Today I have the second amazing installment of virus huggers making their case, from Joe Mercola to Catherine Austin Fitts; Del Bigtree to Sasha Latypova. It's a star-studded night!
Hey all, thank you for another round of fantastic virus hugger audio! Please keep a lookout, and style points the funnier they are. This is applying actual journalistic pressure; the "gotcha" of it all is how they all pretty much admit they understand the issue but are avoiding it for business or political purposes. That is not a good look. Let's shine some of that Equinox Sun on them -- it's the best disinfectant.
Check out this regular guy's 4 1/2 minutes of advice to the VDs using his experience of the divide that happened in the 9/11 truth movement: "we gotta get them through the door".
He's assuming that I have the same goal as Mercola or Webb, which he sums up as, "To wake people up." What exactly makes him think that's my objective, but more significantly, what makes him think it's the goal of any of the presenters saying that the discussion should not happen? Rather than, say, protecting their business model and clubby relationships?
Further, issues around Sept. 11 are abstract from the life of a person or a family. It's a major historical event, not about personal life choices that must be made from day to day: how to live, what to eat, what medical choices to make, and so on. The terrain theory people serving as teachers are helping people sort out their choices, their attitudes and their values.
They are helping people figure out what helps them heal and feel better, and what does not.
Further, Socrates is taking an entirely superficial perspective on the issue, which he seems to think is about "waking people up" with leaflets rather than understanding something essential to our human existence here in bodies.
He misses the questions about whether people who oppose vaccines but who "believe in" or profess the belief in viruses 1) are sincere, 2) are not arguing against themselves, and 3) ignoring the long history that preceded 2020 wherein most of the public was pounded with the necessity for vaccines due to the equally pounded-in belief in viruses -- and many people got sick and/or died as a result of injections they thought they or their children needed.
This is a crucial matter of personal health, not the bullshit pastime that Sept 11 is for 99% of people who are involved. They can do nothing about 9/11; they don't do anything; it does not affect them; I don't think they care; it's just something to whine about.
But your kid who might have died from the MMR? And your other kid who might be given the jab? It matters whether there is a measles virus.
The "waking people up" MO is a lot of the same kind of pushback I get from my brother who has listened to Alex Jones for the last decade. I used to think bro was a little nuts until I found my way out of "leftyville" through the lack of adherence to the scientific method. He is one of the only folks in my town I can speak frankly to. He knows about the missing virus problem because it came out briefly on Infowars in 2020, but doesn't think that is the way to expose the baddies and he is still deep in the germ theory paradigm despite knowing the issue. The scientific method is so much easier to understand than complex geopolitics or generational cult money families and organizations or the coming to grips with the fact that our elected officials lie....all of that was easier for me to see after realizing the medical fear porn propaganda.
And what if Judy Woods is right? My position on her is: explain to me where the energy came from for the directed energy weapon and we can start the discussion. For me that is probable cause. Until we get there, there is nothing.
"And what if Judy Woods is right? My position on her is: explain to me where the energy came from for the directed energy weapon and we can start the discussion"
With respect, your question only applies to the official (jet fuel) and 'official alternative' (thermite/ explosives) theories. Dr Wood has already addressed it and answered it (with examples).
The towers were disassembled in around 10 seconds each. The amount of conventional energy (kinetic/ heat) required to accomplish such a feat would be astronomical. And yet the most striking feature of the destruction was just how GENTLE it was (relative to the destruction caused).
Gage insists the towers were disassembled in 10 secs by an incendiary. OK let's think this through...... imagine cutting a single 6" thick steel box column in 10 secs with thermite (if such a thing is even possible). Imagine the heat and light produced. Now multiply that heat and light by 50 for the core columns and another 50 for the outer columns. That's just for one floor. Multiply again by 100 (each floor) or by 10 (every ten floors). The amount of heat and light produced to cut up the steel structure in 10 secs would have blinded everyone and melted the entire WTC complex.
There is no evidence of ANY heat or light during the destruction. The dozen or so survivors who walked out of the towers unscathed did not witness any heat or light (or 'molten metal') or even loud bangs ...... even as the core columns were (supposedly) being melted all around them. The streets were full of unburnt paper knee high. The dust cloud was cold/ warm. There was no 'pyroclastic cloud'. Nobody was burnt by the dust cloud.
Imagine a bank vault with a 6" thick steel door. It is full of paper money and 12 people inside. The door is breached in 10 seconds leaving the people inside unscathed and the paper unburnt. Gage says thermite was used to melt the door in 10 secs. A more logical explanation is that someone was able to pick the lock (or they knew the combination code) and they simply opened the door.
Dr Wood has no theory. She just observes the lack of heat and light which rules out any kind of conventional means of destruction. She also draws a comparison between the destruction at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect which uses interference of EM fields to 'pick the lock' of materials (including metals) at the molecular / atomic level and cause them to melt, wilt, deform and crumble to dust WITHOUT REQUIRING huge quantities of energy (just household mains electricity).
On 9/11 the WTC was transformed into Hogwarts. People and cars were being levitated, the first responders reported their coats or shoelaces catching fire with cold flames. Cars got 'toasted' all over Manhattan with no evidence of heat (seats and plastic lights not burnt). And two huge towers got turned to dust in 10s each. The site 'fumed' for several YEARS afterwards with no evidence of heat. ALL of these effects have been produced by Hutchison and his assortment of radiofrequency toys. NONE of them are consistent with jet fuel/ thermite/ explosives.
Dustifying steel towers clad in aluminium will produce a lot of iron oxide and aluminium powder on the ground which is what was observed. This needed to be accounted for. Gage's thermite nonsense is the perfect cover story. 'Thermite' is 'gain of function'. ..... an alternative theory to fold truthers back into (a slight variation of) the official story.
No virus/ contagion = civilisation changing paradigm shift.
Free energy tech (the ability to 'pick the lock' of matter with minimal energy input) = civilisation changing paradigm shift.
Read Dr Wood's book and you won't find Gage convincing any more.
This directed energy stuff keeps coming up in respect to the wildfires in Hawaii and Texas. I have never looked into the claims regarding the technology, but it seems to be tied in with all of the weather directing business and chemtrails, etc? It's a whole new side car I have never boarded.
Richard Gage in his interview with Eric last week offered the perfect rebuttal to Judy Wood. He shows the WTC1 top getting shredded, the roof descending before the entire top started moving, and this started with the antenna. This meant that the truss hat assembly which supported the antenna, which was located inside the structure, on top of the core columns, had to be destroyed. Yet this was done without anything showing on the outside of the building. A directed energy weapon could not have reached inside and done that without external damage showing. Case closed.
I think we should still be looking at the possibility vis a vis wildfires. But this is real on the ground reporting combined with deep tech knowledge -- not my specialty in this case...blue things not catching fire in Hawaii was strange....if true as alleged. I will always come back to the questions, OK, where is the power source, and what is the location of the device? I am open to hearing this discussion.
I have documents from the 1990s indicating that they were at least talking about the reality of directed energy weapons. But I need to know how they work. During the Star Wars program it was said that the laser beams in space would be powered by nuclear bombs lodged in satellites. And that would’ve worked beautifully on a planet without any computers. So I don’t think they’ve got nuclear bombs in space going off. Where do you get enough energy to melt a skyscraper? I’m even willing to listen to wild speculation. By the way Jeff Strahl does not like this issue at all. 💕
Great show, Eric. A very even handed approach to the virus huggers, which I believe is paramount in light of the vitriol towards the "VDs". I concur that pretty, baby faced Broze is a ringer. He interviewed Cowan & Kaufman in January of 2021 here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ezIjrLo6nvZ1/
Then went about pulling the fence sitters into the preferred narrative of divide and concur.
for a hilarious demolition of the "Free Market" start at about 19 minutes...I am so grateful to have worked with The Yes Men in the era of this film, participating in one prank (The New York Post) and doing the Q&A after the film for its run at Time&Space in Hudson. At 19 mins you meet Gilda the Golden Skeleton in the Closet...which flows into Milton Friedman and his followers...these guys emboldened me...Igor, Jacques -- je t'adore.
Yes, I remember seeing that back in the day, still very funny. There's a point I like to make about free-marketeers (that I don't see the Yes Men making), is that they rail against state regulation and intervention in business affairs, but they never talk about the role of the state in making those markets in the first place.
I will defer to General Butler for that:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
You should get yourself the book "War is a Racket" by Smedley D. Butler. I think it's less than 100 pages. Likely it was a pamphlet originally. It is full of such quotable writing. He is a very interesting historical figure, a patriot in the best sense of the term. He also foiled a plot to assassinate FDR.
Your connection of SSRI use to sexual repression and as a result the “gender dysphoria” epidemic answered questions I’ve been wrestling with for years.
As you may know, I’ve been active in various poly, tantra, swing and other scenes as a presenter since the 1990s, and the result of all of this has been impossible to parse out until now.
Previously I explained it with digital consciousness (which is about amputation, and the conversion of sex into the digital environment) and overload of gender chemicals (“forever chemicals”) but your idea goes right to the core of the emotional chaos involved. Certainly digital exposure and xenoestrogenic chemicals are not helping matters.
Also, I am an adept at expanding your theories, and my connection of this to the sense of panic around ordinary heterosexual attraction completes the idea — and explains why people who are wholesome, respectful and open/conversant can be considered predators.
Those “woke” zombies must be pretty angry under all that altered chemistry, delusion and suppressed feeling. I believe that SSRIs do nearly permanent damage, so if 20% are using today, cycle that same percentage through all the past users.
I wonder how many haven’t experienced a good orgasm or bowel movement in 10 years…
Because I have experienced it myself numerous times, I can tell you Dr. Mercola is talking about censorship. In recent years, on those occasions when Dr, Mercola talked about viruses, I've offered a counter discussion. I'm always civil and I never resort to ad hominem attacks, nor do I use foul language. I'm censored merely for presenting evidence about the unresolved virus issue. The last time was just over a week ago when I had several comments taken down.
This is rich coming from a man who has spent a lot of word capitol on his site whining about being censored by The Center for Countering Digital Hate for being part of the Misinformation Dozen.
I'll be posting tomorrow about my experience with CHD on this topic.
Mercola has always been two faced and he sells supplements that aren't what they profess to be as well. Caught on to him many years ago. Some people just reek of fraud and cowardness.
Half way through, managed to get around temporary problems with the recording around the first music break. No surprise, SUPERB!
Something struck me about a common point shared by all four of the presenter teams, in spite of certain apparent differences. Mercola and Humphries were down on the idea of "virus denial" ostensibly because viruses are real. He didn't say the question is unimportant.
Del Bigtree was down on that idea because it threatens to get in the way of his allegedly imminent success regarding the bringing Fauci and the other culpable people to justice. He deemed the question a barrier to this.
Latypova/Ruby, and Fitts/Broze both focused on how the virus question was unimportant and a total diversion from the real work, fighting repressive measures.
What all four teams are actually doing is brand protection, and doing so in different ways because they have different brands. Mercola is heavily invested in "alternative treatments." What's the point of "treatments" if the viruses which require them can't be shown to exist? Not good for sales.
Bigtree's big thing is ICAN, which pursues legal measures and remedies. His focus is on legal actions against and punishment of the perpetrators. And don't you dare ruin his case.
And Laypova/Ruby and Fitts/Broze are about "exposing and fighting fraud." It doesn't really matter to them what the causes of the events are, they just wanna win points for uncovering "wrong-doing." Astounding how they can deem the matter of whether the entity whose alleged existence and pathogenic nature were used to shut down the world actually even exists to be unimportant.
