By the way, I learned yesterday that the reason my speech to the AfD party in the German Parliament was banned is because I had the temerity to state plainly that the injuries & deaths from the injections are intentional.
Wolfgang Wodarg & I wrote a warning letter in December 2020, before any EUAs, listing a number of obviously toxic features in the “vaccines”. We didn’t write “intentional harms” then, though we certainly thought so.
I’m very confident that the harms are deliberate and actively sought. No question about it.
I’ve recorded a very similar speech, to be presented to some parliamentarians in Croatia this weekend (I’m travelling).
If THEY censor, I’ll immediately release it.
I’m doing a shorter version for Andrew Bridgen’s upcoming panel. I alone will say there was no pandemic and the “vaccines” were intentionally harmful.
Those two items are THE KEY to public understanding of the planetary crime we’re living in.
You cannot oppose that which you do not understand.
People shy away from intentionality when it involves deliberate, malign acts on the part of governments and corporations. They have no problems with individuals being intentionally malign though. For some strange reason, when it comes to large organisations, they prefer to cite Hanlon’s razor: Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity. So, organisations can be stupid, but not intentionally malign! The problem is, Hanlon’s razor fails the credibility test when it comes to the injections. There is no doubt whatsoever that governments and Pharma corporations knew the injections were harmful, prior to rollout, but certainly that this was the case in the early months after rollout, yet they continued with the mass ‘vaccination’ programs. Intent to harm is thus established beyond all reasonable doubt. The only question remaining then is whether the ‘vaccines’ were DESIGNED to do harm. I cannot comment on that aspect, but the behaviour of governments in promoting a known harmful product and continuing to promote a known harmful product, might itself suggest that the intention to do harm was there even before the products were developed and brought to market.
100% spot-on, Jaime. I keep thinking if democide were treated like homicide, we would have forensic analysts evaluating evidence, medical examiners performing autopsies, and detectives working around the clock to determine the cause and identify perpetrators. Instead, we have agencies, governments, corporations, and limited hangouts aggressively working to thwart attempts at collecting evidence and vilifying those pursuing clues to their logical conclusions.
Mike Yeadon has repeatedly demonstrated that these products were *designed* to harm (see his pinned comment on this post as well as any of his interviews; he might discuss it in here: https://rumble.com/v15bk3c-doctors-and-scientists-episode-29-interview-with-mike-yeadon.html), as has Sasha Latypova. Both bring decades of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and rational drug design. Mike and Wolfgang Wodarg wrote a warning letter about the dangers of these products as early as December 2020.
Yes, we have more than enough evidence already for Nuremberg II style trials, targeting both individuals and organisations for complicity in democide, iatrogenocide, mass murder, corporate manslaughter on a scale hitherto unheard of at the very least, call it what you will. But the powers that be have closed ranks and are currently thwarting all attempts to hold them to account for the crimes against humanity which have been committed since at least 2020 on their watch, with their full knowledge and assent.
Spend 21 minutes listening to Dr David Martin speaking to the European Parliament. ANY question about intent to do harm will be immediately washed away! He's also got a fantastic interview with Brian Rose on LondonReal.
Patents, 'outing' the hidden hands, ACTUAL recorded statements BY the malefactors!
