Regarding Watt it is important to remember she isn't qualified to give legal arguments or provide legal analysis, anymore than she is to give medical or scientific ones. Yet she never says the former. She claims she did Constitutional Law, but almost certainly only did title searches and skip traces and docketings, because she was only a paralegal for a solo practictioner for a few years, 20 some odd years ago. She did not attend law school. She did not sit for the Bar. She has never litigated anything. And she almost always gets the fundamental way of how the American Common Law system actually works wrong. The people relying on her, like Sasha Latapova, go into circle the wagon mode if you try to correct glaring mistakes she makes, like for instance that case law is nonexsistant or subservient to legislation, and that agency rulings are equal to or greater than both legislation and case law. Like Karen Kingston with patents, she did a good statute pull, but she pulled no legislative or admin histories, she did no case law research on the statutes. She did what a paralegal does, pulled easy stuff, completely out of context. But she is cited as an expert at legal analysis and is even giving people pseudo legal forms she creates herself to use to accuse their primary care doctors of genocide (please don't do this, you'll end up on a watch list or Baker-Acted or in jail)--which barks pretty close to practicing law without a license. All the questions she dodged regarding the physical actuality of viruses will def be used in winning law suits, both state and fed, n which people were mandated, complied, and injured. Primarily, real lawyers aren't going to seek legal remedies but equitable ones in tort (not DIE equity but traditional Anglo American Common Law Equity), and the idea of forcing someone to take something "because trust me" doesn't fly. We have enough decent judges left who will be shocked to learn they've been misled their whole lives, even if they themselves can't quit "yes virus," they will allow the thin end of the "no virus" wedge to be used to provide equitable rememdies. In most cases, the definitive answer of yes or no virus will be stipulated too as beyond scope, but the questions regarding the fact they can't find them will be allowed. In some, however,, yes vs no virus will be allowed to be fully litigated. The Archons gnash their teeth at the prospect of loosing their favorite boggart. I now use yes vs no virus to quickly screen those not committed to ending this 600 year old death theater. Its both an intelligence test and an intgrity test. Thanks for all you do.
Your (and Bill Huston's) Q&A with Mary Holland was fascinating. It amazes me that a lawyer could baldly state a claim (that CHD takes no position on the virus question) so contradicted by openly available facts on their own website. Maybe next CHD'll do an Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, who started purging their website of all information showing that infants and children need to see faces to develop normally, after they took Pfizer's shilling and started shilling for Pfizer by insisting on masks for all children in America. But if CHD follows in the AAP's footsteps, they'll have to delete almost all their content, as almost every article embeds "the virus exists" as an unquestioned assumption.
I did agree with Stephen Frost's comment that the no-virus people shouldn't sound aggrieved. I think that he was trying to help (and agrees with the position). First, some among the virus pushers are not our friends, even though they seem to be, and are doing Pharma/Deep State deep work. And it doesn't help to show weakness before enemies. It just eggs them on, because they understand only power. Second, being totally calm and confident helps undecided honest viewers not get swept themselves into an emotional state, which shuts down reason. And we all know that it takes a lot of very calm reflection and reasoning to understand the depths of the virology fraud (at least, it did for me although others may have got there in quicker and more direct ways).
Regarding the lawyer demurring...as a lawyer, demurriing is what we're known for and why Shakespeare wanted us all dead first. Lawyers demure for 3 reasons: answering definitively will hurt our (most important) case, answering definitively will anger our (most valuable) client, or answering definitively will antagonize our (most critical) judge. CHD go out of business if viruses are a hoax. It's a dark game they play, they need viruses to exist so that vaccines can exist, so that they can fight for the vaccine injured children, and take in millions of dollars annually, yet never truly challenge the status quo. No viruses,, no CHD. Everyone assumes if it is a Kennedy it must be a good thing, but Kennedys passed a mentally ill MM around like a rag doll, and left a woman to drown in an upside down car and never even shed a fake tear, so...
