The FDA ,aka =federal death administration will never be found guilty ,because all courts are establishments of the ones exterminating us . We should not have to fight in courts .The courts should do the fighting for us .
I was impressed that some doctors were said to have paid up to a quarter million in Spain to get fake vax cards....but didn't give a dime or a dammm for the ones their medical sexpertise killed and maimed and gaslit, sic
and then Pfizer and Moderna will be / are being pushed in front of the bus to hide the fact it was DOD all the way down. These are prototype EUA countermeasures and never have been "vaccines" in contracts or law or fact. That word was just the card-sharks' trick to suck in the passersby. Underneath the faux label, it says "Prototype made and distributed by the Pentagon." On behalf of ... that's the next key question. I think we all know the answer, but we must wait til enough people peel off that fake label and realize how they've been had before we can put the real culprits in jail.
Evil at work...everything is a psyop when dealing with frank evil. I have come to realise that the only thing that makes a difference is each and every individual facing the evil, no matter how overwhelming it may make one feel and staring it right in the face and speaking truth....Astra, Pfizer and all the entities that participated in this coup de ta against humanity will eventually fade away if and only if each person says "No More"!!
How much did the Crown push this shite? Who among the Royals gained? Why does the Commonwealth still support the King Chuckles III whose net worth is in trillions not taxed?
I would encourage you to join with fellow New Zealand doctors, Dr. Sam Bailey and Dr. Mark Bailey in refuting the entire notion that viruses even exist. Because if you continue to think a 'virus' is a real-world entity, instead of a computer-generated artefact with no actual physical existence, then you continue to buy into the arguments that 'variants' are real and present an ever-changing threat which can only be defeated by endless streams of 'vaccinations'. This is EXACTLY what Big Pharma intend you to believe. The truth is this. Nobody has EVER isolated an entity that is capable of self-replication, capable of transmission by normal natural processes from an infected cell to a healthy cell and causing that healthy cell to become diseased or die. Nobody. Ever. FOI requests to over 220 government bodies, research faciities, academia worldwide for even a single paper showing they have isolated an entity said to cause Covid resulted in ZERO papers. Nobody has such a paper. The reason is simple: no such entity exists. Whatever makes you sick is not some microscopic, elusive particle called a 'virus' for which a 'vaccine' is the cure. The virus myth was started by Pasteur and quickly absorbed by Pharma so they could push their dangerous but immensely profitable 'vaccine' story.
I assume you mean that ironically as no single person could possibly have *all* the answers, which is why good scientists tend to qualify their beliefs with language such as "I believe that" or "it appears likely that" or "it is my opinion that." When someone states something categorically, like "vaccines are safe and effective" or "viruses don't exist" it make me just a bit suspicious of their methods, if not their motives.
As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, while a single exception can often be enough to falsify a claim. That said, I have a question: How does the non-virus belief group explain the well documented epidemics of smallpox among the indigenous peoples of North America upon first contact with European colonists? With no natural resistance, the disease spread like wildfire, was often fatal, and extended beyond immediate contact to groups who hadn't yet met any Europeans. How does terrain theory explain that? Similarly, how does one explain European explorers succumbing to diseases they'd had no previous exposure to in places like Africa and Southeast Asia?
Another question (I ask a lot of questions). Why is it so hard to believe that viruses exist when (by some theories) they are nothing more than precursors to living cells, composed of the same lipid proteins, carrying similar genetic information, but with no means to reproduce outside of a host? Parasitism and symbiosis are well understood mechanisms for survival of a wide variety of organisms, so why should viruses be any different? Their success depends of course on not killing their host, which explains their persistence and according to some theories, their sometime incorporation into living systems, as with the example of mitochondria.
A further question. Why are you (and so many others in your camp) so adamant in your belief? I've seen your case made many times in multiple forums such as this, and the pattern is always the same: Belief stated as fact - never couched in the kind of language I suggested a good scientist might use. Truth is, I've looked at the material presented by the Baileys, who seem to be the go-to reference point for your camp, and I remain unconvinced. Not that I have the expertise to completely discount the theory, but then I suspect neither do they, nor the people they cite, and certainly not their many ardent supporters.
So last question. What's up with that? Why is it so important to inject this line of thought into nearly every debate centred on viruses? What exactly does it change, apart from letting the US Dept. of Defence and allied agencies off the hook, since if viruses don't exist then they obviously didn't manufacture one and release it on an unsuspecting population, which according to some theories was the necessary precursor to introducing the vaccines.
