The Canadian former physics professor says he is assembling a team to investigate the existence of viruses. I offer historical documents that might facilitate his efforts.
Well you got a response... or at least an acknowledgment, something I don't think I was ever able to attain when I was bugging him on Twitter (before I got permanently booted )
These were written by my recently departed mentor and friend, "Nurse Rose" (Debbie Rose Lusignan). Two of her last articles were deep dives into Robert Malone. They were enormously popular. 12k and 19k views:
Well I say it's fine as profession, but should not be used as 'Dr Malone'. It can be Robert Malone MD, such as I am entitled to put BSc at the end of my name. But it was over 40 years ago now and quite frankly doesn't mean much now.
I was a Chartered Building Surveyor but didn't put CBS in front of my name!
MD used to be at the end of people's name and those doctors who not think too much of themselves and realise they are still learning (as we all are) will do this.
The putting of Dr in front of someones name is much of the reason why we are in this mess now, because people thought it meant someone they could trust without looking behind the facade of a title.
Nice work here, Eric. Solid historical evidence which was culled from several angles. I saw documents from J. Hopkins outlining the “approved protocols;” which had been written at least a year in advance. Then Fauci caught with his foot in his mouth. Again. As if his emails weren’t enough. There were some German attorneys that had filed an Injunction, among the claims, were Crimes Against Humanity. I wonder how one can follow up in such news? That’s a story I might like to track. Thank you for your work here!
I'm going to re-post this comment which I made to Jeffrey Stahl with an addendum:
"Off of the article TNT Radio requested an interview for this Friday which I will have a go at- I'm not a natural interviewee as I like to ponder things and edit.
I'm hoping to steer the interview away from the article itself and push it towards two different areas:
1) The evidence that illustrates that the entirety of the "pandemic narrative" is fraudulent;
2) The internal disparity in the "Covid dissident" movement and how those who accept the (fraudulent) fundamental assertions of "the pandemic" are coming from a place that is contradictory to the evidence and from a place that is detached from history. That this reifying of the Big Lie leads to a dead end (and worse).
2A) And that those who have examined the evidence in total and who also possess historical knowledge on the Medical Cartel are able to identify patterns that clearly explain where we are today.
2B) And how it is essential that on a much wider scale we must move the discussions into the space that, while not ignoring the immediate necessity to halt the mRNA program e.g., addresses the larger issues. If we don't do this we will never be getting out of this cycle and the forces that have designed this system will continue to consolidate their power."
My addendum is that to this end you have done your part and more.
2) The internal disparity in the "Covid dissident" movement and how those who accept the (fraudulent) fundamental assertions of "the pandemic" are coming from a place that is contradictory to the evidence and from a place that is detached from history. That this reifying of the Big Lie leads to a dead end (and worse).
If "50 to 100 million died from the 1919 Spanish Flu Pandemic" how come i never heard of the event 'til the 1990s. Though previously I was plugged into the mass media, read magazine and books, if the Pandemic ever got mentioned before then it didnt register with me...
When, two nights ago i told a friend that during the decades prior to January 2020 every mention of the 1919 event that i had come across included the claim "up to 20 million died", yet since then there's been inflation , it's always claimed since that "between 50 and 100 million died"...
Maybe it was 2020, or maybe 2021: i came across a paper that claimed the true number of deaths attributable to the 1919 pandemic was around 17.5 million...I couldnt produce the paper to counter my friends insistence that "60 million has ALWAYS been the number mentioned" by whatever "news" promoter he gets his facts from...
But it has made me wonder: where do all the various numbers come from ? Do any scientific papers exists that provide a factual basis for the claims ? Or is the numbers just pulled out of the air to fit the size of the scare campaign that's being conducted ?
I am familiar with this though I don't have the paperwork. But I did see a paper about this a couple of years ago. And I am sure these numbers are cooked. There is no way they could keep an international count; it's all data modeling.
"If "50 to 100 million died from the 1919 Spanish Flu Pandemic" how come i never heard of the event 'til the 1990s. "
Because witnesses at the time were largely dead. My grandmother, born 1901 was a nurse at end of WW1 I gather. She died 1992.
So easier to fool people as granny and grandpa could't say, no that's not right.
As Eric says in essence, think of a number then double it round it up and roll a dice and add a few more thousand to make it look really, really scary.
My godmother Aunt Josie was born 1904 and came to the US around 1912 and would have been a fully sentient older girl around 1918. We talked about everything; I got to know her for 30 years. She never once mentioned Spanish Flu.
Did you notice how at one point (and likely many others?) the official numbers of COVID deaths were amended to adjust for wrong "calculations" and standards? Watching it happen, it's easy to see this is how the institutions go back and quietly "rewrite" history. Future investigations into accurate accounts of the past would then obviously find contrasting information. I also concur with Eric below, many of the numbers are also based on modeling. Of course with COVID, we know death certificates (for a variety of reasons) listed it as the primary cause of death when it was likely not the primary cause (and of course couldn't be since there is no virus particle to be found). The moratorium on autopsies at the peak of the hysteria is a red flag, too.
Eric. this was the text equivalent of one of the classic Grateful Dead jams. Take some old nuggets, add in new stuff learned, put things together in a way, an order, which fits together just exactly perfect, and make it into a new whole by doing the connections. THANK YOU!!
the best on this so far (I think) is Jonathan J. Couey. BTW Denis did a most excellent interview with him as well. Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International: Gigaohm Biological Presents
I don't know whether he's disinfo, which requires intent to deceive, and intent is hard to determine, especially for someone without a public profile and paper trail going with it. But he is definitely a spreader of confusion. And so many fall for it (or push it nefariously)!
He's getting paid by CHD as a "consultant." Hired to fight off the "no proof of virus" onslaught of factual evidence. CHD is invested, literally, in the notion of "Pandemic" and "managing" it better.
It's even worse. On CHD, RFK Jr interviewed Jeffrey Sachs, head of the UN SDG's program and the top Bilderberger Operation "Pandemic" manager, about the gain of fiction, Sachs pitched the idea that in order to avoid more such GOF efforts in the future, all bio research labs in the world should be taken over and managed by... who? Yep, WHO!!
I know this is ancient for a response but I did see a Couey video in which he watched/commented on a zoom meeting video with Sachs. Couey asserted that Sachs was 'part of the scoobydoo."
Couey is a biologist; he is making assertions as if he was an attorney, including of intent and bad faith for which he has no evidence. Qualifications aside, if Couey says there is wortspeil going on, then what are the words that are being played with? How should the FOI be worded? He pretends to not understand something that is perfectly obvious — Massey is asking for proof that they don't have. The only legit debate is about whether we think metagenonomics can actually find a virus that has never been seen before. As a biologist, he's certainly qualified to discuss that salient point. But instead, he claims that Massey is somehow beating top attorneys at their own game and they're somehow falling for this stunt many times at the same agency. He never considers openly that she may simply be right. I call this the "that woman in Canada" point of view.