I found Stephen's comment condescending and annoying. He defended Mary's ridiculous response and even falsely claimed that she had answered my question! It was a yes/no question, but instead of answering truthfully she pretended to be covering "both sides", when in fact they are clearly in the yes-virus camp knowing darn well they have no science on their side. She couldn't answer honestly because then she'd have to admit that they have taken a position based on pseudoscience. And this "both" sides claim doesn't even make sense. People need truth, not truth and pseudoscience.
Re emotions, for sure, and normally I am perfectly calm and was perfectly calm in all my emails with Mary, Robert (who ignored me entirely) and Jay Couey (as shown here: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). But on this day I was extremely tired and had a headache, and didn't even want to talk to Mary... but it was too big an opportunity to miss. So it is what it is, and I'm still glad I did it, and have had a lot of positive feedback, and was even told that my comments helped open the eyes of someone close to RFK Jr. I think after 3 years of this nonsense, some emotion is understandable.
Re Stephen, I asked him a few days ago to be allowed to give a presentation on why this issue matters immensely. He has ignored both my initial request and my follow up. He seems only interested in hosting a show, not in getting to the truth.
On reflection, I think that I agree with all your points. I didn't mean to sound critical, but I likely did. Apologies. You've done more than almost anyone to open our eyes to the depths of the fraud.
I am very glad that you did the interview. It pressures them to change, or exposes them as fakers if (when?) they don't. Their whole science focus is just a joke if their first rule of science is "question, but not too much!"
I don't know how much Stephen is the host any more. It may be more Charles Kovess (from whom the notifications come about the upcoming speaker). He is perhaps amenable to your coming on?
Charles actually specifically told me that "STEPHEN IS PRIMARILY IN CHARGE OF CHOOSING SPEAKERS". They were both copied on my emails 3 days ago asking to be able to do a presentation. No response from Stephen yet.
Apparently William Huston had an interesting phone convo with Charles, after our questioning of Mary, but I didn't hear it so can't say exactly what happened.
Could any of the good people share a link to Michael Bryant's paper (about Italy), which Tom Cowan went through in his video response to Broze/McCullough?
I want to understand. Why does CHD continue to accept germ theory, viruses and virology? So much of their content assumes the existence of a virus. They never mention the assumption. They never reveal any conflicts of interest.
They are not stupid.
Have they been threatened?
Are they afraid of alienating their base and a loss in revenue?
Have they been brainwashed?
I dunno. It’s like they like the tyranny of germs.
If viruses don't exist, neither does CHD. If there are no viruses, then there are no vaccines. If there are no vaccines, there is no reason to donate millions to CHD to advocate for safer vaccines and the vaccine injured. It's just self interest. Along with the fact that they like to brunch with Oxbridge Snooties, no Rhodes Scholar would ever dare question Virology, next you'll question the physical impossiblity of Dinosaurs just because they violate the Mass Cubed Law of Physics! But given that J J Couey goes on and on about viruses being ghosts that absolutely exsit, it might be that they may just not be that bright.
But don't you think my name should be on this post as AUTHOR, considering you lifted about 3,000 words of my authorship, and many graphics which took me many days, maybe weeks, of effort and research, VERBATIM, without credit or permission, representing this work as your own?
I'm honored that you enjoyed my writing enough to steal, but apparently I'm not noteworthy enough to warrant a byline?
I have added your name and more links to your Substack and made it more clear for readers where the information comes from, i hope this is to your satisfaction, if not and you would like any specific changes just let me know.
I can add absolutely add your name to the article and make it clear where the quotes come from, I'm just trying to share knowledge, not trying to claim or steal the work of others, your great articles show that the same tactics used against Dr Judy Wood are being used against those exposing the germ theory and Covid nonsense, i think that the information is important for people to know which is why i try to share it.
Bill's name is nowhere on your page, nor is the URL to his site showing, only a hyperlink attached to his article title, and there are no quotation marks around his work. You need to fix this.
Because of the theme settings my site uses it puts quotes into a different coloured box that can be a bit difficult to see rather than the normal thing it does when using the quote function, i will try to change the settings so that the box is more easy to see, as i said in my reply to Bill Huston i am not trying o claim or steal the work of others, just trying to share knowledge.