I still wonder why some of us were skeptical to one degree or another from the beginning of 2020 and to this day many others believe the narrative lock stock and barrel. I began questioning HIV/AIDS 20 years ago when I stumbled into the work of the Perth Group and when I saw Fauci popping up like a bobble head in 2020 I sensed that something wasn't right. The lockdowns and other extreme measures seemed so off to me. I remember driving buy a Trader Joe's grocery store and people were lined up around the corner in masks, standing feet apart from one another as if it was just the normal thing to do. Then the guy who went biking past me all by himself along a sidewalk without anyone else, WEARING A MASK, that I new group insanity was truly upon us. When I mentioned that on Facebook, I was stunned when a couple people defended the masked-biker dude, saying he was just preventing virus from spreading in the air. Then my brother asked me where all the ventilators were going to come from when people were dying in the streets (which never happened). Several friends and family members pushed me to get the vax (which I never did), and one of them who advertised on FB each booster he got, ended up in the hospital for a week with 'covid'. I'm the dude who masked the least amount possible, was in coffee shops, going to the gym, didn't get vaxxed, and being in public when possible, and never had 'covid' to this day.
I'm Swedish but I was living in Lisbon in Portugal during most of the scamdemic. I remember going to the supermarket to buy food regularly, as you do. I would usually try to avoid the more crowded times but sometimes I just didn't have the choice but to go when seemingly everybody else did.
The supermarket in question was fairly large and located in a small-ish mall with 3 entrances, if I remember correctly. 2 of the entrances went straight outside whereas the 3rd was from inside the mall itself.
The 2 entrances that went straight outside were closed off during the entire scamdemic, so the only way in and out was through the third entrance. Like most places, I assume, they had a limit to the number of people allowed into the store at one time, which meant very long lines during those very crowded times. Here's my favorite part about the whole thing though:
Instead of letting people stand outside with plenty of fresh air and space to maintain that oh-so-important "social distance", people would be packed like sardines into a small cramped space at the end of the mall by the entrance, and they'd remained packed in as such until the security guard outside the supermarket waved at each person that they were allowed to enter the store. So standing next to someone by the fruit's isle inside the supermarket is super-dangerous and the deadly virus will come and get you, but being packed like sardines to the point where you can't really move right outside said supermarket inside a cramped mall is perfectly fine and safe.
And don't even get me started on how it's perfectly safe to take off your mask in a restaurant while sitting down for a cup of coffee or lunch, but you instantly have to put it back on again the instant you stand up or else the virus is coming to get you.
How people justified this and somehow made sense of it frankly still blows my mind.
My favorite memory from the whole thing though was this runner that I used to watch from my window while having breakfast every morning. On one particular day, the rain was absolutely pouring down (it looked more like an actual waterfall right outside my window than just rain) so nobody except this runner was outside. Despite the rain and despite being all alone, he still wore his double-masked as he trotted lap after lap around the track outside. The masks were so wet that they were stuck to his face and dripping with water. I have no idea how he managed to get any air at all. I imagine that that run must have felt more like an exercise in how to survive extreme waterboarding than a refreshing jog in the rain.
And yet us humans like to take pride in being the most advanced and intelligent species on the planet.. I'm not so sure if I agree with that anymore..
That's amazing. During 2020, I was traveling in the state of Oregon, and was in a town called Bend. It had a great little downtown area with lost of small restaurants and was fun to walk through. Well, the city expected everyone to be masked up while just walking around outside in that downtown area. There were signs up saying there would be a $1200 fine if you were found not wearing one. Of course, I wasn't wearing one. But the bizarre thing is that the restaurants were open but only with temporary outside sidewalk type seating. And the people sitting at the tables were not wearing masks because they were seated with food. So I guess this smart virus knew not to attack them, but only people walking next to them on the street. Later that day I went to the gym, and there were signs up saying masks must be worn at all times. There weren't that many people there so I got on a treadmill. No one was near me as there weren't that many people at the gym, so I let my mask down so I could breath. Well, not long after an employee ran over to me and barked at me to put up my mask. There must be countless absurd stories like this, we could probably create a coffee table book of all these stories.
I heard an exchange between Catherine Austin Fitts and Tom Cowan from earlier than a year ago, I believe, but I don't know exactly when. It was linked on her Solari Report website. And in that clip she admitted to Tom that she knew viruses did not exist, but she wouldn't say it because, she claimed, she couldn't explain the science of it to her Tennessee neighbors. That was when I decided to stop subscribing to her website. It was so clearly a bald-faced lie--she is brilliant, there's no way she couldn't find ways to explain it to anyone. And it was a rather condescending insult to Tennesseans! Does she really think that little of her neighbors' ability to think and understand? I wonder if this is the interview she mentions in the clip with Derrick Broze.
The Mercola-Humphries discussion is a real piece of work. I discuss it in my latest Substack post, Newsletter, 3/1/24. Outright pushing censorship of people like us while speaking of several alleged viruses as if they are undeniable facts, entities proven to exist via the scientific method rather than computer files.
At minimum, they are unprincipled people. To be a supporter of free speech, means to support exactly that speech you don't like. Humphries is a disappointment. Her book "Dissolving Illusions" is big reason I am here. Her book painstakingly shows that none of the major diseases are due to viruses (as the vaccines didn't help) but due to environmental toxins, poor air, water, food, work and living conditions. No viruses at all.
Her "Dissolving Illusions" co-author, Roman Bystrianyk, recently interviewed by Sam Bailey, is increasingly moving to the "no proof of virus" stance, so perhaps she is feeling threatened professionally. I agree they are unprincipled. Talking about "silencing" dissenters is really (George) Bush League.
RE: Roman Bystrianyk, recently interviewed by Sam Bailey
That is interesting. "Dissolving Illusions" is really the brainchild of Bystrianyk. He had vaccine-injured children, and did most of the research. I got the feeling that he felt that he needed an MD on board for his thesis to be taken seriously.
It would be good journalistic practice to ask whether renowned low carb high fat 'nutritionist' Tim Noakes (who wrote the preface) or the Baileys receive any funding from Tom Cowan's Weston A. Price Foundation or other such animal ag industry funded front groups. The Bailey's video on bugs that I was initially blocked from was heavily biased in its favour. I know that Joe Rogan is funded by the meat industry and is also very skewed.
I think that the opposite of the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect ('you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story (you know about), and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate') is happening. We read what we agree with, maybe it crystallises what we subconsciously suspected, about 'viruses' and health for example, we research ourselves and everything checks out. We feel part of a wider group. We then turn the page and because we now like, trust and feel allied with the authors we don't do the same critical analysis. Or maybe we do know better but keep quiet, like Dawn Lester and David Parker so as not to be dumped out of the group and lose our followers.
Good points. I knew Weston Price was funded by animal ag, so I was immediately suspicious when I saw Cowan's connection to them, and the bashing of plant-based diets that has exploded. All the "soy boy" insults etc. - bashing vegans is allowed & encouraged.
Here's the Ruby/Latypova interview, Eric. Having listened to the whole thing, I think it's fair enough to say that Ruby is equivacatory -- "I'd prefer to keep an open mind," she says at one point. But Latypova's position is so diametrically opposite to the words you put into her mouth that I think you have an ethical responsibility to issue a retraction/correction. Hell, she even says that she loves the work of Cowan/Kaufman/Baileys, and that it has informed her own thinking.
And I hope that you will interview her. I'd of course heard her name before, but didn't know anything about her. Judging by this conversation, she's definitely got it going on both intellectually and morally.
Here is what I'm objecting to. "The debate over whether viruses exist or not, it's not even that important to the pandemic, to the idea of [the] pandemic."
Of course it is. We were told it was a VIRAL PANDEMIC. It's THE most important issue.
She says that IF there had been an unusual amount of morbitity/mortality, THEN irrespective of the cause, some kind of measures should have been considered. BUT THAT the point was moot, because the only excess mortality in 2020 was caused by the measures themselves. That the pandemic was a "fake" -- an "operation" designed to facilitate massive corporate welfare and the rollout of the injections.
It's not dissimilar to Steve Falconer's position, when you think about it, that until contagion has been demonstrated there's really no point in even discussing viruses or bacteria (although of course he is exceedingly capable of doing so).
Now like I say, this interview is my first exposure to her. If you're quite familiar with her work, and consider her to be all over the map, that's certainly worth noting. But in this interview at least, I find hers to be a voice very much worth listening to.
Eddie, all I am concerned about on the virus issue is what was known between Jan. 1, 2020 and the lockdowns through March 31 -- first quarter 2020, when there was no claim of excess disease and death, only a virus spreading. There would be no symptoms, no excess anything...the question I am concerned with is the excuse that was used to lock down the world, not all the fog and laser show that rationalized it post-hoc.
Additionally, ANY minimizing, or attempts to discredit the people who have done and supported this work, negate her lip service to her theoretically liking the Baileys etc. That position is a POLITICAL statement to the "no virus caucus" so she may gain the trust of those listeners, such as yourself.
***Also, I have violated my editorial policy in responding to statements critiquing my writing or speech without direct quotations. So I will give you today to substantiate your comments with DIRECT QUOTATIONS and your argument that those specific statements are allegedly unethical; you have till midnight ET Monday or I will delete your comments per my editorial policy.***
Well, as I said in my first comment: "Maybe I'm nuts." If both yourself and Christine think that that's the case, okey, it's quite possible that I am. I'm acknowledging this because I respect your work, and Christine's work, enormously. But I've listened to this clip numerous times now, and I don't think I'm nuts. As I've said, I don't know from Latypova's work. If she's been rude, and weird, and dismissive in other fora then for that she should be be called out. And having read Christine's comments, I'm comfortable acknowledging that I wasn't critical enough of Jane Ruby.
But, here are the passages to which I'm reacting...
LATYPOVA: The debate about whether viruses exist or not is not even that important to the pandemic -- to the idea of a pandemic. IF YOU COULD demonstrate a significant impact WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL, you know, I don't even care what it's caused by -- I would pay attention to that. I would think, "Well, yeah, there's disease." In medicine we always look at symptoms; WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING; not THEORETICAL causative agents.
So, IF YOU COULD DEMONSTRATE that there is some illness going on, and it's spreading, and a lot of people are getting ill, and there's an economic impact, and morbitity and mortality...oh, sure, there should be some public health measures attached to this. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT; THEY CAN'T DO THAT; THEY CAN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT. All they do, is: Government attacks people, declares an operation, they pump huge amounts of money through it, kill a bunch of people...and then they put their wonderful vaccine product on the market. [Emphases added.]
COPPOLINO: So, Sasha Latypova doesn't believe this is an important issue. "It's not even that important," quote-quote, because (this is twisted), "if you could demonstrate significant impact on morbitity and mortality," it doesn't matter what caused it. But wait: There was NOT significant impact on morbitity and mortality, overall, in 2020. There was in 2021 -- blamed on a (non-existent) virus.
And what I hear them all saying is that four years ago this week the world went into lockdown [...] for one reason only: That there was a virus spreading. And now, four years later, these people are all saying that it was not a significant matter whether there really WAS a virus? [That the missing-virus problem] doesn't matter because it's a distraction from what was done about the missing virus.
-----------------------------------
So, maybe it's not so much that you put words into her mouth, Eric, as that in your analysis of this passage you omitted them. You completely ignored the lines I've emphasised from the selection you played on your programme -- which happen to be the most important lines for understanding her position. At least, her position as she represents it here. If, as both yourself and Christine are saying, her position as represented elsewhere is quite different, then I'll repeat that that's very much worth noting. But you didn't say anything of that sort in this analysis.
