And there it is... "In short: Hundreds of millions of US Military (Public Health) dollars buys you a lot of violence against dissenting voices. Those are the stories I still want to tell." And those are the stories most worth hearing. Thank you Celia.
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022Liked by Celia Farber
And why on earth, (well we know why), there is a "public health" dept and agency is beyond reason. There is no "public" health, there is only individual health. People are responsible for themselves. Next up would be things such as a contaminated public water supply which needs addressing by the appropriate local departments and the like, but public health agencies are nothing but control agencies with agendas, realized or unrealized.
There's such a thing as public health. If you have raw sewage running down the middle of your street and no chlorination of your water supply and then go to a restaurant where rodents are scurrying around, you're apt to get pretty sick. Public health used to be about sanitation.
You're right...and it used to be 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 sanitation -- not "public health" -- and its purview was limited to...𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. Management of basics such as the proper care and disposal of human and animal waste, protection against animals, access to clean water, etc., is a 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒂𝒍 feature of the human experience.
Keeping rodents out from under diners' feet while eating out is a far cry from interposing into their individual choices such as what to choose from the menu. Keeping raw sewage from running down the street is a long way from declaring which medicines individuals must take, how many and what type of sexual partners they may have (talk about having an impact on "public health" -- that's a big one), how much alcohol they may drink, how much exercise they must participate in, etc., etc. -- all in the name of "public health".
You call everything "public health" and you erase the individual -- the one made in the image and likeness of God -- and 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 is the goal of these freaks -- these freaks of our enemy, the State. I'll say it 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏: 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 "𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉". 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆'𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉.
P.S. Do you know, Tom, that one of the CDC's arguments in the mask mandate in airplanes case was its role in 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. The Biden Administration and the CDC argued it could tell people to undergo this medical intervention (because that's what wearing a snot pouch is -- a medical intervention) due to the CDC's (alleged) responsibility for 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 and the role that snot pouches play in 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. Here's an NPR article (opposed to individual choice in this context) 'splainin' how Judge Mizelle doesn't understand what "sanitation" means: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/19/1093641691/mask-mandate-judge-public-health-sanitation
I’ve come to the conclusion that this partnership has 2 goals: 1) medical colonialism (eg HIV in Africa) and 2) the use of infectious disease as a cover story for bioweapon or poisons testing
Yes, do please share them! Also would appreciate your "take" on Larry Kramer who was correct in identifying lifestyle issues that adversely affected the health of gay men (trashed their own immune systems) but also seemed to support ACT UP in lobbying the supposedly apathetic "Big Pharma" world and Fauxchee himself for not fast tracking drugs like AZT and other super toxic repurposed cancer chemo meds--i.e. the drugs that killed so many and saved zero which to this day the gay community seems not to understand, nor do they understand even now that Fauxchee is not their hero (au contraire!). I used to volunteer with our therapy dog in the AIDS ward at St. Vincent's (ground zero for caring for these otherwise ostracized patients) so I have skin in the game so to speak. So many parallels to today's manufactured crisis... with thanks
Yes. The "Surgeon General" wears a military uniform for a reason. From the days when the CDC was created in part by the Coca-Cola company, as a donation funded public service, to what it has become now, the military talons and teeth have emerged. Robert W. Woodruff, head of Coca-Cola was a big donor in getting CDC located in Atlanta. The CDC is now considered part of the "Civil Defense" at least color of law and codes.
As of December 21st, 2001 and addendum to the Patriot "ACT" allows for complete martial law powers determined by the government authorities.
I really ignored the entire AIDS/HIV question until I read Kennedy's fauci book. Still no solid answers after 40 years leads me to believe it's as fake as covid and viruses. The PCR tests have become the foundation for creating mass fear and hysteria and all without a shred of proof they are useful for detecting disease or specific viruses.
Kary Mullis may had to die because he refused to budge to Fauci by agreeing that "HIV virus is the causative agent of AIDS. Me thinks that Fauci is a serial murderer among the scientific community not agreeing with him. But of course, I have no proof.
The mass grave is a very dark mystery. SOME of the children buried there died under horrific conditions following experiments approved by Fauci's NIAID. (See: The late Liam Scheff's reportage, on ICC, links in previous posts.) But there are almost 1100 children buried there, and I can only say that some of them were ICC victims. Who are the others? This is a very big question.
There are millions of dad and also sterilised by Fauci. But I think he is also reponsible for the "diappearance" of sientist with opposing views. Collins calling for a "complete takedown" signifies the same thing. Hope I am wrong
At least ONE controversy has been settled. The record-breaking cold weather south of the equator and the growing glaciers in Greenland have convinced scientists that the long-awaited ice age is on its way back.
I'm afraid I can't recall where I read that. The headline said something about the snow mass in Greenland increasing. The article went on to cite record-breaking cold temperatures in Chile and some other country.
Probably you could learn more using the Brave search engine. It might have been posted on The Geller Report.
Thanks & I agree with the message; but I can't bear to sit and watch lengthy videos on the Internet.
I can't help but be reminded of the seventies, when I was a "survivalist" and made a few bucks selling dehydrated food via a multi-level marketing scheme called Pro Vita. My friends and I formed a company called Sunshine Farms & were preparing for the forecasted ice age. I guess we were fifty years ahead of times.
