What I would DEFINITELY LOVE to know is how you can BOTH say that vilogogy is not actually a science ~ with which I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH ~ yet you SEEM to believe in "astrology."
If "astrology" is a "science," THEN how is astrology FALSIFIABLE?
I anxiously await your explanation, if it forthcoming?
You can look far and wide and you will never hear me say astrology is a science. The astrology chart is a scientific instrument, based on the same calculations used for astronomy, entirely verifiable; though the interpretation — my presentation to you — is creative writing. I wrote this Thursday:
Why astrology? And what is it? I imagine a lot of rational people are wondering about that when you see one of my posts.
In a few words, astrology the way I do it is part of the storytelling tradition, a very old one. Look on any website and you will see some reference to “our story,” which is now a requisite idea for everything.
Astrology tells a story that’s shown in the positions of the planets in our solar system (and I use a few deep space points for orientation). It’s exciting because on one level it seems wholly random, though pull back a little and it’s apparent that there are patterns, cycles, and familiar figures — and they all dance together.
My reading of astrology in these columns takes you out of the usual concerns coming through the news, and describes a parallel reality, an inner reality unlike anything else in the world right now. You get a chance to consider your inner life from a seemingly external perspective.
Astrology is always a work of fiction, based on a true story — founded on astronomy and a set of time-honored esoteric traditions that spring up in every culture around the world. In psychological terms (for example, of Jung), through astrology, we’re getting a glimpse into the collective unconscious — a kind of shared dream.
And I’m here to tell you about a few of the details from that dream, and offer some interpretation with a light touch.
One result is, due to my science background, I'm the rare astrologer who can get an interview with a top NASA investigator -- to wit, Alan Stern, who led the mission to Pluto
Just listened to this on my evening walk…it was quite interesting. I have listened to Sam & Mark Bailey, Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman and ‘no such thing as a virus’ theory. I tend to lean into their camp, as opposed to SARS Cov2 believers. But what has been eluding me in all my ‘listenings’ is what is actually causing ‘sickness’ in people? I know in the Case of the EUA mRNA Jabs, folks, their ‘sickness’ is likely related to those injections.
But what about people who chose not to go that route, (like myself) but still became ill with a serious ‘illness’ in 2022 and in late December into January. An ‘illness’ the first go around that lasted three weeks, had distinct ‘symptoms’ each week, which were not like any cold or flu symptoms I have ever had before. (Had not had the flu in 14 years, a cold here or there but that’s about it.) So what caused me to become sick?
5G, constant chem trail spraying where I live in SoCA, shedding from all the zombie vaxxed people I’m around when I’m out and about each day? That is my question!
That’s a good question. The position of the no virus camp is not to take make a positive statement that “viruses don’t exist” or “this is what is made/is making you sick”, but simply to point out the scientific fraud of virology and the utter lack of concrete evidence for *their* positive (and baseless) claim that it’s caused by so-called viruses (and bacteria). The problem is that because they’ve made up their minds (some are true believers, some know it’s a lie) that it *must* be a virus, it diverts all the attention, time, and money toward “virus-hunting” and research and development of tests and treatments for the alleged germs, which means nothing goes toward investigating alternative causes of disease and/or solutions for preventing/treatments for symptoms. We would go a long way to addressing most of the health problems we face as a society by simply stopping/removing the many toxins we’re exposed to from cradle to grave, like EMFs, chemtrails, fluoride, vaccines, glyphosate, etc. But they won’t do that because it’s not about truth or health but profit and power, same as it ever was.
It does, you just miss the point...you can’t expect us to accurately diagnose you or anyone else without knowing anything about you/them or what you were/they going through at the time you became sick. All we’re saying is that, since there’s no evidence for viruses or contagion, we can rule that out as a co-factor, let alone primary cause of yours or anyone’s illness, anytime anywhere. But since scientists are only taught to hunt for unproven germs behind every disease and research and develop drugs and vaccines to treat/prevent “infection”, and since medical professionals are only taught to assume/test for viral/bacterial infections when certain symptoms are apparent, they’ll *never* accurately diagnose you because they’re not trained to look for the real causes else or ask the right questions: which would include obvious exposure to environmental toxins, any drugs/vaccines recently taken, diet, stress, and so on. A real scientific investigation/medical diagnosis would necessarily involve looking at the individual holistically and the complete context in which they’ve lived their entire lives, meaning the interconnection of emotions and physiology within and the total physical-social-cultural-economic environment without, as well temporally/historically, looking at unresolved traumas passed on from one generation to then next and the roots of that. A good scientist and health practitioner would also have to have a social conscience and be politically engaged in order to understand the nature of the class society we live and unjust, exploitative, irrational, inhumane economic system, and the structural inequalities and oppressions, abd *especially* the reality that the ruling class actively, consciously conspires to advance their interests by any means necessary at the expense of immense human suffering and environmental devestation. Obviously neither I nor anyone else can undertake such a task in a substack comments section. And there are *very* few trained professional who could even in person because the entire educational-cultural-informational apparatus and medical-scientific establishments are owned and controlled by those same ruling interests and are designed to condition us into the dominant ideology, values, assumptions, and practices and to weed out the critical, independent, heterodox thinkers. There’s no incentives for them to think for themselves or ask critical questions or use their own judgment, and very many and rewarding ones to do the opposite. This applies to many professions, including teachers the journalists as well.
Wow that was QUITE the answer…talking all around it with a lot of ‘intellectual mambo jumbo’…not asking for a diagnosis, just wondering what is causing these ‘sicknesses’.
I realize with each person there can be many ‘mitigating factors’ as to the root cause of the ‘sickness’. And in simple terms of the Industrial Medical Healthcare Delivery Complex, they have absolutely no incentive to get to get to ‘the root of the problem’ or employ any critical thinking. If Big Pharma or a ‘scientific paper’ (funded by Big Pharma) doesn’t say it…then it isn’t so.
Lupita, the AMA recognizes 44,000 diseases. It seems like (almost) everyone has 10 of them.
Historically, viruses are blamed when toxins or malnutrition are the cause. Physically, these are the two causes of disease: toxins and malnutrition.
Then there are emotional and spiritual drivers, which include unresolved trauma — and that is it. So we might add trauma as a proximate physical cause of some diseases.
The thing called a "virus" is theorized but has never once, ever, been shown to exist, act, cause or convey anything. It is hypothetical, and only hypothetical. The observable expressions that might support its existence do not exist, or have many other potential explanations.
