, Bonhoeffer came home one evening and his own father had to tell him that two men were waiting in his room to take him away.
In prison, Bonhoeffer began to reflect on how his country of poets and thinkers had turned into a collective of cowards, crooks and criminals. Eventually he concluded that the root of the problem was not malice, but stupidity.
Bonhoeffer’s Letters From Prison
In his famous letters from prison, Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice, because while “one may protest against evil; it can be exposed and prevented by the use of force, against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here. Reasons fall on deaf ears.”
Facts that contradict a stupid person’s prejudgment simply need not be believed and when they are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this, the stupid person is self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature.
This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and others who are intellectually dull yet anything but stupid.
The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them.
People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.
It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of a political or religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.
The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up an autonomous position.
The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and is abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil – incapable of seeing that it is evil.
Only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then, we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer died due to his involvement in a plot against Adolf Hitler at dawn on 9 April 1945 at Flossenbürg concentration camp just two weeks before soldiers from the United States liberated the camp.
“Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” Bonhoeffer once said.
Check the sources below to read Bonhoeffer’s original text, “After Ten Years”
Joseph P. Farrell with Dark Journalist: On the Manufactured UFO Threat Alongside Manufactured Pandemics and Wars — Emergency Powers & Continuity of Government
Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt welcomes Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back to the show for a special deep dive on the Continuity of Government (COG) NORTHCOM activation for the CIA and Department of Homeland Security Manufactured UFO Threat.
Dr. Farrell also goes deep on the endgame for the Transhumanist controlling group that is growing increasingly desperate as their operations for global takeover are stumbling.
Part 2 of this conversation is available for subscribers to Dark Journalist.
Mike Stone runs viroliegy.com, easily the most powerful and persuasive critique of virology, that I’ve come across.
I’ve chatted to a number of great minds on the topic of viruses, such as Tom Cowan and Sam Bailey, and find myself convinced by their arguments.
In our conversation, Mike covers
why virology is pseudoscience;
what viruses are;
the problems with definitions;
direct evidence versus indirect evidence;
Koch’s Postulates and why they matter;
the rejection of the Scientific Method;
isolation and purification;
genomics and genome sequencing; and
the Rockefeller funding behind virology.
I strongly recommend reading Bechamp Or Pasteur, which is a biographical exposé of the fraudulent work of Louis Pasteur and the forgotten work of Antoine Béchamp.
The 108th anniversary of this event just happened last month. Always feels strange how a century can go by and little details slip through the cracks, forgotten. We thought we knew this story… but then we had to go and dig.
{An edition to our new “Forgotten History” series}
As you know, I’ve spent two years presenting evidence that the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 was a fake.
But I still press on. I examine the reality machine to see why people have such a problem acknowledging the virus—and by extension, all viruses—are nothing more than fairy tales.
I’ve come up with a number of explanations.
For example: DOCTORS.
Rejecting viruses is rejecting doctors. Doctors are security guards around the reality machine.
“Doctors can’t be wrong.”
“I can’t live in a world where doctors are so wrong.”
“I would never be able to stop weeping for the doctors who are so wrong.”
“If I told my doctor I didn’t believe in viruses, he would cut me off, and I couldn’t stand that.”
“I’m a journalist, and my best sources are doctors. The good doctors. And they all say viruses are real. I need my sources.”
“Without information from doctors, the world would spin into chaos.”
“My mind instructs me to believe doctors are only guilty of making mistakes up to a certain threshold. Beyond that, they simply can’t be criticized.”
OK, that takes care of the doctor fixation. But then we have what I call the world-view fixation:
“I don’t want to live in a world where there are no viruses. I would feel lonely and afraid.”
“I need the assurance that this world of ours is filled with tiny invisible killers. When I accept that, I can maintain equilibrium. You know, their threat and our response. It makes sense.”
“I love the idea of tiny killers. It comforts me.”
“I know precisely what to be afraid of in this world. Otherwise, I would start to see ghosts in closets at night again. I remember them from childhood. Those bastards were PERSONAL. They were coming for ME. Viruses are neutral. They don’t know me. To them, I’m just cells. They don’t PREFER me. They’ll take anyone. I like that.”
“Even if viruses are bullshit, they’re sophisticated bullshit. I favor that over some sort of primitive bullshit.”
“Rejecting viruses would equal rejecting my college education. I need that education to assert my superior position against the Lower Ignorant Ones.”
“The ecological chain of life includes viruses. If we remove them from the chain, Nature makes no sense. That’s what I hear.”
“The world is a dangerous place. This is good, because it helps me to explain my problems and lack of determination. Without viruses, the danger factor would be reduced, and I can’t have that.”
“The nature of reality dictates that when you’re right, you should be psychotically nasty about being right. If I’m not right about the existence of viruses, I can’t be as nasty as I want to be. And that would be a tragedy.”