You are welcome, i just have to correct you a little, it is Dr Judy Wood, not Woods, this may seem like a trivial thing but it is also one of the tactics used by people who spread lies about 9/11, i'm not sure why they do it but even though they know her name they often say Woods rather than her actual name.
It's a way of downplaying their relevance / credibility / credentials. Also it makes it harder for people to search for them (I mean in a search engine). I've heard Cowan and Kaufman misnamed several times, enough to make me suspect at least a few were done deliberately.
I think you are bang on the money re: AE911/ CHD. Gain of function is the new thermite. Lab leak is the new 'trained on US bases'. Both cover ups planted misleading 'easter eggs' early on for truthers to discover and feel like they've solves the crime, and both rely on linguistic traps ('virus', 'pandemic', 'explode', 'collapse').
Solving both scams requires a grasp of science that - although fairly easy to get to grips with - requires an attention span and clarity of thinking that most people lack, preferring instead to take the 'emotionally satisfying' secondary cover up (the official unofficial story) that is provided by a fake truth movement ... a truth movement who take their followers round and round in circles, with endless events and tours and sensational updates ... while dismissing the actual science/ evidence (that puts an end to speculation and solves the case) as no more than 'an interesting theory' or 'divisive' or 'a losing strategy'.
It's practically the same template. It's a bit like watching different versions of 'The Office'. The same basic formula, the same characters, the same plot lines..... just tweaked for different countries and their own unique cultural references.
Yeah that makes sense, i'm not surprised that the same tactic has been deployed against those exposing the germ theory & Covid nonsense, it's a shame that most people who can see past the first layer of a scam often forget that there are usually more layers to uncover.
Yeah, it makes no sense to me. Ron Unz did a review of the book, said that RFK devoted 200 pages to the HIV/AIDS scam, apparently understood it was a media-driven hoax, but yet cannot see that Covid is basically the same scam all over again. And even more crazy--the same applies to Unz- he was able to get that HIV/AIDS was a scam, but thinks covid is the real deal. I honestly don't know how to make sense of this--controlled opposition, afraid if they tell the full truth about no virus they will sound crazy, or ???
Clues don't cut it at this point. As you've said, he's got to know. He has already made it clear (when pressed) that he can't defend virology. The only ethical thing to do is either embrace the no-virus, no novel-disease reality, or at least stop talking about these imaginary particles and imaginary pandemics.
It's really pitiful, that Watt did all that good work, however she will not look at the evidence that viruses do not exist as presented by the industry which profits from the false paradigm. They're extracellular debris, I heard Tom Cowan's speak of it in 2020 and I got it, why can't she and numerous activist see it. The planet is being electrified and we're being sprayed with aerosols and yet mum's the word on these facts. I guess they rather they didn't change their minds, never admit to stay in this WHO hell, let's not exit from this big pharma, and medics self serving prison.
And worse yet is admiring viruses are not the cause of disease or infection might set infants and children free of the 72+ toxins they'll be injected with over time, yes well apparently none of them, no one wants that. Thanks for your work, Christine it deserves a lot more eyes.
I agree, anyone defending children should be all over the fraud of virology. It's a no-brainer. And a legal expert who turns a blind eye to legal confessions... something is not right with that.
God love you, Christine for being able to read through my comment "admiring" is supposed to to be admitting, that aside, it's a very good, children are one of the best reasons to care to expose the virus fraud. I don't understand why people refuse to take a stand, I think it's more than a little obvious that this theory is of great danger to humanity. I spent close to 4 decades working with adults and children in a crowded space, one on one in personal space, I got sick twice in all those years, and it wasn't because of a virus.
My ex, a goalie coach would get sick every year when college hockey started and it correlated with his birthday, without fail he'd get what seem to be a cold or flu, now that I know better, I realize it's unresolved trauma he experienced when he was an infant.
The "epidemic" was engineered, advertised, promoted out of whole cloth. Collusion of corporations, governments, institutions to harm and defraud the public. International Corporatocracy - World Economic Forum and "Stakeholder capitalists". They spent years laying the groundwork.