Whenever people like Couey or "A Midwestern Doctor" (whoever that is) or Steve Kirsch start accusing Massey of designing her FOIA requests to fail, I now post her answer to all that gaslighting:
None of these government agencies will ever admit to possessing biological weapons. So the only answer to any request will be No. I have to read the Bailey paper.
They admitted it in the 1970s. My friend Karl Grossman broke that as a national story. Listen to the second half of part two. Further, GOF is all over the budget, but there is no evidence that it's real.
This guy devoted 104m to trashing Christine Massey, and at one point (11:22) stuck his fingers in his ears and (mocking Christine) said, "LA LA LA LA!!! There is no Vyyyyeeee Russsssss!!!"
Yes, sophisticated in the number of experts and now even lay people (Mike Stone, Steve Falconer, Mike Wallach, EFC, me??) who can speak eloquently on these issues. Sophisticated by how many different ways we can debunk the official narrative. We've looked at this from every angle.... but it's also very simple. It's so simple, it is elegant. The essence of the core fraud can be understood by anyone.
I think those that aren't virologists, biologists, and doctors of this or that actually have an easier time grasping the foundational problems with virology.
Regardless of the concept being debated, outsiders seem to have always had the clearest view. It's because they don't have an emotional attachment to one way or the other. And more importantly, there's no financial penalty for them to acknowledge the truth, once they do see it.
He has made serious charges against Christine Massey, accusing her of wording her FOI requests in a way which will ensure negative responses. That's a "rebel" staying within the system, when the system itself is the problem. .
Whenever people like Couey or "A Midwestern Doctor" (whoever that is) or Steve Kirsch start accusing Massey of designing her FOIA requests to fail, I now post her answer to all that gaslighting:
Couey contacted me first, with a nonsensical email wanting 30+ minutes of my time to air out his "hypothesis". He didn't ask for a discussion, he just wanted me to hear his speculations, which I didn't have time for having been imprisoned just days earlier and very stressed. I invited him to send a written summary, but he didn't bother to respond at all.
Then he went public, trashing me and the no-virus movement and misrepresenting it quite grotesequely. The reason is clear to me: Both RFK Jr and Mary Holland failed to cite a shred of science in response to my polite questions; Couey is a consultant for CHD; they knew I would be publishing the emails, so Couey launched a preemptive attack.
So then I wrote back to him. All I did was privately ask Couey questions, to which he gave no science-based answers. I was not a "dick" to him. And he cited zero science, only whining about myself, the FOIs and the no-virus movement. And then he did another video publicly trashing us. In it, he admitted:
"for the last 20 years, virology has been an indirect study of things that we can't really prove are there." Lol.
So it's fine for Jay to throw away the last 20 years of virology based on the observation that indirect unscientific methods were used, but not fine for us to point out that virology was always pseudoscience. He simply wants to make us look incompetent and as though HE is the one finally figuring this stuff out. Because they know this truth is coming out one way or another.
You make good points, but JJ should not feel like he can make defamatory statements about Christine and get away with that. That's license for further bad behavior. Calling him on such behavior is not calling him names.
All I do in my FOIs and emails to people like Couey is ask questions. If they gave reasonable answers then the email exchanges would not reflect badly on them. They make themselves look bad, and I simply report the results.
I already did an FOI to CDC re spike protein and the answer was no.
December 16, 2022:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unable to provide any record of the alleged SARS-COV-2 spike protein being found in anyone and purified (as opposed to "recombinant" "spike protein" being created in a lab and then studied, as though that reflects something going on in actual people); and so they responded as though this was another FOI regarding the fake virus, and provided the same useless paragraphs that they've been giving people for the past year or so:
Couey and his friends at CHD have been asked for evidence of any virus and they all came up empty (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). Did you hear him or Rancourt cite a single study in that interview? I didn't, and when I emailed Denis a few days ago he didn't offer any evidence either. And lol, Couey claiming that it "just dawned on him" that some so-called "sequencing" might not be legit. Gosh I wonder where they got that idea came from? The very people that Couey is trashing publicly - the no-virus movement.
Jonathan here takes the whole virus what virus conversation deeper than I venture you will find anywhere. Eric is most excellent on the McLuhan perspective, love this man. But if he goes dogmatic on his believe system, that's going to be a problem perhaps.
Jonathan is telling us it's not so very simple, even though on the surface it can certainly appear to be. The truth might be even more profound.
Couey has no evidence to back up his claims, and pretends that no-virus people such as Mike Stone and the Baileys haven't been going through alleged "viruses" one by one and showing how ridiculous the evidence is. He pretends that all we have are the FOIs and that the FOIs are not damning. He has done this repeatedly very recently, in videos (i.e. where quite frankly he acts like an ass: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1683585529?filter=all&sort=time) and in his emails with me (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). Simply making wild, sweeping, derogatory claims without evidence is irresponsible of people.
He is trying to say that the virus both exists and doesn't exist, and then it becomes clear he says it exists, he claims "wild" virus was harvested and then processed in the lab, when there is no proof this virus exists. Can you milk unicorns?
Let me give you an example of epidemiological identification of a transmissable agent - Hepatitis B. The Rockefeller institute invented the Yellow Fever vaccine in the 1930's for the military - prior to the availability of the Electron Microscope in 1939. They made the vaccine by stabilizing it with human blood serum, and in 1939 launched a 1-milllion person vaccination campaign in Brazil. The vaccinators soon observed that 1 in 5 injected developed clinical hepatitis about 30 days after the injection. Now, hepatitis is only symptomatic when about 30% of the liver cells are killed, so something in the vaccine "a transmissable agent" was killing liver cells - and in 1/5 of people it kills enough cells to make people sick. (So Sam Bailey can't just say, "well not everyone at the chickenpox party got sick therefore chickenpox isn't a virus" because the Brazil experiment not every exposed person to a transmissible agent becomes symptomatic of an illness). Vaccine-hepatitis became known as "Rockefeller Institute Disease."
So, a hypothesis developed there was a virus in the pooled human serum that was being added to the vaccine (no bacteria was observed in the vaccine). To test this, in 1942 when the US entered WW2, the US Army vaccinated all the recruits at camp Cooke with the human-serum vaccine, and all the recruits at Ft. Ord with vaccine made without the human serum. Only Camp Cooke recruits developed hepatitis - about 1 in 5 of the 330,000 soldiers the US Army deliberately infected without informed consent. The Army went back and retested them in 1988 when Hepatitis B tests were available, and this is how we know Hepatitis B becomes a chronic infection in 1 in 1500 whites (and 5% of Asians - and how this is known involves deliberate infections at Japanese internment camps also run by the Army - meaning some of the knowledge is likely classified).