Well I definitely can say all my health issues that have been going on within my body for the past 10 years or so were “emotionally and spiritually driven”. A ‘healing crisis’ of some sort or another.
I think the point clearly and wonderfully being made was that the answer is almost impossible to fathom for an individual without having an almost omniscient knowledge of that persons entire life. Whats making you sick? Open your mind to all possibilities, do the hard yards of self exploration and analysis and you might find that some answers present themselves. Reading your further conversation with Eric, it sounds like you are starting this path. Good luck.
For a real diagnosis you would need to give a list of everything that influences your life. Air, water, food, medication, chemicals, furniture, products in your houshold, stress etc.
We all use the same products, produced by the same companies because globalistic world, breathe the same air, drink the same water when living in the same terrain.
How can people, especially from the same houshold, think that all these identical factors don't affect them in an identical way, and that there is a fictional entity needed to explain why they fall ill?
And by the way, we humans change over time, so why should it be irrational to think that a disease feels different the older we get, especially when the TV tells us 24/7 to feel extraordinarily ill?
and in homeopathy that would involve talking about a diversity of things that seem totally unrelated, from dreams to odd preferences; to highly specific matters involving your symptom pattern and disease progression (left, right, top, bottom, fast, slow, etc.).
By now, you’ve probably heard the theory that there are no viruses, period. That the entire field of virology is a hoax, and that what we perceive as viruses are merely a type of cellular debris being shed when your body is trying to detox. Having delved deep into the science of infectious disease, Humphries disagrees with this theory. Viruses do exist. The question is whether they’re as dangerous as they’re made out to be."
Check her at about 36 mins. She lists five things that cause "polio." She says it's not transmissible. She says the vaccines all fail...BUT...the "polio virus" still exists. Mercola calls for the SILENCING of those who mention the missing virus problem. How would he like that silencing to be done?
Wow, I did not see that coming. That is alarming and very disturbing and incredibly hypocritical of him.
Mercola with his "censored library" wants us censored, silenced. I guess we can be grateful that he's at least he's honest about it, unlike some of the other fake-freedom leaders.
That's an outrageous and revealing comment by him. Deserves a focused response. And we all know that "covid" was aided and abetted by silencing people. To me this is proof positive that this celebrity level of MFM is doing Fauci's bidding; the MO is the same. All of them saying "divisive issue" that should be set aside are saying STFU.
It's really weird that Suzanne Humphries conflated contagion with quackcine contamination - which might be labelled "SV40" but has nothing to do with a "virus". And how she thinks that having an illness only once is evidence that it was caused by a virus. And how she thinks getting sick means you "caught" something.
I like how he asks McCullock a multiple choice question and gives him two choices: 'Is it distraction, division, what do you think?'- McCullock picks A. distraction. This is a classic technique by people who want to appear as neutral investigators just looking for answers while conducting a probe by a series of leading questions. If Broze really wanted to challenge him with the FOIAs he would've asked him "What do you think the FOIAs mean?" and let him answer *that, instead of casually throwing it into his preamble.
This is a common theme, it's like the memo went out or something. Even Celia Farber is putting out the idea the "NEO no-virus" uppity people are a psyop
Indeed. She started doing so after RFK Jr entered the presidential race last April, and she strongly endorsed him. Thus, she sees herself as protecting him.
Whitney Webb - too 'understudied' to say anything meaningful about the 'virus - no virus position'...ha ha ha ha. Well, Whitney, I am a very simple machine operator in a very simple factory, I left school at the age of 15 and I can follow the arguments and all the relevant information quite easily. It is not complicated at all Whitney. By the end of February 2020 I was already telling people the damn thing (Covid 19) was all a big hoax, so clear it was. Isn't Catherine Fitts also giving us the same message - too understudied on the subject to say anything about it? Sure guys, nice excuses. I think Samantha Bailey said it quite correctly in a recent video: we have to embrace these facts (in this case, viruses have never ever been proven to exist) and it is the only way to go forward.
WW decides to withhold an opinion on a topic she hasn't researched thoroughly enough & you mock her? She's done years of research on the deep state & govt corruption & has written extensively, including 2 huge books. She has enough humility to refrain from offering an opinion on something she doesn't feel qualified enough to give. Some you should try a little humility yourselves.
In my assessment, she is disingenuous. The discussion of SARS-CoV-2 viral provenance and test fraud began 50 months ago in January 2020. By November 2020, a major paper by 22 scientists was released challenging the covid PCR. It was impossible to miss — if you're a covid presenter.
The issue has a long history before that. Issues around viral provenance related to the PCR go back the 1980s in the modern world, with substantial history before the PCR. Everyone understands the PCR creates the illusion of a virus.
Meanwhile she presents herself as an expert on everything, who is totally hooked up; and this is not happening in a vacuum. There are some excellent presenters explaining the problem and we all agree on the basics of what that problem is.
The PCR issue is the same as the virus issue is the same as the metagenomics issue, and this is so well developed that my basic document is 195 pages but if you read to page 10 you will understand this — and every last one of those people is aware of the chronology, and of Mike Stone and of Andy and of Tom and of the Baileys.
"I have not researched it" is not an excuse. It is THE single most important issue; the very core of "covid" fraud; and many, many people don't like it, which is why she doesn't like it.
I think we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to you, Eric, for your huge commitment to uncovering the reality behind awful pollutants and for your meticulous and outstanding work on the absence of science behind virology. Also for your 'covid' timeline., a tremendous resource, and for the great job you did on Purnima Wagh which saved a huge amount of embarrassment in the long run. However, I have problems with this current approach, which looks like 'going after' certain podcasters or influencers in an ad hominem fashion.
First of all, I fail to perceive any 'Health Freedom Movement'. I think it's a myth. I know a lot of people on 'our side' seem to waste an inordinate amount of time arguing the toss with idiots on Twitter/X and they appear to have no problem feeding the AI behemoth with data and arguments which will be vacuumed up by the likes (presumably) of ChatGPT. It worries me that so many otherwise good thinkers get drawn into this trap.