Three points: A.) Notice yet another act of liberal-democracy-betraying censorship. Another on top of so many. Those who orchestrated or went-along with the censorship of Yeadon's speech in Germany are traitors to constitutional democracy, and deserve to be exiled-for-life to some forsaken island. B.) Yeadon and those who agree with him here on the centrality and definite truth of his "two items" are obliged to remember that plenty of Covid/Vax Disaster dissidents, such as myself, do not yet agree, either with the overall truth of these two items, nor with their centrality to the dissident case. Yeadon and co. are obliged to keep the doors of friendly communication and dialogue with us open. Most obviously, this means they must refrain from acting like those whom MAA has defined as "tear-downers." I have zero worries with respect to Yeadon or MAA themselves on that score, but there are others who agree with Yeadon on the "two items" whose behavior on these kinds of internal-disagreement issues has been very poor. More importantly, I say Yeadon and co. are obliged to not put the full weight of their case on those two items. Yes, I get and accept the idea voiced in the last sentence, and yes, I get that any dissident researcher or writer will have distinctive arguments that constitute his "brand." Yeadon should thus continue to argue for why his ideas here are the key ones, yes. But it is reasonable, and in no way censorious nor a power-move, to demand that Yeadon and writers like him Regularly Acknowledge that there may be understandable and decent reasons for other dissidents to not agree with them on these two items. There is no slam-dunk case for either of them. Nor is the crux of the "intention of harm" issue all that simple, since Yeadon's framing (and MAA's) ignores the possibility that the intention to harm was confined to VERY small circles of scientists/conspirators, some of them perhaps engaged in deceiving one another, which would mean that mass group-think criminal negligence was the bigger cause and culprit by far. (Or see JJessop's close distinction in the comments here about whether the meds were Designed to harm--she's showing that an experts' intention to go-along-with-harm once they realized how screwed up Warp Speed was should be morally distinguished from an experts' intention to make the meds harmful.) Criminal negligence is something that goes way beyond what loaded framing-device phrases like "mistakes were made" or "dolts botching shit" would imply--those of us who stay agnostic on the idea of a Big Conspiracy's intention to deliver the CV-19 vax-harms do not think that the criminality which we are certain that existing/accepted evidence points to was in any sense minor. It is wrong for our kind of case to be tagged as being indistinguishable from some "mistakes were made" mumble. C.) Some readers will want to focus on the area of disagreement here revealed by my point b. here, but I would encourage them to focus instead on what we agree upon, and the fact that A.) alone establishes the grounds for ditching the entire current system. We are all united in Yeadon having the right to write and say what he wishes on this, in his formal and defacto Suppression by our Rulers being Evil and Traitorous, and in our believing that the Disaster he is speaking of is the story of the century. Let us act together on that kind of basis.
As to your point about “the intention to harm was confined to VERY small circles of scientists/conspirators” with the rest following via groupthink/criminal negligence/denial, that’s actually pretty much what I’ve been arguing all along as that is how genocide has occurred throughout history. As the epigraph to “Letter to a Colluder” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-colluder-stop-enabling) reads:
“A few hundred at the top, to plan and direct at every level; a few thousand to supervise and control (without a voice in policy) at every level; a few score thousand specialists (teachers, lawyers, journalists, scientists, artists, actors, athletes, and social workers) eager to serve or at least unwilling to pass up a job or to revolt; a million of the Pöbel, which sounds like ‘people’ and means ‘riffraff,’ to do what we would call the dirty work, ranging from murder, torture, robbery, and arson to the effort which probably employed more Germans in inhumanity than any other in Nazi history, the standing of ‘sentry’ in front of Jewish shops and offices in the boycott of April, 1933.”
—Milton Mayer, “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45”
Absolutely recognise & respect the right of every person to make up their own minds.
On your point that only very few people knew had full understanding, I have always believed that to be likely.
Very few people need to know that the injections were intentionally harmful (my belief, which I am particularly well placed to argue, though I never claim I’m correct and nothing else need be said) in order that this scheme would work.
I’ve always said that I believe the next few layers told anything were told “the suspension of democracy is temporary but necessary to save the world from climate change”.
Your comment, and even more so MAA's, are making me think I need to rethink my concept of what a "Big Conspiracy" would be. Still, a number of things would be significantly different between a.) a tiny conspiracy to depopulate that itself duped a larger set of conspiracies, ones which existed to make money, expand their orgs' power, and maybe do the election fraud of 2020, and with those groups then in their own ways duping the levels below them, and b.) a conspiracy like that of the Nazi or Communist leadership. The second led movements whose members had agreed, in the hundreds of thousands, in the millions, that the time had come to try unprecedented experiments upon humanity, and to free themselves from most all the old-time morals. Hitler's circle concealed the organization and operation of the Holocaust to a great degree, but it essentially followed from their open rhetoric in a way that the depopulation element of the Covid/Vax Disaster doesn't directly follow from precursor statements by the orgs involved.
Yes, I am aware of what WEF types have said about the need to reduce population. It still is something pretty different--we should not be accusing any environmentalist who worried that the global population increase was a deep danger with implicitly granting a license to depopulators-thru-poisoning/deception, or of being morally equivalent to the typical mid-level communist or national socialist of the 20s or 30s, all of whom had implicitly licensed actions like Holodomor and the Holocaust.