With all due respect there's just far too many variables and far too many actors in this play to make any sort of categorical statements on the topic. Like I said, I ask a lot of questions, but foremost among them is this: Why do I believe the things I believe? On what basis, on what solid foundation of empirical fact do I base my beliefs, or am I simply succumbing to the all-too-human trait to believe in something just because it sounds right?
Final point. Whenever this topic comes up, I almost always see the Baileys used as a reference point, but to me they don't seem anymore qualified than the myriad other voices being raised in this debate. So why should I believe them more than anyone else with similar qualifications? It all seems a bit too much like 'appeal to authority' to me.
You appear to be genuinely questioning the claim that viruses are simply inventions to explain observed phenomenon, without scientific proof, which happen to greatly benefit Big Pharma whilst wreaking untold harm on the population. I applaud your willingness to learn. Comments in blogs are inappropriate places for detailed explanations. However, it is not helpful for you to proffer anecdotal stories such as the supposed smallpox decimation in the Americas as though they are facts. They are not. Research will show you their true cause. For a more detailed analysis of the fraudulent nature of the entire virus/virology issue I suggest the meticulously researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey 'A Farewell to Virology' which has hundreds of citations to support the evidence it presents. You can find this paper here: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
I would also refer you to the work of Christine Massey on Substack. She has conducted meticulous research under Freedom of Information legislation in all major countries seeking proof of any papers showing the isolation of entities claimed to be viruses. After thousands of requests she has yet to be presented with such a paper. This applies to smallpox, polio, measles, pertussis, herpes et al. And to Covid.. of course.
Finally, referring to the work of the Baileys is not appealing to authority. It's because they clearly explain their evidence in layman's terms which we can all follow and do so without emotional outbursts. They are quite ready to accept viruses exist and cause disease. All they require is proof using the scientific method.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's the Black Swan problem writ large. What interests me as a student of epistemology is not whether viruses exist or not, but the methods and arguments advocates of that position use to establish their claim.
To be clear, I'm not studying the question per se, I'm studying the people who ask it. I want to know why people hold such strong beliefs in the face of little to no supporting evidence, and as I said, I've looked at the evidence presented and don't find it convincing.
I don't know if the Bailey's made thousands of requests or not, all I know is they claim to have done so and received no response, but I can think of a number of reasons why they wouldn't, first being that they're not taken seriously by actual researchers. I had this experience myself when I came up with what I thought was a perfectly reasonable approach to the problem of initiating a fusion reaction. I was summarily dismissed by an eminent physicist. That doesn't mean I was wrong, nor does it mean he was justified in dismissing me, but neither did it prove me right. As it turned out, I wasn't. A lesson in humility I took on board.
The basic issue I have is with people who misunderstand the scientific method. Virus theory is just that. A theory. It has explanatory power beyond anything else on offer, but that doesn't make it true, only the best explanation we have at the moment. The history of science is replete with overturned paradigms - Thomas Kuhn even wrote a book about it, which is required reading in first year science programs.
As an advocate of this particular paradigm shift, you ought to be prepared for stiff resistance, since you're challenging a well established theory with strong predictive power. Again, that doesn't make it true, but to overturn it you need a lot more than a couple of researchers making extraordinary claims.
I'm no biologist, but i have a pretty good understanding of physics and the argument that the virus has never been isolated to me seems spurious. None of us have ever "seen" an electron, for example, in fact the very attempt to detect one changes its behaviour, so we have nothing but inference from carefully constructed experiments to guide us.
And yet, we have an entire technological civilization based on our belief that they exist and behave in predictable ways. The very medium of communication we're presently using depends entirely on that understanding, and yet it's based on something we've never actually seen. I'm not surprised that the same problem exists in biology, given the complexity of the subject. I just don't believe we should overturn a well established paradigm on such limited evidence. If the theory doesn't hold up, it will eventually be overturned, I've no doubt about that. In the meantime, I remain agnostic, which I believe is a valid scientific response to the question.
