63 Comments
author
Jan 29·edited Jan 29Pinned

I forgot to add the link to the pdf of communications with CDC, so have now added it to the article, and here it is:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CDC-measles-pox-contagion-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf

Also, be sure to check this new related post from John Blaid, re Dr. Lanka's measles trial:

https://johnblaid.substack.com/p/an-audio-translation-from-dr-stefan

Expand full comment

Thank you Christine, you are real stalwart. I don't want to waste your time but this might interest you re Roger Andoh and FOI requests.

http://www.the-sidebar.com/2021/11/i-caught-cdc-foia-director-roger-andoh.html

His name seems very suitable. Roger and oh, I can't process the FOI request because we haven't got any evidence!

Single longest one word anagram of his name is 'gonorrhea'!

Expand full comment
author

Interesting thank you, Baldmichael. And I've added a few email addresses to my list, thanks to that article :)

Expand full comment

Excellent, I rather thought it would be of use.

Expand full comment

This statement in Tom Cowan's book is false.

"But on February 16, 2016, the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (BGH) made a historic ruling: there is no evidence for the existence of a measles virus." (page 74)

https://pattoverascienza.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The_Contagion-MITH_W.pdf

"German judges in court cases did not rule on whether measles virus exists" - May 5, 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N3721SR/

Expand full comment
author
Feb 7·edited Feb 7Author

Oh wow, Reuters said something, so it must be true, right?!

An MD, Bardens, submitted 6 pseudoscientific studies to Dr. Lanka, including the 1954 study by Enders THAT BECAME THE TEMPLATE FOR "VIRUS ISOLATION".

None of the papers contained scientific evidence of "the virus". And the papers were not even filed into evidence in the lower clown court. The judge in the lower court simply took the "court expert", who invented a story about the proof of "the virus" being established via a combination of various studies including ones that weren't even submitted to Dr. Lanka, at his word. The "expert" did not even specific which evidence from which studies supposedly add up to valid evidence of "the virus".

The lower court judge issued a chair decision, which was not based on a review of "the science", and Lanka was ordered to pay Bardens.

On appeal to the higher court, Lanka won, based on the fact that no one study showed existence of "the virus". It was also stated on the record by the court that the court "expert" had been "vague, unclear" is his "combination" claim.

If the Enders study had been scientific evidence of "the virus", Lanka would have lost. But he won, showing that the court rejected THE STUDY THAT BECAME THE TEMPLATE FOR VIROLOGY, as evidence of "the virus".

There is much more to the story and anyone who really wants to understand the evidence and what happened is recommended to read further rather than simply believing dismissive assertions from the establishment.

I have collected relevant articles, videos and court documents in English, here, and will be adding links to the 6 studies later today:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/stefan-lanka-resources/

Expand full comment

The courts ruled on a civil dispute between two individuals. They did not rule on the existence or non-existence of the measles virus.

Expand full comment
author

The courts ruled on a dispute between two men regarding whether or not the 6 papers submitted by Bardens met the condition set by Lanka: a publication showing existence of measles virus, with the diameter.

Obviously the contents of the studies had to be addressed, which is why a "court appointed expert" was included and other "experts" weighed in.

Numerous court documents are posted on this page by Dr. Lanka, including the report of the "court expert" Prof. Podbielski:

https://wissenschafftplus.de/blog/de?caribaCMS=dd21cd5f8121597d8c6019dced10aa7d

Feli Popescu was in court with Dr. Lanka and has a recording from the higher court, some of which she transcribed onto her website, including the part where the judge said (based on my browser's auto-translation):

"The expert stated » In this work the virus is not demonstrated, in this work the virus is not demonstrated, nor in this work is the virus demonstrated, BUT in the amount, in all works (including those not provided by the petitioner) there is proof «.

Here we already have another problem. Even if we try to take into account the expertise of prof. Podbielski, we do not know which aspects from which he works referred as a "combination", in order to consider that the existence of the virus was proved. The expression of the expert is vague, unclear, and precisely this ambiguity can be avoided when requesting ONE WORK.