You said that she said that it doesn't matter whether the cause was a virus if there was significant mortality; and you then immediately exclaimed BUT THERE WASN'T SIGNIFICANT MORTALITY. Which is EXACTLY what she had said as well: That the only mortality event in 2020 was people being murdered in hospitals.
Maybe she's a weirdo in general. But in this interview, she wasn't. You misrepresented what she said in the clip you played. I'm not a journalist -- I'm just a banquet waiter hiding out in Guatemala because prospective employers refuse to communicate with me after I inform them I won't participate in any "Covid" nonsense. But in my own personal opinion, that's unethical. If you know of other instances in which she actually did say that she thinks the lockdowns were justifiable based on the facts as known when they were implemented, then yes, that's important. But you didn't say that, and didn't say or imply that this clip contradicts statements she's made in the past. And if it does do, why didn't you play a clip in which she actually did say something to that effect?
You said that you haven't reached out to invite her to interview with you. I'll repeat that I hope that you will. I would be interested to listen to you discussing these matters with her.
So, what in your opinion does she mean that at the time the lockdowns were imposed, they *couldn't demonstrate* that there had been any unusual morbitity or mortality? What does she mean by *theoretical* cause? What does she mean that the *only* thing that happened was an "operation" followed by murderous state policies? What does she mean by saying that the pandemic was a *fake*?
She states in no uncertain terms that the only health event in 2020 was the Remdesivir/Midazolam murders. So what exactly is it with which you disagree?
1) "The debate about whether viruses exist or not is not even that important to the pandemic." - Here she referred to THE pandemic, which is the fake pandemic that we all lived through. She said the virus issue doesn't matter. Bizarre. And nothing she said afterwards negated this position.
2) "IF YOU COULD demonstrate a significant impact WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL, you know, I don't even care what it's caused by -- I would pay attention to that. I would think, "Well, yeah, there's disease." In medicine we always look at symptoms; WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING; not THEORETICAL causative agents."
-- Here she isn't even commenting on the virus issue specifically, she's just saying she would pay attention if there was a real health issue. Well I would guess so.
But then she dismissively makes reference to "theoretical causative agents", in order to minimize the importance of the "virus" issue. To hear her (and other "leaders"), it's almost as if no-virus people are the ones who made up the virus story in the first place and made it a big deal, and not the actual perps who did it!
Well excuse me Sasha, but the world wasn't locked down over a story about a "theoretical agent" and we did not make up that story. We were told there was a definite virus and to get tested so we don't kill Grannie, blah blah blah.
And lol she certainly cared about causal factors when she interviewed "scientist" Sabine Hazan who pretends to have found "SARS-COV-2" in poop.
In the next paragraph, yes she acknowledges that the perps have no evidence whatsoever. (Yay, it only took her 4 years.) She says nothing here to imply that the virus-existence issue really does matter after all - which is what Eric called her out over.
You have accused Eric of misrepresenting Latypova's statements, and that what she said was "diametrically opposite to the words you put into her mouth".
Can you quote exactly what Eric supposedly put in her mouth that was diametrically opposed to what she really said?
I think you need to go back and listen again, because Ruby said that she is "very comfortable with" and "open minded" TO VIRUSES and said she believes there are "synthetic viral-behaving things and stuff like that".
And FYI Ruby was very hostile, condescending and dismissive towards no-virus people very recently on twitter, when she commented after hateful accusations were made by Chris Sky - who literally expressed his wish for all of us to die.
Ruby implied in this interview that any no-virus person who isn't "credentialed" and using their real name on twitter is an "ankle-biter".
Sasha claimed in the comments below the interview on ss that anonymous no-virus people are "ankle biters" and trying to discredit Lanka, Cowan and the Baileys. (Same thing Ruby called no-virus people on twitter.)
In this interview, the 2 women agreed with each other that the no-virus discussion is NOT IMPORTANT and a "distraction" - which is a ridiculous, bizarre suggestion - including in the hypothetical scenario where there really was excess mortality, etc. (how does one deal effectively with a health crisis without knowing the cause??) and especially in the real-world scenario where the world was already turned upside down over an alleged "virus".
The fact that Sasha had already stated that she loves the work of Cowan, etc, makes her later statements even more bizarre and illogical.
Fyi, Sasha has a history of coming unhinged at no-virus people in the comments under her ss, and she turned downright vicious towards me after I asked her questions (after her ridiculous, contradictory post about her interview with Sabine Hazan), telling people that I had acted like a drunk for 5 hours and that she was willing to "testify" to this... a not-so-thinly-veiled threat, which I've documented:
"virus" questions - Sasha Latypova - hop hop, run off, you're banned!
Anyways, Eric didn't put anything in Latypova's mouth, or Ruby's. He literally played a recording of what they said and gave people the link to the full interview. And he did not misrepresent them. He played the recording and when it was over he expressed stunned disbelief over their claim that the virus-existence issue is not important.
Hi Christine. I've taken your comments into account in my most recent response to Eric.
I'll just add that I would agree that I did find rather convoluted her accusation that there are certain agents claiming to be no-virus-aware but then acting in a manner to discredit the position. I think, in hindsight, that I should have mentioned this in my previous comment. But it's not really germane to the clip that he played on-air.
For better or worse, I don't follow the ins and outs of the bickering war. But I do agree with her, actually, that the cause of acute illness is irrelevant -- because no matter the cause, the ONLY appropriate "treatment" is ZERO treatment save hydration, rest, fresh air, and fasting until the symptoms resolve. (Ha ha, that may very well not be HER reasoning, of course...)
Eddie, are you planning to pull quotes that support your assertion that my coverage is in some way unethical or requires a retraction? You have accused me of journalistic malpractice. You will need to substantiate that if you want to participate in this forum, or concede that I have done no such thing. Thank you.
What qualifies her to give nutritional and medical advice? And what is the purpose of that besides to sidestep the central question? This is not a "bickering war." It's an evaluation of what scientific papers conclude, and what people say about them.
Re the FOIs, it's a discussion about what governments admit, and who acknowledges that fact.
In this publication, we are conducting an investigation into scientific fraud: the false claim of a virus. Nutrition and the "cause of illness" are outside the scope of my investigation.
In terms of "treatment" - rest, hydration, etc, I get it, I'm with you.
But the problem is that people are put into fear and manipulated and coerced into all sorts of things that they would not normally accept, and some of them suddently want to do things they would not otherwise do, all based on the "virus" premise. And this is why the virus issue matters so very much (not to mention all the waste/misdirection of resources that occurs under the fake "germ" paradigm).
That statement was s bit tongue in cheek. Let me clarify that I do think it's important to investigate what may have caused one's symptoms, in order to avoid exposing oneself to it/them in future. But I think it's even more important to understand that acute illness ALWAYS resolves without "treatment". That the symptoms are evidence of the toxins exiting the body. In other words, even if microbial agents could be shown to be playing a causative role, the process is BENEFICIAL.
The cause of any person's illness is not a public matter. There is no diagnosing a group unless everyone actually has the same symptoms and even then there will be variances in treatment. The assumption on any level that something was "going around" has NEVER once EVER been established. So the notion of symptoms etc is a total diversion from the core science and the core legal issues.
I get that the cause is not important to you. But most people do not want to get sick, especially from an allegedly deadly "virus". They do all manner of harmful things based on belief in "viruses". And I don't want to leave the world with this germ-excuse for tyranny hanging over my son, etc.
I'll take this under advisement. Though her words in this interview must also be contrasted with her words in recent interviews, and in writing, and to her entire record. Paying lip service to the Baileys is not saying, "There was no virus. It was only computer modeling. There was therefore no pandemic." She dances around these points, and in years of watching her, I can never get a real fix on the evolution of her thoughts or her real position. To say she loves the work of the Baileys et al is not to say, "I now understand all of virology to be a fraud, based on understanding Mark Bailey's paper A Farewell to Virology." It is this foggy quality that I am calling out, and it's where most presenters are hiding to one degree or another. We are now four years into an in silico sequence being used to shut down the world and force deadly injections into billions of people. Let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late.
Imho, she sees that virology is falling, the truth is coming out, and she doesn't want to look like an obvious gatekeeper.
So she is finally acknowledging that no-virus is based on valid points, while absurdly insisting that it's not important and smearing most no-virus people as "ankle-biters" who are trying to discredit Lanka, Cowan and Kaufman.
To my ears, you completely misunderstood the Ruby/Latypova exchange, Eric. Ruby said that there SHOULD be scientific debate. Latypova agreed, then allowed that it would have been reasonable to take some countermeasures, whatever the cause of a large health event were, IF it had been shewn "WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL" that such an event were actually taking place.
And with Austin-Fitts, it sounded to me like she was saying that to HER it didn't matter what the pretext was for the launching of full-on 1984, because the point is that they were DOING it. And, by implication, if/when the pretext is acknowledged to be bogus, they'll simply memory-hole that pretext, push out a different one, and continue to implement the "New Normal". But she didn't say (at least not in the clip you played) that OTHER people shouldn't be making a stink about the no-virus issue; just that for her it wasn't a priority.
Maybe I'm nuts -- but that's what I heard in those two clips. I personally think they're both valid points. (Obviously, Mercola and Humphries are insane.)
Well, if Ruby has refused to have on her program the likes of Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman, Baileys, Corbett, Wallach, Roytas, Grant, etc., along with declining to be interviewed by yourself; then, yes, I agree that she's as bad as Bigtree, RFK, and Mercola. But I do recall that Austin-Fitts interviewed Rappoport several times in 2020; so unless she's changed her ways, I don't think she belongs in the same category.
I'm not misunderstanding the fact that they are equivocating; they are saying anything but all the facts are available and this point does not need to be debated. It needs to be made plain. They are teeter-tottering all over the place and not pointing to ANY scientific reference material on either "side" of the issue. They don't say, "If the test cannot test for a virus, then no test for a virus is valid and we cannot assume it's real because there is no test." Rather, they make the issue seem flexible and like a matter of belief.
Not in the clips you played, they don't -- perhaps they do elsewhere, and you're really replying to those other comments rather than to these ones. If you've links to the entire interviews, I'd be rather interested to hear them. Especially, I'd be interested to hear the "friendly debate" Austin-Fitts mentioned would be taking place between herself and Cowan.
But Austin-Fitts' point in particular is spot-on, in my opinion: When the authorities are forced to acknowledge the total bankruptcy of the Germ Hypothesis, they'll simply roll out a different pretext, and continue with 1984 -- and anybody with a teevee in their house will eat it up like cotton candy. They've already accomplished their overarching objective anyway -- planetwide injection-induced sterilisation of billions of people -- so the contagion pretext isn't really important to them anymore (or so I suspect).
?? If Eric is wrong, where DID they make it plain?
Where DID they point to any scientific reference material on either "side" of the issue?
Where DID they say, "If the test cannot test for a virus, then no test for a virus is valid and we cannot assume it's real because there is no test"?
Ruby literally DID cite her own belief in "virus behaving things".
Seems that based on your viewpoint, everything is hopeless because people will just eat up whatever they are told next.
Yet in fact loads of people have caught onto the fact that they've been duped. And the more people see that, the less they will be vulnerable to further duping going forward, including re fake germ-based threats and emergencies... which they continue to pull off every day. Kids are still getting jabs for all sorts of imaginary pathogens, seniors are still getting flu shots. People still take deadly "anti-virals". People still avoid sick people. Etc etc. And have you not noticed that they continually mention other "pathogens", i.e. Disease X and lately measles? It's nonstop!