I am saving this whole post until I have time to really go through it, but at a glance it looks like more of your outrageously excellent and useful work!!! Thank you, hugely, for doing what you do. You are a very very very sturdy spoke in the Wheel of Truthiness and a sort of Sword of Gryffindor in this battle...
The 2nd link is for "COVID-19 Genome Sequence Dataset". No amount of sequence data can prove the existing of a replicating infectious parasite that transmits disease from host to host via natural modes of exposure.
According to the abstract of the 1st paper, 2005, they claim to have identified another novel "coronavirus". But the methods listed are incapable of doing such:
PCR
antibodies
"isolation" of "the virus" using various cell lines (oxymoron)
intracerebral inoculation of suckling mice (unnatural exposure, and not with purified particles)
RNA was extracted from the NPA, urine, and fecal specimens (not FROM purified particles)
"Sequences were assembled and manually edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome" HA HA HA
RE: CHD..... In the spirit of 'not taking sides' (which seems to be their argument) they could publish two versions of every article, book, lecture and video they produce. One version which assumes 'the virus' exists and one version which stays true to the scientific method.
Perhaps someone could offer to help them by producing scientific 'translations' of their existing content to cater to those who prefer dispassionate science over gain-of-psyop drama.
The no-virus versions of many articles -- for example, of one's on vaccine efficacy -- would become very short: "No virus, no efficacy, only poisoning. Skip the shot." So it may not be that much extra writing effort, even if it's a lot of extra intellectual effort.
Very well put together so much info and it's becoming increasingly obvious that the entire scientific community is mostly corrupt and fraudulent. Virology is going to collapse very soon..
Feel free to read my current article on the subject where I go over similar info.
Hmm, well the presence of bacteria, no matter how fast or slow they grow, is not proof that they are the cause of symptoms. And the fact that symptoms don't occur until there is lots of the bacteria is not proof that the bacteria are the cause of symptoms.
Controlled experiments would be needed to prove that. It is plausible that the bacteria are growing because the terrain allows them to, and the problems with the terrain (caused by poor diet or whatever) are the root cause of the bacteria growing and the symptoms.
The onus is on those making the positive claim, end of story.
Patients in the same hospital/room has common exposures. You are simply making assumptions about causation. If isolated people still get "infection", then that hardly rules out terrain-style root causes.
You are simply adding on more, complicated claims to prop up a story. So now you have additional claims to prove. And lol, bacteria being killed by drugs doesn't not tell you the cause of the symptoms. Show us your controlled experiments. Unsubstantiated claims don't cut it.
Regarding Watt it is important to remember she isn't qualified to give legal arguments or provide legal analysis, anymore than she is to give medical or scientific ones. Yet she never says the former. She claims she did Constitutional Law, but almost certainly only did title searches and skip traces and docketings, because she was only a paralegal for a solo practictioner for a few years, 20 some odd years ago. She did not attend law school. She did not sit for the Bar. She has never litigated anything. And she almost always gets the fundamental way of how the American Common Law system actually works wrong. The people relying on her, like Sasha Latapova, go into circle the wagon mode if you try to correct glaring mistakes she makes, like for instance that case law is nonexsistant or subservient to legislation, and that agency rulings are equal to or greater than both legislation and case law. Like Karen Kingston with patents, she did a good statute pull, but she pulled no legislative or admin histories, she did no case law research on the statutes. She did what a paralegal does, pulled easy stuff, completely out of context. But she is cited as an expert at legal analysis and is even giving people pseudo legal forms she creates herself to use to accuse their primary care doctors of genocide (please don't do this, you'll end up on a watch list or Baker-Acted or in jail)--which barks pretty close to practicing law without a license. All the questions she dodged regarding the physical actuality of viruses will def be used in winning law suits, both state and fed, n which people were mandated, complied, and injured. Primarily, real lawyers aren't going to seek legal remedies but equitable ones in tort (not DIE equity but traditional Anglo American Common Law Equity), and the idea of forcing someone to take something "because trust me" doesn't fly. We have enough decent judges left who will be shocked to learn they've been misled their whole lives, even if they themselves can't quit "yes virus," they will allow the thin end of the "no virus" wedge to be used to provide equitable rememdies. In most cases, the definitive answer of yes or no virus will be stipulated too as beyond scope, but the questions regarding the fact they can't find them will be allowed. In some, however,, yes vs no virus will be allowed to be fully litigated. The Archons gnash their teeth at the prospect of loosing their favorite boggart. I now use yes vs no virus to quickly screen those not committed to ending this 600 year old death theater. Its both an intelligence test and an intgrity test. Thanks for all you do.