To me, the dodgy output of the likes of Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Joseph Mercola, Steve Kirsch, Geert Vanden Bossche etc is fair game if subject to reasoned argument. However, who actually cares what James Corbett, whose ego could well interest you astronomically. Whitney Webb. whose focus is corruption and geopolitics, and Derek B(r)oze who seems to resort to abuse at the drop of a hat, have to say about Terrain Theory or the missing virus? Even I tune out fast and I think your presentation strays perilously close to providing ammunition for those (should they be real commentators and not bots) who drone on about the 'no virus crowd' screaming and shouting at them.
A good angle might be to examine the commonality of 'their' arguments. It's as if they're reading a script ('division', 'crazy', 'house-of-cards', 'chicken-pox parties', measles, 'crowd' and so on.) There are a few more people taking notice of these charlatans now and we must not stop arguing for the no-virus position but let's not play the bastards' game by their rules!
I am applying the same editorial standard to everyone; the same strict fact-checking policy and also a consistent relevance threshold to trigger both the investigation and the report.
I have previously covered Bigtree, Füllmich, RFK, Wagh, Malik, Cummins, Malone and others — always for one thing: abusing the public trust; and claiming to tell the whole truth while lying at the same time. Claiming to adhere to science in one sentence and then doing the opposite in the next.
The ad hominem fallacy is "you are bad person, therefore you're wrong." It is attacking the person and not their argument. The person can be named without making it ad hominem.
Can you give me an example of a personal attack — you're a bad person therefore you're wrong? Just one will suffice, though I took on six people's opinions this week.
I think we're understanding 'ad hominem' in a different way to each other. What I actually typed was: ' . . . . which looks like 'going after' certain podcasters or influencers in an ad hominem fashion'. That, plus everything else I wrote to qualify my opinion (!)
In other words, I did not mean that you were necessarily calling certain people 'bad' (even if that could well be true.) The Cambridge Dictionary's definition of ad hominem is: '(of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says:' That is more in line with what I meant but 'ad hominem' can literally just mean referring to a person. This could apply to referring to them in a disparaging way, of course.
Or am I to assume that you we are to take you literally when you write: ' leading intellectuals and moral standard-bearers James Corbett and Whitney Webb' or that Ms Webb is indeed 'iconic'? What about calling Reiner Fuellmich a 'clown'?
It's not that I think you are wrong about these people's stated opinions. I am sure that you are correct. It is just that, as per my post, I worry that this current approach plays into the hands of the people accusing no-virus proponents of 'sowing division'. In any case, la lutte continue and all power to your elbow.
btw if you listen to my commentary, I am directing very little critique at the people and all about what they say and their mental posture. I acknowledge their best efforts, I say when I think they are being sincere, I present them in a balanced way, and I assume that they will be listening and that I will eventually speak to them. I praise Whitney Webb for her intelligence and encourage her to do better. There is not a hint of personal attack.
This is all acceptable repartee in the marketplace of ideas. Satire and sarcasm are not attacks. I say things my way to the people who may be interested. I've been way too quiet about these grifting lying SOBs, and you can expect to see me running more of them up the flagpole for public scrutiny.
I am addressing a much more serious situation than I am letting on. If my critique is ever unfounded, based on **specific statements about specific people**, let me know.
By my code of ethics, I am entitled to reach and hold a readership if I do so honestly.
And BTW to call Füllmich a clown verges on a compliment. I am thinly veiling my rage at his having walked off with two million euro of public money in time of global crisis — promising to help when he only hindered; promising justice when he promoted the unjust and unrighteous. By "clown" I mean "apparent goddamned criminal," (now, with a known history gonig back 30 years) but that's not how I say it. He is, as well, a fop. A fool.
Accountability is not pretty. We are barely used to it. I am not calling for a perp walk, only for reassessment of people's all too generous assumption that a bunch of phonies taking airtime, money and oxygen are somehow helpful. And I am certainly open to critique, but it better be on point.
PS — You know I'm not really serious about a takedown until it's in writing. My broadcasts are probes, experiments, listening for feedback, and gathering information. My written investigative reports are the coup de grace.
I listened to it yesterday. 2/19/24: This After Talk with former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova is the best intelligence tutorial you could ever get on identifying those who are controlled paid agents of confusion and protect yourself. A first...and an exclusive of The Dr. Jane Ruby Show!
TALK WITH SASHA LATYPOVA- the video below with Sasha who shows mad skill at bringing the missing virus issue into the conversation without using confrontation. Give a listen. Jim
During the Plandemic, I had recurring daydream images of the OJ Simpson trial time, every day/night there was new info for months...., repeating the film of the "White Bronco" chase on the freeway, etc.. . Over and over again. More recently we got the cartoon spikey balls (Covid Spikey Ball with colours) coming at us every hour of the day via TV/computer/newspapers and mags. Again and again. How could one think that it isn't real??? We are all blasted with the images.... and I did not have a tv at the time!
The virus' origination theory was created in 1909 in order to for the masses to be afraid of, convinced of, and then of course receive the AMA treatments.
Virology was a hoax from the beginning. Flexner wrote that the virus must exist (poliemyelitis) because they couldn't find anything with their microscope.
"They (Flexner and Lewis) asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?
WTF?
I was looking for an F. William Engdahl paper recently to send to a friend, but found it here in Azra Dale's substack. He adds a little from the recent "polio" scare in the UK and subsequent vaxxxes for the younger ones. Arggggg.... Disgusting. Great short reading.
I LOVE your perspicatious FOCUS on CRUCIAL "detail." (NOT mere "detail," of course.)
My ONLY contribution, which I DO consider MUCH MORE than mere "detail," as well ~ is that ~ FOR ME, in any case
It IS possible to BOTH embrace one's "tribe" as does Mercola, & Co.
AND
EMPHASIZE your CRUCIAL point (that virology IS A TOTAL SCAM: NO QUESTION!)!
But then, you DO, in effect, do that. IMO.
NEVERTHELESS, again:
I EMBRACE what you're saying AS WELL, AS WELL.
For me, it IS possible: I'm DOING IT ~ It is possible to EMBRACE "all of the above."
So, yes, one CAN emphasize your CRUCIAL points AND concede that we live in a tribal world, and that it does require some concessions, at times, etc., etc.
Basically, I DO believe that everything you said, here, needs to be said, as well, as well:
“At about 33 min the topic of 'does a virus exist' was raised by [ CHD interviewer] Polly T. and CA Fitts knows Asher [Tom] Cowan who she said brought this up at some event, as in "dont you think it is important to decide if viruses exist or not, and her response was “NO."