Because the "transmissable agent" came from human blood, it couldn't be an environmental toxin or a bacteria. It had to be a human body protein or a virus. Through the 50's and 60's post-blood-transfusion hepatitis was subject to surveillance, and a scientist named Dane was able to filter out and purify particles that were only observable under refractory electron miscroscopy in blood from transfused patients resulting in hepatitis. Some of the experiments involved injecting developmentally disabled orphans at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, where the particles were observed to replicate and were discoverable in the post-infected blood. This is even better than satisfying Koch's postulates because it didn't involve an animal model. It also didn't involve cell culture.
Also, in the 1950's it was discovered Hepatitis B was sexually transmitted, and in the post-Stonewall hypersexual gay culture, hepatitis B was almost a rite of passage. In 1979, there was a working vaccine tested on promiscuous gay men derived from the particle observed by Dane - so the virus was also verified in the inverse in the vaccination experiments of the late 70's on gay men - and yes, it is an indirect method, but it is a specific method and thus valid (the Perth group's critique is based on reverse transcriptase activity being non-specific and thus invalid) because the Dane particle (aka Hepatitis B surface antigen) is specific to Hepatitis B.
All of this is to say, the identification and characterization of Hepatitis B and creation of a disease model took 40 years and a-lot of messy missteps, so you're not going to be able to get 1 single paper to satisfy Christine Massey in her prejudicial quest to prove a negative.
I am having trouble accepting your argument, because you said: "Because the "transmissible agent" came from human blood, it couldn't be an environmental toxin or a bacteria. It had to be a human body protein or a virus."
Hmm, "human protein OR a virus"? Are you claiming that any and all work with Yellow Fever and or Hepatitis B "proves" that there is a Hepatitis B virus?
Maybe that liver just didn't like the new blood. There are still too many variables, especially without an actual "virus particle" in sight, to make that kind of a conclusion. The scientific method isn't that complicated. Experiments at minimum should be reproducible, otherwise it is simply consensus, which is not practicing science.
hey Roger, I was just adding a supporting fact. the institutions don't have any and the lab supply places don't have actual CRM. They sell something but it ain't on that QA/QC level
Lets imagine that viruses could be engineered to be deadly and that a vaccine could give you protection from the lethal virus. Wouldn't the military have exploited this weapon. Virus don't exist the weapon is the idea of a virus resulting in toxins, the vaccines, being injected willingly into the targets. SAD!!!
It shouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing. Corona doesn't exist. HIV doesn't exist other than as a lab artifact. Hepatitis C virus only exists as a molecular clone in cell culture. But other viruses do exist and behave like the germ theory predicts. Hepatitis A is a prime example but also Monkeypox and Yellow Fever virus. - and this is not to mention agricultural viruses such as African Swine Fever or Citrus Tizeta Virus. The Perth Group's entire critique of HIV is based on the proper isolation of the Rous Sarcoma Virus, which the Perth Group acknowledged exists and causes disease in rabbits. We have to understand Corona is a psyop, and there are "pied pipers" put out there to mislead those who recognize Corona doesn't exist and then getting them to say "well, no viruses exist." That's what Kaufman and Lanka are all about. It's gotten to the point I posted the Hepatitis A isolation studies on Bailey's Odysee channel and got blocked by her - so she's not really open to a real "virus debate" because she wouldn't refute my argument.
What would convince people is: "You know, Corona wasn't proven to exist. The isolation experiments don't look anything like Hepatitis A and classical virology. The molecular methods are flawed." What will not convince people is "No viruses exist and therefore Corona can't exist" which is actually circular reasoning.
You're not going to get one elegant paper that does everything, but Sam Bailey can't just go back to an old paper from the 50's and set it up as a strawman logical fallacy and say "Aha! No chickenpox" which is to deny reality that people actually do get chickenpox at chickenpox parties and you can't just blame it on hypothetical toxins or bad terrain. It's a disease with very specific symptoms and it behaves exactly like the germ theory predicts - and when a theory predicts real world observations, you've got science going on. And, it turns out, herpesviruses make evolutionary sense and may actually be symbionts due to something called "trained immunity." What really bothers me is the author of Virus Mania, Klaus Kohenlein, acknowledges real viruses like Influenza A and isn't keeping his co-author in check.
Also, the cell culture method is not the only way to prove viruses. Hepatitis B has only been isolated through filtration, and "team no virus" completely mischaracterizes cytopathic effect in culture. Each virus has unique cytopathic effects in culture, meaning you can distinguish between what is in the filtered supernatant causing cytopathic effects and the culture's mitogens.
You are assuming "chicken pox" is a disease and not a healthy developmental stage or evolutionary artifact. People assume the flu is a disease and not the body preventing a disease.
Under the virus theory, we blame something that has never been seen on AIDS, the flu, colds, "covid," chicken pox, measles, chronic fatigue, warts and cancer.
Virologists are the one taking the "all" position because they are claiming that "all" of these diseases are caused by the same theoretical particle that they have never shown to exist. Their model does not predict anything or offer any relief from the problem.
Therefore, why the ardent love affair? Why the wine and roses and violins? The "universal theory of disease" does not serve anyone except the drug companies and interests using the claim of viruses to control society.
Please provide your data on the mischaracterization of the cytopathic effect. As far as I understand it, Dr. Lanka's work is solid.
Please provide your data on hepatitis B being found through filtration to the point where it demonstrates it is what it's claimed to be and does what it's claimed to do.
Once again you've not cited a study to back up your claims, and you conflate effects with an alleged cause. And there's no reason that the evidence (purification, sequencing, characterization, controlled experiments) could not be presented in 1 paper. Regardless, there is no combination of papers showing the evidence either, that we can find and it's not as though we haven't looked.
Have you seen the first paper (from 1958) on "Monkeypox"? Have you read the work from the WHO (Fenner et al. 1988) on Monkeypox? In no way do they show any process of isolation or purification. They cannot show - and do not try to show - any natural means of transmission.
Why do you say that Monkeypox virus exists? Which paper or study do you cite?
The Baileys are eminently fair and humane people. They are tolerant and respectful and take a lot of abuse. They do what they are doing having given up lucrative careers in service of not harming others.
There are times I'm in contact with them many times a day for months on end. I have gotten to know them well. I consider them some of the best examples of how to be human. As Mark says, "We are at peace with the universe."
If they ban someone, it was not an accident, or arbitrary conduct.