The virus story is not a ‘theory’. There’s no proof any virus exists. It’s an explanation without proof. An explanation that just happens to support massive Big Pharma profit streams. Remember: Pasteur invented the idea of a virus out of thin air because he could not detect the entity he claimed was causing disease. His microscopes were simply not powerful enough, he said, but the entities were definitely there, he said. He did not foresee the arrival of electron microscopes which would certainly be powerful enough to detect viruses, if they exist. But they never have. Photos certainly exist that claim to show viruses, but there’s no proof such entities are self replicating and capable of causing disease. They’re just labelled that way to support the narrative. Virology is a pseudoscience based on this labelling hoax. Generations have been brought up believing the virus story so it’s become accepted truth. But that doesn’t make it true. You could show it IS true by isolating an entity, showing it self replicates and causes healthy cells to die or be damaged through natural processes. So go ahead then: do it.
Well, you're clearly convinced so what else can I say? I dislike polemics, so I'll just leave you with this thought: The burden of proof lies with the claimant/accuser. Same principle as in a court of law. If you want to accuse the scientific community of upholding a false paradigm then the burden of proof is on you, not them, and thus far I've seen nothing that would hold up in a court of law. It's akin to saying the accused can't prove his whereabouts on the night of the crime, and therefore he's guilty. Not a very convincing argument.
What a strange logic. We have a body following a concept (viruses) which is devoid of proof, yet is in the large majority. Opposing them is a body asking for proof, and proceeding on the basis that other mechanisms of disease must be the cause, and proposing that we seek those causes and not just accept the unproven premise, otherwise we will never find the real causes of disease but will forever be condemned to follow a fruitless path that happens to make Big Pharma exceedingly rich whilst damaging the population by keeping them on the treadmill of constant ‘vaccinations’. Yet your position is that it is we who need to provide proof. Can you not see the logical fallacy of this position? If the virus concept is true, prove it by demonstrating viruses exist. We don’t need to prove they don’t exist. If they did, there would be proofs. We need to focus on the real causes of disease, which we will never find all the time our minds are trapped in the stories of entities that only appear in computer models and are never seen in the real world. I know it can be hard to overturn a lifetime belief that viruses cause disease, but I offer an effective path to take towards abandoning this false belief. Everyone knows the common cold is caused by a virus and is infectious, right? Daniel Roytas has published a 400 page book that utterly destroys this common belief. It's called 'Can You Catch A Cold?' Comprehensively supported by hundreds of citations. I challenge you to read this book and come away still believing in the virus story.
I'm not interested in Fall Guys. And I can see through their (literally) bloody ploys. I want justice – and vengeance, and at this point I really don't give a damn if it's after a scrupulously fair trial in the purported fashion of Nuremberg, or if it's tree decorating episodes at the tender mercies of lynch mobs: Covid-19 and the Lethal Injections are hands down and without a doubt the most appalling crime in human history; nothing but a scam designed to profit from premeditated mass murder. The monsters responsible must pay, and pay with their lives – and the Hellfire and damnation awaiting them on the other side is too good for them.
I suspect it was always the plan. Offer the Public the illusion of choice, then phase out the 2 non-mRNA contenders, first J&J, then AZ, until you arrive at where you intended to go from the start.
It was always meant to end in ONLY the mRNA option.
Going by the endless conferences and 'round tables' hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, I think Pfizer and Moderna are being set up for the same treatment. Seems to me that the point is to keep attention focused on Big Pharma and away from the actual perpetrators of this assault on humanity, who are more likely to be found in the Military Industrial Complex which has strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry. No need to go into detail, the story is there for anyone who cares to look, and has been since the end of WWII.
One thing to understand here is if Pfizer et al are thrown to the wolves it basically changes nothing. Some people will be compensated out of the proceeds of bankruptcy, but the intellectual property will then pass to the highest bidder, who is likely to be an entity with far less public presence and accountability, and as they say, the beat goes on.
An analogy would be the DEA and Colombian govt. going after Pablo Escobar's organization. They shut him down, but it did nothing to stop the flow of drugs, just made it more lucrative for the competition which then filled the gap.
"the depth and breadth of the depravity visited upon us: an unfamiliar genre of evil, full of quirks and sleight of hand that have certainly been beyond my own limited imagination of turpitude.'
I say this with the utmost respect, Doctor; it is the associations that eluded your imagination, not the turpitude itself. Your priors will have placed medical intervention within "category benign." This categorization elides the association with self-interest that inevitably follows capital flows and career advancement.