"lf you want to be a slave who is clear about whether viruses exist or not, then go ahead and spend your valuable time on that debate, but" -- and she uses the book "the Moth in the Iron Lung" as a source for history on how viruses have been used a a cover story, "but wasting our time on this debate will not stop the fraudulent use of viruses."
My response to the list was,
"So Fitts think s that attaining clarity about what and whom we face is “wasting time”? SICKENING! Like the time “wasted” figuring out what really happened to the WTC 3 hi rises.
The idea that viruses exist legitimates the idea that there is a “pandemic” of some sort, even if there are “alternative treatments” and “alternative ways of managing it,” and thereby legitimates tests for the presence of this virus, like the PCR. In fact, such tests are the only method being used to determine whether someone has “COVID,” making test outcomes the sole measure of the severity of the alleged “pandemic.” This belief in the virus’s proven existence also legitimates the bio-weapon narrative, which is fear enforcement at its core.
Does Fitts want people to buy into all that? Were we supposed to just believe in Saudi hijackers who brought down the WTC hi rises and just work to expose US government complicity with them, or criminal negligence, so as to bring down Dubya? Just like people who say we should focus all our energy on stopping the shots (i.e. THESE shots) and on bringing down Fauci and exposing bio-weapons, a la what ruling elite figure Jeffrey Sachs, head of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals program (aka Great Reset) is pushing. It is a very typical Republican talking points.”
She makes no sense...of course it would make a huge difference tactically! They would not be able to use viruses as a tactic to scare us...why would she even say that? This divide?..She makes no sense. She makes me angry!
She has gone out of her way to attack the "no proof of virus" people rather nastily.
More from a long post which i had to cut back in order to fit Substack limits.
"Thus, the matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been proven to exist is of fundamental importance, quite the contrary from the perspective expressed by Fitts and other views expressed in the “health freedom community” that this entire matter is peripheral and not a worthwhile focus of discussion, a “distraction” from important stuff. The entire mode of Operation “Pandemic” has centered on the substitution of digital determination of illness for physical observations and analysis for something which is happening in the real physical world. It is symptomatic of the digitalization of every aspect of our lives, a process which has been going on for 30-40 years, and which is leading us into the digital prison known as The Great Reset/4IR.
THIS is how the digital prison will be implemented, with the full connivance of the vast majority, afraid for their safety, as evidenced the the actions of the G-20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, in November 2022. The utter blindness of so many “health freedom” activists to this fact, their willingness to go along with “testing” on the basis of their trust in movement “luminaries,” is both astonishing and frightening.
The matter of proof of virus existence should be a slam dunk, given the work done by Canadian researcher (bio-statistics background) and activist Christine Massey. She has amassed 211 responses from health agencies around to world to her Freedom of Information inquires asking for whether the said entity has proof for the isolation and purification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or knows of anyone who does. Not a single response has been in the affirmative. Massey’s work is available for full viewing at her website, https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca Detailed pages at the site have lists of the responding agencies as well as their responses. She has been thorough.
Some scientists and commentators in the “health freedom” movement such as Peter McCullough, Robert Malone and Jeremy Hammond have continually contended that the actual physical isolation and purification of a virus is not necessary because of the technique known as metagenomics which uses computer programing to create virus genomes out of segments of nucleic acid found in cell cultures. This cultures are created by adding extracts from patients who were allegedly sick with “COVID,” as determined by PCR and other tests, to cells such as monkey kidney cells and adding antibiotics and nutrients, processing, and then using the evidence of cell damage as proof for the presence of a virus, using electron microscopy to create alleged images of the pathogen, and as stated, using segments of nucleic acid found in the fluid and translated into computer code to carry out metagenomics.
Her framing the entire "missing virus" question as being unimportant and a waste of time. Did you listen to the audio by Eric at this page (right here) as to how that's a persistent talking point raised by celebrities who attack the "no proof of virus" position?
If I’m not mistaken there is a clip out there of CAF and Polly Tommy, who works for CHD and is the woman interviewing Susan Humphries in that segment, dismissing the no virus position and its proponents during their finance show for CHD.
I don't get the animus toward Derrick Broze. He's done superb research on a variety of topics & has been tireless in covering the fluoride trial. It's one thing to have disagreements, but the personal attacks are tiresome & childish.
In situations where the public is being misled, the truth that one tells is usually a distraction for the deception. You will hear me say clearly several times that Broze has a role, which is to toss the softball question, "So what about this virus thing?" while offering no facts, and no followup question when -- as invariably occurs -- the person says it's a trivial issue. It's all from the same script, over and over.
Eric,
What I would DEFINITELY LOVE to know is how you can BOTH say that vilogogy is not actually a science ~ with which I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH ~ yet you SEEM to believe in "astrology."
If "astrology" is a "science," THEN how is astrology FALSIFIABLE?
I anxiously await your explanation, if it forthcoming?
Thank you.
~ Sky ~
You can look far and wide and you will never hear me say astrology is a science. The astrology chart is a scientific instrument, based on the same calculations used for astronomy, entirely verifiable; though the interpretation — my presentation to you — is creative writing. I wrote this Thursday:
Why astrology? And what is it? I imagine a lot of rational people are wondering about that when you see one of my posts.
In a few words, astrology the way I do it is part of the storytelling tradition, a very old one. Look on any website and you will see some reference to “our story,” which is now a requisite idea for everything.
Astrology tells a story that’s shown in the positions of the planets in our solar system (and I use a few deep space points for orientation). It’s exciting because on one level it seems wholly random, though pull back a little and it’s apparent that there are patterns, cycles, and familiar figures — and they all dance together.
My reading of astrology in these columns takes you out of the usual concerns coming through the news, and describes a parallel reality, an inner reality unlike anything else in the world right now. You get a chance to consider your inner life from a seemingly external perspective.
Astrology is always a work of fiction, based on a true story — founded on astronomy and a set of time-honored esoteric traditions that spring up in every culture around the world. In psychological terms (for example, of Jung), through astrology, we’re getting a glimpse into the collective unconscious — a kind of shared dream.
And I’m here to tell you about a few of the details from that dream, and offer some interpretation with a light touch.
Thank you, Eric!!
GREAT RESPONSE!
Makes Total Sense!
Loving It!
Well Said!!!
Stay Way Awesome!