Genius summary, couldn’t have written it better myself and nothing written here is news. I do hope Rancourt is legit, however I have learned to only lend my trust to those whose narrative fits the known facts for as long as they present the truth. Very few if any stay trusted, so many are used to divert us as we advance in knowledge and (I guess) human error creeps in for some who are well intentioned. I like to say (because it’s True) that only Jesus Christ is unconditionally trustworthy.
If you mean Couey in the second-to-last email, I agree. His recommendation -- "repeating some of the point [sic] out loud in [sic] a mirror" -- is as illiterate as it is ignorant and obnoxious.
wow Pacifica person, -- I have seen the man made virus/ poison created by our government - pass in between family members. I had it its not FLU, its completely different How could they identify a furin cleavage sites on the virus ? why would they patented it? how about talking about the extreme control of world governments of us the people, loss of our rights lead by democrats ( NPR, KPFA, Pacifica)
People get sick for many reasons. There has never been a proof that alleged particles called viruses cause illness. The contagion theory itself has never been proven. Attempts to find out how "Spanish" (Kansas) flu spreads failed spectacularly. See the 1918 Rosenau Experiments, which Eric refers to in the article (which you probably didn't bother reading). I do you know what you had? One of the bogus tests, maybe?
A "furin cleavage site on the virus"? Which virus, you mean the computer model created via stitching together millions of digital equivalents of nucleic acid segments found in a cell culture and called a "virus"?
Have you any idea how many patents registered at the patent office have never been turned into real entities? I pursued patent law briefly while in law school, i know about that.
Sounds like you're parroting gibberish found on the one of the many 'half truth" pages such as CHD, without understanding any of the stuff you cite.
you are confusing effects (illness) with an alleged/assumed cause (virus). and alleged furin cleavage sites on an alleged protein are not proof a virus; logic please. there is no patent for any virus, only fraudulent patents for fake viruses.
All internal disease is essentially the 'flu, the influenza. The problem is that people do not understand what the 'flu is.
"The ‘flu is the internal toxicosis of the body, mainly via urea, partly due to metabolism of food and partly due to the many poisons in our environment which can and do enter our bodies in the air, food and water. The ‘flu cannot be transmitted to someone else as it is individual to each person.
Unless your blood is given to someone in a blood transfusion, for example.
In essence urea is a neuro-toxin due to the nitrogen which the body may use up to a point but must ultimately excrete as it is from ammonia which is highly toxic."
As regards your own experience Cosmos Agent Roger 23 is right to mention poisoning, but then in essence as I say the 'flu is an internal poisoning and external; poisons merely add to this.
This is excellent except it omits educating about the hard wired Innate Immune System and how the mRNA COVID vaccine circumvents and exploits it to shorten the life of those who receive boosters. We have stomach acid HCL, Macrophages, Lysosomes and enzymes that blast the mRNA into infinitesimal particles that are scattered across all organs of the body (including brain). Ivermetin or Hydroxychloroquine will do nothing as prophylactic or as a vaccine adverse effect protocol. See Coppollino's interview with Stefano Scoglio.
I'm encouraged that you, the Tom Cowan Team and Rancourt are taking on the virus existence issue, but government has a monopoly on truth. You might have included Kate Sugak's documentary The Truth About Smallpox (Bitchute) about how Pharma has just rebranded the same disease to take credit for eradicating the first name given it and then merely re-labeled it something else, in an endless deception. The pro-vaxxers will just say "we have all the advanced electron microscopes and we are the exclusive interpreters of what we see in those scopes.
I agree that it is valuable to have a concise document like this article to share with folks who are just being exposed to or on the fence regarding this issue. Great job, Coppolino! It must be challenging to weight what information is the most crucial to share. The simpler the better, and yet due to all of the reification fallacies built upon the consensus of virology, we have a tangled web to unweave. The Bailey's "Virology in 5 seconds" is probably too simple, and yet it is one of my favorites!
I also REALLY appreciate the way Strahl made the distinction above that "no proof of a virus" is a better approach than "no virus" for this reason. I find the way that some no virus folks speak condescendingly, insisting what I know to be a reality, is a REAL BARRIER to productive communication that facilitates patient understanding of those who haven't made the connections in their own minds.
Well you got a response... or at least an acknowledgment, something I don't think I was ever able to attain when I was bugging him on Twitter (before I got permanently booted )
https://twitter.com/denisrancourt/status/1612612871266893824
response and acknowledgement. if he posts it, he knows about it.
Interesting response
Thanks for your quick recap, short and sweet and excellent!
I would love for you to dive into the case of Robert Malone. Something is not right with the man.
I for one don't trust him.
Then there's this (and the links are working!)
https://www.rosemaryfrei.ca/robert-malone-an-enigma-wrapped-in-many-unanswered-questions/
These were written by my recently departed mentor and friend, "Nurse Rose" (Debbie Rose Lusignan). Two of her last articles were deep dives into Robert Malone. They were enormously popular. 12k and 19k views:
https://www.unite4truth.com/post/what-is-relcovax-the-covid-19-vaccine-dr-robert-malone-pitched-at-summit-in-2021-nothing-good
https://www.unite4truth.com/post/mass-formation-psychosis-dr-malone-sells-who-test-treat-next-phase-covid-plan-under-hero-s-guise
Oh good, thanks for that.
Thanks a lot for posting these, Bill!
In August 2021 he tweeted his "strategy," which was "Surveillance, testing, treatment." He is invested in the "virus"/"Pandemic" narrative.
You are quite right. Malone could be Mal One, i.e. mal as in 'bad' in french so bad one.
He charges for stuff that sould be free and is quite probably stringing things out for money.
And he puts Dr in front of his name to make himself look clever. No one should be entitled in front of their names like that.
It's OK to out Dr at one's office, or on an article, but he just uses it ALL the time.
Well I say it's fine as profession, but should not be used as 'Dr Malone'. It can be Robert Malone MD, such as I am entitled to put BSc at the end of my name. But it was over 40 years ago now and quite frankly doesn't mean much now.
I was a Chartered Building Surveyor but didn't put CBS in front of my name!
MD used to be at the end of people's name and those doctors who not think too much of themselves and realise they are still learning (as we all are) will do this.
The putting of Dr in front of someones name is much of the reason why we are in this mess now, because people thought it meant someone they could trust without looking behind the facade of a title.
Nice work here, Eric. Solid historical evidence which was culled from several angles. I saw documents from J. Hopkins outlining the “approved protocols;” which had been written at least a year in advance. Then Fauci caught with his foot in his mouth. Again. As if his emails weren’t enough. There were some German attorneys that had filed an Injunction, among the claims, were Crimes Against Humanity. I wonder how one can follow up in such news? That’s a story I might like to track. Thank you for your work here!