And the real causes of illness are still being largely overlooked b/c most think "germs" are responsible. How anyone in the freedom movement has not grasped this yet, I have no idea.
Listened to the second half. Actually, i already heard Eric with Dr Mark Bailey a couple of days ago and commented on that on that segment's own page, posted a couple of days ago. SOLID GOLD. And really good segment about Prozac and gender dysphoria. Reminds me of numerous animals which underwent sex changes due to environmental pollution, particularly water-borne life. GRRR!
Here is my comment about the Mark Bailey interview segment.
Jeffrey Strahl
Lockdown Times
Feb 28
·edited Feb 28
My comments. PHENOMENAL interview. Some key points were covered. The alleged virus genome is an “in silico” entity. It is nothing but a computer file filled with code, assembled out of short strands of code corresponding to short strands of nucleic acid found in a cell culture experiment. The strands are the results of mixing extracts from humans with tissue, most commonly green monkey kidney cells. antibiotics (poisonous to kidney cells), and nutrients. This stew is allowed to brew, and is then mixed, including the cutting up of all nucleic acid segments into ones shorter than around 5-600 base pairs, translating into code, and loading into a computer program or two or more, and using software to do the assembly.
There is a deliberate attempt to call this “sequencing,” making it seem just like taking DNA from known organisms and breaking it down into ordered chains of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (A, C, G, T), the four basic genetic nucleic acids (RNA has uracil instead of thymine, and any which is in the mix is changed via an additive into thymine). Something made via assembling pieces whose origin is never established (unknown provenance), an entity which exists only in a computer and has never been shown to actually exist in nature, let alone shown to be pathogenic, is being presented as a real existing physical organism.
In fact, this computer-only entity is used as the basis for designing tests like the PCR which then are said to determine whether someone has ‘COVID” (or indeed anything else). This is done by providing the test with short segments of code which are alleged to come from this compute-only alleged entity. This has been a testing pandemic. And there is a history of creating stories about viruses and alleging that they account for sicknesses which are actually the result of toxic chemicals degrading our environment.
Regarding Betty Dotson and cannabis lowering sexual inhibitions. First time i ever got high on cannabis was also my first time experiencing free love (with the woman who turned me on). I had experienced commercial sex before, but this was of course very different. Coincidentally, the first woman i had intercourse with under commercial circumstances, in fact my first three times, offered me some cannabis our second time, i wasn't ready.
And people go along out of fear. And/or because they are invested in the idea that “i got sick with “COVID,” family members got it, friends got it….,” or because that’s what a celebrity they trust in says is true, or because they don’t trust their own understanding of physical reality at all (especially in regarding to health) and believe “experts,”…. For example, I had the experience of a decades-long friend attack me for being out of touch with modern science and not understanding that “experts” don’t need to do physical explorations, they can just use computers, and that all my friends who say otherwise (including the ones with solid science credentials) know nothing (he himself has never finished community college!). He is in charge of five (!) Facebook groups.
I sure hope that this video and the book which Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey have released can help widen true understanding and push back the night of know nothingness. Cockroaches scurry off once the lights are turned on.
Harking back to 2020 and the first few days of lock-down I could not help but wonder then how the virus spread so quickly from Wuhan to Las Vegas. Was someone from Vegas in Wuhan and at that market? I had been using the I Ching for over fifty years for guidance in my passage. And I used it as a tool to make ideal passage through my life and as an instrument to determine right action. It had never let me down provided I followed its counsel. So three days into the lock-down I asked the I Ching this question: Given this pandemic what ought I to be doing about it? I knew if I followed its counsel rather than CNN’s counsel I would be right with what is going on. I received in reply Hexagram 35, Progress, the third line moving. Hexagram 35 is one of the most favorable in the book and pictures the sun rising rapidly over the earth. A bright image. The moving line, likewise one of the most favorable in the book, reads “All are in accord. Remorse disappears.” Hmmmm. Such a glowing oracle for supposedly a dismal situation in the external world. Why hadn't I received something like hexagram 29, Danger? Or hex. 47, Exhaustion? Or hex. 39, Obstruction? Or this line from hexagram 63: "The finest clothes turn to rags. Be careful all day long" Or any of the many other hexagrams and lines which would warn of dire circumstances or counsel one to caution? I quit listening to CNN or any other mainstream media broadcasts and started listening to myself and looking at actual conditions in my neighborhood and environs. Nothing had changed much, but for the fact that there were masks abounding and public places were closing, but I didn’t see lines of emergency vehicles nor hearses. I am retired so I did not lose a full-time job or anything like that. So I lived joyfully day to day as though nothing dangerous were going on. My partner and I went on one of the loveliest vacations that summer. We went to Mesa Verde National park, home of the cliff dwellings. If restaurants required masks we donned them, ate, and then took them off. We did not wipe down the hotel rooms we stayed in those four days. Because people were afraid to travel there were very, very few tourists in the Park which enhanced our enjoyment of it and enabled us to get cut-rate lodgings inside the park. Thank you lock-down! I had been following Eric’s astrological talks on YouTube for several years. Now I listened intently as he exposed the faux-demic and increased my confidence in my original doubts. I never got the vaccine nor have I ever received a flu shot. Last time I had the flu was 1987. I try to live healthfully, take my supplements and exercise. Btw I had been hospitalized twice in 2020 for non-respiratory related reasons and never saw piles of bodies in the corridors nor hearses lined up at the hospital. I tested negative both times for covid. But then I knew I would!
haha yep. In March or April 2020, I visited some spirits I know in a forest I love and I asked, specifically about the "pandemic," what's going on? I got a reply, Nothing. So I asked again. Again they said, "Nothing. Everything is fine." Twice was adequate; I was not going to argue or gainsay them. Yep, fake test, fake virus, fake news and a fake, but deadly crisis. Then several years of work to prove it. Well, I had a clue by Feb. 2021 exactly the lay of the land; I can tell from my reporting. Of course, reading my summary of March 2020, I knew then as well.
Hi Eric, I would have more respect for Mark Bailey and what he has to say, read his book and listen to this interview if you would ask him to unblock me and we could discuss the nonsense he believes that those who control the energy and food supply; ie the industry elites of fossil fuel and animal ag (by far the biggest user of big pharmaceuticals) are actually trying to prevent us access to their products, to take away 'our' chickens and to make us eat ze bugs.
It's complicated being a publicly visible presenter on their level. However, I have never known them to be arbitrary or capricious people. Are you suggesting that all this bug eating talk is pure hoax?
'Bug eating talk". Interesting. I looked for the clip of Klaus actually saying 'you will eat ze bugs' ( a germanic accent associatated with barking orders) and all i can find is actor voice overs like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-F1L8XfTrI
The idea of humans eating insects was put forward in 2012 by someone at the UN but it didn't catch on because it's unnecessary (plants contain all the protein required), ridiculous and unappealing.
No one is trying to force us to eat bugs.
We're being made to think that we are.
The propaganda, using weirdo egotists, has worked.
Well, they were not arbitrary nor capricious with me. They deliberately blocked me from their Odyssey channel and substack platforrm for pointing out errors in their logic about the farming of animals.
Yes, it's a hoax using WEF (just a vanity project) stooges, scare-mongering over left wing control, owning nothing, communism and eating bugs is exactly what I am suggesting.
It's been very effective. It's got people in Europe protesting for the right of farmers to poison the water. And get subsidised (which mostly go to the biggest richest farms) by the tax payer for doing so. The green deal hasn't even be implemented yet, the protests are about many other things, Uk politicians have competely abandoned net zero as it's such a vote loser and health freedom is fooled.
Big big win for fossil fuel, animal ag and it's sister industry big pharrma.
Please email me at efc@chironreturn.org and copy efc@planetwaves.net and let's see what's possible. How experienced are you doing spoken word presentations on these topics, and what is your starting point?
Although of course we don't agree on everything I've been followed, recommended and linked to by both Christine Massey and Mike Stone. We've had some very illuminating conversations in the comments. As I have with Mike Yeadon on no virus. Disagreeing is helpful and kinda the point.
I have no experience of spoken word presentations at all but I'm pissed at being part of the team yet in the Bailey's sin bin all this time. I'm also shocked how everyone seems to have fallen for the Klaus squab square pants and his tufty club con of depopulation, 15 minute cities and land grabs hiding the real destroyers; the US military industrial media complex who want us burning oil, gas and coal, destroying the earth, using animals, at war (with China) and fat, sick and on drugs for as long as possible.
Unf, when I'm the editor, you will need to know the history of each of those claims back to their origins, and the arguments on each side of the issue. You cannot simply dismiss them as hoaxes. They may all be, though to merely toss them off is not journalism.
Here is how the Heartland Institute (from their website 'Our Mission. To discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems') (with donors; Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years) who are leading promoters of climate denial used the covid con to push the hoax of left wing control.
It's editorial director Justin Haskins wrote in The Hill in Dec 2020 'In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy. The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes. The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).'
This was then pushed on social media, along with easily pulled apart climate denial, particularly to health freedom. I watched it happen.
The Heartland institute is only one of the foundations in the US Climate Change Counter Movement funded by wealthy families and others.
Here is some great journalism about how a group of earnest policy wonks was used as a cover for entrepreneurs, the people most responsible for screwing the planet, to do deals at Davos (lined with photos of Klaus, the original virtue signaller) under the cover of piousness and green washing from Russell Brand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrS6buynAk
Also historian and author YNH has been set up as a globalist and 'chief adviser to Klaus Squab' with hit pieces and hatchet jobs of videos posted on social media. However, when you watch the original videos of his speech at Davos and elsewhere you will see he is not even talking about eg jabs, even if images of needles are superimposed, he's warning against data collection from personal devices being used by the algorithm to the detriment of us all. The Baileys, who are meant to be researchers, didn't research the original videos but merely regurgitated the nonsense in their video. This is not journalism.
Davos 2024 was a PR disaster, i think it has outlasted it's usefulness. Everyone can see through them. They were left with a pathetic attempt to market Disease X.
Hey all, thank you for another round of fantastic virus hugger audio! Please keep a lookout, and style points the funnier they are. This is applying actual journalistic pressure; the "gotcha" of it all is how they all pretty much admit they understand the issue but are avoiding it for business or political purposes. That is not a good look. Let's shine some of that Equinox Sun on them -- it's the best disinfectant.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B7sLM8wqJAgx/
Check out this regular guy's 4 1/2 minutes of advice to the VDs using his experience of the divide that happened in the 9/11 truth movement: "we gotta get them through the door".
oh this guy is a regular Socrates.
He's assuming that I have the same goal as Mercola or Webb, which he sums up as, "To wake people up." What exactly makes him think that's my objective, but more significantly, what makes him think it's the goal of any of the presenters saying that the discussion should not happen? Rather than, say, protecting their business model and clubby relationships?
Further, issues around Sept. 11 are abstract from the life of a person or a family. It's a major historical event, not about personal life choices that must be made from day to day: how to live, what to eat, what medical choices to make, and so on. The terrain theory people serving as teachers are helping people sort out their choices, their attitudes and their values.
They are helping people figure out what helps them heal and feel better, and what does not.
Further, Socrates is taking an entirely superficial perspective on the issue, which he seems to think is about "waking people up" with leaflets rather than understanding something essential to our human existence here in bodies.