Where wealth and influence concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
I was thinking along the same lines, that AstraZ and J&J were thrown out of the equation on purpose so that M and P and their lethal mRNA can rule competition free and can look like the good guys who saved and will continue to save humanity. Besides the mRNA, it's incredible the number of jabs that Pfizer has on the market currently, for ailments that ordinarily can be treated with some Tylenol and meds that have been generic for decades. Pfizer and its minions are reminiscent of the blood letting practitioners of old who slowly bled their patients to death. Pfizer's day will certainly arrive, but how about the people who were needlessly lost because of the jabs? It's too late. Like with all wars, things right themselves when it's too late for some.
Notice the people complaining were 'experts' ... complaining about relatively minor side effects ... and it barely mentions more serious side effects ...
Everybody is talking about 'a day of reckoning' ... but it's coming ... very soon ... for us ... not them ...
I have sent Chris Luxon 3 emails in the last two days ... the last about 'The Great Taking' ... which I suggested he watch ... alongside his Finance Minister ...
David Webb does a great job ... but, like most ... doesn't connect all the dots ... and believes we can 'win' ... not seeming to realize the other side of the war being waged against us ... 'vaccines' ... have already, irreversibly genetically poisoned 5.5 billion people ... and that WWIII is inevitable ... because it is now the only way the evil people destroying us ... can protect themselves from 'a day of reckoning' ...
I fear ... am certain ... that that day of reckoning ... will come for us first ... for our stupidity ... and it will come for us ... sometime after July ...
And the reason I am certain ... is because of our 'arrogance of stupidity' ... three Stuff accounts blocking my emails after I forwarded an email to Chris Luxon ... with a pdf attachment of a peer reviewed study about DNA contamination of the 'vaccines' ... 'hot off the press'
Ironically ... apart from one named journalist ... the other two accounts were 'Stuff Investigations' & 'Stuff Opinion' ... very bemusing ... but hopelessly tragic ....
Yet ... you only have to watch 'The Great Taking' ... and all the evil ducks ... line up in a very obvious row ...
NZ MSM ... 'mass formation psychosis' ... in 'spades'
The FDA ,aka =federal death administration will never be found guilty ,because all courts are establishments of the ones exterminating us . We should not have to fight in courts .The courts should do the fighting for us .
I was impressed that some doctors were said to have paid up to a quarter million in Spain to get fake vax cards....but didn't give a dime or a dammm for the ones their medical sexpertise killed and maimed and gaslit, sic
and then Pfizer and Moderna will be / are being pushed in front of the bus to hide the fact it was DOD all the way down. These are prototype EUA countermeasures and never have been "vaccines" in contracts or law or fact. That word was just the card-sharks' trick to suck in the passersby. Underneath the faux label, it says "Prototype made and distributed by the Pentagon." On behalf of ... that's the next key question. I think we all know the answer, but we must wait til enough people peel off that fake label and realize how they've been had before we can put the real culprits in jail.
Evil at work...everything is a psyop when dealing with frank evil. I have come to realise that the only thing that makes a difference is each and every individual facing the evil, no matter how overwhelming it may make one feel and staring it right in the face and speaking truth....Astra, Pfizer and all the entities that participated in this coup de ta against humanity will eventually fade away if and only if each person says "No More"!!
How much did the Crown push this shite? Who among the Royals gained? Why does the Commonwealth still support the King Chuckles III whose net worth is in trillions not taxed?
Commonwealth is made of sheep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vAITSG6EoQ
I would encourage you to join with fellow New Zealand doctors, Dr. Sam Bailey and Dr. Mark Bailey in refuting the entire notion that viruses even exist. Because if you continue to think a 'virus' is a real-world entity, instead of a computer-generated artefact with no actual physical existence, then you continue to buy into the arguments that 'variants' are real and present an ever-changing threat which can only be defeated by endless streams of 'vaccinations'. This is EXACTLY what Big Pharma intend you to believe. The truth is this. Nobody has EVER isolated an entity that is capable of self-replication, capable of transmission by normal natural processes from an infected cell to a healthy cell and causing that healthy cell to become diseased or die. Nobody. Ever. FOI requests to over 220 government bodies, research faciities, academia worldwide for even a single paper showing they have isolated an entity said to cause Covid resulted in ZERO papers. Nobody has such a paper. The reason is simple: no such entity exists. Whatever makes you sick is not some microscopic, elusive particle called a 'virus' for which a 'vaccine' is the cure. The virus myth was started by Pasteur and quickly absorbed by Pharma so they could push their dangerous but immensely profitable 'vaccine' story.
"I just happen to know it all."
