28 Comments
Jun 21, 2021Liked by Celia Farber

I note my teachers in germ theory are also sceptical to genetic assumptions, namely Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman.

The pattern indicated in your interview reveals the 'Satanic' nature of a materialism that seeks to gain or retain a grasping control by any pretext, and yet operates the highest institutional levels of apparent authority.

I may have pasted this following quote into one of your posts before but will do so anyway as it speaks to this issue and to the heart of Life:

“It may shock you to know that all the world’s bacteria have access to a single gene pool, which has provided an immense resource for adaptation, manifesting an array of breathtaking combinations and re-combinations for three billion years! Any bacterium—at any time—has the ability to use accessory genes, provided by other strains, which permits it to function in ways its own DNA may not cover.

The global trading of genes through DNA re-combinations provides for almost endless adaptation possibilities. Therefore, what has been done to one has been done to all. Widespread use of antibacterial agents is both futile and disastrous. Future life sciences and medicine will comprehend the more effective use of agents to stimulate positive adaptation of bacteria resulting in chains of supportive symbiosis.

In the presence of love, these positive adaptations naturally occur. In the presence of hatred and fear, negative and resistant strains of bacteria are more likely. Life forms are ever changing, and yet the basic chemistry of life remains the same. Do not cling to forms that are passing, but seek for an understanding of life that embraces and includes all possibilities. This is accomplished through integrating and expanding patterns and relationships.

In this way, you will see God as the creative power of life. When I asked that you love one another, I was not just giving you a recipe for human fellowship. This is the doorway to life eternal.”

(The Keys of Jeshua - Glenda Green)

Whatever one thinks of Glenda's book - the succinct clarity of 'Jeshua/Jesus' on our world and on Science illuminates 'answer' in practical understandings that align in unified and unifying purpose.

Another quote that succinctly summarises science as a dialog between truth and reality:

https://twitter.com/onemindinmany/status/1406516725034717185?s=20

Expand full comment
Jun 21, 2021Liked by Celia Farber

I was trying to explain the epigenetics problem of the GT vaxine to some people claiming it was the mark of the beast. No one is talking about epigenetics! Even a fecking computer cannot work with whatever hardware you plug in to tune it up. They say genes are the language of life, but you can't plug whatever letter into a text without changing its meaning on three levels at once: phonology, morphosyntax and text.

Expand full comment
Dec 18, 2021Liked by Celia Farber

"‘What seems to be is, to those to whom it seems to be and is productive of the most dreadful consequences to those to whom it seems to be.’" I don't know what that means. I can impose 'a' meaning, but I'm not sure whether the meaning I would impose is the intended meaning.

Other than that, That was an interesting article. Thanks!

One final note: As a Christian (not out of fake, mainstream Christianity; Sorry if that offends), I was biased to easily accept explanations from Andrew Kaufman about terrain theory. I have 'no doubt' that viruses don't exist. And yet, Andrew and those who are trying to swing the world over to terrain theory and away from germ theory, buy functional Darwinian evolution, which I don't buy. To be honest, I don't hear them say anything about biological evolution. I've only hear them mention it (as though it were fact). I've got no specialized knowledge of any of this stuff. I'm just a blogger who has been forced to think about it because of the huge, destructive, criminal covid 19 hoax. As well, I've always been a reader. And I would often just dive into something that I knew nothing about and could never fully penetrate. Why? Why not?

As a Christian - I used to be a Jehovah's Witness - I knew that biological evolution was not something supported by the Christian Bible. A book put out by the Watchtower Society on evolution quoted Michael Denton, a molecular biologist I think. Anyway, I went out an bought his book titled "Evolution - A Theory In Crisis." It went right over me, but I still enjoyed reading it anyway. Then a long time after that, as I was listing all of the books (that I could remember) that I've ever read, I was looking for information about that book online and that's when I discovered that Michael had done a follow-up to the above-mentioned book. "Evolution - Still A Theory In Crisis." It went over me as well, but not to the extent that Michael's first book did. I was quite young when I read his first book and probably didn't have the processing power I have now, for one thing. Whatever the reason, while I just had no idea about the science Michael laid out, his explanations were many and detailed and sufficient for me to get, clearly, the gist of what he was reporting, namely, the fantasy aspect of functional (as opposed to structural, immanent) evolution. In my opinion, he made his case.