Great article. I recommend adding the polio hoax to the list.
Download this as a good resource: https://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Polio-Virus-Vaccine-Janine-Roberts_Ecologist-2004.pdf
Thank you. Polio - the vax with the hole in it, i.e. nothing! Or at least nothing good.
Made a mint for big pharma though!
I'm going to re-post this comment which I made to Jeffrey Stahl with an addendum:
"Off of the article TNT Radio requested an interview for this Friday which I will have a go at- I'm not a natural interviewee as I like to ponder things and edit.
I'm hoping to steer the interview away from the article itself and push it towards two different areas:
1) The evidence that illustrates that the entirety of the "pandemic narrative" is fraudulent;
2) The internal disparity in the "Covid dissident" movement and how those who accept the (fraudulent) fundamental assertions of "the pandemic" are coming from a place that is contradictory to the evidence and from a place that is detached from history. That this reifying of the Big Lie leads to a dead end (and worse).
2A) And that those who have examined the evidence in total and who also possess historical knowledge on the Medical Cartel are able to identify patterns that clearly explain where we are today.
2B) And how it is essential that on a much wider scale we must move the discussions into the space that, while not ignoring the immediate necessity to halt the mRNA program e.g., addresses the larger issues. If we don't do this we will never be getting out of this cycle and the forces that have designed this system will continue to consolidate their power."
My addendum is that to this end you have done your part and more.
- MB
this is the topic, mab:
2) The internal disparity in the "Covid dissident" movement and how those who accept the (fraudulent) fundamental assertions of "the pandemic" are coming from a place that is contradictory to the evidence and from a place that is detached from history. That this reifying of the Big Lie leads to a dead end (and worse).
If "50 to 100 million died from the 1919 Spanish Flu Pandemic" how come i never heard of the event 'til the 1990s. Though previously I was plugged into the mass media, read magazine and books, if the Pandemic ever got mentioned before then it didnt register with me...
When, two nights ago i told a friend that during the decades prior to January 2020 every mention of the 1919 event that i had come across included the claim "up to 20 million died", yet since then there's been inflation , it's always claimed since that "between 50 and 100 million died"...
Maybe it was 2020, or maybe 2021: i came across a paper that claimed the true number of deaths attributable to the 1919 pandemic was around 17.5 million...I couldnt produce the paper to counter my friends insistence that "60 million has ALWAYS been the number mentioned" by whatever "news" promoter he gets his facts from...
But it has made me wonder: where do all the various numbers come from ? Do any scientific papers exists that provide a factual basis for the claims ? Or is the numbers just pulled out of the air to fit the size of the scare campaign that's being conducted ?
I am familiar with this though I don't have the paperwork. But I did see a paper about this a couple of years ago. And I am sure these numbers are cooked. There is no way they could keep an international count; it's all data modeling.
and they are not admitting how many people they murdered by feeding them a bottle of aspirin a day.
"If "50 to 100 million died from the 1919 Spanish Flu Pandemic" how come i never heard of the event 'til the 1990s. "
Because witnesses at the time were largely dead. My grandmother, born 1901 was a nurse at end of WW1 I gather. She died 1992.
So easier to fool people as granny and grandpa could't say, no that's not right.
As Eric says in essence, think of a number then double it round it up and roll a dice and add a few more thousand to make it look really, really scary.
My godmother Aunt Josie was born 1904 and came to the US around 1912 and would have been a fully sentient older girl around 1918. We talked about everything; I got to know her for 30 years. She never once mentioned Spanish Flu.
I wish now I had asked mine but as it wasn't a 'thing' when she was alive I had no thought to.
Did you notice how at one point (and likely many others?) the official numbers of COVID deaths were amended to adjust for wrong "calculations" and standards? Watching it happen, it's easy to see this is how the institutions go back and quietly "rewrite" history. Future investigations into accurate accounts of the past would then obviously find contrasting information. I also concur with Eric below, many of the numbers are also based on modeling. Of course with COVID, we know death certificates (for a variety of reasons) listed it as the primary cause of death when it was likely not the primary cause (and of course couldn't be since there is no virus particle to be found). The moratorium on autopsies at the peak of the hysteria is a red flag, too.
we have a section of the chronology dedicated to this -- look around May -June 2020.
Eric. this was the text equivalent of one of the classic Grateful Dead jams. Take some old nuggets, add in new stuff learned, put things together in a way, an order, which fits together just exactly perfect, and make it into a new whole by doing the connections. THANK YOU!!
Eric,
the best on this so far (I think) is Jonathan J. Couey. BTW Denis did a most excellent interview with him as well. Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International: Gigaohm Biological Presents
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1660073740?t=01h18m04s
What's up with Covid Today?
http://sealevel.ca/ocean/open.htm
JJ Couey is a CHD disinfo agent. He pushes such ignorance & confusion, I have to question whether he's got a legit PhD.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
I don't know whether he's disinfo, which requires intent to deceive, and intent is hard to determine, especially for someone without a public profile and paper trail going with it. But he is definitely a spreader of confusion. And so many fall for it (or push it nefariously)!
He's getting paid by CHD as a "consultant." Hired to fight off the "no proof of virus" onslaught of factual evidence. CHD is invested, literally, in the notion of "Pandemic" and "managing" it better.
And there's RFK Jr.'s upcoming book on the _Wuhan Cover-Up_ pushing the gain-of-fiction BS.
It's even worse. On CHD, RFK Jr interviewed Jeffrey Sachs, head of the UN SDG's program and the top Bilderberger Operation "Pandemic" manager, about the gain of fiction, Sachs pitched the idea that in order to avoid more such GOF efforts in the future, all bio research labs in the world should be taken over and managed by... who? Yep, WHO!!
And Sachs helped loot Russia in the 1990s with "shock therapy," in the loyal service of his oligarch masters.
Jeffery Sachs, the economist: because that is who we should be listening to in these matters. Absolute insanity.
I know this is ancient for a response but I did see a Couey video in which he watched/commented on a zoom meeting video with Sachs. Couey asserted that Sachs was 'part of the scoobydoo."
Couey is a biologist; he is making assertions as if he was an attorney, including of intent and bad faith for which he has no evidence. Qualifications aside, if Couey says there is wortspeil going on, then what are the words that are being played with? How should the FOI be worded? He pretends to not understand something that is perfectly obvious — Massey is asking for proof that they don't have. The only legit debate is about whether we think metagenonomics can actually find a virus that has never been seen before. As a biologist, he's certainly qualified to discuss that salient point. But instead, he claims that Massey is somehow beating top attorneys at their own game and they're somehow falling for this stunt many times at the same agency. He never considers openly that she may simply be right. I call this the "that woman in Canada" point of view.