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022Liked by Celia Farber
"I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved. "
There it is again, the alluding to "sides". Yes, it is difficult to find a term that accurately describes the purveyors of information. That said, there aren't "sides" there is only truth or lies. And to say that this, as well as other controversy, is designed by both to never be resolved is, in my opinion, a reflection of, perhaps, your own inner frustrations? When the truth is laid bare but the masses do not want to see and accept it, I cannot agree that is by design of those exposing the truth. Sure, there are groups and organizations and people that for their own reasons like to keep something being debated, but I do not believe that is the design of those that have learned the truth and keep trying to spread that truth to the world. Just my take on it.
Two opposite forces travelling to the same singular point will converge at its center, and nullify the energy propelling them. Momentum becomes inert, the forces static.
Which is the truth from these sides it's almost 40 years now with millions of people living with this virus millions more died whether such was due to toxic drugs or something else but their death was perpetuated via the virus
Thank you, Celia, for including some history in the discussion. The history provides important context for what has been happening in the past few years. Here a few references that may be of interest:
This 1998 article by Kary Mullis sums up perfectly the underlying fraud of AIDS, and at the same time tells us a lot about the recent "pandemic", since the same script has been followed: http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmdancing.htm
The book Virus Mania, by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Koehnlein, provides important historical information going back to the 1800s, plus an excellent chapter on AIDS, plus a chapter by RFK, Jr..
For most of 2020, the only edition available was the first edition of 2007. For me, this provides plenty of important history without getting into the "controversial" info on COVID.:
I'm a exogenous (pathogenic) virus skeptic. (I don't doubt that endogneous viral-like particles produced by our cells exist.) It should be self-evident by now there's no definite proof that exogenous viruses exist and the shoddy methods use to create the virus genomes by cobbling together genetic fragments found in cell cultures are very suspect. However, I'm fine if people want to assume pathogenic viruses exist as long as they also concede that vaccines are utterly worthless (and can only cause harm) and that virus genomes are fake. The vaccine PSYOP was created by the globalists for depopulation and the 1918 Spanish Flu (due to WW1 vaccines and "treatment" with aspirin) and the HIV=AIDS hoax (due to nitrate poppers, malnutrition and "treatment" with AZT) were previous depopulation exercises.
The only problem with people still believing in the pathogenic virus idea is that it leaves all of them, and then probably also the children they are raising, very vulnerable to continued fear, in the pharma drug/ill health/drug/ill health rinse and repeat cycle, and allows the extreme tyranny to continue because the masses succumb so readily to all measures supposedly taken to "protect" them. They become easy fodder for the sharks, as we've seen. Until people wake up and do not comply in droves, not only will society as a whole suffer, but on the smaller local scale what's left of mom and pop businesses and services will disappear forever.
You are serious? Have you actually compared the "isolation"? And then seen the replication of the diseases in healthy animal experiments? None of those you mentioned are "real" pathogenic viruses and there is actually zero scientific evidence of them. None. I'm not sure where you seem to get your data or how you can interpret it in that convoluted fashion but hopefully you will go back to the drawing board and study more closely.
Once again I find myself dredging my memory to recount some facts from the past (amidst my dusty mental notes and spider webs). These artifacts could easily be verified by the original source far better than I can, but I will try my best. .
In this case, that source is my good friend Dr. Rodney Richards, (Ph.D.) and his video conferences concerning "Western blot tests." back in the mid 90s.
If you know Rodney, you will recall that he began questioning the "HIV" hype very early on, shortly after he and an associate developed the first commercial antibody test kits for Abbot Labs. During a discussion and review seminar he met Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was already presenting challenges to the entire AID$ Inc. paradigm. (Believe it or not, companies actually encouraged debate and dissent back then, and Duesberg was an invited guest).
Beyond the questions of validity about "antibody testing for HIV," there were also concerns that needed more review and critique concerning tests for CD4 T-cells, P24 antigen, Western blot and eventually quantitative PCR "viral load" counts.
Now in Dr. Rodney Richard's video conferences, he presents the results of 'Western blot" tests from about six (6) different labs. One would think there would be a consistent result, or at least a correlation from all of these tests examining the same samples. There was NOT!
In fact, in some cases the SAME donor sample sent twice to the SAME lab were vastly different in results. Obviously, the inconsistency of these tests proved they were unreliable.
This was the state of "HIV testing" back then. It has only become worse now with SARS CoV-2, which has no gold standard virus to test (unlike Gallo's sample) and only exists in theory within Drosten's Erector-Set and Tinker Toy computer model.
And this is the basis of the Viral Challenge by Cowan, et al. Because virology will not actually do any real scientific work, the challenge is just to basically do a simple experiment to see if a number of labs will get the same results from the same sample. Yet, you think they were asking to verify samples of moon dust. Why are they afraid to simply repeat what they supposedly routinely do? It's of no financial cost to any of them and would verify that in fact, their process is valid. It's funny how no one really wants the truth. Amazing how that works. Even just regular ole people. Prefer to stay in their world of delusions.
It gets a lot worse with replication. John P.A. Ioannidis Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research) published an absolute gut punch to the entirety of biomedical research when he published "Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False", PLoS Medicine (2005). For the entirety of the modern scientific effort, we need to go back and question all our findings and assumptions. What we think of as steady ground is not so...