He misses the questions about whether people who oppose vaccines but who "believe in" or profess the belief in viruses 1) are sincere, 2) are not arguing against themselves, and 3) ignoring the long history that preceded 2020 wherein most of the public was pounded with the necessity for vaccines due to the equally pounded-in belief in viruses -- and many people got sick and/or died as a result of injections they thought they or their children needed.
This is a crucial matter of personal health, not the bullshit pastime that Sept 11 is for 99% of people who are involved. They can do nothing about 9/11; they don't do anything; it does not affect them; I don't think they care; it's just something to whine about.
But your kid who might have died from the MMR? And your other kid who might be given the jab? It matters whether there is a measles virus.
The "waking people up" MO is a lot of the same kind of pushback I get from my brother who has listened to Alex Jones for the last decade. I used to think bro was a little nuts until I found my way out of "leftyville" through the lack of adherence to the scientific method. He is one of the only folks in my town I can speak frankly to. He knows about the missing virus problem because it came out briefly on Infowars in 2020, but doesn't think that is the way to expose the baddies and he is still deep in the germ theory paradigm despite knowing the issue. The scientific method is so much easier to understand than complex geopolitics or generational cult money families and organizations or the coming to grips with the fact that our elected officials lie....all of that was easier for me to see after realizing the medical fear porn propaganda.
Yes yes yes to all you said!
And what if Judy Woods is right? My position on her is: explain to me where the energy came from for the directed energy weapon and we can start the discussion. For me that is probable cause. Until we get there, there is nothing.
"And what if Judy Woods is right? My position on her is: explain to me where the energy came from for the directed energy weapon and we can start the discussion"
With respect, your question only applies to the official (jet fuel) and 'official alternative' (thermite/ explosives) theories. Dr Wood has already addressed it and answered it (with examples).
The towers were disassembled in around 10 seconds each. The amount of conventional energy (kinetic/ heat) required to accomplish such a feat would be astronomical. And yet the most striking feature of the destruction was just how GENTLE it was (relative to the destruction caused).
Gage insists the towers were disassembled in 10 secs by an incendiary. OK let's think this through...... imagine cutting a single 6" thick steel box column in 10 secs with thermite (if such a thing is even possible). Imagine the heat and light produced. Now multiply that heat and light by 50 for the core columns and another 50 for the outer columns. That's just for one floor. Multiply again by 100 (each floor) or by 10 (every ten floors). The amount of heat and light produced to cut up the steel structure in 10 secs would have blinded everyone and melted the entire WTC complex.
There is no evidence of ANY heat or light during the destruction. The dozen or so survivors who walked out of the towers unscathed did not witness any heat or light (or 'molten metal') or even loud bangs ...... even as the core columns were (supposedly) being melted all around them. The streets were full of unburnt paper knee high. The dust cloud was cold/ warm. There was no 'pyroclastic cloud'. Nobody was burnt by the dust cloud.
Imagine a bank vault with a 6" thick steel door. It is full of paper money and 12 people inside. The door is breached in 10 seconds leaving the people inside unscathed and the paper unburnt. Gage says thermite was used to melt the door in 10 secs. A more logical explanation is that someone was able to pick the lock (or they knew the combination code) and they simply opened the door.
Dr Wood has no theory. She just observes the lack of heat and light which rules out any kind of conventional means of destruction. She also draws a comparison between the destruction at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect which uses interference of EM fields to 'pick the lock' of materials (including metals) at the molecular / atomic level and cause them to melt, wilt, deform and crumble to dust WITHOUT REQUIRING huge quantities of energy (just household mains electricity).
On 9/11 the WTC was transformed into Hogwarts. People and cars were being levitated, the first responders reported their coats or shoelaces catching fire with cold flames. Cars got 'toasted' all over Manhattan with no evidence of heat (seats and plastic lights not burnt). And two huge towers got turned to dust in 10s each. The site 'fumed' for several YEARS afterwards with no evidence of heat. ALL of these effects have been produced by Hutchison and his assortment of radiofrequency toys. NONE of them are consistent with jet fuel/ thermite/ explosives.
Dustifying steel towers clad in aluminium will produce a lot of iron oxide and aluminium powder on the ground which is what was observed. This needed to be accounted for. Gage's thermite nonsense is the perfect cover story. 'Thermite' is 'gain of function'. ..... an alternative theory to fold truthers back into (a slight variation of) the official story.
No virus/ contagion = civilisation changing paradigm shift.
Free energy tech (the ability to 'pick the lock' of matter with minimal energy input) = civilisation changing paradigm shift.
Read Dr Wood's book and you won't find Gage convincing any more.
NHP
I am asking about the "energy" part of "directed energy." What energy, and from where was it directed?
This directed energy stuff keeps coming up in respect to the wildfires in Hawaii and Texas. I have never looked into the claims regarding the technology, but it seems to be tied in with all of the weather directing business and chemtrails, etc? It's a whole new side car I have never boarded.
Richard Gage in his interview with Eric last week offered the perfect rebuttal to Judy Wood. He shows the WTC1 top getting shredded, the roof descending before the entire top started moving, and this started with the antenna. This meant that the truss hat assembly which supported the antenna, which was located inside the structure, on top of the core columns, had to be destroyed. Yet this was done without anything showing on the outside of the building. A directed energy weapon could not have reached inside and done that without external damage showing. Case closed.
I think we should still be looking at the possibility vis a vis wildfires. But this is real on the ground reporting combined with deep tech knowledge -- not my specialty in this case...blue things not catching fire in Hawaii was strange....if true as alleged. I will always come back to the questions, OK, where is the power source, and what is the location of the device? I am open to hearing this discussion.
Images of DEWs in Maui turned out to be transformers in Chile. Medical freedom has lost the plot https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/maui-fires-clown-world
I have documents from the 1990s indicating that they were at least talking about the reality of directed energy weapons. But I need to know how they work. During the Star Wars program it was said that the laser beams in space would be powered by nuclear bombs lodged in satellites. And that would’ve worked beautifully on a planet without any computers. So I don’t think they’ve got nuclear bombs in space going off. Where do you get enough energy to melt a skyscraper? I’m even willing to listen to wild speculation. By the way Jeff Strahl does not like this issue at all. 💕
edited.
Great show, Eric. A very even handed approach to the virus huggers, which I believe is paramount in light of the vitriol towards the "VDs". I concur that pretty, baby faced Broze is a ringer. He interviewed Cowan & Kaufman in January of 2021 here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ezIjrLo6nvZ1/
Then went about pulling the fence sitters into the preferred narrative of divide and concur.
for a hilarious demolition of the "Free Market" start at about 19 minutes...I am so grateful to have worked with The Yes Men in the era of this film, participating in one prank (The New York Post) and doing the Q&A after the film for its run at Time&Space in Hudson. At 19 mins you meet Gilda the Golden Skeleton in the Closet...which flows into Milton Friedman and his followers...these guys emboldened me...Igor, Jacques -- je t'adore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG1XeixJqcI
Yes, I remember seeing that back in the day, still very funny. There's a point I like to make about free-marketeers (that I don't see the Yes Men making), is that they rail against state regulation and intervention in business affairs, but they never talk about the role of the state in making those markets in the first place.
I will defer to General Butler for that:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket
Of course, Butler's account is all pre-CIA...
wow...and what excellent writing...holy living fuck...if you have more Butler quotes, I am sure they will be of interest here...
You should get yourself the book "War is a Racket" by Smedley D. Butler. I think it's less than 100 pages. Likely it was a pamphlet originally. It is full of such quotable writing. He is a very interesting historical figure, a patriot in the best sense of the term. He also foiled a plot to assassinate FDR.
Here's more quotes:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/115545.Smedley_D_Butler
He's one among the true All American writers -- with Whitman.
Note to Jon Rappoport
Jon
Your connection of SSRI use to sexual repression and as a result the “gender dysphoria” epidemic answered questions I’ve been wrestling with for years.
As you may know, I’ve been active in various poly, tantra, swing and other scenes as a presenter since the 1990s, and the result of all of this has been impossible to parse out until now.
Previously I explained it with digital consciousness (which is about amputation, and the conversion of sex into the digital environment) and overload of gender chemicals (“forever chemicals”) but your idea goes right to the core of the emotional chaos involved. Certainly digital exposure and xenoestrogenic chemicals are not helping matters.
Also, I am an adept at expanding your theories, and my connection of this to the sense of panic around ordinary heterosexual attraction completes the idea — and explains why people who are wholesome, respectful and open/conversant can be considered predators.
Those “woke” zombies must be pretty angry under all that altered chemistry, delusion and suppressed feeling. I believe that SSRIs do nearly permanent damage, so if 20% are using today, cycle that same percentage through all the past users.
I wonder how many haven’t experienced a good orgasm or bowel movement in 10 years…
efc
Because I have experienced it myself numerous times, I can tell you Dr. Mercola is talking about censorship. In recent years, on those occasions when Dr, Mercola talked about viruses, I've offered a counter discussion. I'm always civil and I never resort to ad hominem attacks, nor do I use foul language. I'm censored merely for presenting evidence about the unresolved virus issue. The last time was just over a week ago when I had several comments taken down.
This is rich coming from a man who has spent a lot of word capitol on his site whining about being censored by The Center for Countering Digital Hate for being part of the Misinformation Dozen.
I'll be posting tomorrow about my experience with CHD on this topic.
Great work Eric.
Mercola has always been two faced and he sells supplements that aren't what they profess to be as well. Caught on to him many years ago. Some people just reek of fraud and cowardness.
Half way through, managed to get around temporary problems with the recording around the first music break. No surprise, SUPERB!
Something struck me about a common point shared by all four of the presenter teams, in spite of certain apparent differences. Mercola and Humphries were down on the idea of "virus denial" ostensibly because viruses are real. He didn't say the question is unimportant.
Del Bigtree was down on that idea because it threatens to get in the way of his allegedly imminent success regarding the bringing Fauci and the other culpable people to justice. He deemed the question a barrier to this.
Latypova/Ruby, and Fitts/Broze both focused on how the virus question was unimportant and a total diversion from the real work, fighting repressive measures.
What all four teams are actually doing is brand protection, and doing so in different ways because they have different brands. Mercola is heavily invested in "alternative treatments." What's the point of "treatments" if the viruses which require them can't be shown to exist? Not good for sales.
Bigtree's big thing is ICAN, which pursues legal measures and remedies. His focus is on legal actions against and punishment of the perpetrators. And don't you dare ruin his case.
And Laypova/Ruby and Fitts/Broze are about "exposing and fighting fraud." It doesn't really matter to them what the causes of the events are, they just wanna win points for uncovering "wrong-doing." Astounding how they can deem the matter of whether the entity whose alleged existence and pathogenic nature were used to shut down the world actually even exists to be unimportant.
I was just about to say what you pointed out.
All of those people are nothing more than cheap whores.
Fcuk the truth when it gets in the way of making a buck. And in their cases: BIG BUCKS.
They’re no better than the pharmafia, the Rockefeller commandeered medical cartel or any other organization who puts money before truth.
I still wonder why some of us were skeptical to one degree or another from the beginning of 2020 and to this day many others believe the narrative lock stock and barrel. I began questioning HIV/AIDS 20 years ago when I stumbled into the work of the Perth Group and when I saw Fauci popping up like a bobble head in 2020 I sensed that something wasn't right. The lockdowns and other extreme measures seemed so off to me. I remember driving buy a Trader Joe's grocery store and people were lined up around the corner in masks, standing feet apart from one another as if it was just the normal thing to do. Then the guy who went biking past me all by himself along a sidewalk without anyone else, WEARING A MASK, that I new group insanity was truly upon us. When I mentioned that on Facebook, I was stunned when a couple people defended the masked-biker dude, saying he was just preventing virus from spreading in the air. Then my brother asked me where all the ventilators were going to come from when people were dying in the streets (which never happened). Several friends and family members pushed me to get the vax (which I never did), and one of them who advertised on FB each booster he got, ended up in the hospital for a week with 'covid'. I'm the dude who masked the least amount possible, was in coffee shops, going to the gym, didn't get vaxxed, and being in public when possible, and never had 'covid' to this day.