Your (and Bill Huston's) Q&A with Mary Holland was fascinating. It amazes me that a lawyer could baldly state a claim (that CHD takes no position on the virus question) so contradicted by openly available facts on their own website. Maybe next CHD'll do an Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, who started purging their website of all information showing that infants and children need to see faces to develop normally, after they took Pfizer's shilling and started shilling for Pfizer by insisting on masks for all children in America. But if CHD follows in the AAP's footsteps, they'll have to delete almost all their content, as almost every article embeds "the virus exists" as an unquestioned assumption.
I did agree with Stephen Frost's comment that the no-virus people shouldn't sound aggrieved. I think that he was trying to help (and agrees with the position). First, some among the virus pushers are not our friends, even though they seem to be, and are doing Pharma/Deep State deep work. And it doesn't help to show weakness before enemies. It just eggs them on, because they understand only power. Second, being totally calm and confident helps undecided honest viewers not get swept themselves into an emotional state, which shuts down reason. And we all know that it takes a lot of very calm reflection and reasoning to understand the depths of the virology fraud (at least, it did for me although others may have got there in quicker and more direct ways).
Regarding the lawyer demurring...as a lawyer, demurriing is what we're known for and why Shakespeare wanted us all dead first. Lawyers demure for 3 reasons: answering definitively will hurt our (most important) case, answering definitively will anger our (most valuable) client, or answering definitively will antagonize our (most critical) judge. CHD go out of business if viruses are a hoax. It's a dark game they play, they need viruses to exist so that vaccines can exist, so that they can fight for the vaccine injured children, and take in millions of dollars annually, yet never truly challenge the status quo. No viruses,, no CHD. Everyone assumes if it is a Kennedy it must be a good thing, but Kennedys passed a mentally ill MM around like a rag doll, and left a woman to drown in an upside down car and never even shed a fake tear, so...
I found Stephen's comment condescending and annoying. He defended Mary's ridiculous response and even falsely claimed that she had answered my question! It was a yes/no question, but instead of answering truthfully she pretended to be covering "both sides", when in fact they are clearly in the yes-virus camp knowing darn well they have no science on their side. She couldn't answer honestly because then she'd have to admit that they have taken a position based on pseudoscience. And this "both" sides claim doesn't even make sense. People need truth, not truth and pseudoscience.
Re emotions, for sure, and normally I am perfectly calm and was perfectly calm in all my emails with Mary, Robert (who ignored me entirely) and Jay Couey (as shown here: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). But on this day I was extremely tired and had a headache, and didn't even want to talk to Mary... but it was too big an opportunity to miss. So it is what it is, and I'm still glad I did it, and have had a lot of positive feedback, and was even told that my comments helped open the eyes of someone close to RFK Jr. I think after 3 years of this nonsense, some emotion is understandable.
Re Stephen, I asked him a few days ago to be allowed to give a presentation on why this issue matters immensely. He has ignored both my initial request and my follow up. He seems only interested in hosting a show, not in getting to the truth.
On reflection, I think that I agree with all your points. I didn't mean to sound critical, but I likely did. Apologies. You've done more than almost anyone to open our eyes to the depths of the fraud.
I am very glad that you did the interview. It pressures them to change, or exposes them as fakers if (when?) they don't. Their whole science focus is just a joke if their first rule of science is "question, but not too much!"
I don't know how much Stephen is the host any more. It may be more Charles Kovess (from whom the notifications come about the upcoming speaker). He is perhaps amenable to your coming on?