I assume you mean that ironically as no single person could possibly have *all* the answers, which is why good scientists tend to qualify their beliefs with language such as "I believe that" or "it appears likely that" or "it is my opinion that." When someone states something categorically, like "vaccines are safe and effective" or "viruses don't exist" it make me just a bit suspicious of their methods, if not their motives.
As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, while a single exception can often be enough to falsify a claim. That said, I have a question: How does the non-virus belief group explain the well documented epidemics of smallpox among the indigenous peoples of North America upon first contact with European colonists? With no natural resistance, the disease spread like wildfire, was often fatal, and extended beyond immediate contact to groups who hadn't yet met any Europeans. How does terrain theory explain that? Similarly, how does one explain European explorers succumbing to diseases they'd had no previous exposure to in places like Africa and Southeast Asia?
Another question (I ask a lot of questions). Why is it so hard to believe that viruses exist when (by some theories) they are nothing more than precursors to living cells, composed of the same lipid proteins, carrying similar genetic information, but with no means to reproduce outside of a host? Parasitism and symbiosis are well understood mechanisms for survival of a wide variety of organisms, so why should viruses be any different? Their success depends of course on not killing their host, which explains their persistence and according to some theories, their sometime incorporation into living systems, as with the example of mitochondria.
A further question. Why are you (and so many others in your camp) so adamant in your belief? I've seen your case made many times in multiple forums such as this, and the pattern is always the same: Belief stated as fact - never couched in the kind of language I suggested a good scientist might use. Truth is, I've looked at the material presented by the Baileys, who seem to be the go-to reference point for your camp, and I remain unconvinced. Not that I have the expertise to completely discount the theory, but then I suspect neither do they, nor the people they cite, and certainly not their many ardent supporters.
So last question. What's up with that? Why is it so important to inject this line of thought into nearly every debate centred on viruses? What exactly does it change, apart from letting the US Dept. of Defence and allied agencies off the hook, since if viruses don't exist then they obviously didn't manufacture one and release it on an unsuspecting population, which according to some theories was the necessary precursor to introducing the vaccines.
With all due respect there's just far too many variables and far too many actors in this play to make any sort of categorical statements on the topic. Like I said, I ask a lot of questions, but foremost among them is this: Why do I believe the things I believe? On what basis, on what solid foundation of empirical fact do I base my beliefs, or am I simply succumbing to the all-too-human trait to believe in something just because it sounds right?
Final point. Whenever this topic comes up, I almost always see the Baileys used as a reference point, but to me they don't seem anymore qualified than the myriad other voices being raised in this debate. So why should I believe them more than anyone else with similar qualifications? It all seems a bit too much like 'appeal to authority' to me.
You appear to be genuinely questioning the claim that viruses are simply inventions to explain observed phenomenon, without scientific proof, which happen to greatly benefit Big Pharma whilst wreaking untold harm on the population. I applaud your willingness to learn. Comments in blogs are inappropriate places for detailed explanations. However, it is not helpful for you to proffer anecdotal stories such as the supposed smallpox decimation in the Americas as though they are facts. They are not. Research will show you their true cause. For a more detailed analysis of the fraudulent nature of the entire virus/virology issue I suggest the meticulously researched paper by Dr. Mark Bailey 'A Farewell to Virology' which has hundreds of citations to support the evidence it presents. You can find this paper here: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
I would also refer you to the work of Christine Massey on Substack. She has conducted meticulous research under Freedom of Information legislation in all major countries seeking proof of any papers showing the isolation of entities claimed to be viruses. After thousands of requests she has yet to be presented with such a paper. This applies to smallpox, polio, measles, pertussis, herpes et al. And to Covid.. of course.
Finally, referring to the work of the Baileys is not appealing to authority. It's because they clearly explain their evidence in layman's terms which we can all follow and do so without emotional outbursts. They are quite ready to accept viruses exist and cause disease. All they require is proof using the scientific method.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's the Black Swan problem writ large. What interests me as a student of epistemology is not whether viruses exist or not, but the methods and arguments advocates of that position use to establish their claim.
To be clear, I'm not studying the question per se, I'm studying the people who ask it. I want to know why people hold such strong beliefs in the face of little to no supporting evidence, and as I said, I've looked at the evidence presented and don't find it convincing.