Further to this, here is the response from Dr. Sam Bailey, Dr. Mark Bailey, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan regarding Del Bigtree's comments in the interview linked above:
Also, interesting and reasonable (and closer to my own positions). I do think there's a bit of talking past each other going on, and Del Bigtree's comments were more off-the-cuff, without the benefit of preparation.
The "germ theory" vs "terrain theory" debate is large and old (over 100 years). My suggestion to anyone watching the videos at these links is to focus on the information presented, either the ideas, or the evidence given. Science is supposed to focus on what is provable. Understand, however, that there are other factors that affect, or even determine, the outcome of these debates.
What other factors do you speak of that affect or determine the outcome of a "scientific" debate? Which, as you stated, is supposed to focus on what's provable. That's really not affected by anything else, particularly debate. Fill me in, please.
And, FWIW, I don't think that asking that question about Del is being a snob, it's a legitimate question. Everyone certainly does not have the same expectations of others and for a whole host of reasons likely specific to that individual.
Why? Because he has a huge following that trusts everything he says and when he shouts out the dangers of vaccines but then continues to say there are pathogenic contagious viruses people will look no further and accept what he says as the gospel truth. There will be some that continue to study on their own but that is not the point. The point for most people is to see to it that everyone has access to the facts as they are known in order to make good decisions for themselves and their families, to stop the tyranny in all areas, and to be able to live freely. That's not possible as long as the going-to-kill-you-and-grandma- virus beliefs retain their death grip on people. You've seen how many still worship at the altar of Del. The excuses made that Del and RFK, Jr, et al, do good in some areas so they don't need to tell the whole truth is beyond absurd and dangerous. In addition, because they both HAVE to know the full facts about total lack of any evidence of the existence of said viruses and their ability to cause disease, they are liars. How does the average person determine what they say is truth and what is not? And it calls into question the integrity and character of them both, let alone motives. The Washington Post is only a newspaper. The New York Times is only a newspaper. Del is only a talk show host. Who cares what they say? Millions do.
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022Liked by Celia Farber
Good decision. Poornima Wagh is a false crisis.
Based on the responses to Kirsch in many of his Bolshevik attacks on people who question the existence/isolation of SARS-COV-2, he's not making much progress. Maybe if HQ doesn't think Stevie is making a big enough dent, we'll get treated to him coming out on Tucker and calling out "virus deniers". Diana West rightly called out Robert Malone as well as someone to keep three eyes on.
The fact that Kirsch has dedicated so much energy to attack the people who question the existence of SARS-COV-2 (and the "science" of virology) is proof you are over the target, Celia.
Forgive me if I'm a little slow to trust someone (Kirsch) who got duped by all the vaccine, mask, and lockdown fear porn—in the face of the flu disappearing, an over 99% survival rate (based on useless PCR tests and falsified cause of death reports), and multiple proven safe, effective cures for the flu relabeled COVID-19—and then pops up out of nowhere mid-2021 awakened, serving as the grand Poobah of COVID-19 truth.
You're right over the target. Keep up the good work. Thank you for waking us up.
Oliver, nobody has said it but I will: Steve Kirsch could be de-legitimized simply and swiftly (if one wanted to) by simply stating the fact that he is a lifelong donor to the Democratic Party and even a donor to ...Media Matters! Put me on the hog train, my father would say.
How can anybody be that blind? I don't understand. But I don't enjoy attacking seeming allies either. And I don't think controlled opposition is a strong theory. I do think some people in this thing have been diamonds and I keep saying their names but people hate when I do because I'm supposed to join the new trends in bullying and call them garbage.
"But I don't enjoy attacking seeming allies either. And I don't think controlled opposition is a strong theory."
Agree on the former so long as "attack" doesn't mean analyzing and critiquing their arguments when necessary. As regards controlled opposition, I still continue to leans towards Kirsch being just that because of his conformity to the archetype, of which Noam Chomsky in his 9/11 WTC 7 shenanigans at UF is a shining example. The game is to acknowledge certain parts of the narrative while walling off other avenues of questioning or criticism. Its intellectually disingenuous to apply scientific, step-by-step analysis to vaccine injury, CDC data, etc. then magically shift to invective, pejorative, and name-calling when it comes to the question of virus isolation, etc. Its the lack of consistency in approach which raises the question.
I acknowledge there are other possibilities besides controlled opposition, but when there is a common theme in the walls erected around the narrative (i.e. what cannot be entertained) by the likes of Malone, McCullough, Berenson, Kirsch, et al it raises questions as to why that is the case, which questions extend beyond the consideration of simple, human ignorance.
I agree that there are a large number of partial truth tellers that are clearly being controlled. The question could be then, to what degree and how? It's not really that important as long as people realize that these folks are indeed telling the truth about only a few topics and the rest they are lying about. That is quite difficult for a good many people to do. I think that being controlled can come in a variety of forms, directly and indirectly. Perhaps one is paid large sums of money, perhaps they or their family has been threatened with physical harm, perhaps it's simply the threat, or self induced fear, of losing their job and/or income stream, perhaps it's the fear of being embarrassed. Personally, none of those are acceptable, but a few are understandable. I can't say what category(ies) any one person belongs to, but it should be clear to most that there are many, many, that fit into the broad category of controlled opposition.
Agree. Getting to the foundational motive or basis of control is next to impossible.
The fundamental thing that most people don't recognize is that the "news" process is controlled. They determine what is newsworthy, which means they hold the power to shape people's thinking and determine what is appropriate and inappropriate for people to think.
