Just as bad feeling, distrust, strife and hate are engineered in order hit on those not ‘conforming’ to the official ‘virology paradigm’ now the converse is happening around mythical views of the work of certain scientists and physicians like myself, Drs Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Tom Cowan to
Why someone would demonise David Martin is beyond me! He is one of the most astute allies in the battle against the medical-industrial complex and should be cherished for what he is. Why would anyone not see this? I can only suppose that people don't think much for themselves...
To be fairer to David Martin, his paper trail patent evidence is one thing, his own admissions elsewhere, are that even insurance companies saw no excess of deaths. There was no increase in life insurance pay outs, from the very industry that would have been hit hardest by a real pandemic. He admits, there was no virus. He has proven a long red herring trail, of so called gain of fiction research, that did lead to the SPIKE creation. An in-sillico false synthetic protein, and tests of such jabs by pfizer, all proving it did not work, to stop so called coronaviruses. Reverse transcriptase errors of copying such spike instruction, create the so called variants that escape the design of the jab, alowing for the Scariant woo woo to further panic people. In reality, they create further damaging spike changes. All of which are the real bio-weapon, so called. David Martin admits that rt-PCR fraud was used, that Anti-biotics were witheld from folks with bacterial pneumonias, induced by Ventilators as now admitted, plus from masking. HCQ and IVERMECTIN overdoses to shut down rivals to E.U.A of the Jabs was anohter killer, along with Midazolam+morphine, or Remdesivir in USA. So really, the scamdemic was fake PCR testdemic, pingdemic and casedemic, atop misattributed deaths to Covid, which in reality was never really released anywhere, or so it would seem. They simply needed people desperate in lockdowns, to be foolish enough to take the long planned universal vaccination roll out, of a toxic spike protein instruction. All an in-sillico modelled fake creation, until your body is instructed to produce such prolifically and potentially permanently, due to DNA integration now proven at least in-vitro. So he has done great work i proving the collusion of the scheming ones that planned an economic heist, control heist and mass jab induced genocide to lower population and seize control. All with the SCAM of a virus, made to look plausible enough in a red herring circus show of Lab Leak vs Zoonotic origin of a big fat nothing, that was not itself within the barrel of the syringes offered as cure from the Shepherd, as slaughterer of the flocks sheep, in name of a big bad covid wolf that was a false construct for control. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks for this. I understand the importance of challenging and hopefully getting rid of the virus dogma as you so aptly called it in a recent podcast, but the attacks on people who are doing good work to challenge other aspects of the covid crime for not completely shedding their belief in viruses is becoming screechy and self-defeating. You allude to deep state forces which I don't doubt propagate some of this but unfortunately it's also to be heard in some who have been at the forefront of challenging the existence of viruses. I was particularly troubled by Tom Cowan's recent attack on various speakers at the European Parliament - some of whom have done good work - without acknowledging what a landmark that conference represented, to have doubts about the covid charade voiced in that place.
I'm thinking especially of his attack on David Martin's presentation which was misconstrued to be about science when in fact what he highlights is the evidence of malintent going back decades on the part of individuals and institutions controlling 'the science'. Something where the existence or otherwise of viruses, the validity or otherwise of genetic models etc is beside the point. To hold him up to ridicule because he quoted a patent without commenting on the reality or otherwise of what was patented (when Martin always says the "alleged virus" and "alleged pandemic") was again to my mind self-defeating, especially since Martin is attacking the people directly responsible for this catastrophic crime.
I understand Cowan's frustration, but diatribes like that just encourage the no virus trolls out there - many without necessarily bad intent themselves - to harass and undermine people who focus the many other strands of this attack on humanity.
Thanks, I agree "screechy and self-defeating" is right and also appalling when it's directed at good people doing good work. Going after people to catch them out is fine depending on how it's done. I've not followed the Martin EU presentation or Cowan's critique so will try to follow that up thank you.
I think the point is in how the challenging is done, and where the energy is. Were most of people at that conference directly responsible for creating this attack on humanity? No. And we need to distinguish I think between those who are making solid points about those who are directly responsible and those like Brindle who as Cowan pointed out are caught up in circular arguments involving the 'virus'. Yes Martin does slide around on viruses when he speaks, but I also think it's important that he's targeting the people directly responsible for this mess we're in at the moment. Like Karen of Bailiwick News, or Sasha Latypova who are exposing both the military involvement and the legal tracery built up around this. Latypova in particular gets very close to 'no virus' or even 'no genetics' when she talks about the body's ability to deal with foreign matter, while she exposes the actually comforting fact (at least to me who knows and loves many who took the jab) that the jabs were not made in a uniform way.