I don't know if the Bailey's made thousands of requests or not, all I know is they claim to have done so and received no response, but I can think of a number of reasons why they wouldn't, first being that they're not taken seriously by actual researchers. I had this experience myself when I came up with what I thought was a perfectly reasonable approach to the problem of initiating a fusion reaction. I was summarily dismissed by an eminent physicist. That doesn't mean I was wrong, nor does it mean he was justified in dismissing me, but neither did it prove me right. As it turned out, I wasn't. A lesson in humility I took on board.
The basic issue I have is with people who misunderstand the scientific method. Virus theory is just that. A theory. It has explanatory power beyond anything else on offer, but that doesn't make it true, only the best explanation we have at the moment. The history of science is replete with overturned paradigms - Thomas Kuhn even wrote a book about it, which is required reading in first year science programs.
As an advocate of this particular paradigm shift, you ought to be prepared for stiff resistance, since you're challenging a well established theory with strong predictive power. Again, that doesn't make it true, but to overturn it you need a lot more than a couple of researchers making extraordinary claims.
I'm no biologist, but i have a pretty good understanding of physics and the argument that the virus has never been isolated to me seems spurious. None of us have ever "seen" an electron, for example, in fact the very attempt to detect one changes its behaviour, so we have nothing but inference from carefully constructed experiments to guide us.
And yet, we have an entire technological civilization based on our belief that they exist and behave in predictable ways. The very medium of communication we're presently using depends entirely on that understanding, and yet it's based on something we've never actually seen. I'm not surprised that the same problem exists in biology, given the complexity of the subject. I just don't believe we should overturn a well established paradigm on such limited evidence. If the theory doesn't hold up, it will eventually be overturned, I've no doubt about that. In the meantime, I remain agnostic, which I believe is a valid scientific response to the question.
The virus story is not a ‘theory’. There’s no proof any virus exists. It’s an explanation without proof. An explanation that just happens to support massive Big Pharma profit streams. Remember: Pasteur invented the idea of a virus out of thin air because he could not detect the entity he claimed was causing disease. His microscopes were simply not powerful enough, he said, but the entities were definitely there, he said. He did not foresee the arrival of electron microscopes which would certainly be powerful enough to detect viruses, if they exist. But they never have. Photos certainly exist that claim to show viruses, but there’s no proof such entities are self replicating and capable of causing disease. They’re just labelled that way to support the narrative. Virology is a pseudoscience based on this labelling hoax. Generations have been brought up believing the virus story so it’s become accepted truth. But that doesn’t make it true. You could show it IS true by isolating an entity, showing it self replicates and causes healthy cells to die or be damaged through natural processes. So go ahead then: do it.
Well, you're clearly convinced so what else can I say? I dislike polemics, so I'll just leave you with this thought: The burden of proof lies with the claimant/accuser. Same principle as in a court of law. If you want to accuse the scientific community of upholding a false paradigm then the burden of proof is on you, not them, and thus far I've seen nothing that would hold up in a court of law. It's akin to saying the accused can't prove his whereabouts on the night of the crime, and therefore he's guilty. Not a very convincing argument.
What a strange logic. We have a body following a concept (viruses) which is devoid of proof, yet is in the large majority. Opposing them is a body asking for proof, and proceeding on the basis that other mechanisms of disease must be the cause, and proposing that we seek those causes and not just accept the unproven premise, otherwise we will never find the real causes of disease but will forever be condemned to follow a fruitless path that happens to make Big Pharma exceedingly rich whilst damaging the population by keeping them on the treadmill of constant ‘vaccinations’. Yet your position is that it is we who need to provide proof. Can you not see the logical fallacy of this position? If the virus concept is true, prove it by demonstrating viruses exist. We don’t need to prove they don’t exist. If they did, there would be proofs. We need to focus on the real causes of disease, which we will never find all the time our minds are trapped in the stories of entities that only appear in computer models and are never seen in the real world. I know it can be hard to overturn a lifetime belief that viruses cause disease, but I offer an effective path to take towards abandoning this false belief. Everyone knows the common cold is caused by a virus and is infectious, right? Daniel Roytas has published a 400 page book that utterly destroys this common belief. It's called 'Can You Catch A Cold?' Comprehensively supported by hundreds of citations. I challenge you to read this book and come away still believing in the virus story.