And to be clear, I mean very tiny conspiracies when it comes to making the meds poisonous and fertility-harming. Things like what we see the rogue doctor doing in (the original) Twelve Monkeys, fooling his colleagues and leveraging his lab and knowledge, but with the diff being that the conspirators do not spread the poisons through something as crude as a trip around the world with test tubes in their carry-on, but utilize the entire corporations involved, and the entire agencies (probably DOD-centered ones) to deliver. They would have to do things which fool scores of their fellow scientists/agents, although they could probably bank on them not blowing the whistle on their suspicions when these inevitably arose, because most of these would see that the super-nefarious conspiracy had embedded itself inside their own evil-but-not-THAT-evil conspiracy, such that they would be blowing the whistle also on themselves also were they to expose the worse villains.
Still, I wonder if "Mistakes Were Not Made" is the right rhetoric to fight this, let alone good rhetoric for the way we must operate to some degree as a movement and a coalition; and, as far as I can tell, I must stress that we don't yet have enough info to KNOW that THIS is what it was/is. It matters, sure, that most of those subject to our suspicions are persons whom we DO KNOW were at the very least involved in some set of criminal-negligence and betrayal-of-public-duty set of crimes. And every single day they don't come forward they load more crime upon their heads, so none of them DESERVE my kind of "well we don't know for sure" scruples against blanket accusations, after all.
Still, I worry that our deployment of this kind of rhetoric loses us more potential persuadables than it gains, and exposes us to the machinations of bad internal leaders and tear-downers who lead us to suspect everything all the time. And I believe that democratic politics can only work to a certain degree with conspiracy accusations--it has to settle to a degree upon consensus judgments, and consensus suspensions-of-judgment, or it will find it can do nothing.
Thank you both, MAA and Dr. Yeadon, for treating my reservations with respect in your previous comments, and if you read this, for indulging my thinking out-loud.
I agree with almost everything you have written about “COVID” except for your doubts about the existence of infectious viral diseases. I used to do experiments using bacteriophages for mutagenesis in E. coli. It’s hard to believe that colds are not transmitted between humans. I suppose I remain open minded but I’d need to see a lot of high quality evidence to believe that infectious viruses do not cause human disease.
I wonder if they were the inspiration for the widespread fraud in humans?
If there were submicroscopic infectious elements that are responsible for acute respiratory illnesses, demonstrating transmission ought to be trivially simple.
But no one has managed to show it.
That’s very problematic for me.
Now, I do not say all viruses are fraud. They might be, but I’ve not done the work, and I refuse to make claims I cannot stand up, simply because others do.
I’ve followed HIV to it’s faked heart. It isn’t the cause of AIDS.
Each one I set out to understand ends like this. Not that I’ve really dug into many.
As a concept, they’re very attractive. But lots of examples simply fall apart on close examination.
Fundamentally it doesn’t affect my conclusion of this crime. There was no pandemic based on Rancourt’s all causes mortality data. That’s enough.
I know for sure that clinical diagnostic assays cannot be rolled out as they have been, lacking in assay positive & negative controls, which are NEVER given even if one writes in and requests them. They’re fake if they lack such controls and that’s true around the world for these massed PCR tests. They are also so sensitive that I seriously doubt they are viable on scale, with cross contamination a certainty, according to a very experienced friend, who ran PCR himself for 25 years and volunteered in a central lab in England in 2020. He said it was a train wreck. Useless fraudulent results.
Nov 29, 2023·edited Nov 29, 2023Liked by Margaret Anna Alice
" demonstrating transmission ought to be trivially simple.
But no one has managed to show it."
Dr Lee Merritt does a WONDERFUL broad and deep explanation of the research she did on the "horrendous" 1918 flu pandemic. She read doctor's diaries, autopsy reports (they DID them then on nearly every death!), contemporaneous media (bought access to a stored library), her own MD granddad's diaries, and other doctors' and 'regular' people's diaries and writings (ltrs, etc.) of the time! HOW it is presented and taught to us moderns is ... quite different!
She describes in detail the experiments they performed (on wartime conscientious objectors) where they stood close over the dying and breathed in as the dying breathed out, yet NO ONE GOT SICK! The docs pulled saliva and "lung goo" (as she semi-jokingly calls it) and swabbed it in the oral cavities of the 'subjects. Yet NO ONE GOT SICK! They even INJECTED the spun-down lung goo "like a vaccine." {shudder} AND NO ONE GOT SICK!