“My father is a doctor, and he is a great man. At least as great as Al Capone.”
During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.
Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,1 he outlines the following arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.
Definition of Isolation
Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”
Isolation Technology
Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different densities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.
For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,2 provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and characteristics of alleged virus particles.
If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the challenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.
Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Molecular Biology)33 (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.
FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses
Isolated, purified exosomes
Isolated, purified bacteriophages
Sample taken from human fluids and grown in a tissue culture, said to be “purified” and “isolated” virus.So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.
Cell Culture is the Gold Standard
Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?
Cytopathic Effects
Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Genetic Sequencing
Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
But for viruses, scientists use a different technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.
Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diagnosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)
The fluid they start with has genetic material from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.
When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these viruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.
To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs independently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”
The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results represent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.
Lack of Proper Controls
Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.
Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”
If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.
In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.
We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.4 This was the first published paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”
In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic effects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.
An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”
In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.
Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.
Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.
An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.
FIGURE 2. Control experiment by Dr. Stefan LankaDay One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiotics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.
The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.
In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cytopathic effects on Day Five in that culture.
So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.
Coronavirus Fringe Pattern
According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coronavirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.5 In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the characteristic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.
FIGURE 3. “Viral-like particles in non-COVID19 patients’ biopsies. Electron microscopy images of viral-like particles within podocytes in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a (A) native kidney biopsy specimen and (B) acute cellular rejection in an allograft. Note the presence in both cases of single vesicles with an electrondense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles, as well as larger multivesicular bodies (arrows), which could be confounded with vesicle packets containing virions. Inset in (A): the individual small coated pits in the exterior of the vesicle bear resemblance to a viral corona. (C) Similar intracytoplasmic vesicles within tubules in an allograft with changes suspicious for acute cellular rejection.”They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.
The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.6 A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the digestive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)
FIGURE 4: “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.
Genome Sequencing
As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.
As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”
Now Hammond claims that if the procedures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be participating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.
Response to Mercola
Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”1 in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these studies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?
As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”
Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contaminated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiotics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.
Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.
According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.
More Genome Sequencing
One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.7 In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.
This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.
They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really important point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the sequencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”
In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said contained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.
The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
They also skipped an important step, which they call making “contigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.
In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.
All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.
When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!
More Covid-19 Virus Studies
Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.8 The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.
Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.9 According to the researchers, “Electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.
These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic composition of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.
At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgarian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.10
This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found antibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.
Does It Matter?
Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!
And yet the virus debate has immense importance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justification for forcing these measures on the public disappears.
SIDEBARS
Electron Microscopy
Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:
FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.
DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.
EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.
SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.
STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.
These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.
Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biological samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.
A Mouse Study
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.11
In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infection utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”
Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.
According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.
According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.
Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a person with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.
Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any relation to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.
And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.
If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and subjected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.
And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.
The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.
In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.
Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.
Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus
Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.
The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.
The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.12
Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?
Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).
Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.
So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?
The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”
English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequences—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”
The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.
This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.
So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.
The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals
by Dr. Peterson Pierre13
If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?
The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.
The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.
Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.
Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bacteriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and characterization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
One of the most extraordinary achievements of the so-called Great Reset has been to create a massive new wave of worldwide resistance to its overall programme!
While Schwab et al may well have hoped that this movement would be halted by the sudden switch of emphasis from “pandemic” to war, the long-term effect looks more like broadening and solidifying resistance to a monstrous system whose many heads are now very obviously all connected to the same slimey body.
Italy, for instance, is witnessing a certain convergence, under the Great Resist banner, of opposition to vaccine passports, the EU and NATO.
Lazio councillor Davide Barillari is well known for his opposition to the “Green Pass” and associated injections.
He is also a leading opponent of the American military presence in Italy – there are dozens of US bases there, some secret, hosting 13,000 troops.
The Ukraine conflict has stoked opposition to this de facto post-WW2 occupation of Italy, with various campaigns and protests springing up.
At the end of April, Barillari published on his website an incendiary third-party text entitled “Enough lies! Italy must get out of NATO!”.
The anti-system convergence has also been noticeable at protests like that in Genoa, where people marched for “peace and freedom”.
The same phenomenon is apparent in Germany, another place with a heavy US military presence.
In France, just a week after Emmanuel Macron managed to win the presidential election, there was a massive Mayday anti-government protest in Paris which saw the police pick up on the levels of militarised brutality used against the Gilets Jaunes since 2018.
And in Ireland, photo-journalist Robert Pierzynski has been recording a series of freedom demonstrations, such as this one in Galway on May 22.
As our recent online poll unsurprisingly revealed, the vast majority of human beings have no desire to become slaves of the ruling mafia in a technocratic transhumanist world state!