I'm not interested in Fall Guys. And I can see through their (literally) bloody ploys. I want justice – and vengeance, and at this point I really don't give a damn if it's after a scrupulously fair trial in the purported fashion of Nuremberg, or if it's tree decorating episodes at the tender mercies of lynch mobs: Covid-19 and the Lethal Injections are hands down and without a doubt the most appalling crime in human history; nothing but a scam designed to profit from premeditated mass murder. The monsters responsible must pay, and pay with their lives – and the Hellfire and damnation awaiting them on the other side is too good for them.
.
Petroleum Based Synthetic Injections
Are Not Compatible
With Water Based Human Bodies.
This Is Not Complicated People.
.
I suspect it was always the plan. Offer the Public the illusion of choice, then phase out the 2 non-mRNA contenders, first J&J, then AZ, until you arrive at where you intended to go from the start.
It was always meant to end in ONLY the mRNA option.
Beautifully written! The pace of it made me think of a sucker punch...the zombified jabbed up populace being smashed by the big pharma giants.
"Astrazeneca takes the hit"
Going by the endless conferences and 'round tables' hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, I think Pfizer and Moderna are being set up for the same treatment. Seems to me that the point is to keep attention focused on Big Pharma and away from the actual perpetrators of this assault on humanity, who are more likely to be found in the Military Industrial Complex which has strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry. No need to go into detail, the story is there for anyone who cares to look, and has been since the end of WWII.
One thing to understand here is if Pfizer et al are thrown to the wolves it basically changes nothing. Some people will be compensated out of the proceeds of bankruptcy, but the intellectual property will then pass to the highest bidder, who is likely to be an entity with far less public presence and accountability, and as they say, the beat goes on.
An analogy would be the DEA and Colombian govt. going after Pablo Escobar's organization. They shut him down, but it did nothing to stop the flow of drugs, just made it more lucrative for the competition which then filled the gap.
"the depth and breadth of the depravity visited upon us: an unfamiliar genre of evil, full of quirks and sleight of hand that have certainly been beyond my own limited imagination of turpitude.'
I say this with the utmost respect, Doctor; it is the associations that eluded your imagination, not the turpitude itself. Your priors will have placed medical intervention within "category benign." This categorization elides the association with self-interest that inevitably follows capital flows and career advancement.
Where wealth and influence concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
Excellent, totally agree. Appreciate the "Falcon" example.
I was thinking along the same lines, that AstraZ and J&J were thrown out of the equation on purpose so that M and P and their lethal mRNA can rule competition free and can look like the good guys who saved and will continue to save humanity. Besides the mRNA, it's incredible the number of jabs that Pfizer has on the market currently, for ailments that ordinarily can be treated with some Tylenol and meds that have been generic for decades. Pfizer and its minions are reminiscent of the blood letting practitioners of old who slowly bled their patients to death. Pfizer's day will certainly arrive, but how about the people who were needlessly lost because of the jabs? It's too late. Like with all wars, things right themselves when it's too late for some.
Well said
The NYT article was a 'gambit' ...
Notice the people complaining were 'experts' ... complaining about relatively minor side effects ... and it barely mentions more serious side effects ...
Everybody is talking about 'a day of reckoning' ... but it's coming ... very soon ... for us ... not them ...
I have sent Chris Luxon 3 emails in the last two days ... the last about 'The Great Taking' ... which I suggested he watch ... alongside his Finance Minister ...
David Webb does a great job ... but, like most ... doesn't connect all the dots ... and believes we can 'win' ... not seeming to realize the other side of the war being waged against us ... 'vaccines' ... have already, irreversibly genetically poisoned 5.5 billion people ... and that WWIII is inevitable ... because it is now the only way the evil people destroying us ... can protect themselves from 'a day of reckoning' ...
I fear ... am certain ... that that day of reckoning ... will come for us first ... for our stupidity ... and it will come for us ... sometime after July ...
And the reason I am certain ... is because of our 'arrogance of stupidity' ... three Stuff accounts blocking my emails after I forwarded an email to Chris Luxon ... with a pdf attachment of a peer reviewed study about DNA contamination of the 'vaccines' ... 'hot off the press'
Ironically ... apart from one named journalist ... the other two accounts were 'Stuff Investigations' & 'Stuff Opinion' ... very bemusing ... but hopelessly tragic ....
Yet ... you only have to watch 'The Great Taking' ... and all the evil ducks ... line up in a very obvious row ...
NZ MSM ... 'mass formation psychosis' ... in 'spades'
regards
pb
Hmm. Divine justice or will it be metered out by man do you think?