They even, because that flu affected horses (!) put feedbags over the noses and mouths of the hacking coughing miserable horses -- and then moved them onto healthy horses -- yet NO HORSE GOT SICK! (No "convincing via public relations" possible there, eh?)
She, like so many others, was raised up in med schools (and before and after) to BELEIVE!!!! 100% in viruses! She, like so many others, (and so many others on so many other topics!) discovered on actually looking herself into the actual studies and truths that the lies were SO blatant! (Ivermectin, anyone? Run-deatherisnear? "Vents for all"! (She ALSO shows the actual electron microscope slides of "viruses" -- which slides are merely fuzzy, black-and-white ... "round things" ... which when they appear INSIDE the cells are called exosomes, yet when they appear OUTSIDE the cells are viruses!
Do we have iron-clad proof viruses do NOT exist? We do not. Do we have iron-clad proof viruses DO exist? We. do. not.
I’m not familiar with this study or the implications, but it fails my criteria regarding conflicts of interest and dubious ties/participants. One of the authors, for example, is the notorious Neil M. Ferguson, and funding came from “the UK Vaccine Taskforce of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) of Her Majesty’s Government.”
This note in the Acknowledgments is especially damning:
“We are grateful to Gilead for providing remdesivir for the study.”
I notice the University of Liverpool is also listed, and that was the university that received a $40 million Gates Foundation bribe just before rewriting Andrew Hill’s conclusion to downplay the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID:
Understand the conflicts. Apparently remdesivir was not needed, all participants recovered as expected given their age. The study showed nearly half never became ill despite direct exposure further they never developed antibody responses as a result of mucous immunity - the virus never replicated. We can duplicate that using old fashioned mouth/nose sanitation that the NIH refuses to promote. Attack the virus before incubation. So much for Trump bleach. A bit of salt water can work but many use Betadine (Povidone-iodine) diluted as a gargle.
Finally a few became ill but had no symptoms. They were capable of spreading giving credence to asymptomatic spread.
What explains the non-transmission -- or at the very least -- lack of ensuing symptomatic illness in those exposed to or "infected with" "infectious viruses"?
I have been without a symptomatic cold or flu for 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠. The night before my mother died from complications of a severe case of flu, I slept in the same bed with her in case she needed anything during the night. I did not get sick nor did my father who'd been home with her in the days prior to her untimely death. I rode crowded subways for years and never got sick. I'd be the only one in my office/department to forego a "flu" shot -- and would be the only one at times who remained healthy.
Perhaps if we can explain people who remain healthy we'll have a better understanding of "infectious viruses" and whether or not they are the direct cause of human disease.
My guess is the differentiator would be your immune system—you likely have developed immunity to particular strains and have a more robust immune system than those who become ill.
P.S. So sorry about your mother 💔
P.P.S. I, too, have blessedly avoided colds and flus for over a decade. In my case, it’s likely because I work at home and am rarely around other people now.
Thank you, MAA. I appreciate that. My mother was 57...She was the center of my world; it will be 40 years this coming Feb -- and I think of her still all the time.
I think the idea of developing immunity to "strains" assumes the existence of "infectious viruses." The belief in this I have virtually discarded because it ends up actually explaining very little, IMO. Who knows? Maybe one outcome of this crime will be the revelation of so much that has been hidden and of that which has been used falsely to control...
Dec 2, 2023·edited Dec 2, 2023Liked by Margaret Anna Alice
100%, Dr. Yeadon. No "pandemic" and the "vaccines" were designed to do harm. I grew very concerned in Feb 2020 over what I saw unfolding; by Mar, I knew "they" were getting ready to launch their "operation," as I called it. I stood by that characterization then and stand by it now. No "pandemic." A long-planned operation, a global crime against humanity...
Super poem, Margaret Anna!
It’s chilling & defiant at the same time.
By the way, I learned yesterday that the reason my speech to the AfD party in the German Parliament was banned is because I had the temerity to state plainly that the injuries & deaths from the injections are intentional.
Wolfgang Wodarg & I wrote a warning letter in December 2020, before any EUAs, listing a number of obviously toxic features in the “vaccines”. We didn’t write “intentional harms” then, though we certainly thought so.