No worries, I didn't take offence :)
Charles actually specifically told me that "STEPHEN IS PRIMARILY IN CHARGE OF CHOOSING SPEAKERS". They were both copied on my emails 3 days ago asking to be able to do a presentation. No response from Stephen yet.
Apparently William Huston had an interesting phone convo with Charles, after our questioning of Mary, but I didn't hear it so can't say exactly what happened.
Could any of the good people share a link to Michael Bryant's paper (about Italy), which Tom Cowan went through in his video response to Broze/McCullough?
https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/03/07/italy-2020-inside-covids-ground-zero-in-europe/
Thanks! Not surprisingly, searching online hadn't pulled it up.
I ❤️ Christine Massey. Period.
Thank you Michael :) xoxo
I want to understand. Why does CHD continue to accept germ theory, viruses and virology? So much of their content assumes the existence of a virus. They never mention the assumption. They never reveal any conflicts of interest.
They are not stupid.
Have they been threatened?
Are they afraid of alienating their base and a loss in revenue?
Have they been brainwashed?
I dunno. It’s like they like the tyranny of germs.
If viruses don't exist, neither does CHD. If there are no viruses, then there are no vaccines. If there are no vaccines, there is no reason to donate millions to CHD to advocate for safer vaccines and the vaccine injured. It's just self interest. Along with the fact that they like to brunch with Oxbridge Snooties, no Rhodes Scholar would ever dare question Virology, next you'll question the physical impossiblity of Dinosaurs just because they violate the Mass Cubed Law of Physics! But given that J J Couey goes on and on about viruses being ghosts that absolutely exsit, it might be that they may just not be that bright.
And now RFK is expressing interest in running to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.
I was recently reminded RFK is also in cahoots with the Clintons. It’s not part of his carefully groomed image.
My view on the subject, maybe it will help you better understand: Are RFK Jr. & CHD Just Another AE911Truth? - https://tcttnews.com/2023/01/28/are-rfk-jr-chd-just-another-ae911truth/
You have plagiarized the work of Bill Huston on that page.
I have quoted from their articles and put links to their full articles.
Thanks for adding a link to my Substack.
But don't you think my name should be on this post as AUTHOR, considering you lifted about 3,000 words of my authorship, and many graphics which took me many days, maybe weeks, of effort and research, VERBATIM, without credit or permission, representing this work as your own?
I'm honored that you enjoyed my writing enough to steal, but apparently I'm not noteworthy enough to warrant a byline?
I have added your name and more links to your Substack and made it more clear for readers where the information comes from, i hope this is to your satisfaction, if not and you would like any specific changes just let me know.
I can add absolutely add your name to the article and make it clear where the quotes come from, I'm just trying to share knowledge, not trying to claim or steal the work of others, your great articles show that the same tactics used against Dr Judy Wood are being used against those exposing the germ theory and Covid nonsense, i think that the information is important for people to know which is why i try to share it.
Bill's name is nowhere on your page, nor is the URL to his site showing, only a hyperlink attached to his article title, and there are no quotation marks around his work. You need to fix this.
I have added Bill Huston's name and more links to their Substack and made the quotes more clear, if you have other suggestions just let me know.
Thank you. 🙏🙇❤️
Because of the theme settings my site uses it puts quotes into a different coloured box that can be a bit difficult to see rather than the normal thing it does when using the quote function, i will try to change the settings so that the box is more easy to see, as i said in my reply to Bill Huston i am not trying o claim or steal the work of others, just trying to share knowledge.
I hear you, and thank you. Cheers.
Thank you, Christine.
Thanks. I had not heard about Dr. Woods. This confirms my suspicion of RFK as controlled opposition, but with added evidence.
Hah! I thought Richard Gage was a brave guy for including Covid in his reporting. It’s just another intriguing plot twist!
Controlled opposition is ubiquitous.
Thanks 🙏
You are welcome, i just have to correct you a little, it is Dr Judy Wood, not Woods, this may seem like a trivial thing but it is also one of the tactics used by people who spread lies about 9/11, i'm not sure why they do it but even though they know her name they often say Woods rather than her actual name.