... We, the court, would also accept reviews, or rather O review, DACA - based on X previous works that did not reach that conclusion - that review would reach the imperative conclusion: here we have a measles virus and this is its size, based on X and Y. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THEM HERE.

For these reasons, the court in Stuttgart is of the opinion that the request of the petitioner Dr. Bardens has absolutely no chance. The petitioner's complaint is rejected. The costs for both procedural courts will be paid in full by the petitioner Dr. Bardens."

https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2016/03/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-rujeolic-nu.html?m=1

Expand full comment

Key words you are missing... "dispute between two men." That is all it was.

Expand full comment
author

I'll be really polite again and assume you are super-slow rather than disingenuous :)

What I wrote was:

"The courts ruled on a dispute between two men regarding whether or not the 6 papers submitted by Bardens met the condition set by Lanka: a publication showing existence of measles virus, with the diameter."

Do you see now that what I wrote included "dispute between two men"?

Do you deny that the dispute between the 2 men was regarding whether or not the 6 papers submitted by Bardens met the condition set by Lanka: a publication showing existence of measles virus, with the diameter?

Do you deny the involvement of various "experts", including the court's own "expert", Prof. Podbielski and his submitted report?

https://wissenschafftplus.de/blog/de?caribaCMS=dd21cd5f8121597d8c6019dced10aa7d

Expand full comment

Reading comprehension is helpful.

QUOTE:

"In this work the virus is not demonstrated, in this work the virus is not demonstrated, nor in this work is the virus demonstrated, BUT in the amount, in all works (including those not provided by the petitioner) THERE IS PROOF."

Expand full comment

This is the paper Tom Cowan uses to argue against viruses, but it is about "Pfeiffer’s bacillus" which is a type of bacterium. It's not a virus at all. Does Tom Cowan truly not know the difference between "Pfeiffer's bacillus" and the "influenza A virus" that was the cause of the 1918 flu pandemic or is he just trying to scam people?

"EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA" - August 2, 1919.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/221687

Expand full comment
author
Feb 5·edited Feb 5Author

Please specify where Tom supposedly did that, with a timestamp if you're referring to a video. I've watched him countless times and never seen him do any such thing, and no one familiar with his work would ask whether he knows the difference between an alleged "virus" and bacteria (fyi, "influenza A virus" has never been shown to exist).

The scammers are those presenting virology as a science, when it clearly is not. Virologists don't even have valid independent variables to work with, nor a demonstrated contagious illness for which to seek a causal agent.

If you're referring to the video listed in this newsletter, in it Tom discussed a long list of studies wherein researchers had tried and failed to demonstrate contagion or transmission of various illnesses. Here is the list he discussed:

Virology - The Damning Evidence

The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession

https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence

Expand full comment
author

Plus, I asked you to show where Tom Cowan supposedly confused an alleged "virus" with bacteria, as you claimed he did.

Expand full comment

Is there a reason why Tom Cowan didn't share this paper with you?

"The guinea pig as a transmission model for human influenza viruses" - 2006.

"...influenza virus was transmitted from infected guinea pigs to noninfected guinea pigs housed in the same cage, an adjacent cage, and a cage placed 91 cm away. Our results demonstrate that influenza virus can pass between guinea pigs by means of droplet spread and thereby establish the suitability of the guinea pig as a model host for influenza virus transmission studies."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16785447/

Full text:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502566/

Expand full comment
author

Is there a reason why you ask me this question?

Are you claiming that that paper contains valid scientific evidence of a "virus"?

I'm not going to waste my time looking at a paper when you don't even bother to state what significance you think it has!

Expand full comment

Why is Tom Cowan so focused on the "Pfeiffer bacillus" mentioned in Dr. Milton J. Rosenau's study when we all know in this day and age that the 1918 flu was caused by a virus? Specifically, the "influenza A virus?" The Pfeiffer bacillus is a bacterium. Do we need this sleight of hand by Tom Cowan? What is worse is that Tom Cowan never mentions Richard Shope. Has Tom Cowan never heard of him?