Furthermore, they determine who gets to speak and become a "trusted" voice. Celia has mentioned before how Peter Duesberg was scheduled for an interview in NYC that was canceled at the last minute in favor of Fauci (https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-passion-of-peter-duesberg).
So, Duesberg cannot speak but Fauci is anointed as the trusted voice for the people. Kirsch, Malone, and Berenson get to come on Fox, but not Celia, Jon Rappoport, Diana West, and a whole host of others. If that's not controlled, I don't know what is.
Because of the massive loss of MSM audience, they now have to work to control the independent and underground media.
Absolutely! Getting the masses to realize that is quite difficult.
Sheriff Mack had an interview on CNN recently and boy did they butcher that even after he was assured they would do no such thing. We really do need to just build our own communities, our own world, our own resources, and make the current one totally obsolete and therefore with zero power over us.
"I’ve already told you he told me I was not smart enough to grasp the nuances of this debate and I also told you I was relieved because I find this matter oppressive. I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved."
This section clashes most brightly with:
"If you're defending a lie, you can only defend it with obfuscations and other lies. You can't defend a lie with the truth."
"I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved."
If true, such a strategy is not scientifically tenable, by definition; science is falsifiable, or it is not science. If obfuscation is their aim, they are not being scientific, by definition. The truth of what those arrows are pointing at in electromicroscopy images of 'viruses' is waiting to be discovered. So, while we (humanity) are unable to properly explain what is going on regarding infection and pathogenicity, nobody should be ideologically fervent – I'm looking at you, Steve Kirsch – about whether it is this or that theory that explains the truth. While any one of us is 'too dumb' to understand whether or not the wee entities those arrows denote as 'viruses' are pathogenic, it is because the facts of this matter are that humanity has yet to understand this aspect of biology.
Let's not be bamboozled by casuistry and obfuscation, or impressed by those who are happy to employ such tactics. The mere fact that there is gold, much much gold, in them thar Virology Hills, should be enough to persuade all of us to remain calmly skeptical about what passes for orthodoxy in this 'discipline'.
Sep 5, 2022·edited Sep 5, 2022Liked by Celia Farber
Hiya,
here's my synopsis of the work of the Perth Group and others.
The essence of the debate for me is;
no one can form viruses into a centrifugation band using patient samples- viruses can't be seen
virus like particles on EM could be anything and are seen in 'uninfected' cultures-we don't know what we can see is
activity of viruses such as cell death cannot be proof of viruses as no one ever does controls-cell death could be caused by the cell culture process
proteins thought to be HIV are also found in healthy people- we can't test for it
The test is so non-specific doctors make a definitive diagnosis on patient history of blood transfusion, being a black African or a gay male- the scientific process is unnecessary and can be completely ignored at will
AIDS doesn't transmit between people.- it can't be an infectious virus
The kicker for me is that AIDS is only correlated in terms of sexual activity with the frequency of receptive anal intercourse in either men or women, not with homosexual sex. AIDS is a disease of oxidation and semem is highly oxidising and the anus is very thin
Well stated. Actually Dr Lanka did use a control and showed the same cell death. As well, a nephrology dept stated quite some time ago that they saw the same "viruses" and cell death in their "non covid" patients' kidney cells. But of course all of that is ignored and hushed. Can't have people knowing the truth now, can we?
And there it is... "In short: Hundreds of millions of US Military (Public Health) dollars buys you a lot of violence against dissenting voices. Those are the stories I still want to tell." And those are the stories most worth hearing. Thank you Celia.
Yes. I never realized that Public Health, at least on the national level, is so intertwined with the military.
And why on earth, (well we know why), there is a "public health" dept and agency is beyond reason. There is no "public" health, there is only individual health. People are responsible for themselves. Next up would be things such as a contaminated public water supply which needs addressing by the appropriate local departments and the like, but public health agencies are nothing but control agencies with agendas, realized or unrealized.
Yes! I say that all the time -- 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 "𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉". 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆'𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉.
I agree.
There's such a thing as public health. If you have raw sewage running down the middle of your street and no chlorination of your water supply and then go to a restaurant where rodents are scurrying around, you're apt to get pretty sick. Public health used to be about sanitation.
That is not "public health" and you know it.
You're right...and it used to be 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 sanitation -- not "public health" -- and its purview was limited to...𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. Management of basics such as the proper care and disposal of human and animal waste, protection against animals, access to clean water, etc., is a 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒂𝒍 feature of the human experience.
Keeping rodents out from under diners' feet while eating out is a far cry from interposing into their individual choices such as what to choose from the menu. Keeping raw sewage from running down the street is a long way from declaring which medicines individuals must take, how many and what type of sexual partners they may have (talk about having an impact on "public health" -- that's a big one), how much alcohol they may drink, how much exercise they must participate in, etc., etc. -- all in the name of "public health".
You call everything "public health" and you erase the individual -- the one made in the image and likeness of God -- and 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 is the goal of these freaks -- these freaks of our enemy, the State. I'll say it 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏: 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 "𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉". 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆'𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉.