It's a way of downplaying their relevance / credibility / credentials. Also it makes it harder for people to search for them (I mean in a search engine). I've heard Cowan and Kaufman misnamed several times, enough to make me suspect at least a few were done deliberately.
I think you are bang on the money re: AE911/ CHD. Gain of function is the new thermite. Lab leak is the new 'trained on US bases'. Both cover ups planted misleading 'easter eggs' early on for truthers to discover and feel like they've solves the crime, and both rely on linguistic traps ('virus', 'pandemic', 'explode', 'collapse').
Solving both scams requires a grasp of science that - although fairly easy to get to grips with - requires an attention span and clarity of thinking that most people lack, preferring instead to take the 'emotionally satisfying' secondary cover up (the official unofficial story) that is provided by a fake truth movement ... a truth movement who take their followers round and round in circles, with endless events and tours and sensational updates ... while dismissing the actual science/ evidence (that puts an end to speculation and solves the case) as no more than 'an interesting theory' or 'divisive' or 'a losing strategy'.
It's practically the same template. It's a bit like watching different versions of 'The Office'. The same basic formula, the same characters, the same plot lines..... just tweaked for different countries and their own unique cultural references.
Yeah that makes sense, i'm not surprised that the same tactic has been deployed against those exposing the germ theory & Covid nonsense, it's a shame that most people who can see past the first layer of a scam often forget that there are usually more layers to uncover.
RFK’s book on Fauci is full of clues. His lengthy discussion of repeated fraud by Fauci & friends reveal the obvious fraud of virology.
He’s gotta know.
Has he been given permission to only go so far with his reporting and opinion?
Yeah, it makes no sense to me. Ron Unz did a review of the book, said that RFK devoted 200 pages to the HIV/AIDS scam, apparently understood it was a media-driven hoax, but yet cannot see that Covid is basically the same scam all over again. And even more crazy--the same applies to Unz- he was able to get that HIV/AIDS was a scam, but thinks covid is the real deal. I honestly don't know how to make sense of this--controlled opposition, afraid if they tell the full truth about no virus they will sound crazy, or ???
RFK very recently spoke on running for President.
It’s remarkable how many have joined this cult. They say they want freedom, but they remain trapped in the prison of virology.
I miss his uncle, JFK.
Clues don't cut it at this point. As you've said, he's got to know. He has already made it clear (when pressed) that he can't defend virology. The only ethical thing to do is either embrace the no-virus, no novel-disease reality, or at least stop talking about these imaginary particles and imaginary pandemics.
It's really pitiful, that Watt did all that good work, however she will not look at the evidence that viruses do not exist as presented by the industry which profits from the false paradigm. They're extracellular debris, I heard Tom Cowan's speak of it in 2020 and I got it, why can't she and numerous activist see it. The planet is being electrified and we're being sprayed with aerosols and yet mum's the word on these facts. I guess they rather they didn't change their minds, never admit to stay in this WHO hell, let's not exit from this big pharma, and medics self serving prison.
And worse yet is admiring viruses are not the cause of disease or infection might set infants and children free of the 72+ toxins they'll be injected with over time, yes well apparently none of them, no one wants that. Thanks for your work, Christine it deserves a lot more eyes.
I agree, anyone defending children should be all over the fraud of virology. It's a no-brainer. And a legal expert who turns a blind eye to legal confessions... something is not right with that.
God love you, Christine for being able to read through my comment "admiring" is supposed to to be admitting, that aside, it's a very good, children are one of the best reasons to care to expose the virus fraud. I don't understand why people refuse to take a stand, I think it's more than a little obvious that this theory is of great danger to humanity. I spent close to 4 decades working with adults and children in a crowded space, one on one in personal space, I got sick twice in all those years, and it wasn't because of a virus.
My ex, a goalie coach would get sick every year when college hockey started and it correlated with his birthday, without fail he'd get what seem to be a cold or flu, now that I know better, I realize it's unresolved trauma he experienced when he was an infant.