I'm Swedish but I was living in Lisbon in Portugal during most of the scamdemic. I remember going to the supermarket to buy food regularly, as you do. I would usually try to avoid the more crowded times but sometimes I just didn't have the choice but to go when seemingly everybody else did.
The supermarket in question was fairly large and located in a small-ish mall with 3 entrances, if I remember correctly. 2 of the entrances went straight outside whereas the 3rd was from inside the mall itself.
The 2 entrances that went straight outside were closed off during the entire scamdemic, so the only way in and out was through the third entrance. Like most places, I assume, they had a limit to the number of people allowed into the store at one time, which meant very long lines during those very crowded times. Here's my favorite part about the whole thing though:
Instead of letting people stand outside with plenty of fresh air and space to maintain that oh-so-important "social distance", people would be packed like sardines into a small cramped space at the end of the mall by the entrance, and they'd remained packed in as such until the security guard outside the supermarket waved at each person that they were allowed to enter the store. So standing next to someone by the fruit's isle inside the supermarket is super-dangerous and the deadly virus will come and get you, but being packed like sardines to the point where you can't really move right outside said supermarket inside a cramped mall is perfectly fine and safe.
And don't even get me started on how it's perfectly safe to take off your mask in a restaurant while sitting down for a cup of coffee or lunch, but you instantly have to put it back on again the instant you stand up or else the virus is coming to get you.
How people justified this and somehow made sense of it frankly still blows my mind.
My favorite memory from the whole thing though was this runner that I used to watch from my window while having breakfast every morning. On one particular day, the rain was absolutely pouring down (it looked more like an actual waterfall right outside my window than just rain) so nobody except this runner was outside. Despite the rain and despite being all alone, he still wore his double-masked as he trotted lap after lap around the track outside. The masks were so wet that they were stuck to his face and dripping with water. I have no idea how he managed to get any air at all. I imagine that that run must have felt more like an exercise in how to survive extreme waterboarding than a refreshing jog in the rain.
And yet us humans like to take pride in being the most advanced and intelligent species on the planet.. I'm not so sure if I agree with that anymore..
That's amazing. During 2020, I was traveling in the state of Oregon, and was in a town called Bend. It had a great little downtown area with lost of small restaurants and was fun to walk through. Well, the city expected everyone to be masked up while just walking around outside in that downtown area. There were signs up saying there would be a $1200 fine if you were found not wearing one. Of course, I wasn't wearing one. But the bizarre thing is that the restaurants were open but only with temporary outside sidewalk type seating. And the people sitting at the tables were not wearing masks because they were seated with food. So I guess this smart virus knew not to attack them, but only people walking next to them on the street. Later that day I went to the gym, and there were signs up saying masks must be worn at all times. There weren't that many people there so I got on a treadmill. No one was near me as there weren't that many people at the gym, so I let my mask down so I could breath. Well, not long after an employee ran over to me and barked at me to put up my mask. There must be countless absurd stories like this, we could probably create a coffee table book of all these stories.
I heard an exchange between Catherine Austin Fitts and Tom Cowan from earlier than a year ago, I believe, but I don't know exactly when. It was linked on her Solari Report website. And in that clip she admitted to Tom that she knew viruses did not exist, but she wouldn't say it because, she claimed, she couldn't explain the science of it to her Tennessee neighbors. That was when I decided to stop subscribing to her website. It was so clearly a bald-faced lie--she is brilliant, there's no way she couldn't find ways to explain it to anyone. And it was a rather condescending insult to Tennesseans! Does she really think that little of her neighbors' ability to think and understand? I wonder if this is the interview she mentions in the clip with Derrick Broze.
Yeah like the rest of them.
The way I soft-peddle the issue is by my witty, eloquent phrase, "The Missing Virus Problem."
Is this it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=douecBGhl8I
I’d have to listen to it to see. What I heard was an audio clip that I accessed on her website. It might be part of this podcast.
The Mercola-Humphries discussion is a real piece of work. I discuss it in my latest Substack post, Newsletter, 3/1/24. Outright pushing censorship of people like us while speaking of several alleged viruses as if they are undeniable facts, entities proven to exist via the scientific method rather than computer files.
At minimum, they are unprincipled people. To be a supporter of free speech, means to support exactly that speech you don't like. Humphries is a disappointment. Her book "Dissolving Illusions" is big reason I am here. Her book painstakingly shows that none of the major diseases are due to viruses (as the vaccines didn't help) but due to environmental toxins, poor air, water, food, work and living conditions. No viruses at all.
Her "Dissolving Illusions" co-author, Roman Bystrianyk, recently interviewed by Sam Bailey, is increasingly moving to the "no proof of virus" stance, so perhaps she is feeling threatened professionally. I agree they are unprincipled. Talking about "silencing" dissenters is really (George) Bush League.
RE: Roman Bystrianyk, recently interviewed by Sam Bailey
That is interesting. "Dissolving Illusions" is really the brainchild of Bystrianyk. He had vaccine-injured children, and did most of the research. I got the feeling that he felt that he needed an MD on board for his thesis to be taken seriously.
Can you provide a link to that interview? Thanks!
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Decade-of-Dissolving-Illusions-with-Roman-Bystrianyk:f
Decade of Dissolving Illusions with Roman Bystrianyk, Dr Sam Bailey, 11/20/23, An hour and 6 minutes.
Thanks!
Hiya
It would be good journalistic practice to ask whether renowned low carb high fat 'nutritionist' Tim Noakes (who wrote the preface) or the Baileys receive any funding from Tom Cowan's Weston A. Price Foundation or other such animal ag industry funded front groups. The Bailey's video on bugs that I was initially blocked from was heavily biased in its favour. I know that Joe Rogan is funded by the meat industry and is also very skewed.
I think that the opposite of the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect ('you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story (you know about), and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate') is happening. We read what we agree with, maybe it crystallises what we subconsciously suspected, about 'viruses' and health for example, we research ourselves and everything checks out. We feel part of a wider group. We then turn the page and because we now like, trust and feel allied with the authors we don't do the same critical analysis. Or maybe we do know better but keep quiet, like Dawn Lester and David Parker so as not to be dumped out of the group and lose our followers.
Good points. I knew Weston Price was funded by animal ag, so I was immediately suspicious when I saw Cowan's connection to them, and the bashing of plant-based diets that has exploded. All the "soy boy" insults etc. - bashing vegans is allowed & encouraged.
Can you give me an example of language that would be bashing of vegans?
Would this count?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBC_LHFulg
I wish the psychopathic eugenicists would 'sleep with the fishes'....
I don't think the fish would like that. Just more pollution.
Here's the Ruby/Latypova interview, Eric. Having listened to the whole thing, I think it's fair enough to say that Ruby is equivacatory -- "I'd prefer to keep an open mind," she says at one point. But Latypova's position is so diametrically opposite to the words you put into her mouth that I think you have an ethical responsibility to issue a retraction/correction. Hell, she even says that she loves the work of Cowan/Kaufman/Baileys, and that it has informed her own thinking.
And I hope that you will interview her. I'd of course heard her name before, but didn't know anything about her. Judging by this conversation, she's definitely got it going on both intellectually and morally.
https://drjaneruby.podbean.com/e/after-talk-with-sasha-latypova-identifying-controlled-opposition/
Here is what I'm objecting to. "The debate over whether viruses exist or not, it's not even that important to the pandemic, to the idea of [the] pandemic."
Of course it is. We were told it was a VIRAL PANDEMIC. It's THE most important issue.
She says that IF there had been an unusual amount of morbitity/mortality, THEN irrespective of the cause, some kind of measures should have been considered. BUT THAT the point was moot, because the only excess mortality in 2020 was caused by the measures themselves. That the pandemic was a "fake" -- an "operation" designed to facilitate massive corporate welfare and the rollout of the injections.
It's not dissimilar to Steve Falconer's position, when you think about it, that until contagion has been demonstrated there's really no point in even discussing viruses or bacteria (although of course he is exceedingly capable of doing so).
Now like I say, this interview is my first exposure to her. If you're quite familiar with her work, and consider her to be all over the map, that's certainly worth noting. But in this interview at least, I find hers to be a voice very much worth listening to.
Peace.
edited
Eddie, all I am concerned about on the virus issue is what was known between Jan. 1, 2020 and the lockdowns through March 31 -- first quarter 2020, when there was no claim of excess disease and death, only a virus spreading. There would be no symptoms, no excess anything...the question I am concerned with is the excuse that was used to lock down the world, not all the fog and laser show that rationalized it post-hoc.
Additionally, ANY minimizing, or attempts to discredit the people who have done and supported this work, negate her lip service to her theoretically liking the Baileys etc. That position is a POLITICAL statement to the "no virus caucus" so she may gain the trust of those listeners, such as yourself.
***Also, I have violated my editorial policy in responding to statements critiquing my writing or speech without direct quotations. So I will give you today to substantiate your comments with DIRECT QUOTATIONS and your argument that those specific statements are allegedly unethical; you have till midnight ET Monday or I will delete your comments per my editorial policy.***
Direct quotations, not paraphrases or innuendo.
https://planetwaves.net/terms-of-service-and-editorial-policy/
Well, as I said in my first comment: "Maybe I'm nuts." If both yourself and Christine think that that's the case, okey, it's quite possible that I am. I'm acknowledging this because I respect your work, and Christine's work, enormously. But I've listened to this clip numerous times now, and I don't think I'm nuts. As I've said, I don't know from Latypova's work. If she's been rude, and weird, and dismissive in other fora then for that she should be be called out. And having read Christine's comments, I'm comfortable acknowledging that I wasn't critical enough of Jane Ruby.
But, here are the passages to which I'm reacting...
LATYPOVA: The debate about whether viruses exist or not is not even that important to the pandemic -- to the idea of a pandemic. IF YOU COULD demonstrate a significant impact WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL, you know, I don't even care what it's caused by -- I would pay attention to that. I would think, "Well, yeah, there's disease." In medicine we always look at symptoms; WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING; not THEORETICAL causative agents.
So, IF YOU COULD DEMONSTRATE that there is some illness going on, and it's spreading, and a lot of people are getting ill, and there's an economic impact, and morbitity and mortality...oh, sure, there should be some public health measures attached to this. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT; THEY CAN'T DO THAT; THEY CAN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT. All they do, is: Government attacks people, declares an operation, they pump huge amounts of money through it, kill a bunch of people...and then they put their wonderful vaccine product on the market. [Emphases added.]
COPPOLINO: So, Sasha Latypova doesn't believe this is an important issue. "It's not even that important," quote-quote, because (this is twisted), "if you could demonstrate significant impact on morbitity and mortality," it doesn't matter what caused it. But wait: There was NOT significant impact on morbitity and mortality, overall, in 2020. There was in 2021 -- blamed on a (non-existent) virus.
And what I hear them all saying is that four years ago this week the world went into lockdown [...] for one reason only: That there was a virus spreading. And now, four years later, these people are all saying that it was not a significant matter whether there really WAS a virus? [That the missing-virus problem] doesn't matter because it's a distraction from what was done about the missing virus.