P.S. Do you know, Tom, that one of the CDC's arguments in the mask mandate in airplanes case was its role in 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. The Biden Administration and the CDC argued it could tell people to undergo this medical intervention (because that's what wearing a snot pouch is -- a medical intervention) due to the CDC's (alleged) responsibility for 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 and the role that snot pouches play in 𝒔𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. Here's an NPR article (opposed to individual choice in this context) 'splainin' how Judge Mizelle doesn't understand what "sanitation" means: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/19/1093641691/mask-mandate-judge-public-health-sanitation
Yeah, I’ve been really woken and shaken to see all of this ‘agency’ and ‘dept’ labeling as beyond need and beyond reason.
💯
I’ve come to the conclusion that this partnership has 2 goals: 1) medical colonialism (eg HIV in Africa) and 2) the use of infectious disease as a cover story for bioweapon or poisons testing
The "Surgeon General"?
Share the stories Celia. Fauci and company were majorly involved in HIV and SARS. What’s the end game of these so called “viruses”.
Both ordeals are deep and black
Yes, do please share them! Also would appreciate your "take" on Larry Kramer who was correct in identifying lifestyle issues that adversely affected the health of gay men (trashed their own immune systems) but also seemed to support ACT UP in lobbying the supposedly apathetic "Big Pharma" world and Fauxchee himself for not fast tracking drugs like AZT and other super toxic repurposed cancer chemo meds--i.e. the drugs that killed so many and saved zero which to this day the gay community seems not to understand, nor do they understand even now that Fauxchee is not their hero (au contraire!). I used to volunteer with our therapy dog in the AIDS ward at St. Vincent's (ground zero for caring for these otherwise ostracized patients) so I have skin in the game so to speak. So many parallels to today's manufactured crisis... with thanks
👍
yep, a group (Public Health) that are basically just another set of razor wire strands in the ever densifying control grid.
Yes. The "Surgeon General" wears a military uniform for a reason. From the days when the CDC was created in part by the Coca-Cola company, as a donation funded public service, to what it has become now, the military talons and teeth have emerged. Robert W. Woodruff, head of Coca-Cola was a big donor in getting CDC located in Atlanta. The CDC is now considered part of the "Civil Defense" at least color of law and codes.
As of December 21st, 2001 and addendum to the Patriot "ACT" allows for complete martial law powers determined by the government authorities.
I really ignored the entire AIDS/HIV question until I read Kennedy's fauci book. Still no solid answers after 40 years leads me to believe it's as fake as covid and viruses. The PCR tests have become the foundation for creating mass fear and hysteria and all without a shred of proof they are useful for detecting disease or specific viruses.
Kary Mullis may had to die because he refused to budge to Fauci by agreeing that "HIV virus is the causative agent of AIDS. Me thinks that Fauci is a serial murderer among the scientific community not agreeing with him. But of course, I have no proof.
The mass grave is a very dark mystery. SOME of the children buried there died under horrific conditions following experiments approved by Fauci's NIAID. (See: The late Liam Scheff's reportage, on ICC, links in previous posts.) But there are almost 1100 children buried there, and I can only say that some of them were ICC victims. Who are the others? This is a very big question.
Yes. But he's only one of the visible heads of the network. Nothing will change when he goes.
There are millions of dad and also sterilised by Fauci. But I think he is also reponsible for the "diappearance" of sientist with opposing views. Collins calling for a "complete takedown" signifies the same thing. Hope I am wrong
Edelamsee, I do not think you are wrong.
What of those in hospitals sick from HIV and millions of people who have died
At least ONE controversy has been settled. The record-breaking cold weather south of the equator and the growing glaciers in Greenland have convinced scientists that the long-awaited ice age is on its way back.
Any more info on this? Which scientists has it convinced, any that have been part of the global warming mass insanity? I'm looking for some good news.
Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record - CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather...
I'm afraid I can't recall where I read that. The headline said something about the snow mass in Greenland increasing. The article went on to cite record-breaking cold temperatures in Chile and some other country.
Probably you could learn more using the Brave search engine. It might have been posted on The Geller Report.
Ok thx. Tony Heller doesn’t miss anything so possibly something on it will appear from him.
Charles, could this have been a source? https://electroverse.net/greenland-gains-record-10-gts-of-snow-and-ice-northern-hemisphere-total-snow-mass-increases/
So, if we take greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (assuming that's even possible on a giant scale), won't we be contributing to the mini ice age?
Who knows? Whenever I think about "science" attempting to deal with natural phenonmena, I can't help but think of the movie SNOWPIERCER.
It's a cinch that all the vegetation on Earth would disappear without CO2. I'm surprised the World Health Organization is not working on that.
They just might be.
If you haven’t watched this, check it out. https://rumble.com/vvvn6u-the-great-global-warming-swindle-full-documentary-hd.html
Thanks & I agree with the message; but I can't bear to sit and watch lengthy videos on the Internet.
I can't help but be reminded of the seventies, when I was a "survivalist" and made a few bucks selling dehydrated food via a multi-level marketing scheme called Pro Vita. My friends and I formed a company called Sunshine Farms & were preparing for the forecasted ice age. I guess we were fifty years ahead of times.
"I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved. "
There it is again, the alluding to "sides". Yes, it is difficult to find a term that accurately describes the purveyors of information. That said, there aren't "sides" there is only truth or lies. And to say that this, as well as other controversy, is designed by both to never be resolved is, in my opinion, a reflection of, perhaps, your own inner frustrations? When the truth is laid bare but the masses do not want to see and accept it, I cannot agree that is by design of those exposing the truth. Sure, there are groups and organizations and people that for their own reasons like to keep something being debated, but I do not believe that is the design of those that have learned the truth and keep trying to spread that truth to the world. Just my take on it.