Kevin's piece resonated with me because I watched these kinds of divisions happening on the left for over three decades. In the 1980s groups split over what Marx really meant, or really said, now it's about whether sex is a biological fact or a social construct as though it isn't both - which takes people's energies away from targeting the economic actors (banks, military, state etc) which feed off us all. I've seen so many movements turned against themselves: environmentalism turned away from actual toxic pollution with 'climate change'; gay rights turned away from freedom with AIDS; women's liberation first skewed with getting women into jobs as though they are liberation and now undermined with the toxic transgender fights which are provably promoted by powerful people in big Pharma and big tech (as Jennifer Bilek exposes).
Of course people can be challenged on the fundamental science of viruses, but when this is used to besmirch or ignore all they are doing to either promote a better way of living or to focus on the people and institutions directly responsible for what we're living through right now, to me it goes too far. Leaving the left as I have in the past three years has made me better appreciate the validity of many people's struggles simply to survive regardless of whether we agree on theories about what is happening to us. Now the question for me is, do they have their eyes on the right target? Are they promoting love over fear? Or the opposite?
What is interesting for me as someone who has questioned Big Science in the physics realm for decades is to see that biology has been labouring under the same problem: reductionism. Focussing on particles when the physical and energetic environment is far more important. Arguments over whether viruses exist or not, are necessary in some circumstances - and with this I want to acknowledge your tremendous work in the past three years to expose the lie. But it also in a way buys into the reductionist views and methods of what we've called science for the past 300 years, trying to find 'the one' thing which is 'the cause' when there is in fact a multiplicity of factors which cannot be seen in isolation, or indeed a whole environment with forces which enable or promote the morass we're all living through right now.
cityerie - I totally agree with everything above you are saying; great points here of yours:
"Of course people can be challenged on the fundamental science of viruses, but when this is used to besmirch or ignore all they are doing to either promote a better way of living or to focus on the people and institutions directly responsible for what we're living through right now, to me it goes too far."
You've phrased it far better than me above, this is a great point because its so true what you're saying - any good done is trumped especially when the metric applied leads to - 'besmirching' or 'ignoring' - eclipsing all but a singular focus. The modern age enables this because the access is far easier to mount any response. Once in order to respond to any scientist you had to attend a conference with only a few moderated minutes to ask a well honed question or carefully craft a letter to a journal then type it out and go to the post office or postbox etc now its seconds and click its away, posted online or uploaded etc with little real moderation and sometimes with little (or no) crafting of the question.
"What is interesting for me as someone who has questioned Big Science in the physics realm for decades is to see that biology has been labouring under the same problem: reductionism. Focussing on particles when the physical and energetic environment is far more important." This recalls work of Lily E Kay (USA) and Edward Yoxen (UK), both of whom talked about the chosen - reductive- direction of molecular biology. The reductionist focus is where we are now with genetic flopsam erroneously called 'virus' which even 1990s microbiologists knew didn't fulfill the accepted definition of 'viruses' see
meant to add the killer quote from Calisher et al (2001)
"Detection of viral nucleic acid is not equivalent to
isolating a virus"
Calisher et al were mainstream consensus scientists; as mainstream as they come - not viral sceptics or 'fringe' people (like me!) and just look at what they said! This amazing statement above was read out in court in the only really big court case on 'HIV' in Australia. it was read out by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and even then the court ruled against the defendant and Eleni's expert witness testimony was simply discarded by the judge. This was the Parenzee case where a man was accused of heterosexual 'HIV transmission'. The court transcript is here: http://www.theperthgroup.com/Parenzee.html
Thanks for the links. Also I was delighted to find Lily E. Kay's work during this period and will look up Edward Yoxen. It was great to see how Kay shows not only a paradigm driving a model for experiments and what people see in the data, but uncovers how intent (ultimately eugenics and control in the case of microbiology and genetics) can drive paradigms. Another great find in this period has been Nancy Turner Banks's work.
One thing which has been going through my head since yesterday, thinking about a reply to Massey's comments which you've deleted, is Audre Lorde's axiom that 'The master's tools will never take down the master's house.' And the truism that people who have spent their lives working in a particular paradigm - and maybe still have to earn their living that way - will defend it with all kinds of nonsense, even as they do good work in other areas. We are all in different places on this. Maybe my language was too strong about people criticising those who cling on to the virus dogma, but the basic plea is for self-awareness and introspection. I hope Massey is aware that the no-virus movement (or maybe I should say 'the virus really isn't that important for health' movement) is growing hugely amongst ordinary people like myself, often expressed more in deeds than words.