~ Sky ~
One result is, due to my science background, I'm the rare astrologer who can get an interview with a top NASA investigator -- to wit, Alan Stern, who led the mission to Pluto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_lxdjUlWkc
Very Impressive!
I'll be watching it!
Just listened to this on my evening walk…it was quite interesting. I have listened to Sam & Mark Bailey, Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman and ‘no such thing as a virus’ theory. I tend to lean into their camp, as opposed to SARS Cov2 believers. But what has been eluding me in all my ‘listenings’ is what is actually causing ‘sickness’ in people? I know in the Case of the EUA mRNA Jabs, folks, their ‘sickness’ is likely related to those injections.
But what about people who chose not to go that route, (like myself) but still became ill with a serious ‘illness’ in 2022 and in late December into January. An ‘illness’ the first go around that lasted three weeks, had distinct ‘symptoms’ each week, which were not like any cold or flu symptoms I have ever had before. (Had not had the flu in 14 years, a cold here or there but that’s about it.) So what caused me to become sick?
5G, constant chem trail spraying where I live in SoCA, shedding from all the zombie vaxxed people I’m around when I’m out and about each day? That is my question!
That’s a good question. The position of the no virus camp is not to take make a positive statement that “viruses don’t exist” or “this is what is made/is making you sick”, but simply to point out the scientific fraud of virology and the utter lack of concrete evidence for *their* positive (and baseless) claim that it’s caused by so-called viruses (and bacteria). The problem is that because they’ve made up their minds (some are true believers, some know it’s a lie) that it *must* be a virus, it diverts all the attention, time, and money toward “virus-hunting” and research and development of tests and treatments for the alleged germs, which means nothing goes toward investigating alternative causes of disease and/or solutions for preventing/treatments for symptoms. We would go a long way to addressing most of the health problems we face as a society by simply stopping/removing the many toxins we’re exposed to from cradle to grave, like EMFs, chemtrails, fluoride, vaccines, glyphosate, etc. But they won’t do that because it’s not about truth or health but profit and power, same as it ever was.
Yet still doesn’t answer my question.
It does, you just miss the point...you can’t expect us to accurately diagnose you or anyone else without knowing anything about you/them or what you were/they going through at the time you became sick. All we’re saying is that, since there’s no evidence for viruses or contagion, we can rule that out as a co-factor, let alone primary cause of yours or anyone’s illness, anytime anywhere. But since scientists are only taught to hunt for unproven germs behind every disease and research and develop drugs and vaccines to treat/prevent “infection”, and since medical professionals are only taught to assume/test for viral/bacterial infections when certain symptoms are apparent, they’ll *never* accurately diagnose you because they’re not trained to look for the real causes else or ask the right questions: which would include obvious exposure to environmental toxins, any drugs/vaccines recently taken, diet, stress, and so on. A real scientific investigation/medical diagnosis would necessarily involve looking at the individual holistically and the complete context in which they’ve lived their entire lives, meaning the interconnection of emotions and physiology within and the total physical-social-cultural-economic environment without, as well temporally/historically, looking at unresolved traumas passed on from one generation to then next and the roots of that. A good scientist and health practitioner would also have to have a social conscience and be politically engaged in order to understand the nature of the class society we live and unjust, exploitative, irrational, inhumane economic system, and the structural inequalities and oppressions, abd *especially* the reality that the ruling class actively, consciously conspires to advance their interests by any means necessary at the expense of immense human suffering and environmental devestation. Obviously neither I nor anyone else can undertake such a task in a substack comments section. And there are *very* few trained professional who could even in person because the entire educational-cultural-informational apparatus and medical-scientific establishments are owned and controlled by those same ruling interests and are designed to condition us into the dominant ideology, values, assumptions, and practices and to weed out the critical, independent, heterodox thinkers. There’s no incentives for them to think for themselves or ask critical questions or use their own judgment, and very many and rewarding ones to do the opposite. This applies to many professions, including teachers the journalists as well.
That's one of the most concise answers to the question I've ever read. Bravo.
Wow that was QUITE the answer…talking all around it with a lot of ‘intellectual mambo jumbo’…not asking for a diagnosis, just wondering what is causing these ‘sicknesses’.
I realize with each person there can be many ‘mitigating factors’ as to the root cause of the ‘sickness’. And in simple terms of the Industrial Medical Healthcare Delivery Complex, they have absolutely no incentive to get to get to ‘the root of the problem’ or employ any critical thinking. If Big Pharma or a ‘scientific paper’ (funded by Big Pharma) doesn’t say it…then it isn’t so.
Lupita, the AMA recognizes 44,000 diseases. It seems like (almost) everyone has 10 of them.
Historically, viruses are blamed when toxins or malnutrition are the cause. Physically, these are the two causes of disease: toxins and malnutrition.
Then there are emotional and spiritual drivers, which include unresolved trauma — and that is it. So we might add trauma as a proximate physical cause of some diseases.
The thing called a "virus" is theorized but has never once, ever, been shown to exist, act, cause or convey anything. It is hypothetical, and only hypothetical. The observable expressions that might support its existence do not exist, or have many other potential explanations.
I am happy to tell you it's that simple.
Well I definitely can say all my health issues that have been going on within my body for the past 10 years or so were “emotionally and spiritually driven”. A ‘healing crisis’ of some sort or another.
Turns out that reality is more complex than the medical model of “one cause, one disease, one cure”.
I think the point clearly and wonderfully being made was that the answer is almost impossible to fathom for an individual without having an almost omniscient knowledge of that persons entire life. Whats making you sick? Open your mind to all possibilities, do the hard yards of self exploration and analysis and you might find that some answers present themselves. Reading your further conversation with Eric, it sounds like you are starting this path. Good luck.
For a real diagnosis you would need to give a list of everything that influences your life. Air, water, food, medication, chemicals, furniture, products in your houshold, stress etc.
We all use the same products, produced by the same companies because globalistic world, breathe the same air, drink the same water when living in the same terrain.
How can people, especially from the same houshold, think that all these identical factors don't affect them in an identical way, and that there is a fictional entity needed to explain why they fall ill?
And by the way, we humans change over time, so why should it be irrational to think that a disease feels different the older we get, especially when the TV tells us 24/7 to feel extraordinarily ill?
and in homeopathy that would involve talking about a diversity of things that seem totally unrelated, from dreams to odd preferences; to highly specific matters involving your symptom pattern and disease progression (left, right, top, bottom, fast, slow, etc.).