"The team of physicians from the US Public Health Service tried to infect their one hundred healthy volunteers at a naval facility on Gallops Island in Boston Harbor. A sense of frustration pervades the report, written by Milton J. Rosenau, MD, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.10 Rosenau had built a successful career in public health by instilling a fear of germs, overseeing quarantines, and warning the public about the dangers of raw milk. He believed that something called Pfeiffer bacillus was the cause. The researchers carefully extracted throat and nasal mucus and even lung material from cadavers and transferred it to the throats, respiratory tracts, and noses of volunteers. “We use some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each on of the volunteers, but none of them took sick,” he said.

Then they drew blood from those who were sick and injected it into ten

volunteers. “None of these took sick in ..."

page 36.

https://pattoverascienza.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The_Contagion-MITH_W.pdf

Expand full comment
author

I'm going to be polite and assume that you're a bit slow and explain this to you, even though the answer should be abundantly clear to you based on what you've already pasted.

Tom was "so focused on the "Pfeiffer bacillus"" when discussing the Rosenau study because, as explained in both Tom's book and the Rosenau study:

"Health officials in those days believed that the cause of the Spanish flu was a microorganism called Pfeiffer’s bacillus"...

"He believed that something called Pfeiffer bacillus was the cause" ...

"we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer's bacillus."

If you're read Tom's description or the Rosenau study, you'd realize that MANY different methods were attempted to transmit the flu from sick people to healthy people, and no one got sick.

They completely failed to demonstrate contagion or transmission of the illness. For example:

"The researchers carefully extracted throat and nasal mucus and even lung material from cadavers and transferred it to the throats, respiratory tracts, and noses of volunteers. “"

"Then they drew blood from those who were sick and injected it into ten

volunteers. “None of these took sick in any way.”"

"we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always

obtained this material in the same way : The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray ; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then

gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the

mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers. In this particular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers,

each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick."

****

"The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he

was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patient.

They shook hands, and. by instructions, he got as close as

he conveniently could, and they talked· for live minutes. At

the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as

he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two),

received this expired -breath, and at the same time was

breathing in as the patient breathed out. This they repeated

five times, and they did it fairly faithfully in almost all of

the instances.

After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed

directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five différent times.

I may say that the volunteers were perfectly splendid about

carrying out the technic of these experiments. They did it

with a high idealism. They were inspired with the thought

that they might help others. They went through the program

in a splendid spirit. After our volunteer had had this sort of

contact with the patient, talking and chatting and shaking

hands with him for five minutes, and receiving his breath five

times, and then his cough five times directly in his face, he

moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and

repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that

sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them

more than three days old.

We will remember that each one of the ten volunteers

had that sort of intimate contact with each one of the

ten different influenza patients. They were watched

carefully for seven days—and none of them took sick

in any way."

If you still think that "flu" was contagious after reading this study, I don't even know what to tell you:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Rosenau-MODE-OF-SPREAD-OF-INFLUENZA.pdf

******************************

"we all know in this day and age that the 1918 flu was caused by a virus"

No, we don't all "know" this. I challenge you to cite valid scientific evidence back up this claim, which was already refuted by the Rosenau study.

Expand full comment

Tom Cowan never heard of this guy?

"[Influenza virus]"

"Scientist Richard E. Shope, who investigated swine flu in 1920, had a suspicion that the cause of this disease might be a virus. Already in 1933, scientists from the National Institute for Medical Research in London - Wilson Smith, Sir Christopher Andrewes, and Sir Patrick Laidlaw - for the first time isolated the virus, which caused human flu. Then scientific community started the exhaustive research of influenza virus, and the great interest in this virus and its unique features is still active even today."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18182834/

Expand full comment
author

I'll try being polite again:

You've cited a review. Congratulations. Now try citing valid scientific evidence in the form of a primary study that includes the detailed Methodology that was implemented. Because the devil is in the details.

Expand full comment

"Influenza: exposing the true killer"

Abstract

"In the early 1930s, Richard Shope isolated influenza virus from infected pigs. Shope's finding was quickly followed by the isolation of the influenza virus from humans, proving that a virus-not a bacterium, as was widely believed-caused influenza."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16685764/

Full text:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2118275/

Expand full comment
author

That is not even a study, just a mini review making claims that are not supported by valid scientific studies.