In my daily life I still have to navigate relationships with my neighbours, workmates, friends and family who are on the full spectrum of belief about the covid crime. If what the powers want is division and fear, then I feel my responsibility is to refuse all of both as much as I can.
I have a friend who runs a microbiology lab who has been a real warrior at her institution against masks and against fear of the disease, who has experienced a lot of shunning in professional circles about it. I have to admire her courage in facing situations my circumstances have allowed me to avoid. While she's not prepared to question viruses as such, she is questioning reductionism in her research and finding a lot of push back in terms of finding it very hard to get that research published, and says herself this is likely because looking at energetic factors in the biological processes she studies will not result in another drug. What would be the point of attacking her on the question of viruses? She's getting there herself by questioning the larger issue of reductionism.
What did the banned comment say that was so bad? Judging from the replies, it doesn't seem like it was offensive or used any foul language.
Censorship is the only thing that's stopping the no-virus truth from getting out.
Of course you're free to censor anything you want on your own blog, (as this is a big part of free speech), but if you're using the ban button to stifle dissenting opinions, then it really reflects poorly on you as a "man of science".
Excellent points - thank you. To clarify, it's Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News. If you aren't aware of www.howbad.info - the website Craig Paardekooper ans Sasha set up a couple of years ago, you might like to be. Has invaluable toxicity data on the Pfizer and Moderna batches, if one's brave enough to look.
Yes thanks, I should have looked Watt up properly before posting.
"How bad is my batch" has helped tremendously in convincing several of my acquaintance to at least not take any more shots if they had seemingly not been badly affected by the first two! Unfortunately it didn't come out in time to get them to avoid it altogether.
So 'camp keeping the virus illusion alive' will have to see and speak truth for what it is before they can be taken seriously as it is really simple: no proof for any disease being contagious means no proof for any pathogenic virus either.
Not clearly speaking the virus truth was a mistake in the AIDS truth movement.
In the line "Unsupported by the above named scientists, various agencies spouting anger are now acting to" the word "agencies" seems to have an incomplete link. Maybe no link was meant to go there?
David Martin is a Freemason that cannot be trusted. He exists to make people think that Covid is real.
Why someone would demonise David Martin is beyond me! He is one of the most astute allies in the battle against the medical-industrial complex and should be cherished for what he is. Why would anyone not see this? I can only suppose that people don't think much for themselves...
To be fairer to David Martin, his paper trail patent evidence is one thing, his own admissions elsewhere, are that even insurance companies saw no excess of deaths. There was no increase in life insurance pay outs, from the very industry that would have been hit hardest by a real pandemic. He admits, there was no virus. He has proven a long red herring trail, of so called gain of fiction research, that did lead to the SPIKE creation. An in-sillico false synthetic protein, and tests of such jabs by pfizer, all proving it did not work, to stop so called coronaviruses. Reverse transcriptase errors of copying such spike instruction, create the so called variants that escape the design of the jab, alowing for the Scariant woo woo to further panic people. In reality, they create further damaging spike changes. All of which are the real bio-weapon, so called. David Martin admits that rt-PCR fraud was used, that Anti-biotics were witheld from folks with bacterial pneumonias, induced by Ventilators as now admitted, plus from masking. HCQ and IVERMECTIN overdoses to shut down rivals to E.U.A of the Jabs was anohter killer, along with Midazolam+morphine, or Remdesivir in USA. So really, the scamdemic was fake PCR testdemic, pingdemic and casedemic, atop misattributed deaths to Covid, which in reality was never really released anywhere, or so it would seem. They simply needed people desperate in lockdowns, to be foolish enough to take the long planned universal vaccination roll out, of a toxic spike protein instruction. All an in-sillico modelled fake creation, until your body is instructed to produce such prolifically and potentially permanently, due to DNA integration now proven at least in-vitro. So he has done great work i proving the collusion of the scheming ones that planned an economic heist, control heist and mass jab induced genocide to lower population and seize control. All with the SCAM of a virus, made to look plausible enough in a red herring circus show of Lab Leak vs Zoonotic origin of a big fat nothing, that was not itself within the barrel of the syringes offered as cure from the Shepherd, as slaughterer of the flocks sheep, in name of a big bad covid wolf that was a false construct for control. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks for this. I understand the importance of challenging and hopefully getting rid of the virus dogma as you so aptly called it in a recent podcast, but the attacks on people who are doing good work to challenge other aspects of the covid crime for not completely shedding their belief in viruses is becoming screechy and self-defeating. You allude to deep state forces which I don't doubt propagate some of this but unfortunately it's also to be heard in some who have been at the forefront of challenging the existence of viruses. I was particularly troubled by Tom Cowan's recent attack on various speakers at the European Parliament - some of whom have done good work - without acknowledging what a landmark that conference represented, to have doubts about the covid charade voiced in that place.