-----------------------------------
So, maybe it's not so much that you put words into her mouth, Eric, as that in your analysis of this passage you omitted them. You completely ignored the lines I've emphasised from the selection you played on your programme -- which happen to be the most important lines for understanding her position. At least, her position as she represents it here. If, as both yourself and Christine are saying, her position as represented elsewhere is quite different, then I'll repeat that that's very much worth noting. But you didn't say anything of that sort in this analysis.
You said that she said that it doesn't matter whether the cause was a virus if there was significant mortality; and you then immediately exclaimed BUT THERE WASN'T SIGNIFICANT MORTALITY. Which is EXACTLY what she had said as well: That the only mortality event in 2020 was people being murdered in hospitals.
Maybe she's a weirdo in general. But in this interview, she wasn't. You misrepresented what she said in the clip you played. I'm not a journalist -- I'm just a banquet waiter hiding out in Guatemala because prospective employers refuse to communicate with me after I inform them I won't participate in any "Covid" nonsense. But in my own personal opinion, that's unethical. If you know of other instances in which she actually did say that she thinks the lockdowns were justifiable based on the facts as known when they were implemented, then yes, that's important. But you didn't say that, and didn't say or imply that this clip contradicts statements she's made in the past. And if it does do, why didn't you play a clip in which she actually did say something to that effect?
You said that you haven't reached out to invite her to interview with you. I'll repeat that I hope that you will. I would be interested to listen to you discussing these matters with her.
she is talking about a pandemic when there was none.
I am talking about public policy before a single person "got sick."
So, what in your opinion does she mean that at the time the lockdowns were imposed, they *couldn't demonstrate* that there had been any unusual morbitity or mortality? What does she mean by *theoretical* cause? What does she mean that the *only* thing that happened was an "operation" followed by murderous state policies? What does she mean by saying that the pandemic was a *fake*?
She states in no uncertain terms that the only health event in 2020 was the Remdesivir/Midazolam murders. So what exactly is it with which you disagree?
1) "The debate about whether viruses exist or not is not even that important to the pandemic." - Here she referred to THE pandemic, which is the fake pandemic that we all lived through. She said the virus issue doesn't matter. Bizarre. And nothing she said afterwards negated this position.
2) "IF YOU COULD demonstrate a significant impact WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL, you know, I don't even care what it's caused by -- I would pay attention to that. I would think, "Well, yeah, there's disease." In medicine we always look at symptoms; WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING; not THEORETICAL causative agents."
-- Here she isn't even commenting on the virus issue specifically, she's just saying she would pay attention if there was a real health issue. Well I would guess so.
But then she dismissively makes reference to "theoretical causative agents", in order to minimize the importance of the "virus" issue. To hear her (and other "leaders"), it's almost as if no-virus people are the ones who made up the virus story in the first place and made it a big deal, and not the actual perps who did it!
Well excuse me Sasha, but the world wasn't locked down over a story about a "theoretical agent" and we did not make up that story. We were told there was a definite virus and to get tested so we don't kill Grannie, blah blah blah.
And lol she certainly cared about causal factors when she interviewed "scientist" Sabine Hazan who pretends to have found "SARS-COV-2" in poop.
In the next paragraph, yes she acknowledges that the perps have no evidence whatsoever. (Yay, it only took her 4 years.) She says nothing here to imply that the virus-existence issue really does matter after all - which is what Eric called her out over.
You have accused Eric of misrepresenting Latypova's statements, and that what she said was "diametrically opposite to the words you put into her mouth".
Can you quote exactly what Eric supposedly put in her mouth that was diametrically opposed to what she really said?
Response here:
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/in-the-real-world-virus-advocates/comment/50971995
I think you need to go back and listen again, because Ruby said that she is "very comfortable with" and "open minded" TO VIRUSES and said she believes there are "synthetic viral-behaving things and stuff like that".
And FYI Ruby was very hostile, condescending and dismissive towards no-virus people very recently on twitter, when she commented after hateful accusations were made by Chris Sky - who literally expressed his wish for all of us to die.
Ruby implied in this interview that any no-virus person who isn't "credentialed" and using their real name on twitter is an "ankle-biter".
Sasha claimed in the comments below the interview on ss that anonymous no-virus people are "ankle biters" and trying to discredit Lanka, Cowan and the Baileys. (Same thing Ruby called no-virus people on twitter.)
In this interview, the 2 women agreed with each other that the no-virus discussion is NOT IMPORTANT and a "distraction" - which is a ridiculous, bizarre suggestion - including in the hypothetical scenario where there really was excess mortality, etc. (how does one deal effectively with a health crisis without knowing the cause??) and especially in the real-world scenario where the world was already turned upside down over an alleged "virus".
The fact that Sasha had already stated that she loves the work of Cowan, etc, makes her later statements even more bizarre and illogical.
Fyi, Sasha has a history of coming unhinged at no-virus people in the comments under her ss, and she turned downright vicious towards me after I asked her questions (after her ridiculous, contradictory post about her interview with Sabine Hazan), telling people that I had acted like a drunk for 5 hours and that she was willing to "testify" to this... a not-so-thinly-veiled threat, which I've documented:
"virus" questions - Sasha Latypova - hop hop, run off, you're banned!
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/virus-questions-sasha-latypova-hop
Anyways, Eric didn't put anything in Latypova's mouth, or Ruby's. He literally played a recording of what they said and gave people the link to the full interview. And he did not misrepresent them. He played the recording and when it was over he expressed stunned disbelief over their claim that the virus-existence issue is not important.
Hi Christine. I've taken your comments into account in my most recent response to Eric.
I'll just add that I would agree that I did find rather convoluted her accusation that there are certain agents claiming to be no-virus-aware but then acting in a manner to discredit the position. I think, in hindsight, that I should have mentioned this in my previous comment. But it's not really germane to the clip that he played on-air.
For better or worse, I don't follow the ins and outs of the bickering war. But I do agree with her, actually, that the cause of acute illness is irrelevant -- because no matter the cause, the ONLY appropriate "treatment" is ZERO treatment save hydration, rest, fresh air, and fasting until the symptoms resolve. (Ha ha, that may very well not be HER reasoning, of course...)
Eddie, are you planning to pull quotes that support your assertion that my coverage is in some way unethical or requires a retraction? You have accused me of journalistic malpractice. You will need to substantiate that if you want to participate in this forum, or concede that I have done no such thing. Thank you.
What qualifies her to give nutritional and medical advice? And what is the purpose of that besides to sidestep the central question? This is not a "bickering war." It's an evaluation of what scientific papers conclude, and what people say about them.
Re the FOIs, it's a discussion about what governments admit, and who acknowledges that fact.
In this publication, we are conducting an investigation into scientific fraud: the false claim of a virus. Nutrition and the "cause of illness" are outside the scope of my investigation.
In terms of "treatment" - rest, hydration, etc, I get it, I'm with you.
But the problem is that people are put into fear and manipulated and coerced into all sorts of things that they would not normally accept, and some of them suddently want to do things they would not otherwise do, all based on the "virus" premise. And this is why the virus issue matters so very much (not to mention all the waste/misdirection of resources that occurs under the fake "germ" paradigm).
Cheers
That statement was s bit tongue in cheek. Let me clarify that I do think it's important to investigate what may have caused one's symptoms, in order to avoid exposing oneself to it/them in future. But I think it's even more important to understand that acute illness ALWAYS resolves without "treatment". That the symptoms are evidence of the toxins exiting the body. In other words, even if microbial agents could be shown to be playing a causative role, the process is BENEFICIAL.
And "medicine" is evil.
The cause of any person's illness is not a public matter. There is no diagnosing a group unless everyone actually has the same symptoms and even then there will be variances in treatment. The assumption on any level that something was "going around" has NEVER once EVER been established. So the notion of symptoms etc is a total diversion from the core science and the core legal issues.
I get that the cause is not important to you. But most people do not want to get sick, especially from an allegedly deadly "virus". They do all manner of harmful things based on belief in "viruses". And I don't want to leave the world with this germ-excuse for tyranny hanging over my son, etc.
I'll take this under advisement. Though her words in this interview must also be contrasted with her words in recent interviews, and in writing, and to her entire record. Paying lip service to the Baileys is not saying, "There was no virus. It was only computer modeling. There was therefore no pandemic." She dances around these points, and in years of watching her, I can never get a real fix on the evolution of her thoughts or her real position. To say she loves the work of the Baileys et al is not to say, "I now understand all of virology to be a fraud, based on understanding Mark Bailey's paper A Farewell to Virology." It is this foggy quality that I am calling out, and it's where most presenters are hiding to one degree or another. We are now four years into an in silico sequence being used to shut down the world and force deadly injections into billions of people. Let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late.
Imho, she sees that virology is falling, the truth is coming out, and she doesn't want to look like an obvious gatekeeper.
So she is finally acknowledging that no-virus is based on valid points, while absurdly insisting that it's not important and smearing most no-virus people as "ankle-biters" who are trying to discredit Lanka, Cowan and Kaufman.
Exactly and what is her reference to "the cult"?
Yup, she's encouraging people to despise most no-virus people. Only Lanka, the Baileys, Cowan and Kaufman deserve the slightest respect!
I've hit the bong with andy! I deserve respect!
lol
To my ears, you completely misunderstood the Ruby/Latypova exchange, Eric. Ruby said that there SHOULD be scientific debate. Latypova agreed, then allowed that it would have been reasonable to take some countermeasures, whatever the cause of a large health event were, IF it had been shewn "WITHOUT FAKING IT, AND WITHOUT MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL" that such an event were actually taking place.
And with Austin-Fitts, it sounded to me like she was saying that to HER it didn't matter what the pretext was for the launching of full-on 1984, because the point is that they were DOING it. And, by implication, if/when the pretext is acknowledged to be bogus, they'll simply memory-hole that pretext, push out a different one, and continue to implement the "New Normal". But she didn't say (at least not in the clip you played) that OTHER people shouldn't be making a stink about the no-virus issue; just that for her it wasn't a priority.
Maybe I'm nuts -- but that's what I heard in those two clips. I personally think they're both valid points. (Obviously, Mercola and Humphries are insane.)
and PS if there "should be scientific debate," then the next line in that script would be, "I'd like to introduce Dr Mark Bailey."
Well, if Ruby has refused to have on her program the likes of Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman, Baileys, Corbett, Wallach, Roytas, Grant, etc., along with declining to be interviewed by yourself; then, yes, I agree that she's as bad as Bigtree, RFK, and Mercola. But I do recall that Austin-Fitts interviewed Rappoport several times in 2020; so unless she's changed her ways, I don't think she belongs in the same category.
I'm not misunderstanding the fact that they are equivocating; they are saying anything but all the facts are available and this point does not need to be debated. It needs to be made plain. They are teeter-tottering all over the place and not pointing to ANY scientific reference material on either "side" of the issue. They don't say, "If the test cannot test for a virus, then no test for a virus is valid and we cannot assume it's real because there is no test." Rather, they make the issue seem flexible and like a matter of belief.
Not in the clips you played, they don't -- perhaps they do elsewhere, and you're really replying to those other comments rather than to these ones. If you've links to the entire interviews, I'd be rather interested to hear them. Especially, I'd be interested to hear the "friendly debate" Austin-Fitts mentioned would be taking place between herself and Cowan.