I’m very confident that the harms are deliberate and actively sought. No question about it.
I’ve recorded a very similar speech, to be presented to some parliamentarians in Croatia this weekend (I’m travelling).
If THEY censor, I’ll immediately release it.
I’m doing a shorter version for Andrew Bridgen’s upcoming panel. I alone will say there was no pandemic and the “vaccines” were intentionally harmful.
Those two items are THE KEY to public understanding of the planetary crime we’re living in.
You cannot oppose that which you do not understand.
The flak means you're over the target.
Resisters must make this point over and over.
Intent to Harm
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/intent-to-harm
People shy away from intentionality when it involves deliberate, malign acts on the part of governments and corporations. They have no problems with individuals being intentionally malign though. For some strange reason, when it comes to large organisations, they prefer to cite Hanlon’s razor: Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity. So, organisations can be stupid, but not intentionally malign! The problem is, Hanlon’s razor fails the credibility test when it comes to the injections. There is no doubt whatsoever that governments and Pharma corporations knew the injections were harmful, prior to rollout, but certainly that this was the case in the early months after rollout, yet they continued with the mass ‘vaccination’ programs. Intent to harm is thus established beyond all reasonable doubt. The only question remaining then is whether the ‘vaccines’ were DESIGNED to do harm. I cannot comment on that aspect, but the behaviour of governments in promoting a known harmful product and continuing to promote a known harmful product, might itself suggest that the intention to do harm was there even before the products were developed and brought to market.
100% spot-on, Jaime. I keep thinking if democide were treated like homicide, we would have forensic analysts evaluating evidence, medical examiners performing autopsies, and detectives working around the clock to determine the cause and identify perpetrators. Instead, we have agencies, governments, corporations, and limited hangouts aggressively working to thwart attempts at collecting evidence and vilifying those pursuing clues to their logical conclusions.
Mike Yeadon has repeatedly demonstrated that these products were *designed* to harm (see his pinned comment on this post as well as any of his interviews; he might discuss it in here: https://rumble.com/v15bk3c-doctors-and-scientists-episode-29-interview-with-mike-yeadon.html), as has Sasha Latypova. Both bring decades of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and rational drug design. Mike and Wolfgang Wodarg wrote a warning letter about the dangers of these products as early as December 2020.
Yes, we have more than enough evidence already for Nuremberg II style trials, targeting both individuals and organisations for complicity in democide, iatrogenocide, mass murder, corporate manslaughter on a scale hitherto unheard of at the very least, call it what you will. But the powers that be have closed ranks and are currently thwarting all attempts to hold them to account for the crimes against humanity which have been committed since at least 2020 on their watch, with their full knowledge and assent.
Spend 21 minutes listening to Dr David Martin speaking to the European Parliament. ANY question about intent to do harm will be immediately washed away! He's also got a fantastic interview with Brian Rose on LondonReal.
Patents, 'outing' the hidden hands, ACTUAL recorded statements BY the malefactors!
"Hans, we ARE the baddies!"