I'm thinking especially of his attack on David Martin's presentation which was misconstrued to be about science when in fact what he highlights is the evidence of malintent going back decades on the part of individuals and institutions controlling 'the science'. Something where the existence or otherwise of viruses, the validity or otherwise of genetic models etc is beside the point. To hold him up to ridicule because he quoted a patent without commenting on the reality or otherwise of what was patented (when Martin always says the "alleged virus" and "alleged pandemic") was again to my mind self-defeating, especially since Martin is attacking the people directly responsible for this catastrophic crime.
I understand Cowan's frustration, but diatribes like that just encourage the no virus trolls out there - many without necessarily bad intent themselves - to harass and undermine people who focus the many other strands of this attack on humanity.
Thanks, I agree "screechy and self-defeating" is right and also appalling when it's directed at good people doing good work. Going after people to catch them out is fine depending on how it's done. I've not followed the Martin EU presentation or Cowan's critique so will try to follow that up thank you.
I think the point is in how the challenging is done, and where the energy is. Were most of people at that conference directly responsible for creating this attack on humanity? No. And we need to distinguish I think between those who are making solid points about those who are directly responsible and those like Brindle who as Cowan pointed out are caught up in circular arguments involving the 'virus'. Yes Martin does slide around on viruses when he speaks, but I also think it's important that he's targeting the people directly responsible for this mess we're in at the moment. Like Karen of Bailiwick News, or Sasha Latypova who are exposing both the military involvement and the legal tracery built up around this. Latypova in particular gets very close to 'no virus' or even 'no genetics' when she talks about the body's ability to deal with foreign matter, while she exposes the actually comforting fact (at least to me who knows and loves many who took the jab) that the jabs were not made in a uniform way.
Kevin's piece resonated with me because I watched these kinds of divisions happening on the left for over three decades. In the 1980s groups split over what Marx really meant, or really said, now it's about whether sex is a biological fact or a social construct as though it isn't both - which takes people's energies away from targeting the economic actors (banks, military, state etc) which feed off us all. I've seen so many movements turned against themselves: environmentalism turned away from actual toxic pollution with 'climate change'; gay rights turned away from freedom with AIDS; women's liberation first skewed with getting women into jobs as though they are liberation and now undermined with the toxic transgender fights which are provably promoted by powerful people in big Pharma and big tech (as Jennifer Bilek exposes).
Of course people can be challenged on the fundamental science of viruses, but when this is used to besmirch or ignore all they are doing to either promote a better way of living or to focus on the people and institutions directly responsible for what we're living through right now, to me it goes too far. Leaving the left as I have in the past three years has made me better appreciate the validity of many people's struggles simply to survive regardless of whether we agree on theories about what is happening to us. Now the question for me is, do they have their eyes on the right target? Are they promoting love over fear? Or the opposite?
What is interesting for me as someone who has questioned Big Science in the physics realm for decades is to see that biology has been labouring under the same problem: reductionism. Focussing on particles when the physical and energetic environment is far more important. Arguments over whether viruses exist or not, are necessary in some circumstances - and with this I want to acknowledge your tremendous work in the past three years to expose the lie. But it also in a way buys into the reductionist views and methods of what we've called science for the past 300 years, trying to find 'the one' thing which is 'the cause' when there is in fact a multiplicity of factors which cannot be seen in isolation, or indeed a whole environment with forces which enable or promote the morass we're all living through right now.
cityerie - I totally agree with everything above you are saying; great points here of yours:
"Of course people can be challenged on the fundamental science of viruses, but when this is used to besmirch or ignore all they are doing to either promote a better way of living or to focus on the people and institutions directly responsible for what we're living through right now, to me it goes too far."
You've phrased it far better than me above, this is a great point because its so true what you're saying - any good done is trumped especially when the metric applied leads to - 'besmirching' or 'ignoring' - eclipsing all but a singular focus. The modern age enables this because the access is far easier to mount any response. Once in order to respond to any scientist you had to attend a conference with only a few moderated minutes to ask a well honed question or carefully craft a letter to a journal then type it out and go to the post office or postbox etc now its seconds and click its away, posted online or uploaded etc with little real moderation and sometimes with little (or no) crafting of the question.