Whenever people like Couey or "A Midwestern Doctor" (whoever that is) or Steve Kirsch start accusing Massey of designing her FOIA requests to fail, I now post her answer to all that gaslighting:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-gaslighting-about-my-foi-requests/
None of these government agencies will ever admit to possessing biological weapons. So the only answer to any request will be No. I have to read the Bailey paper.
They admitted it in the 1970s. My friend Karl Grossman broke that as a national story. Listen to the second half of part two. Further, GOF is all over the budget, but there is no evidence that it's real.
https://planetwaves.fm/tonight-on-pwfm-investigative-reporter-prof-karl-grossman-stefan-scoglio-on-mrna-toxicity-and-vaccine-sheeding/
This guy devoted 104m to trashing Christine Massey, and at one point (11:22) stuck his fingers in his ears and (mocking Christine) said, "LA LA LA LA!!! There is no Vyyyyeeee Russsssss!!!"
Oh yeah, real mature, Jay.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1683585529
Yes, sophisticated in the number of experts and now even lay people (Mike Stone, Steve Falconer, Mike Wallach, EFC, me??) who can speak eloquently on these issues. Sophisticated by how many different ways we can debunk the official narrative. We've looked at this from every angle.... but it's also very simple. It's so simple, it is elegant. The essence of the core fraud can be understood by anyone.
I think those that aren't virologists, biologists, and doctors of this or that actually have an easier time grasping the foundational problems with virology.
Regardless of the concept being debated, outsiders seem to have always had the clearest view. It's because they don't have an emotional attachment to one way or the other. And more importantly, there's no financial penalty for them to acknowledge the truth, once they do see it.
Where did he say that, about not wanting to talk with the 4 of us?
He has made serious charges against Christine Massey, accusing her of wording her FOI requests in a way which will ensure negative responses. That's a "rebel" staying within the system, when the system itself is the problem. .
Whenever people like Couey or "A Midwestern Doctor" (whoever that is) or Steve Kirsch start accusing Massey of designing her FOIA requests to fail, I now post her answer to all that gaslighting:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-gaslighting-about-my-foi-requests/
Couey contacted me first, with a nonsensical email wanting 30+ minutes of my time to air out his "hypothesis". He didn't ask for a discussion, he just wanted me to hear his speculations, which I didn't have time for having been imprisoned just days earlier and very stressed. I invited him to send a written summary, but he didn't bother to respond at all.
Then he went public, trashing me and the no-virus movement and misrepresenting it quite grotesequely. The reason is clear to me: Both RFK Jr and Mary Holland failed to cite a shred of science in response to my polite questions; Couey is a consultant for CHD; they knew I would be publishing the emails, so Couey launched a preemptive attack.
So then I wrote back to him. All I did was privately ask Couey questions, to which he gave no science-based answers. I was not a "dick" to him. And he cited zero science, only whining about myself, the FOIs and the no-virus movement. And then he did another video publicly trashing us. In it, he admitted:
"for the last 20 years, virology has been an indirect study of things that we can't really prove are there." Lol.
So it's fine for Jay to throw away the last 20 years of virology based on the observation that indirect unscientific methods were used, but not fine for us to point out that virology was always pseudoscience. He simply wants to make us look incompetent and as though HE is the one finally figuring this stuff out. Because they know this truth is coming out one way or another.
You make good points, but JJ should not feel like he can make defamatory statements about Christine and get away with that. That's license for further bad behavior. Calling him on such behavior is not calling him names.
All I do in my FOIs and emails to people like Couey is ask questions. If they gave reasonable answers then the email exchanges would not reflect badly on them. They make themselves look bad, and I simply report the results.
I already did an FOI to CDC re spike protein and the answer was no.
December 16, 2022:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unable to provide any record of the alleged SARS-COV-2 spike protein being found in anyone and purified (as opposed to "recombinant" "spike protein" being created in a lab and then studied, as though that reflects something going on in actual people); and so they responded as though this was another FOI regarding the fake virus, and provided the same useless paragraphs that they've been giving people for the past year or so:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CDC-no-purified-spike-protein-PACKAGE-to-Dec-16-redacted.pdf
Having had a quick look at Couey I suspect your assessment is fair.
Couey and his friends at CHD have been asked for evidence of any virus and they all came up empty (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). Did you hear him or Rancourt cite a single study in that interview? I didn't, and when I emailed Denis a few days ago he didn't offer any evidence either. And lol, Couey claiming that it "just dawned on him" that some so-called "sequencing" might not be legit. Gosh I wonder where they got that idea came from? The very people that Couey is trashing publicly - the no-virus movement.
You are very welcome.
Jonathan here takes the whole virus what virus conversation deeper than I venture you will find anywhere. Eric is most excellent on the McLuhan perspective, love this man. But if he goes dogmatic on his believe system, that's going to be a problem perhaps.
Jonathan is telling us it's not so very simple, even though on the surface it can certainly appear to be. The truth might be even more profound.
Couey has no evidence to back up his claims, and pretends that no-virus people such as Mike Stone and the Baileys haven't been going through alleged "viruses" one by one and showing how ridiculous the evidence is. He pretends that all we have are the FOIs and that the FOIs are not damning. He has done this repeatedly very recently, in videos (i.e. where quite frankly he acts like an ass: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1683585529?filter=all&sort=time) and in his emails with me (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf). Simply making wild, sweeping, derogatory claims without evidence is irresponsible of people.
He is trying to say that the virus both exists and doesn't exist, and then it becomes clear he says it exists, he claims "wild" virus was harvested and then processed in the lab, when there is no proof this virus exists. Can you milk unicorns?
Yes, Couey is a spreader of confusion (whether intentionally, I cannot say).
Given his content, i would say intentionally, he's acting as one of RFK Jr's hired guns.
Let me give you an example of epidemiological identification of a transmissable agent - Hepatitis B. The Rockefeller institute invented the Yellow Fever vaccine in the 1930's for the military - prior to the availability of the Electron Microscope in 1939. They made the vaccine by stabilizing it with human blood serum, and in 1939 launched a 1-milllion person vaccination campaign in Brazil. The vaccinators soon observed that 1 in 5 injected developed clinical hepatitis about 30 days after the injection. Now, hepatitis is only symptomatic when about 30% of the liver cells are killed, so something in the vaccine "a transmissable agent" was killing liver cells - and in 1/5 of people it kills enough cells to make people sick. (So Sam Bailey can't just say, "well not everyone at the chickenpox party got sick therefore chickenpox isn't a virus" because the Brazil experiment not every exposed person to a transmissible agent becomes symptomatic of an illness). Vaccine-hepatitis became known as "Rockefeller Institute Disease."