Three points: A.) Notice yet another act of liberal-democracy-betraying censorship. Another on top of so many. Those who orchestrated or went-along with the censorship of Yeadon's speech in Germany are traitors to constitutional democracy, and deserve to be exiled-for-life to some forsaken island. B.) Yeadon and those who agree with him here on the centrality and definite truth of his "two items" are obliged to remember that plenty of Covid/Vax Disaster dissidents, such as myself, do not yet agree, either with the overall truth of these two items, nor with their centrality to the dissident case. Yeadon and co. are obliged to keep the doors of friendly communication and dialogue with us open. Most obviously, this means they must refrain from acting like those whom MAA has defined as "tear-downers." I have zero worries with respect to Yeadon or MAA themselves on that score, but there are others who agree with Yeadon on the "two items" whose behavior on these kinds of internal-disagreement issues has been very poor. More importantly, I say Yeadon and co. are obliged to not put the full weight of their case on those two items. Yes, I get and accept the idea voiced in the last sentence, and yes, I get that any dissident researcher or writer will have distinctive arguments that constitute his "brand." Yeadon should thus continue to argue for why his ideas here are the key ones, yes. But it is reasonable, and in no way censorious nor a power-move, to demand that Yeadon and writers like him Regularly Acknowledge that there may be understandable and decent reasons for other dissidents to not agree with them on these two items. There is no slam-dunk case for either of them. Nor is the crux of the "intention of harm" issue all that simple, since Yeadon's framing (and MAA's) ignores the possibility that the intention to harm was confined to VERY small circles of scientists/conspirators, some of them perhaps engaged in deceiving one another, which would mean that mass group-think criminal negligence was the bigger cause and culprit by far. (Or see JJessop's close distinction in the comments here about whether the meds were Designed to harm--she's showing that an experts' intention to go-along-with-harm once they realized how screwed up Warp Speed was should be morally distinguished from an experts' intention to make the meds harmful.) Criminal negligence is something that goes way beyond what loaded framing-device phrases like "mistakes were made" or "dolts botching shit" would imply--those of us who stay agnostic on the idea of a Big Conspiracy's intention to deliver the CV-19 vax-harms do not think that the criminality which we are certain that existing/accepted evidence points to was in any sense minor. It is wrong for our kind of case to be tagged as being indistinguishable from some "mistakes were made" mumble. C.) Some readers will want to focus on the area of disagreement here revealed by my point b. here, but I would encourage them to focus instead on what we agree upon, and the fact that A.) alone establishes the grounds for ditching the entire current system. We are all united in Yeadon having the right to write and say what he wishes on this, in his formal and defacto Suppression by our Rulers being Evil and Traitorous, and in our believing that the Disaster he is speaking of is the story of the century. Let us act together on that kind of basis.
I appreciate your balanced perspective, Carl. As you rightly noted and I discussed in this piece (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-robert-malone), Mike and I gladly welcome dialogue on this topic, but the mainstream straddlers (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler) are serving as gatekeepers and trying to shut down that discussion.
As to your point about “the intention to harm was confined to VERY small circles of scientists/conspirators” with the rest following via groupthink/criminal negligence/denial, that’s actually pretty much what I’ve been arguing all along as that is how genocide has occurred throughout history. As the epigraph to “Letter to a Colluder” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-colluder-stop-enabling) reads:
“A few hundred at the top, to plan and direct at every level; a few thousand to supervise and control (without a voice in policy) at every level; a few score thousand specialists (teachers, lawyers, journalists, scientists, artists, actors, athletes, and social workers) eager to serve or at least unwilling to pass up a job or to revolt; a million of the Pöbel, which sounds like ‘people’ and means ‘riffraff,’ to do what we would call the dirty work, ranging from murder, torture, robbery, and arson to the effort which probably employed more Germans in inhumanity than any other in Nazi history, the standing of ‘sentry’ in front of Jewish shops and offices in the boycott of April, 1933.”
—Milton Mayer, “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45”
Absolutely recognise & respect the right of every person to make up their own minds.
On your point that only very few people knew had full understanding, I have always believed that to be likely.
Very few people need to know that the injections were intentionally harmful (my belief, which I am particularly well placed to argue, though I never claim I’m correct and nothing else need be said) in order that this scheme would work.
I’ve always said that I believe the next few layers told anything were told “the suspension of democracy is temporary but necessary to save the world from climate change”.
Your comment, and even more so MAA's, are making me think I need to rethink my concept of what a "Big Conspiracy" would be. Still, a number of things would be significantly different between a.) a tiny conspiracy to depopulate that itself duped a larger set of conspiracies, ones which existed to make money, expand their orgs' power, and maybe do the election fraud of 2020, and with those groups then in their own ways duping the levels below them, and b.) a conspiracy like that of the Nazi or Communist leadership. The second led movements whose members had agreed, in the hundreds of thousands, in the millions, that the time had come to try unprecedented experiments upon humanity, and to free themselves from most all the old-time morals. Hitler's circle concealed the organization and operation of the Holocaust to a great degree, but it essentially followed from their open rhetoric in a way that the depopulation element of the Covid/Vax Disaster doesn't directly follow from precursor statements by the orgs involved.
Yes, I am aware of what WEF types have said about the need to reduce population. It still is something pretty different--we should not be accusing any environmentalist who worried that the global population increase was a deep danger with implicitly granting a license to depopulators-thru-poisoning/deception, or of being morally equivalent to the typical mid-level communist or national socialist of the 20s or 30s, all of whom had implicitly licensed actions like Holodomor and the Holocaust.