"What is interesting for me as someone who has questioned Big Science in the physics realm for decades is to see that biology has been labouring under the same problem: reductionism. Focussing on particles when the physical and energetic environment is far more important." This recalls work of Lily E Kay (USA) and Edward Yoxen (UK), both of whom talked about the chosen - reductive- direction of molecular biology. The reductionist focus is where we are now with genetic flopsam erroneously called 'virus' which even 1990s microbiologists knew didn't fulfill the accepted definition of 'viruses' see
Calisher et al (2001) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631763/pdf/11585546.pdf
Fredericks and Relman (1996) https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.9.1.18,
meant to add the killer quote from Calisher et al (2001)
"Detection of viral nucleic acid is not equivalent to
isolating a virus"
Calisher et al were mainstream consensus scientists; as mainstream as they come - not viral sceptics or 'fringe' people (like me!) and just look at what they said! This amazing statement above was read out in court in the only really big court case on 'HIV' in Australia. it was read out by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and even then the court ruled against the defendant and Eleni's expert witness testimony was simply discarded by the judge. This was the Parenzee case where a man was accused of heterosexual 'HIV transmission'. The court transcript is here: http://www.theperthgroup.com/Parenzee.html
Thanks for the links. Also I was delighted to find Lily E. Kay's work during this period and will look up Edward Yoxen. It was great to see how Kay shows not only a paradigm driving a model for experiments and what people see in the data, but uncovers how intent (ultimately eugenics and control in the case of microbiology and genetics) can drive paradigms. Another great find in this period has been Nancy Turner Banks's work.
One thing which has been going through my head since yesterday, thinking about a reply to Massey's comments which you've deleted, is Audre Lorde's axiom that 'The master's tools will never take down the master's house.' And the truism that people who have spent their lives working in a particular paradigm - and maybe still have to earn their living that way - will defend it with all kinds of nonsense, even as they do good work in other areas. We are all in different places on this. Maybe my language was too strong about people criticising those who cling on to the virus dogma, but the basic plea is for self-awareness and introspection. I hope Massey is aware that the no-virus movement (or maybe I should say 'the virus really isn't that important for health' movement) is growing hugely amongst ordinary people like myself, often expressed more in deeds than words.
In my daily life I still have to navigate relationships with my neighbours, workmates, friends and family who are on the full spectrum of belief about the covid crime. If what the powers want is division and fear, then I feel my responsibility is to refuse all of both as much as I can.
I have a friend who runs a microbiology lab who has been a real warrior at her institution against masks and against fear of the disease, who has experienced a lot of shunning in professional circles about it. I have to admire her courage in facing situations my circumstances have allowed me to avoid. While she's not prepared to question viruses as such, she is questioning reductionism in her research and finding a lot of push back in terms of finding it very hard to get that research published, and says herself this is likely because looking at energetic factors in the biological processes she studies will not result in another drug. What would be the point of attacking her on the question of viruses? She's getting there herself by questioning the larger issue of reductionism.
Loved...the killer quote from Calisher et al (2001)
"Detection of viral nucleic acid is not equivalent to
isolating a virus"
What did the banned comment say that was so bad? Judging from the replies, it doesn't seem like it was offensive or used any foul language.
Censorship is the only thing that's stopping the no-virus truth from getting out.
Of course you're free to censor anything you want on your own blog, (as this is a big part of free speech), but if you're using the ban button to stifle dissenting opinions, then it really reflects poorly on you as a "man of science".
Excellent points - thank you. To clarify, it's Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News. If you aren't aware of www.howbad.info - the website Craig Paardekooper ans Sasha set up a couple of years ago, you might like to be. Has invaluable toxicity data on the Pfizer and Moderna batches, if one's brave enough to look.
Yes thanks, I should have looked Watt up properly before posting.
"How bad is my batch" has helped tremendously in convincing several of my acquaintance to at least not take any more shots if they had seemingly not been badly affected by the first two! Unfortunately it didn't come out in time to get them to avoid it altogether.
Only truth can unite and will set us free.
So 'camp keeping the virus illusion alive' will have to see and speak truth for what it is before they can be taken seriously as it is really simple: no proof for any disease being contagious means no proof for any pathogenic virus either.
Not clearly speaking the virus truth was a mistake in the AIDS truth movement.
Thanks for this post.
Very informative.
In the line "Unsupported by the above named scientists, various agencies spouting anger are now acting to" the word "agencies" seems to have an incomplete link. Maybe no link was meant to go there?