Go to the referenced studies and see if you can find one where the alleged "virus" was actually found in "hosts", purified, etc. You have to read the Methods carefully, not just blindly accept what is stated in a title or abstract.

November 1, 2021:

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that they have no record describing purification of any “influenza virus” from a patient sample by any method, by anyone, anywhere on the planet:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CDC-Nov-1-2021-influenza-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf

December 20, 2021:

Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” having been purified from a sample taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, ever, period.

PHAC then gave a red herring excuse, implying that my request had ruled out studies wherein any other medium was used to achieve purification, when it had only ruled out addition of genetic material.

PHAC then claimed that “isolation in cell culture” (an oxymoron) is the gold standard for determining the presence of “intact virus”, and applied circular reasoning by asserting that stressed cells breaking down are evidence of a “virus” since a “virus” would cause cells to break down – like asserting that finding presents under a tree is the gold standard evidence for the presence of Santa Claus.

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/PHAC-ANY-virus-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf

Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases came up empty:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Japan-Natl-Inst-of-Infec-Dis.pdf

Expand full comment

You may not be okay with this but I am.

Isolation of Viruses

"Unlike bacteria, many of which can be grown on an artificial nutrient medium, viruses require a living host cell for replication. Infected host cells (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) can be cultured and grown, and then the growth medium can be harvested as a source of virus. Virions in the liquid medium can be separated from the host cells by either centrifugation or filtration. Filters can physically remove anything present in the solution that is larger than the virions; the viruses can then be collected in the filtrate (Figure 6.3.1)."

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/06%3A_Acellular_Pathogens/6.03%3A_Isolation_Culture_and_Identification_of_Viruses

Jeremy Hammond has already addressed Tom Cowan and Mike Stone, so I don't see where it is worth rehashing over and over again.

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/12/15/mike-stone-proves-my-point-about-the-dogma-of-virus-denialism/

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/10/17/answering-tom-cowans-five-simple-questions-for-virologists/

Expand full comment
author

Correct, you failed again to cite a study. I'm well aware of Jeremy and guess what - he's never cited a valid study either.

"viruses require a living host cell for replication" - reification fallacy, and irrelevant to teh topic of purification. If they existed they would be found both inside and outside of cells (having to leave a cell before they can "infect" another cell or "host"

"Infected host cells (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) can be cultured and grown, and then the growth medium can be harvested as a source of virus" = euphemism for "cell lines can be starved and poisoned and cells breaking down passed off as "virus isolation""

"Virions in the liquid medium can be separated from the host cells by either centrifugation or filtration. Filters can physically remove anything present in the solution that is larger than the virions; the viruses can then be collected in the filtrate" = circular reasoning based on as assumption of "viruses" existing and causing CPE.

The hysterical thing is that "hosts" are allegedly the ideal place for "the virus" to replicate so if they could be found anywhere, that is where they should be! But no, virologists rarely even look for them there, saying that there would not be enough to find. They need to do a wildly unnatural cell culture and blame an unidentified "virus" for cells breaking down.

This is pure illogic, but if you're fine with it - ok, your choice!

Expand full comment
author

That's a National Geographic article, not a scientific study showing that any "germ" causes an illness of any kind.

Expand full comment

"Measles outbreak in a pediatric practice: airborne transmission in an office setting"