Have you read Virus Mania or any books on terrain theory? There you will find your answers. All the best.
New from Mercola and Humphries:
"Are Viruses Real?
By now, you’ve probably heard the theory that there are no viruses, period. That the entire field of virology is a hoax, and that what we perceive as viruses are merely a type of cellular debris being shed when your body is trying to detox. Having delved deep into the science of infectious disease, Humphries disagrees with this theory. Viruses do exist. The question is whether they’re as dangerous as they’re made out to be."
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/25/dissolving-illusions-vaccines.aspx
My head is spinning from the circular reasoning.
Check her at about 36 mins. She lists five things that cause "polio." She says it's not transmissible. She says the vaccines all fail...BUT...the "polio virus" still exists. Mercola calls for the SILENCING of those who mention the missing virus problem. How would he like that silencing to be done?
Wow, I did not see that coming. That is alarming and very disturbing and incredibly hypocritical of him.
Mercola with his "censored library" wants us censored, silenced. I guess we can be grateful that he's at least he's honest about it, unlike some of the other fake-freedom leaders.
That's an outrageous and revealing comment by him. Deserves a focused response. And we all know that "covid" was aided and abetted by silencing people. To me this is proof positive that this celebrity level of MFM is doing Fauci's bidding; the MO is the same. All of them saying "divisive issue" that should be set aside are saying STFU.
It's really weird that Suzanne Humphries conflated contagion with quackcine contamination - which might be labelled "SV40" but has nothing to do with a "virus". And how she thinks that having an illness only once is evidence that it was caused by a virus. And how she thinks getting sick means you "caught" something.
This was a comment by Merrie Sloan at the page of yesterday's program.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DquL8U6mB7Ob at five minutes Broze actually mentions FOIAs in his set up question for McCullough.
I like how he asks McCullock a multiple choice question and gives him two choices: 'Is it distraction, division, what do you think?'- McCullock picks A. distraction. This is a classic technique by people who want to appear as neutral investigators just looking for answers while conducting a probe by a series of leading questions. If Broze really wanted to challenge him with the FOIAs he would've asked him "What do you think the FOIAs mean?" and let him answer *that, instead of casually throwing it into his preamble.
McCullough actually picked both A and B, focusing on A but raising B as a possibility ("this could be an operation"). Right on about Broze's role.
This is a common theme, it's like the memo went out or something. Even Celia Farber is putting out the idea the "NEO no-virus" uppity people are a psyop
Indeed. She started doing so after RFK Jr entered the presidential race last April, and she strongly endorsed him. Thus, she sees herself as protecting him.
and this vax pusher is his new handler LOL
https://x.com/RabbiShmuley/status/1240418961960898560?s=20
Oh yeah, that absolute monstrosity.
Great podcast. They are so locked into the mainstream model that questioning the core assumptions could jeopardize their entire belief system.
A song about the fraud of Virology. Watch THE DISH. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/new-music-video-the-dish
Whitney Webb - too 'understudied' to say anything meaningful about the 'virus - no virus position'...ha ha ha ha. Well, Whitney, I am a very simple machine operator in a very simple factory, I left school at the age of 15 and I can follow the arguments and all the relevant information quite easily. It is not complicated at all Whitney. By the end of February 2020 I was already telling people the damn thing (Covid 19) was all a big hoax, so clear it was. Isn't Catherine Fitts also giving us the same message - too understudied on the subject to say anything about it? Sure guys, nice excuses. I think Samantha Bailey said it quite correctly in a recent video: we have to embrace these facts (in this case, viruses have never ever been proven to exist) and it is the only way to go forward.
WW decides to withhold an opinion on a topic she hasn't researched thoroughly enough & you mock her? She's done years of research on the deep state & govt corruption & has written extensively, including 2 huge books. She has enough humility to refrain from offering an opinion on something she doesn't feel qualified enough to give. Some you should try a little humility yourselves.
edited
In my assessment, she is disingenuous. The discussion of SARS-CoV-2 viral provenance and test fraud began 50 months ago in January 2020. By November 2020, a major paper by 22 scientists was released challenging the covid PCR. It was impossible to miss — if you're a covid presenter.
The issue has a long history before that. Issues around viral provenance related to the PCR go back the 1980s in the modern world, with substantial history before the PCR. Everyone understands the PCR creates the illusion of a virus.
Meanwhile she presents herself as an expert on everything, who is totally hooked up; and this is not happening in a vacuum. There are some excellent presenters explaining the problem and we all agree on the basics of what that problem is.
The PCR issue is the same as the virus issue is the same as the metagenomics issue, and this is so well developed that my basic document is 195 pages but if you read to page 10 you will understand this — and every last one of those people is aware of the chronology, and of Mike Stone and of Andy and of Tom and of the Baileys.
"I have not researched it" is not an excuse. It is THE single most important issue; the very core of "covid" fraud; and many, many people don't like it, which is why she doesn't like it.
https://chironreturn.org/chronology/
https://planetwaves.fm/a-farewell-to-virology-by-dr-mark-bailey/
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-prof-denis-rancourt
who is WW?
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-superchem
Some useful stuff on Latypova. Her and her husband have some interesting
companies; with some quite juicy links and contracts, to what would appear
to be: the very corporations/Government Depts, who locked-down our
sorry asses, in the first place.....
Check this out as well: more on Latypova's esoteric manoeuvrings.
PS. not a quick read; bookmark it and dive in later. you guys may have
read and digested this already. May be not for eveyone. Whatever !!
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-gatekeepers-club?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I think we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to you, Eric, for your huge commitment to uncovering the reality behind awful pollutants and for your meticulous and outstanding work on the absence of science behind virology. Also for your 'covid' timeline., a tremendous resource, and for the great job you did on Purnima Wagh which saved a huge amount of embarrassment in the long run. However, I have problems with this current approach, which looks like 'going after' certain podcasters or influencers in an ad hominem fashion.
First of all, I fail to perceive any 'Health Freedom Movement'. I think it's a myth. I know a lot of people on 'our side' seem to waste an inordinate amount of time arguing the toss with idiots on Twitter/X and they appear to have no problem feeding the AI behemoth with data and arguments which will be vacuumed up by the likes (presumably) of ChatGPT. It worries me that so many otherwise good thinkers get drawn into this trap.