The "epidemic" was engineered, advertised, promoted out of whole cloth. Collusion of corporations, governments, institutions to harm and defraud the public. International Corporatocracy - World Economic Forum and "Stakeholder capitalists". They spent years laying the groundwork.
Bingo!
Well done, CM!!!!!
I am saving this whole post until I have time to really go through it, but at a glance it looks like more of your outrageously excellent and useful work!!! Thank you, hugely, for doing what you do. You are a very very very sturdy spoke in the Wheel of Truthiness and a sort of Sword of Gryffindor in this battle...
Cheers!
Thank you :)
xo
Google won’t let me read the attached pdfs.
Oh that's weird. Can you copy and paste them into your browser or a search engine like https://www.qwant.com/?
Very interesting. From early 2020 I argued against this “epidemic” on scientific grounds from multiple viewpoints
I receive this from a tech executive. I thought it interesting but certainly not reassuring or confirmatory of anything. For what they are worth:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538593/ Nn
https://registry.opendata.aws/ncbi-covid-19/
The 2nd link is for "COVID-19 Genome Sequence Dataset". No amount of sequence data can prove the existing of a replicating infectious parasite that transmits disease from host to host via natural modes of exposure.
According to the abstract of the 1st paper, 2005, they claim to have identified another novel "coronavirus". But the methods listed are incapable of doing such:
PCR
antibodies
"isolation" of "the virus" using various cell lines (oxymoron)
intracerebral inoculation of suckling mice (unnatural exposure, and not with purified particles)
RNA was extracted from the NPA, urine, and fecal specimens (not FROM purified particles)
"Sequences were assembled and manually edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome" HA HA HA
Thanks agree 100% - three years ago and currently
RE: CHD..... In the spirit of 'not taking sides' (which seems to be their argument) they could publish two versions of every article, book, lecture and video they produce. One version which assumes 'the virus' exists and one version which stays true to the scientific method.
Perhaps someone could offer to help them by producing scientific 'translations' of their existing content to cater to those who prefer dispassionate science over gain-of-psyop drama.
Lol, great idea :) I might forward that to Mary :)
The no-virus versions of many articles -- for example, of one's on vaccine efficacy -- would become very short: "No virus, no efficacy, only poisoning. Skip the shot." So it may not be that much extra writing effort, even if it's a lot of extra intellectual effort.
Lol. Exactly.
Very well put together so much info and it's becoming increasingly obvious that the entire scientific community is mostly corrupt and fraudulent. Virology is going to collapse very soon..
Feel free to read my current article on the subject where I go over similar info.
https://shanhenry.substack.com/p/virology-witchcraft
Thanks Shan.
It is never with complete confidence that I would declare something as incontrovertible...
but what you've amassed as evidence is pretty damn close.
(tired of
hearing it out
in the midst of
revivified,
demystified, myths of,
lab-leaks (de-liberate),
' viral gain '
of the potentate...
when
slaps on the wrist
for dolts botching shit
is undoubtedly
a correlate...)
Thanks for your time and efforts, Christine.
I hope that you are maintaining your reserves of strength, as this can all get to wear on a person, understandably.
Fearless!
Thank you Marcus :) xoxo
Bingo.
Hmm, well the presence of bacteria, no matter how fast or slow they grow, is not proof that they are the cause of symptoms. And the fact that symptoms don't occur until there is lots of the bacteria is not proof that the bacteria are the cause of symptoms.
Controlled experiments would be needed to prove that. It is plausible that the bacteria are growing because the terrain allows them to, and the problems with the terrain (caused by poor diet or whatever) are the root cause of the bacteria growing and the symptoms.
Cheers
The onus is on those making the positive claim, end of story.
Patients in the same hospital/room has common exposures. You are simply making assumptions about causation. If isolated people still get "infection", then that hardly rules out terrain-style root causes.
You are simply adding on more, complicated claims to prop up a story. So now you have additional claims to prove. And lol, bacteria being killed by drugs doesn't not tell you the cause of the symptoms. Show us your controlled experiments. Unsubstantiated claims don't cut it.
Cite the science, if you have any.