Abstract

"In February 1981, a measles outbreak occurred in a pediatric practice in DeKalb County, GA. The source case, a 12-year-old boy vaccinated against measles at 11 1/2 months of age, was in the office for one hour on the second day of rash, primarily in a single examining room. On examination, he was noted to be coughing vigorously. Seven secondary cases of measles occurred due to exposure in the office. Four children had transient contact with the source patient as he entered or exited through the waiting room; only one of the four had face-to-face contact within 1 m of the source patient. The three other children who contracted measles were never in the same room with the source patient; one of the three arrived at the office one hour after the source patient had left. The risk of measles for unvaccinated infants (attack rate 80%, 4/5) was 10.8 times the risk for vaccinated children (attack rate 7%, 2/27) (P = .022, Fisher exact test, two-tailed). Airflow studies demonstrated that droplet nuclei generated in the examining room used by the source patient were dispersed throughout the entire office suite. Airborne spread of measles from a vigorously coughing child was the most likely mode of transmission. The outbreak supports the fact that measles virus when it becomes airborne can survive at least one hour. The rarity of reports of similar outbreaks suggests that airborne spread is unusual. Modern office design with tight insulation and a substantial proportion of recirculated ventilation may predispose to airborne transmission."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3982900/

Expand full comment
author

The "virus" particle hasn't even been shown to exist, let alone cause a disease that's contagious.

This is not a scientific study. There is no controlled experiment here, just a story of a kid at a doctor's office, with little or no contact with other kids who also became sick. We've been so conditioned all our lives to believe in "viruses" and contagion that people just go along with such stories instead of thinking logically and critically.

Expand full comment

"Airborne transmission of smallpox."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1819915/?page=1

Expand full comment
author

That's not even a study, just a report of someone getting sick, being diagnosed with smallpox, being sent to a smallpox hospital and more people getting sick - with airborne transmission assumed as the reason. Other possible reasons for the people getting sick are not even considered. This is not scientific or even logical.

And lol he was "fairly rigorously isolated", had no contact with the other people who got sick and they were all jabbed.

Classic example of pseudoscience and illogic being used to push for more social isolation and quackcination.

Expand full comment

It looks like they can spread chickenpox with a chickenpox vaccine.

"Transmission of varicella-vaccine virus from a healthy 12-month-old child to his pregnant mother"

Abstract

"A 12-month-old healthy boy had approximately 30 vesicular skin lesions 24 days after receiving varicella vaccine. Sixteen days later his pregnant mother had 100 lesions. Varicella-vaccine virus was identified by polymerase chain reaction in the vesicular lesions of the mother. After an elective abortion, no virus was detected in the fetal tissue. This case documents transmission of varicella-vaccine virus from a healthy 12-month-old infant to his pregnant mother."

Salzman MB, Sharrar RG, Steinberg S, LaRussa P. Transmission of varicella-vaccine virus from a healthy 12-month-old child to his pregnant mother. J Pediatr. 1997;131(1 Pt 1):151-154.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9255208/

Expand full comment
author

No doubt a jab could cause lesions, but a boy getting lesions and then his mother getting lesions is not valid scientific evidence of spread.

And no "virus" test has ever been validated. And PCR tests could not detect "viruses", even if they did exist. All it can do is make copies to small sequences (none of which have ever been shown to come from something fitting the definition of a "virus".

Expand full comment

"Viral Genome Sequencing Proves Nosocomial Transmission of Fatal Varicella"

Abstract

"We report the first use of whole viral genome sequencing to identify nosocomial transmission of varicella-zoster virus with fatal outcome. The index case patient, nursed in source isolation, developed disseminated zoster with rash present for 1 day before being transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). Two patients who had received renal transplants while inpatients in an adjacent ward developed chickenpox and 1 died; neither patient had direct contact with the index patient."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27571904/

Full text:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5079377/

Expand full comment
author

A "virus" would have to be shown to exist (via purification, sequencing, characterization and valid scientific controlled experiments to show dis-ease cause and contagion), before further "sequencing" could identify a "virus".

And virologists don't actually sequence particles. They create/assemble meaningless in silico "genomes" that have never been found in the physical realm.