And to be clear, I mean very tiny conspiracies when it comes to making the meds poisonous and fertility-harming. Things like what we see the rogue doctor doing in (the original) Twelve Monkeys, fooling his colleagues and leveraging his lab and knowledge, but with the diff being that the conspirators do not spread the poisons through something as crude as a trip around the world with test tubes in their carry-on, but utilize the entire corporations involved, and the entire agencies (probably DOD-centered ones) to deliver. They would have to do things which fool scores of their fellow scientists/agents, although they could probably bank on them not blowing the whistle on their suspicions when these inevitably arose, because most of these would see that the super-nefarious conspiracy had embedded itself inside their own evil-but-not-THAT-evil conspiracy, such that they would be blowing the whistle also on themselves also were they to expose the worse villains.
Still, I wonder if "Mistakes Were Not Made" is the right rhetoric to fight this, let alone good rhetoric for the way we must operate to some degree as a movement and a coalition; and, as far as I can tell, I must stress that we don't yet have enough info to KNOW that THIS is what it was/is. It matters, sure, that most of those subject to our suspicions are persons whom we DO KNOW were at the very least involved in some set of criminal-negligence and betrayal-of-public-duty set of crimes. And every single day they don't come forward they load more crime upon their heads, so none of them DESERVE my kind of "well we don't know for sure" scruples against blanket accusations, after all.
Still, I worry that our deployment of this kind of rhetoric loses us more potential persuadables than it gains, and exposes us to the machinations of bad internal leaders and tear-downers who lead us to suspect everything all the time. And I believe that democratic politics can only work to a certain degree with conspiracy accusations--it has to settle to a degree upon consensus judgments, and consensus suspensions-of-judgment, or it will find it can do nothing.
Thank you both, MAA and Dr. Yeadon, for treating my reservations with respect in your previous comments, and if you read this, for indulging my thinking out-loud.
I agree with almost everything you have written about “COVID” except for your doubts about the existence of infectious viral diseases. I used to do experiments using bacteriophages for mutagenesis in E. coli. It’s hard to believe that colds are not transmitted between humans. I suppose I remain open minded but I’d need to see a lot of high quality evidence to believe that infectious viruses do not cause human disease.
I know that bacteriophages exist.
I wonder if they were the inspiration for the widespread fraud in humans?
If there were submicroscopic infectious elements that are responsible for acute respiratory illnesses, demonstrating transmission ought to be trivially simple.
But no one has managed to show it.
That’s very problematic for me.
Now, I do not say all viruses are fraud. They might be, but I’ve not done the work, and I refuse to make claims I cannot stand up, simply because others do.
I’ve followed HIV to it’s faked heart. It isn’t the cause of AIDS.
Each one I set out to understand ends like this. Not that I’ve really dug into many.
As a concept, they’re very attractive. But lots of examples simply fall apart on close examination.
Fundamentally it doesn’t affect my conclusion of this crime. There was no pandemic based on Rancourt’s all causes mortality data. That’s enough.
I know for sure that clinical diagnostic assays cannot be rolled out as they have been, lacking in assay positive & negative controls, which are NEVER given even if one writes in and requests them. They’re fake if they lack such controls and that’s true around the world for these massed PCR tests. They are also so sensitive that I seriously doubt they are viable on scale, with cross contamination a certainty, according to a very experienced friend, who ran PCR himself for 25 years and volunteered in a central lab in England in 2020. He said it was a train wreck. Useless fraudulent results.
" demonstrating transmission ought to be trivially simple.
But no one has managed to show it."
Dr Lee Merritt does a WONDERFUL broad and deep explanation of the research she did on the "horrendous" 1918 flu pandemic. She read doctor's diaries, autopsy reports (they DID them then on nearly every death!), contemporaneous media (bought access to a stored library), her own MD granddad's diaries, and other doctors' and 'regular' people's diaries and writings (ltrs, etc.) of the time! HOW it is presented and taught to us moderns is ... quite different!
She describes in detail the experiments they performed (on wartime conscientious objectors) where they stood close over the dying and breathed in as the dying breathed out, yet NO ONE GOT SICK! The docs pulled saliva and "lung goo" (as she semi-jokingly calls it) and swabbed it in the oral cavities of the 'subjects. Yet NO ONE GOT SICK! They even INJECTED the spun-down lung goo "like a vaccine." {shudder} AND NO ONE GOT SICK!