So, a hypothesis developed there was a virus in the pooled human serum that was being added to the vaccine (no bacteria was observed in the vaccine). To test this, in 1942 when the US entered WW2, the US Army vaccinated all the recruits at camp Cooke with the human-serum vaccine, and all the recruits at Ft. Ord with vaccine made without the human serum. Only Camp Cooke recruits developed hepatitis - about 1 in 5 of the 330,000 soldiers the US Army deliberately infected without informed consent. The Army went back and retested them in 1988 when Hepatitis B tests were available, and this is how we know Hepatitis B becomes a chronic infection in 1 in 1500 whites (and 5% of Asians - and how this is known involves deliberate infections at Japanese internment camps also run by the Army - meaning some of the knowledge is likely classified).
Because the "transmissable agent" came from human blood, it couldn't be an environmental toxin or a bacteria. It had to be a human body protein or a virus. Through the 50's and 60's post-blood-transfusion hepatitis was subject to surveillance, and a scientist named Dane was able to filter out and purify particles that were only observable under refractory electron miscroscopy in blood from transfused patients resulting in hepatitis. Some of the experiments involved injecting developmentally disabled orphans at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, where the particles were observed to replicate and were discoverable in the post-infected blood. This is even better than satisfying Koch's postulates because it didn't involve an animal model. It also didn't involve cell culture.
Also, in the 1950's it was discovered Hepatitis B was sexually transmitted, and in the post-Stonewall hypersexual gay culture, hepatitis B was almost a rite of passage. In 1979, there was a working vaccine tested on promiscuous gay men derived from the particle observed by Dane - so the virus was also verified in the inverse in the vaccination experiments of the late 70's on gay men - and yes, it is an indirect method, but it is a specific method and thus valid (the Perth group's critique is based on reverse transcriptase activity being non-specific and thus invalid) because the Dane particle (aka Hepatitis B surface antigen) is specific to Hepatitis B.
All of this is to say, the identification and characterization of Hepatitis B and creation of a disease model took 40 years and a-lot of messy missteps, so you're not going to be able to get 1 single paper to satisfy Christine Massey in her prejudicial quest to prove a negative.
Injecting people with something and observing harm afterwards is not evidence of transmission or a virus, lol.
Dear Tom Busse,
I am having trouble accepting your argument, because you said: "Because the "transmissible agent" came from human blood, it couldn't be an environmental toxin or a bacteria. It had to be a human body protein or a virus."
Hmm, "human protein OR a virus"? Are you claiming that any and all work with Yellow Fever and or Hepatitis B "proves" that there is a Hepatitis B virus?
Please clarify. Thank you.
Maybe that liver just didn't like the new blood. There are still too many variables, especially without an actual "virus particle" in sight, to make that kind of a conclusion. The scientific method isn't that complicated. Experiments at minimum should be reproducible, otherwise it is simply consensus, which is not practicing science.
There is no certified reference material (CRM) for SARS-CoV-2.
Eric, actually there is--- kinda.
But it's pretty bogus.
https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/sars-cov-2-research-grade-test-material
hey Roger, I was just adding a supporting fact. the institutions don't have any and the lab supply places don't have actual CRM. They sell something but it ain't on that QA/QC level
Lets imagine that viruses could be engineered to be deadly and that a vaccine could give you protection from the lethal virus. Wouldn't the military have exploited this weapon. Virus don't exist the weapon is the idea of a virus resulting in toxins, the vaccines, being injected willingly into the targets. SAD!!!
It shouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing. Corona doesn't exist. HIV doesn't exist other than as a lab artifact. Hepatitis C virus only exists as a molecular clone in cell culture. But other viruses do exist and behave like the germ theory predicts. Hepatitis A is a prime example but also Monkeypox and Yellow Fever virus. - and this is not to mention agricultural viruses such as African Swine Fever or Citrus Tizeta Virus. The Perth Group's entire critique of HIV is based on the proper isolation of the Rous Sarcoma Virus, which the Perth Group acknowledged exists and causes disease in rabbits. We have to understand Corona is a psyop, and there are "pied pipers" put out there to mislead those who recognize Corona doesn't exist and then getting them to say "well, no viruses exist." That's what Kaufman and Lanka are all about. It's gotten to the point I posted the Hepatitis A isolation studies on Bailey's Odysee channel and got blocked by her - so she's not really open to a real "virus debate" because she wouldn't refute my argument.
What would convince people is: "You know, Corona wasn't proven to exist. The isolation experiments don't look anything like Hepatitis A and classical virology. The molecular methods are flawed." What will not convince people is "No viruses exist and therefore Corona can't exist" which is actually circular reasoning.
You're not going to get one elegant paper that does everything, but Sam Bailey can't just go back to an old paper from the 50's and set it up as a strawman logical fallacy and say "Aha! No chickenpox" which is to deny reality that people actually do get chickenpox at chickenpox parties and you can't just blame it on hypothetical toxins or bad terrain. It's a disease with very specific symptoms and it behaves exactly like the germ theory predicts - and when a theory predicts real world observations, you've got science going on. And, it turns out, herpesviruses make evolutionary sense and may actually be symbionts due to something called "trained immunity." What really bothers me is the author of Virus Mania, Klaus Kohenlein, acknowledges real viruses like Influenza A and isn't keeping his co-author in check.
Also, the cell culture method is not the only way to prove viruses. Hepatitis B has only been isolated through filtration, and "team no virus" completely mischaracterizes cytopathic effect in culture. Each virus has unique cytopathic effects in culture, meaning you can distinguish between what is in the filtered supernatant causing cytopathic effects and the culture's mitogens.
You don't actually address my points.
You are assuming "chicken pox" is a disease and not a healthy developmental stage or evolutionary artifact. People assume the flu is a disease and not the body preventing a disease.
Under the virus theory, we blame something that has never been seen on AIDS, the flu, colds, "covid," chicken pox, measles, chronic fatigue, warts and cancer.
Virologists are the one taking the "all" position because they are claiming that "all" of these diseases are caused by the same theoretical particle that they have never shown to exist. Their model does not predict anything or offer any relief from the problem.
Therefore, why the ardent love affair? Why the wine and roses and violins? The "universal theory of disease" does not serve anyone except the drug companies and interests using the claim of viruses to control society.
Please provide your data on the mischaracterization of the cytopathic effect. As far as I understand it, Dr. Lanka's work is solid.
Please provide your data on hepatitis B being found through filtration to the point where it demonstrates it is what it's claimed to be and does what it's claimed to do.