"Here we report the use of a novel method for sequencing whole viral genomes directly from residual diagnostic samples...." (they did not extract genetic material from purified particles)

"Whole-Genome Sequencing and Assembly of VZV

Sequencing libraries were constructed as described elsewhere [7, 8] and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq Sequencer. Data sets were trimmed and aligned against VZV strain Dumas (NC_001348.1) using BWA (version 0.7.12) [9] and SAMTools software (version 1.0) [10]. Duplicate reads were removed, and a consensus sequence for each data set generated using in-house PERL scripts. Iterative repeat regions (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) and the terminal repeat region were excluded from analyses. OriS sequences were successfully captured within the read data and used to verify polymerase chain reaction–based results for all samples. Consensus sequences were aligned using MAFFT software (version 6) [11], and a neighbor-joined phylogenetic tree, based on the Tamura-Nei model, was inferred using MEGA software (version 6.06) [12]. Genome sequences are available in GenBank (accession Nos. KP771912, KP771912, and 3 more awaiting assignment by GenBank as of 16 May 2016)."

It's meaningless and cannot detect a "virus" that was never shown to exist in the first place. This is the lunacy of virology.

Expand full comment

In biology and other experimental sciences, an "in silico" experiment is one performed on a computer or via computer simulation software. We haven't always had computers, but chickenpox has been around for a long time, before computers.

Expand full comment
author

Illnesses have been around a long time, but scientific evidence (including sequencing) for "viruses" has never been around. Any so-called "virus genome" is made-up. If you know of a valid scientific study where a "virus" was actually shown to exist and was truly sequenced, please share it.

Back in the day, "viruses" were supposedly shown to exist without any supposed sequencing, i.e. by grinding up diseased tissue and injecting it into animals and blaming any effects on "the virus".

Virology has gone through different iterations and different technologies have been implemented as they became available. None of it was ever scientific.

Expand full comment
author

And illness contagion has never been demonstrated with valid controlled experiments.

Expand full comment
Feb 1Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

Thank you Christine. A lot more in depth here than on fb. Had I only known :-D I'm Danni Eron Fuller on fb. Im gonna start translating all my posts with all the history i post on fb. It was a request from an english follower because the content on fb is hard to understand and/or access once in a while, so I was suggested to make a substack. I just translated my post on monkeypox. So theres a bit more information on the history of monkeypox there.

Expand full comment
author

Excellent Danni, it's great to see you here :)

I will follow and recommend your SS!

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

.

I’ve Had Eight Shots

And I Want More !

The More Bizarre The Chemicals

The Better.

.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

Lies piled up on top of lies, all the way down. Wow. GREAT work, Christine.

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

🎯

The truth is short!

We are not contagious!

contagionhoax.com

Truth, Love and Freedom🙏♥

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

There is no substantial proof anywhere that viruses exist or are transmissible. This article is rather telling.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/virology-is-a-fraudulent-pseudoscience-and-is-a-dying-field-according-to-biomedical-scientist/

Expand full comment

Hooray, Lew Rockwell saying it as it were. My brother in law is fairly up to speed but I am not sure he was fully understanding about the germ theory scam. I did tell him. He is a regular reader of Lew's site I believe.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, and that's why I wrote "claimed to be caused by...".

No valid evidence of a "virus", no valid evidence of contagion - they have neither the purported cause nor the purported effect!

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

The reason Stefan Lanka offered a zillion euros to anyone with proof of measles virus was because he'd heard the German government were moving to make the MMR jab compulsory. Lanka won, measles isn't a virus, though the media were not allowed to mention it, and teh Bundestag went ahead and mandated the jab anyways!

Digital measles is on the rise too, see: https://ourtube.co.uk/video/57120

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

The Med Mafia Matrix

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

Logically thinking (whatever it means), if all these institutions and organizations had any positive response to Christine’s inquiries, disclosing it will incredibly strengthen the position of the current medical paradigm. “You see? We have the virus! And you were so negative.”

But, no. They don’t even bother to fabricate anything. They don’t even bother to provide self-contradictory materials, just to lead you astray. That’s a strange paradox.

Is the foundation of the (whole) medical science so weak? That is, non-existent? Really? If this is the case, $$ trillions are spent on pseudo-sanitation where there are no threats to health whatsoever. Diverting this cash from the areas of health care where it is needed more. Like proper nourishment and food production. Ah, yes, I forgot that food is the domain of the chemical industry…

Expand full comment
Jan 31Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

It's all smoke and mirrors but the masses as well as the professionals in clinical and research medicine fell for the hoax.