Two opposite forces travelling to the same singular point will converge at its center, and nullify the energy propelling them. Momentum becomes inert, the forces static.
Which is the truth from these sides it's almost 40 years now with millions of people living with this virus millions more died whether such was due to toxic drugs or something else but their death was perpetuated via the virus
It is an honor to be accused of being a Duisbergian
Thank you for your honesty, your journalistic integrity any battle for truth justice and the compassionate way! Well done as always.
Celia, I've been in the rabbit hole so long, I don't know what a rabbit-less hole looks like.
I HEAR that, brother.
Thank you, Celia, for including some history in the discussion. The history provides important context for what has been happening in the past few years. Here a few references that may be of interest:
This 1998 article by Kary Mullis sums up perfectly the underlying fraud of AIDS, and at the same time tells us a lot about the recent "pandemic", since the same script has been followed: http://virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmdancing.htm
The book Virus Mania, by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Koehnlein, provides important historical information going back to the 1800s, plus an excellent chapter on AIDS, plus a chapter by RFK, Jr..
For most of 2020, the only edition available was the first edition of 2007. For me, this provides plenty of important history without getting into the "controversial" info on COVID.:
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL11860366M/Virus_Mania#edition-overview
We now have the greatly expanded 3rd Edition of 2021, with the addition of two authors, Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, and Dr. Stefano Scoglio.
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania-neu/
IMO, we need to consider the long history of this topic in order to have a complete discussion.
I'm a exogenous (pathogenic) virus skeptic. (I don't doubt that endogneous viral-like particles produced by our cells exist.) It should be self-evident by now there's no definite proof that exogenous viruses exist and the shoddy methods use to create the virus genomes by cobbling together genetic fragments found in cell cultures are very suspect. However, I'm fine if people want to assume pathogenic viruses exist as long as they also concede that vaccines are utterly worthless (and can only cause harm) and that virus genomes are fake. The vaccine PSYOP was created by the globalists for depopulation and the 1918 Spanish Flu (due to WW1 vaccines and "treatment" with aspirin) and the HIV=AIDS hoax (due to nitrate poppers, malnutrition and "treatment" with AZT) were previous depopulation exercises.
The only problem with people still believing in the pathogenic virus idea is that it leaves all of them, and then probably also the children they are raising, very vulnerable to continued fear, in the pharma drug/ill health/drug/ill health rinse and repeat cycle, and allows the extreme tyranny to continue because the masses succumb so readily to all measures supposedly taken to "protect" them. They become easy fodder for the sharks, as we've seen. Until people wake up and do not comply in droves, not only will society as a whole suffer, but on the smaller local scale what's left of mom and pop businesses and services will disappear forever.
There are viruses that exist, and there are viruses that don't. The trick is to compare the isolation.
Smallpox, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis A are all real viruses.
HIV, Hepatitis C, and Corona don't exist.
You are serious? Have you actually compared the "isolation"? And then seen the replication of the diseases in healthy animal experiments? None of those you mentioned are "real" pathogenic viruses and there is actually zero scientific evidence of them. None. I'm not sure where you seem to get your data or how you can interpret it in that convoluted fashion but hopefully you will go back to the drawing board and study more closely.
Once again I find myself dredging my memory to recount some facts from the past (amidst my dusty mental notes and spider webs). These artifacts could easily be verified by the original source far better than I can, but I will try my best. .
In this case, that source is my good friend Dr. Rodney Richards, (Ph.D.) and his video conferences concerning "Western blot tests." back in the mid 90s.
If you know Rodney, you will recall that he began questioning the "HIV" hype very early on, shortly after he and an associate developed the first commercial antibody test kits for Abbot Labs. During a discussion and review seminar he met Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was already presenting challenges to the entire AID$ Inc. paradigm. (Believe it or not, companies actually encouraged debate and dissent back then, and Duesberg was an invited guest).
Beyond the questions of validity about "antibody testing for HIV," there were also concerns that needed more review and critique concerning tests for CD4 T-cells, P24 antigen, Western blot and eventually quantitative PCR "viral load" counts.
Now in Dr. Rodney Richard's video conferences, he presents the results of 'Western blot" tests from about six (6) different labs. One would think there would be a consistent result, or at least a correlation from all of these tests examining the same samples. There was NOT!
In fact, in some cases the SAME donor sample sent twice to the SAME lab were vastly different in results. Obviously, the inconsistency of these tests proved they were unreliable.
This was the state of "HIV testing" back then. It has only become worse now with SARS CoV-2, which has no gold standard virus to test (unlike Gallo's sample) and only exists in theory within Drosten's Erector-Set and Tinker Toy computer model.
Here is a link to an interview with Rodney.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewrr.htm
And this is the basis of the Viral Challenge by Cowan, et al. Because virology will not actually do any real scientific work, the challenge is just to basically do a simple experiment to see if a number of labs will get the same results from the same sample. Yet, you think they were asking to verify samples of moon dust. Why are they afraid to simply repeat what they supposedly routinely do? It's of no financial cost to any of them and would verify that in fact, their process is valid. It's funny how no one really wants the truth. Amazing how that works. Even just regular ole people. Prefer to stay in their world of delusions.