But Austin-Fitts' point in particular is spot-on, in my opinion: When the authorities are forced to acknowledge the total bankruptcy of the Germ Hypothesis, they'll simply roll out a different pretext, and continue with 1984 -- and anybody with a teevee in their house will eat it up like cotton candy. They've already accomplished their overarching objective anyway -- planetwide injection-induced sterilisation of billions of people -- so the contagion pretext isn't really important to them anymore (or so I suspect).
?? If Eric is wrong, where DID they make it plain?
Where DID they point to any scientific reference material on either "side" of the issue?
Where DID they say, "If the test cannot test for a virus, then no test for a virus is valid and we cannot assume it's real because there is no test"?
Ruby literally DID cite her own belief in "virus behaving things".
Seems that based on your viewpoint, everything is hopeless because people will just eat up whatever they are told next.
Yet in fact loads of people have caught onto the fact that they've been duped. And the more people see that, the less they will be vulnerable to further duping going forward, including re fake germ-based threats and emergencies... which they continue to pull off every day. Kids are still getting jabs for all sorts of imaginary pathogens, seniors are still getting flu shots. People still take deadly "anti-virals". People still avoid sick people. Etc etc. And have you not noticed that they continually mention other "pathogens", i.e. Disease X and lately measles? It's nonstop!
And the real causes of illness are still being largely overlooked b/c most think "germs" are responsible. How anyone in the freedom movement has not grasped this yet, I have no idea.
Yes, they said there should be debate... and that the issue isn't important lol! And that most no-virus people are discreditable "ankle-biters".
And SL is fine with "measures" if there really is a health threat. Wow, what could possibly go wrong with an attitude like that?
Listened to the second half. Actually, i already heard Eric with Dr Mark Bailey a couple of days ago and commented on that on that segment's own page, posted a couple of days ago. SOLID GOLD. And really good segment about Prozac and gender dysphoria. Reminds me of numerous animals which underwent sex changes due to environmental pollution, particularly water-borne life. GRRR!
Here is my comment about the Mark Bailey interview segment.
Jeffrey Strahl
Lockdown Times
Feb 28
·edited Feb 28
My comments. PHENOMENAL interview. Some key points were covered. The alleged virus genome is an “in silico” entity. It is nothing but a computer file filled with code, assembled out of short strands of code corresponding to short strands of nucleic acid found in a cell culture experiment. The strands are the results of mixing extracts from humans with tissue, most commonly green monkey kidney cells. antibiotics (poisonous to kidney cells), and nutrients. This stew is allowed to brew, and is then mixed, including the cutting up of all nucleic acid segments into ones shorter than around 5-600 base pairs, translating into code, and loading into a computer program or two or more, and using software to do the assembly.
There is a deliberate attempt to call this “sequencing,” making it seem just like taking DNA from known organisms and breaking it down into ordered chains of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (A, C, G, T), the four basic genetic nucleic acids (RNA has uracil instead of thymine, and any which is in the mix is changed via an additive into thymine). Something made via assembling pieces whose origin is never established (unknown provenance), an entity which exists only in a computer and has never been shown to actually exist in nature, let alone shown to be pathogenic, is being presented as a real existing physical organism.
In fact, this computer-only entity is used as the basis for designing tests like the PCR which then are said to determine whether someone has ‘COVID” (or indeed anything else). This is done by providing the test with short segments of code which are alleged to come from this compute-only alleged entity. This has been a testing pandemic. And there is a history of creating stories about viruses and alleging that they account for sicknesses which are actually the result of toxic chemicals degrading our environment.
Regarding Betty Dotson and cannabis lowering sexual inhibitions. First time i ever got high on cannabis was also my first time experiencing free love (with the woman who turned me on). I had experienced commercial sex before, but this was of course very different. Coincidentally, the first woman i had intercourse with under commercial circumstances, in fact my first three times, offered me some cannabis our second time, i wasn't ready.
And people go along out of fear. And/or because they are invested in the idea that “i got sick with “COVID,” family members got it, friends got it….,” or because that’s what a celebrity they trust in says is true, or because they don’t trust their own understanding of physical reality at all (especially in regarding to health) and believe “experts,”…. For example, I had the experience of a decades-long friend attack me for being out of touch with modern science and not understanding that “experts” don’t need to do physical explorations, they can just use computers, and that all my friends who say otherwise (including the ones with solid science credentials) know nothing (he himself has never finished community college!). He is in charge of five (!) Facebook groups.
I sure hope that this video and the book which Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey have released can help widen true understanding and push back the night of know nothingness. Cockroaches scurry off once the lights are turned on.
Harking back to 2020 and the first few days of lock-down I could not help but wonder then how the virus spread so quickly from Wuhan to Las Vegas. Was someone from Vegas in Wuhan and at that market? I had been using the I Ching for over fifty years for guidance in my passage. And I used it as a tool to make ideal passage through my life and as an instrument to determine right action. It had never let me down provided I followed its counsel. So three days into the lock-down I asked the I Ching this question: Given this pandemic what ought I to be doing about it? I knew if I followed its counsel rather than CNN’s counsel I would be right with what is going on. I received in reply Hexagram 35, Progress, the third line moving. Hexagram 35 is one of the most favorable in the book and pictures the sun rising rapidly over the earth. A bright image. The moving line, likewise one of the most favorable in the book, reads “All are in accord. Remorse disappears.” Hmmmm. Such a glowing oracle for supposedly a dismal situation in the external world. Why hadn't I received something like hexagram 29, Danger? Or hex. 47, Exhaustion? Or hex. 39, Obstruction? Or this line from hexagram 63: "The finest clothes turn to rags. Be careful all day long" Or any of the many other hexagrams and lines which would warn of dire circumstances or counsel one to caution? I quit listening to CNN or any other mainstream media broadcasts and started listening to myself and looking at actual conditions in my neighborhood and environs. Nothing had changed much, but for the fact that there were masks abounding and public places were closing, but I didn’t see lines of emergency vehicles nor hearses. I am retired so I did not lose a full-time job or anything like that. So I lived joyfully day to day as though nothing dangerous were going on. My partner and I went on one of the loveliest vacations that summer. We went to Mesa Verde National park, home of the cliff dwellings. If restaurants required masks we donned them, ate, and then took them off. We did not wipe down the hotel rooms we stayed in those four days. Because people were afraid to travel there were very, very few tourists in the Park which enhanced our enjoyment of it and enabled us to get cut-rate lodgings inside the park. Thank you lock-down! I had been following Eric’s astrological talks on YouTube for several years. Now I listened intently as he exposed the faux-demic and increased my confidence in my original doubts. I never got the vaccine nor have I ever received a flu shot. Last time I had the flu was 1987. I try to live healthfully, take my supplements and exercise. Btw I had been hospitalized twice in 2020 for non-respiratory related reasons and never saw piles of bodies in the corridors nor hearses lined up at the hospital. I tested negative both times for covid. But then I knew I would!
Ken
haha yep. In March or April 2020, I visited some spirits I know in a forest I love and I asked, specifically about the "pandemic," what's going on? I got a reply, Nothing. So I asked again. Again they said, "Nothing. Everything is fine." Twice was adequate; I was not going to argue or gainsay them. Yep, fake test, fake virus, fake news and a fake, but deadly crisis. Then several years of work to prove it. Well, I had a clue by Feb. 2021 exactly the lay of the land; I can tell from my reporting. Of course, reading my summary of March 2020, I knew then as well.
Hi Eric, I would have more respect for Mark Bailey and what he has to say, read his book and listen to this interview if you would ask him to unblock me and we could discuss the nonsense he believes that those who control the energy and food supply; ie the industry elites of fossil fuel and animal ag (by far the biggest user of big pharmaceuticals) are actually trying to prevent us access to their products, to take away 'our' chickens and to make us eat ze bugs.
It's complicated being a publicly visible presenter on their level. However, I have never known them to be arbitrary or capricious people. Are you suggesting that all this bug eating talk is pure hoax?
'Bug eating talk". Interesting. I looked for the clip of Klaus actually saying 'you will eat ze bugs' ( a germanic accent associatated with barking orders) and all i can find is actor voice overs like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-F1L8XfTrI
The idea of humans eating insects was put forward in 2012 by someone at the UN but it didn't catch on because it's unnecessary (plants contain all the protein required), ridiculous and unappealing.
No one is trying to force us to eat bugs.
We're being made to think that we are.
The propaganda, using weirdo egotists, has worked.
Well, they were not arbitrary nor capricious with me. They deliberately blocked me from their Odyssey channel and substack platforrm for pointing out errors in their logic about the farming of animals.
Yes, it's a hoax using WEF (just a vanity project) stooges, scare-mongering over left wing control, owning nothing, communism and eating bugs is exactly what I am suggesting.
It's been very effective. It's got people in Europe protesting for the right of farmers to poison the water. And get subsidised (which mostly go to the biggest richest farms) by the tax payer for doing so. The green deal hasn't even be implemented yet, the protests are about many other things, Uk politicians have competely abandoned net zero as it's such a vote loser and health freedom is fooled.
Big big win for fossil fuel, animal ag and it's sister industry big pharrma.
x
Please email me at efc@chironreturn.org and copy efc@planetwaves.net and let's see what's possible. How experienced are you doing spoken word presentations on these topics, and what is your starting point?
Thank you so much Eric.
Although of course we don't agree on everything I've been followed, recommended and linked to by both Christine Massey and Mike Stone. We've had some very illuminating conversations in the comments. As I have with Mike Yeadon on no virus. Disagreeing is helpful and kinda the point.
I have no experience of spoken word presentations at all but I'm pissed at being part of the team yet in the Bailey's sin bin all this time. I'm also shocked how everyone seems to have fallen for the Klaus squab square pants and his tufty club con of depopulation, 15 minute cities and land grabs hiding the real destroyers; the US military industrial media complex who want us burning oil, gas and coal, destroying the earth, using animals, at war (with China) and fat, sick and on drugs for as long as possible.
Unf, when I'm the editor, you will need to know the history of each of those claims back to their origins, and the arguments on each side of the issue. You cannot simply dismiss them as hoaxes. They may all be, though to merely toss them off is not journalism.
what do you mean by "free market"?
Here is how the Heartland Institute (from their website 'Our Mission. To discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems') (with donors; Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years) who are leading promoters of climate denial used the covid con to push the hoax of left wing control.
It's editorial director Justin Haskins wrote in The Hill in Dec 2020 'In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy. The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes. The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).'
This was then pushed on social media, along with easily pulled apart climate denial, particularly to health freedom. I watched it happen.
The Heartland institute is only one of the foundations in the US Climate Change Counter Movement funded by wealthy families and others.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute
This is journalism.
Here is some great journalism about how a group of earnest policy wonks was used as a cover for entrepreneurs, the people most responsible for screwing the planet, to do deals at Davos (lined with photos of Klaus, the original virtue signaller) under the cover of piousness and green washing from Russell Brand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrS6buynAk
Also historian and author YNH has been set up as a globalist and 'chief adviser to Klaus Squab' with hit pieces and hatchet jobs of videos posted on social media. However, when you watch the original videos of his speech at Davos and elsewhere you will see he is not even talking about eg jabs, even if images of needles are superimposed, he's warning against data collection from personal devices being used by the algorithm to the detriment of us all. The Baileys, who are meant to be researchers, didn't research the original videos but merely regurgitated the nonsense in their video. This is not journalism.
Davos 2024 was a PR disaster, i think it has outlasted it's usefulness. Everyone can see through them. They were left with a pathetic attempt to market Disease X.
x.
Eric. James Lindsey or Lindsay. Who is he?
master prankster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Lindsay