To me, the dodgy output of the likes of Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Joseph Mercola, Steve Kirsch, Geert Vanden Bossche etc is fair game if subject to reasoned argument. However, who actually cares what James Corbett, whose ego could well interest you astronomically. Whitney Webb. whose focus is corruption and geopolitics, and Derek B(r)oze who seems to resort to abuse at the drop of a hat, have to say about Terrain Theory or the missing virus? Even I tune out fast and I think your presentation strays perilously close to providing ammunition for those (should they be real commentators and not bots) who drone on about the 'no virus crowd' screaming and shouting at them.
A good angle might be to examine the commonality of 'their' arguments. It's as if they're reading a script ('division', 'crazy', 'house-of-cards', 'chicken-pox parties', measles, 'crowd' and so on.) There are a few more people taking notice of these charlatans now and we must not stop arguing for the no-virus position but let's not play the bastards' game by their rules!
The 9-ll segments were excellent, by the way.
edited.
Hi Miriam,
I am applying the same editorial standard to everyone; the same strict fact-checking policy and also a consistent relevance threshold to trigger both the investigation and the report.
I have previously covered Bigtree, Füllmich, RFK, Wagh, Malik, Cummins, Malone and others — always for one thing: abusing the public trust; and claiming to tell the whole truth while lying at the same time. Claiming to adhere to science in one sentence and then doing the opposite in the next.
The ad hominem fallacy is "you are bad person, therefore you're wrong." It is attacking the person and not their argument. The person can be named without making it ad hominem.
Can you give me an example of a personal attack — you're a bad person therefore you're wrong? Just one will suffice, though I took on six people's opinions this week.
Go for it.
Hi Eric,
I think we're understanding 'ad hominem' in a different way to each other. What I actually typed was: ' . . . . which looks like 'going after' certain podcasters or influencers in an ad hominem fashion'. That, plus everything else I wrote to qualify my opinion (!)
In other words, I did not mean that you were necessarily calling certain people 'bad' (even if that could well be true.) The Cambridge Dictionary's definition of ad hominem is: '(of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says:' That is more in line with what I meant but 'ad hominem' can literally just mean referring to a person. This could apply to referring to them in a disparaging way, of course.
Or am I to assume that you we are to take you literally when you write: ' leading intellectuals and moral standard-bearers James Corbett and Whitney Webb' or that Ms Webb is indeed 'iconic'? What about calling Reiner Fuellmich a 'clown'?
It's not that I think you are wrong about these people's stated opinions. I am sure that you are correct. It is just that, as per my post, I worry that this current approach plays into the hands of the people accusing no-virus proponents of 'sowing division'. In any case, la lutte continue and all power to your elbow.
btw if you listen to my commentary, I am directing very little critique at the people and all about what they say and their mental posture. I acknowledge their best efforts, I say when I think they are being sincere, I present them in a balanced way, and I assume that they will be listening and that I will eventually speak to them. I praise Whitney Webb for her intelligence and encourage her to do better. There is not a hint of personal attack.
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/seeking-more-weird-funny-or-ridiculous
This is all acceptable repartee in the marketplace of ideas. Satire and sarcasm are not attacks. I say things my way to the people who may be interested. I've been way too quiet about these grifting lying SOBs, and you can expect to see me running more of them up the flagpole for public scrutiny.
I am addressing a much more serious situation than I am letting on. If my critique is ever unfounded, based on **specific statements about specific people**, let me know.
By my code of ethics, I am entitled to reach and hold a readership if I do so honestly.
And BTW to call Füllmich a clown verges on a compliment. I am thinly veiling my rage at his having walked off with two million euro of public money in time of global crisis — promising to help when he only hindered; promising justice when he promoted the unjust and unrighteous. By "clown" I mean "apparent goddamned criminal," (now, with a known history gonig back 30 years) but that's not how I say it. He is, as well, a fop. A fool.
Accountability is not pretty. We are barely used to it. I am not calling for a perp walk, only for reassessment of people's all too generous assumption that a bunch of phonies taking airtime, money and oxygen are somehow helpful. And I am certainly open to critique, but it better be on point.
PS — You know I'm not really serious about a takedown until it's in writing. My broadcasts are probes, experiments, listening for feedback, and gathering information. My written investigative reports are the coup de grace.
I listened to it yesterday. 2/19/24: This After Talk with former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova is the best intelligence tutorial you could ever get on identifying those who are controlled paid agents of confusion and protect yourself. A first...and an exclusive of The Dr. Jane Ruby Show!
TALK WITH SASHA LATYPOVA- the video below with Sasha who shows mad skill at bringing the missing virus issue into the conversation without using confrontation. Give a listen. Jim
https://rumble.com/v4ee920-after-talk-with-sasha-latypova-identifying-controlled-opposition.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
thank you
what is the time stamp please?
Sasha brings up VNV issue at 13 minutes in.
Iain McGilchrist writes that the right brain has the bigger picture outlook and also has the role of devil's advocate.
He implies that the current Western culture is a left hemisphere thinking one.
(I write this as Eric a couple of times I think mentioned left brain thinking.)
Thanks Eric.
During the Plandemic, I had recurring daydream images of the OJ Simpson trial time, every day/night there was new info for months...., repeating the film of the "White Bronco" chase on the freeway, etc.. . Over and over again. More recently we got the cartoon spikey balls (Covid Spikey Ball with colours) coming at us every hour of the day via TV/computer/newspapers and mags. Again and again. How could one think that it isn't real??? We are all blasted with the images.... and I did not have a tv at the time!
The virus' origination theory was created in 1909 in order to for the masses to be afraid of, convinced of, and then of course receive the AMA treatments.
Virology was a hoax from the beginning. Flexner wrote that the virus must exist (poliemyelitis) because they couldn't find anything with their microscope.
"They (Flexner and Lewis) asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?
WTF?
I was looking for an F. William Engdahl paper recently to send to a friend, but found it here in Azra Dale's substack. He adds a little from the recent "polio" scare in the UK and subsequent vaxxxes for the younger ones. Arggggg.... Disgusting. Great short reading.
https://azradale.substack.com/p/toxicology-vs-virology-rockefeller
Hi Eric,
WAY AWESOME BROADCAST!
I LOVE your perspicatious FOCUS on CRUCIAL "detail." (NOT mere "detail," of course.)
My ONLY contribution, which I DO consider MUCH MORE than mere "detail," as well ~ is that ~ FOR ME, in any case
It IS possible to BOTH embrace one's "tribe" as does Mercola, & Co.