Chickenpox could also be a way for children to detox from the poisons in the DPT vaccines (which almost everyone got as a very young child).
Then why will Team Virus not take up the offer of the Virus Challenge?
If, as you say, they can tell what it is just by the CPE, what's the big deal?
And why do you sound like a troll from Tom Cowan's Bitchute comments?
Once again you've not cited a study to back up your claims, and you conflate effects with an alleged cause. And there's no reason that the evidence (purification, sequencing, characterization, controlled experiments) could not be presented in 1 paper. Regardless, there is no combination of papers showing the evidence either, that we can find and it's not as though we haven't looked.
Dear Tom Busse,
Have you seen the first paper (from 1958) on "Monkeypox"? Have you read the work from the WHO (Fenner et al. 1988) on Monkeypox? In no way do they show any process of isolation or purification. They cannot show - and do not try to show - any natural means of transmission.
Why do you say that Monkeypox virus exists? Which paper or study do you cite?
Thank you for your attention.
Nah, Doc.
They're not interested in reading much. Now...if they saw it on the TV, they'd know all about it!
I have read Fenner et al though. ;-)
The Baileys are eminently fair and humane people. They are tolerant and respectful and take a lot of abuse. They do what they are doing having given up lucrative careers in service of not harming others.
There are times I'm in contact with them many times a day for months on end. I have gotten to know them well. I consider them some of the best examples of how to be human. As Mark says, "We are at peace with the universe."
If they ban someone, it was not an accident, or arbitrary conduct.
Genius summary, couldn’t have written it better myself and nothing written here is news. I do hope Rancourt is legit, however I have learned to only lend my trust to those whose narrative fits the known facts for as long as they present the truth. Very few if any stay trusted, so many are used to divert us as we advance in knowledge and (I guess) human error creeps in for some who are well intentioned. I like to say (because it’s True) that only Jesus Christ is unconditionally trustworthy.
This establishes the public record. He has taken notice by posting my article to his twitter feed. We now know what he knows.
Hopefully he does not sell his supporters out like this guy: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RFK-Jr-Holland-Dec-2022-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
Read the last e-mail.
I don't know what exactly makes the person in the last e-mail a good scientist. The logical fallacies are quite shocking:
https://twitter.com/denisrancourt/status/1601220119946231808?s=20
Who is that, Tony?
A PR consultant for CHD:
https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1683585529
If you mean Couey in the second-to-last email, I agree. His recommendation -- "repeating some of the point [sic] out loud in [sic] a mirror" -- is as illiterate as it is ignorant and obnoxious.
wow Pacifica person, -- I have seen the man made virus/ poison created by our government - pass in between family members. I had it its not FLU, its completely different How could they identify a furin cleavage sites on the virus ? why would they patented it? how about talking about the extreme control of world governments of us the people, loss of our rights lead by democrats ( NPR, KPFA, Pacifica)
I am on the extreme lunatic fringe of Pacifica; I do my thing and, as an affiliate, take no orders.
Dear Eric,
I love you being on the "lunatic fringe". You are the best!!!
People get sick for many reasons. There has never been a proof that alleged particles called viruses cause illness. The contagion theory itself has never been proven. Attempts to find out how "Spanish" (Kansas) flu spreads failed spectacularly. See the 1918 Rosenau Experiments, which Eric refers to in the article (which you probably didn't bother reading). I do you know what you had? One of the bogus tests, maybe?
A "furin cleavage site on the virus"? Which virus, you mean the computer model created via stitching together millions of digital equivalents of nucleic acid segments found in a cell culture and called a "virus"?
Have you any idea how many patents registered at the patent office have never been turned into real entities? I pursued patent law briefly while in law school, i know about that.
Sounds like you're parroting gibberish found on the one of the many 'half truth" pages such as CHD, without understanding any of the stuff you cite.
you are confusing effects (illness) with an alleged/assumed cause (virus). and alleged furin cleavage sites on an alleged protein are not proof a virus; logic please. there is no patent for any virus, only fraudulent patents for fake viruses.
All internal disease is essentially the 'flu, the influenza. The problem is that people do not understand what the 'flu is.
"The ‘flu is the internal toxicosis of the body, mainly via urea, partly due to metabolism of food and partly due to the many poisons in our environment which can and do enter our bodies in the air, food and water. The ‘flu cannot be transmitted to someone else as it is individual to each person.
Unless your blood is given to someone in a blood transfusion, for example.
In essence urea is a neuro-toxin due to the nitrogen which the body may use up to a point but must ultimately excrete as it is from ammonia which is highly toxic."
From my link.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/08/17/what-is-the-flu-a-k-a-covid-19-and-why-vaccines-are-pointless-at-best/
As regards your own experience Cosmos Agent Roger 23 is right to mention poisoning, but then in essence as I say the 'flu is an internal poisoning and external; poisons merely add to this.
This is excellent except it omits educating about the hard wired Innate Immune System and how the mRNA COVID vaccine circumvents and exploits it to shorten the life of those who receive boosters. We have stomach acid HCL, Macrophages, Lysosomes and enzymes that blast the mRNA into infinitesimal particles that are scattered across all organs of the body (including brain). Ivermetin or Hydroxychloroquine will do nothing as prophylactic or as a vaccine adverse effect protocol. See Coppollino's interview with Stefano Scoglio.
Wayne, hi. I'm writing about viruses, though, not vaccines. That's another ball of bees...
I'm encouraged that you, the Tom Cowan Team and Rancourt are taking on the virus existence issue, but government has a monopoly on truth. You might have included Kate Sugak's documentary The Truth About Smallpox (Bitchute) about how Pharma has just rebranded the same disease to take credit for eradicating the first name given it and then merely re-labeled it something else, in an endless deception. The pro-vaxxers will just say "we have all the advanced electron microscopes and we are the exclusive interpreters of what we see in those scopes.
yes they will, and the shadow projected on my translucent curtains is definitely a little UFO
I agree that it is valuable to have a concise document like this article to share with folks who are just being exposed to or on the fence regarding this issue. Great job, Coppolino! It must be challenging to weight what information is the most crucial to share. The simpler the better, and yet due to all of the reification fallacies built upon the consensus of virology, we have a tangled web to unweave. The Bailey's "Virology in 5 seconds" is probably too simple, and yet it is one of my favorites!
I also REALLY appreciate the way Strahl made the distinction above that "no proof of a virus" is a better approach than "no virus" for this reason. I find the way that some no virus folks speak condescendingly, insisting what I know to be a reality, is a REAL BARRIER to productive communication that facilitates patient understanding of those who haven't made the connections in their own minds.
I had the virus, i have seem it transmit, people in our freedom community have experience it why would they want to prove a bioweapon??