It gets a lot worse with replication. John P.A. Ioannidis Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research) published an absolute gut punch to the entirety of biomedical research when he published "Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False", PLoS Medicine (2005). For the entirety of the modern scientific effort, we need to go back and question all our findings and assumptions. What we think of as steady ground is not so...
As a relative newcomer to the viral debate, I see your background and experience writing about HIV as invaluable to the current debate about covid.
Even though I've known Dr. Cowan for many years and interviewed him recently - https://rumble.com/vnd26k-red-pill-interview-dr.-tom-cowan.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2 - questions remain.
While I find some contradictions in Dr. Zack Bushes presentation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PI6HgoIv_U&t=688s - he also presents some very interesting ideas.
This seems like a critically important learning curve and you are now a key source for me. Thank you.
I'd still like to see you do a follow-up piece to your 1994 Spin interview with Dr. Kary Mullis.
I will write something about Kary. Unwritten. Thank you.
This may or may not be what you are looking for, but should at least come close:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?
By Celia Farber
April 7, 2020
Oh yeah. That was good. Thanks.
What kind of follow-up piece on Mullis? Since he's dead now maybe you mean further elaboration on the points in the 94 interview?
Is there "enough" whiskey 🥃?
Not quite.
:)
Here is Del Bigtree being asked his thoughts about the existence of viruses and the place for that debate in the current struggle:
https://odysee.com/@theconsciousresistance:7/activation19:d
You have to advance to about the 44:00 mark, and his answer extends to about 56:40.
It's a very interesting and reasonable position, and I think it's worth a look.
Further to this, here is the response from Dr. Sam Bailey, Dr. Mark Bailey, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan regarding Del Bigtree's comments in the interview linked above:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/interviews/viruses-baileys-cowan-kaufman-respond-to-del-bigtree/
Also, interesting and reasonable (and closer to my own positions). I do think there's a bit of talking past each other going on, and Del Bigtree's comments were more off-the-cuff, without the benefit of preparation.
The "germ theory" vs "terrain theory" debate is large and old (over 100 years). My suggestion to anyone watching the videos at these links is to focus on the information presented, either the ideas, or the evidence given. Science is supposed to focus on what is provable. Understand, however, that there are other factors that affect, or even determine, the outcome of these debates.
What other factors do you speak of that affect or determine the outcome of a "scientific" debate? Which, as you stated, is supposed to focus on what's provable. That's really not affected by anything else, particularly debate. Fill me in, please.
Not to be a snob but why does anybody need Del Bigtree to repudiate viruses? He's a talk show host.
And, FWIW, I don't think that asking that question about Del is being a snob, it's a legitimate question. Everyone certainly does not have the same expectations of others and for a whole host of reasons likely specific to that individual.
Why? Because he has a huge following that trusts everything he says and when he shouts out the dangers of vaccines but then continues to say there are pathogenic contagious viruses people will look no further and accept what he says as the gospel truth. There will be some that continue to study on their own but that is not the point. The point for most people is to see to it that everyone has access to the facts as they are known in order to make good decisions for themselves and their families, to stop the tyranny in all areas, and to be able to live freely. That's not possible as long as the going-to-kill-you-and-grandma- virus beliefs retain their death grip on people. You've seen how many still worship at the altar of Del. The excuses made that Del and RFK, Jr, et al, do good in some areas so they don't need to tell the whole truth is beyond absurd and dangerous. In addition, because they both HAVE to know the full facts about total lack of any evidence of the existence of said viruses and their ability to cause disease, they are liars. How does the average person determine what they say is truth and what is not? And it calls into question the integrity and character of them both, let alone motives. The Washington Post is only a newspaper. The New York Times is only a newspaper. Del is only a talk show host. Who cares what they say? Millions do.
Good decision. Poornima Wagh is a false crisis.
Based on the responses to Kirsch in many of his Bolshevik attacks on people who question the existence/isolation of SARS-COV-2, he's not making much progress. Maybe if HQ doesn't think Stevie is making a big enough dent, we'll get treated to him coming out on Tucker and calling out "virus deniers". Diana West rightly called out Robert Malone as well as someone to keep three eyes on.
The fact that Kirsch has dedicated so much energy to attack the people who question the existence of SARS-COV-2 (and the "science" of virology) is proof you are over the target, Celia.
Forgive me if I'm a little slow to trust someone (Kirsch) who got duped by all the vaccine, mask, and lockdown fear porn—in the face of the flu disappearing, an over 99% survival rate (based on useless PCR tests and falsified cause of death reports), and multiple proven safe, effective cures for the flu relabeled COVID-19—and then pops up out of nowhere mid-2021 awakened, serving as the grand Poobah of COVID-19 truth.
You're right over the target. Keep up the good work. Thank you for waking us up.
Oliver, nobody has said it but I will: Steve Kirsch could be de-legitimized simply and swiftly (if one wanted to) by simply stating the fact that he is a lifelong donor to the Democratic Party and even a donor to ...Media Matters! Put me on the hog train, my father would say.
How can anybody be that blind? I don't understand. But I don't enjoy attacking seeming allies either. And I don't think controlled opposition is a strong theory. I do think some people in this thing have been diamonds and I keep saying their names but people hate when I do because I'm supposed to join the new trends in bullying and call them garbage.
"But I don't enjoy attacking seeming allies either. And I don't think controlled opposition is a strong theory."