Sheeple follow the fear-of-death instinct created by the "corporate" merdia, iincl, pharmafia but also the other "industries" and the umbrella banksters on top of the death cult porn shop.

Expand full comment

The sad fact is, most people are satisfied with “appeal to authority” and there is no amount of logic or evidence that can make them change their mind.

Expand full comment

And that’s great. This existence is as is. It definitely is different from our expectations. Or needs, or dreams. But it is. Which means that this is the status quo of this existence. Why bother about it?

A lot of communities have developed systems of beliefs which attribute specific entities with liability for this world. It’s their role to manage this, not yours or mine. Besides, we are not capable of managing the fate of about 8 billion minds. I mean, I am not capable (apologize for unintentional limiting you).

The prevalence of social structures, authority and power games is proof that there is huge demand for this product. A few brave individuals simply respond to this demand and provide.

And there is the handful of those who want to be “free”, aha. Free from what? We have what we have. No second choice. Free to do what? To create another structure which will in fact only replicate what we already have? All revolutions end in the same way. Those who revolt have been trained, educated and brought up in the space of power and authority links, and they do not know any better. They are doomed to repeat the story. Sure, they will change some words, shuffle colors or anthems, make up new flags and set up new media. In the end, they will be doing exactly the same thing against which they were revolting. Because this is everything that we know.

We live in the best way possible, in the best optimized space suitable for our development. Each one in his/her particular community, space and time. This is the Creation. We cannot deny it. We cannot reject what we are given for free, with no strings attached.

Expand full comment

"we are not capable of managing the fate of about 8 billion minds"

Others take the lead in the vacuum, against our very existence. Do you mean we should give up and succumb to evil?

Protocol No. 8 – Provisional Government

1. We must arm ourselves with all the weapons which our opponents might employ against us. We must search out in the very finest shades of expression and the knotty points of the lexicon of law justification for those cases where we shall have to pronounce judgments that might appear abnormally audacious and unjust, for it is important that these resolutions should be set forth in expressions that shall seem to be the most exalted moral principles cast into legal form. Our directorate must surround itself with all these forces of civilization among which it will have to work. It will surround itself with publicists, practical jurists, administrators, diplomats and, finally, with persons prepared by a special super-educational training IN OUR SPECIAL SCHOOLS. These persons will have consonance of all the secrets of the social structure, they will know all the languages that can be made up by political alphabets and words; they will be made acquainted with the whole underside of human nature, with all its sensitive chords on which they will have to play. These chords are the cast of mind of the GOYIM, their tendencies, short-comings, vices and qualities, the particularities of classes and conditions. Needless to say that the talented assistants of authority, of whom I speak, will be taken not from among the GOYIM, who are accustomed to perform their administrative work without giving themselves the trouble to think what its aim is, and never consider what it is needed for. The administrators of the GOYIM sign papers without reading them, and they serve either for mercenary reasons or from ambition.

2. We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the jews. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and – THE MAIN THING – MILLIONAIRES, BECAUSE IN SUBSTANCE EVERYTHING WILL BE SETTLED BY THE QUESTION OF FIGURES.

3. For a time, until there will no longer be any risk in entrusting responsible posts in our State to our brother-jews, we shall put them in the hands of persons whose past and reputation are such that between them and the people lies an abyss, persons who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, must face criminal charges or disappear – this in order to make them defend our interests to their last gasp.

Expand full comment

There is no evil anywhere. We live in the world which is our own creation. It’s all cycles of causes and effects, and we always contribute to it.

The past is the past. We may have not known it, so it just happened against our intentions.

Now that we know, no more excuses. And it’s great because we can make each day exactly as we want it.

Expand full comment

Interesting philosophy. I have not created rockefeller medicine, xenobui-nanotech, wars... have you?

Expand full comment

If you have ever visited a "rockefeller" doctor or took a prescription from them or signed up for health insurance or did these things for your family, or your family did them for you, then yes, you have helped them in the construction of their power game. Just like the other 8 billion people.

Expand full comment
Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs

Brilliant, as always. Thank you.

Expand full comment