They even, because that flu affected horses (!) put feedbags over the noses and mouths of the hacking coughing miserable horses -- and then moved them onto healthy horses -- yet NO HORSE GOT SICK! (No "convincing via public relations" possible there, eh?)
She, like so many others, was raised up in med schools (and before and after) to BELEIVE!!!! 100% in viruses! She, like so many others, (and so many others on so many other topics!) discovered on actually looking herself into the actual studies and truths that the lies were SO blatant! (Ivermectin, anyone? Run-deatherisnear? "Vents for all"! (She ALSO shows the actual electron microscope slides of "viruses" -- which slides are merely fuzzy, black-and-white ... "round things" ... which when they appear INSIDE the cells are called exosomes, yet when they appear OUTSIDE the cells are viruses!
Do we have iron-clad proof viruses do NOT exist? We do not. Do we have iron-clad proof viruses DO exist? We. do. not.
And the UK challenge study (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9) means what?
Takes nothing away from MAA assertion of vaccine harm.
I’m not familiar with this study or the implications, but it fails my criteria regarding conflicts of interest and dubious ties/participants. One of the authors, for example, is the notorious Neil M. Ferguson, and funding came from “the UK Vaccine Taskforce of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) of Her Majesty’s Government.”
This note in the Acknowledgments is especially damning:
“We are grateful to Gilead for providing remdesivir for the study.”
I notice the University of Liverpool is also listed, and that was the university that received a $40 million Gates Foundation bribe just before rewriting Andrew Hill’s conclusion to downplay the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID:
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/profiles-in-courage-dr-tess-lawrie
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-alex-berenson-on-world
• https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/my-letter-to-dr-andrew-hill-video
• https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20221126133154/https://www.informedchoiceaustralia.com/post/researcher-andrew-hill-s-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-half-million-human-lives
Understand the conflicts. Apparently remdesivir was not needed, all participants recovered as expected given their age. The study showed nearly half never became ill despite direct exposure further they never developed antibody responses as a result of mucous immunity - the virus never replicated. We can duplicate that using old fashioned mouth/nose sanitation that the NIH refuses to promote. Attack the virus before incubation. So much for Trump bleach. A bit of salt water can work but many use Betadine (Povidone-iodine) diluted as a gargle.
Finally a few became ill but had no symptoms. They were capable of spreading giving credence to asymptomatic spread.
What explains the non-transmission -- or at the very least -- lack of ensuing symptomatic illness in those exposed to or "infected with" "infectious viruses"?
I have been without a symptomatic cold or flu for 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠. The night before my mother died from complications of a severe case of flu, I slept in the same bed with her in case she needed anything during the night. I did not get sick nor did my father who'd been home with her in the days prior to her untimely death. I rode crowded subways for years and never got sick. I'd be the only one in my office/department to forego a "flu" shot -- and would be the only one at times who remained healthy.
Perhaps if we can explain people who remain healthy we'll have a better understanding of "infectious viruses" and whether or not they are the direct cause of human disease.
My guess is the differentiator would be your immune system—you likely have developed immunity to particular strains and have a more robust immune system than those who become ill.
P.S. So sorry about your mother 💔
P.P.S. I, too, have blessedly avoided colds and flus for over a decade. In my case, it’s likely because I work at home and am rarely around other people now.
Thank you, MAA. I appreciate that. My mother was 57...She was the center of my world; it will be 40 years this coming Feb -- and I think of her still all the time.
I think the idea of developing immunity to "strains" assumes the existence of "infectious viruses." The belief in this I have virtually discarded because it ends up actually explaining very little, IMO. Who knows? Maybe one outcome of this crime will be the revelation of so much that has been hidden and of that which has been used falsely to control...
57 is heartbreakingly young 😭 She clearly was a very special mother—you were blessed to have each other, and she lives on in you 💞
100%, Dr. Yeadon. No "pandemic" and the "vaccines" were designed to do harm. I grew very concerned in Feb 2020 over what I saw unfolding; by Mar, I knew "they" were getting ready to launch their "operation," as I called it. I stood by that characterization then and stand by it now. No "pandemic." A long-planned operation, a global crime against humanity...