Agree on the former so long as "attack" doesn't mean analyzing and critiquing their arguments when necessary. As regards controlled opposition, I still continue to leans towards Kirsch being just that because of his conformity to the archetype, of which Noam Chomsky in his 9/11 WTC 7 shenanigans at UF is a shining example. The game is to acknowledge certain parts of the narrative while walling off other avenues of questioning or criticism. Its intellectually disingenuous to apply scientific, step-by-step analysis to vaccine injury, CDC data, etc. then magically shift to invective, pejorative, and name-calling when it comes to the question of virus isolation, etc. Its the lack of consistency in approach which raises the question.
I acknowledge there are other possibilities besides controlled opposition, but when there is a common theme in the walls erected around the narrative (i.e. what cannot be entertained) by the likes of Malone, McCullough, Berenson, Kirsch, et al it raises questions as to why that is the case, which questions extend beyond the consideration of simple, human ignorance.
I agree that there are a large number of partial truth tellers that are clearly being controlled. The question could be then, to what degree and how? It's not really that important as long as people realize that these folks are indeed telling the truth about only a few topics and the rest they are lying about. That is quite difficult for a good many people to do. I think that being controlled can come in a variety of forms, directly and indirectly. Perhaps one is paid large sums of money, perhaps they or their family has been threatened with physical harm, perhaps it's simply the threat, or self induced fear, of losing their job and/or income stream, perhaps it's the fear of being embarrassed. Personally, none of those are acceptable, but a few are understandable. I can't say what category(ies) any one person belongs to, but it should be clear to most that there are many, many, that fit into the broad category of controlled opposition.
Agree. Getting to the foundational motive or basis of control is next to impossible.
The fundamental thing that most people don't recognize is that the "news" process is controlled. They determine what is newsworthy, which means they hold the power to shape people's thinking and determine what is appropriate and inappropriate for people to think.
Furthermore, they determine who gets to speak and become a "trusted" voice. Celia has mentioned before how Peter Duesberg was scheduled for an interview in NYC that was canceled at the last minute in favor of Fauci (https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-passion-of-peter-duesberg).
So, Duesberg cannot speak but Fauci is anointed as the trusted voice for the people. Kirsch, Malone, and Berenson get to come on Fox, but not Celia, Jon Rappoport, Diana West, and a whole host of others. If that's not controlled, I don't know what is.
Because of the massive loss of MSM audience, they now have to work to control the independent and underground media.
Absolutely! Getting the masses to realize that is quite difficult.
Sheriff Mack had an interview on CNN recently and boy did they butcher that even after he was assured they would do no such thing. We really do need to just build our own communities, our own world, our own resources, and make the current one totally obsolete and therefore with zero power over us.
Indeed. The rebuilding of Christendom while Babylon becomes a pile of ashes. Communities, farming, buying/selling of food, supply chains, all of it.
"I’ve already told you he told me I was not smart enough to grasp the nuances of this debate and I also told you I was relieved because I find this matter oppressive. I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved."
This section clashes most brightly with:
"If you're defending a lie, you can only defend it with obfuscations and other lies. You can't defend a lie with the truth."
"I feel it is designed, by both sides, never to be resolved."
If true, such a strategy is not scientifically tenable, by definition; science is falsifiable, or it is not science. If obfuscation is their aim, they are not being scientific, by definition. The truth of what those arrows are pointing at in electromicroscopy images of 'viruses' is waiting to be discovered. So, while we (humanity) are unable to properly explain what is going on regarding infection and pathogenicity, nobody should be ideologically fervent – I'm looking at you, Steve Kirsch – about whether it is this or that theory that explains the truth. While any one of us is 'too dumb' to understand whether or not the wee entities those arrows denote as 'viruses' are pathogenic, it is because the facts of this matter are that humanity has yet to understand this aspect of biology.
Let's not be bamboozled by casuistry and obfuscation, or impressed by those who are happy to employ such tactics. The mere fact that there is gold, much much gold, in them thar Virology Hills, should be enough to persuade all of us to remain calmly skeptical about what passes for orthodoxy in this 'discipline'.
Which is kind of what Rappoport is saying.
Hiya,
here's my synopsis of the work of the Perth Group and others.
The essence of the debate for me is;
no one can form viruses into a centrifugation band using patient samples- viruses can't be seen
virus like particles on EM could be anything and are seen in 'uninfected' cultures-we don't know what we can see is
activity of viruses such as cell death cannot be proof of viruses as no one ever does controls-cell death could be caused by the cell culture process
proteins thought to be HIV are also found in healthy people- we can't test for it
The test is so non-specific doctors make a definitive diagnosis on patient history of blood transfusion, being a black African or a gay male- the scientific process is unnecessary and can be completely ignored at will
AIDS doesn't transmit between people.- it can't be an infectious virus
The kicker for me is that AIDS is only correlated in terms of sexual activity with the frequency of receptive anal intercourse in either men or women, not with homosexual sex. AIDS is a disease of oxidation and semem is highly oxidising and the anus is very thin
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom
Jo
Well stated. Actually Dr Lanka did use a control and showed the same cell death. As well, a nephrology dept stated quite some time ago that they saw the same "viruses" and cell death in their "non covid" patients' kidney cells. But of course all of that is ignored and hushed. Can't have people knowing the truth now, can we?