AND
EMPHASIZE your CRUCIAL point (that virology IS A TOTAL SCAM: NO QUESTION!)!
But then, you DO, in effect, do that. IMO.
NEVERTHELESS, again:
I EMBRACE what you're saying AS WELL, AS WELL.
For me, it IS possible: I'm DOING IT ~ It is possible to EMBRACE "all of the above."
So, yes, one CAN emphasize your CRUCIAL points AND concede that we live in a tribal world, and that it does require some concessions, at times, etc., etc.
Basically, I DO believe that everything you said, here, needs to be said, as well, as well:
No Question.
No Question.
AND Very Well Said, As Well.
Stay Way Awesome!
~ Sky ~
Alex do you have that one? Def interest in KAF.
I have something else by her, right above.
Regarding Fitts.
https://tube.solari.com/videos/fr_113122/
From notes someone sent to a list i am on,
“At about 33 min the topic of 'does a virus exist' was raised by [ CHD interviewer] Polly T. and CA Fitts knows Asher [Tom] Cowan who she said brought this up at some event, as in "dont you think it is important to decide if viruses exist or not, and her response was “NO."
"lf you want to be a slave who is clear about whether viruses exist or not, then go ahead and spend your valuable time on that debate, but" -- and she uses the book "the Moth in the Iron Lung" as a source for history on how viruses have been used a a cover story, "but wasting our time on this debate will not stop the fraudulent use of viruses."
My response to the list was,
"So Fitts think s that attaining clarity about what and whom we face is “wasting time”? SICKENING! Like the time “wasted” figuring out what really happened to the WTC 3 hi rises.
The idea that viruses exist legitimates the idea that there is a “pandemic” of some sort, even if there are “alternative treatments” and “alternative ways of managing it,” and thereby legitimates tests for the presence of this virus, like the PCR. In fact, such tests are the only method being used to determine whether someone has “COVID,” making test outcomes the sole measure of the severity of the alleged “pandemic.” This belief in the virus’s proven existence also legitimates the bio-weapon narrative, which is fear enforcement at its core.
Does Fitts want people to buy into all that? Were we supposed to just believe in Saudi hijackers who brought down the WTC hi rises and just work to expose US government complicity with them, or criminal negligence, so as to bring down Dubya? Just like people who say we should focus all our energy on stopping the shots (i.e. THESE shots) and on bringing down Fauci and exposing bio-weapons, a la what ruling elite figure Jeffrey Sachs, head of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals program (aka Great Reset) is pushing. It is a very typical Republican talking points.”
She makes no sense...of course it would make a huge difference tactically! They would not be able to use viruses as a tactic to scare us...why would she even say that? This divide?..She makes no sense. She makes me angry!
She has gone out of her way to attack the "no proof of virus" people rather nastily.
More from a long post which i had to cut back in order to fit Substack limits.
"Thus, the matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been proven to exist is of fundamental importance, quite the contrary from the perspective expressed by Fitts and other views expressed in the “health freedom community” that this entire matter is peripheral and not a worthwhile focus of discussion, a “distraction” from important stuff. The entire mode of Operation “Pandemic” has centered on the substitution of digital determination of illness for physical observations and analysis for something which is happening in the real physical world. It is symptomatic of the digitalization of every aspect of our lives, a process which has been going on for 30-40 years, and which is leading us into the digital prison known as The Great Reset/4IR.
THIS is how the digital prison will be implemented, with the full connivance of the vast majority, afraid for their safety, as evidenced the the actions of the G-20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, in November 2022. The utter blindness of so many “health freedom” activists to this fact, their willingness to go along with “testing” on the basis of their trust in movement “luminaries,” is both astonishing and frightening.
The matter of proof of virus existence should be a slam dunk, given the work done by Canadian researcher (bio-statistics background) and activist Christine Massey. She has amassed 211 responses from health agencies around to world to her Freedom of Information inquires asking for whether the said entity has proof for the isolation and purification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or knows of anyone who does. Not a single response has been in the affirmative. Massey’s work is available for full viewing at her website, https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca Detailed pages at the site have lists of the responding agencies as well as their responses. She has been thorough.
Some scientists and commentators in the “health freedom” movement such as Peter McCullough, Robert Malone and Jeremy Hammond have continually contended that the actual physical isolation and purification of a virus is not necessary because of the technique known as metagenomics which uses computer programing to create virus genomes out of segments of nucleic acid found in cell cultures. This cultures are created by adding extracts from patients who were allegedly sick with “COVID,” as determined by PCR and other tests, to cells such as monkey kidney cells and adding antibiotics and nutrients, processing, and then using the evidence of cell damage as proof for the presence of a virus, using electron microscopy to create alleged images of the pathogen, and as stated, using segments of nucleic acid found in the fluid and translated into computer code to carry out metagenomics.
This entire procedure has been shredded to pieces by numerous analyses, such as those presented in Mike Stone’s page https://viroliegy.com and the work of Doctors Sam and Mark Bailey at https://drsambailey.com , particularly Sam Bailey’s videos on what she calls “bio-weapons garbage: (“search” the page) and Mark Bailey’s piece A Farewell to Biology. https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/ A short synopsis of the matter is available in this blog entry by Eric Francis Coppolino, Dandelions and Virology. https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/dandelions-and-virology "
Her framing the entire "missing virus" question as being unimportant and a waste of time. Did you listen to the audio by Eric at this page (right here) as to how that's a persistent talking point raised by celebrities who attack the "no proof of virus" position?
If I’m not mistaken there is a clip out there of CAF and Polly Tommy, who works for CHD and is the woman interviewing Susan Humphries in that segment, dismissing the no virus position and its proponents during their finance show for CHD.
Yeah caught that spelling thanks.
I don't get the animus toward Derrick Broze. He's done superb research on a variety of topics & has been tireless in covering the fluoride trial. It's one thing to have disagreements, but the personal attacks are tiresome & childish.
In situations where the public is being misled, the truth that one tells is usually a distraction for the deception. You will hear me say clearly several times that Broze has a role, which is to toss the softball question, "So what about this virus thing?" while offering no facts, and no followup question when -- as invariably occurs -- the person says it's a trivial issue. It's all from the same script, over and over.
please -- give me an example of a personal attack; such as quoting me. thank you.