I'd really like to know what thinkers like Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan think of Denton's work, but I don't even know whether they are familiar with it. To my mind, Denton's work is every bit as big as the subject of germ vs terrain theory. Are people too biased 'against' God (and vitalism) to be willing to look into and think about the work of Michael Denton?

Expand full comment

Biology is not physics

You've found the spark that makes the sun burn bright

and tracked the orbits of the distant stars.

You've harnessed energy for planes and cars--

success convinces you you've got it right.

You think the rule of physics must be strict,

yet only in the aggregate do maths

apply to living things. Their single paths

take twists and turns that you cannot predict.

Man's thirst for knowledge never can be quenched

while minds refuse to grant the role of mind

that regulates the quantum. You won't find

broad truth while narrow physics is entrenched.

What sort of science would it take to know

how neurons fire, hearts beat, and grasses grow?

- JJM

https://experimentalfrontiers.scienceblog.com/

Expand full comment
Dec 17, 2021Liked by Celia Farber

Celia:

"Incidentally, there are people out there laying claim on big fields of thought, who are PR savvy—too PR savvy to cite the giants who laid down the very paths making any of their ideas even possible. For this reason, I feel an urge to go into my forest of elder giants—all of them obscure— and let them speak. I’ve lived to see Kary Mullis [PCR inventor, HIV dissenter] and Peter Duesberg [formulator of aneuploidy cancer theory, father of HIV dissent] become household names, despite a 30 year global apparatus devoted to the immolation of their “credibility.”"

For a different perspective on Peter Duesberg, see my excerpt of a recent discussion between Tom Cowan, Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman and Dean Braus, uploaded to my Bitchute channel ("Arby"): https://www.bitchute.com/video/tW9encIUer5W/

Expand full comment

Engineer/cartoonist Scott Adams recently tweeted that he can't wait to have his mind downloaded into whatever robot it is they expect to out it in. They really don' get the difference between a big database & life. They think if they collect a big enough database that will magically be life & they will live forever I had to explain that he, the person who *experiences* life would be gone. Behind the thing regurgitating memories & looking like life, there would just be a computer program.

I remember from my days at DEC a cartoon someone would invariably draw on a whiteboard. .. a series of computations. ...💥then a miracle occurs. ... Result.

They really believe that miracle will occur.

Expand full comment
founding

I could never articulate precisely why the whole molecular “biology” of gene splicing and gene therapy always left me uneasy. Dr Strohman has given words to my concerns. Thank you for posting this!

Expand full comment
Dec 16, 2021Liked by Celia Farber

The Richard Strohman interview is phenomenal. Thank you. As you may know, Simone Weil in her The Need For Roots discusses brilliantly Western science's turn toward the mechanistic and darkness (pp. 235 ff.).

Expand full comment

I would like to read more about ´ Gariaev´s Linguistic Wave Genomics; how chromosomes really work.

Expand full comment

Except those days be shortened no flesh shall be saved, but for the Elect sake those days shall be shortened.

Playing God, except one thing, they aren't God.

We are far down that path now, even talking about replacing biological life with robotic life.

In a sense, I feel this is, if you believe in them, what the greys (ETs) are trying to warn us about.

We, as a society, have lost what it means to be human, and even refuse to accept the natural life process, natural, and I mean natural death.

Humans have tried to interfere in every single step of the human life process, from inception, through gestation, abortion, and GT without even considering the Mystery of Life which our Creator gave all of us.

Not accepting death. Is akin, to my mind, to.not accepting life as we are living it

In every step of our lives do we want, want, want, even if it means taking an experimental jab to, what we may think to save us, fueled by fear.

In actuality, is the driving force a constant state.of unhappiness, discontent and rebellion fueling our own demise sooner than later.

We, my dear friend, are not God.

And it is extreme malicious folly to even pretend we are God.

I believe God is still on the throne and prayer changes things.

As in the days of Noah so shall the end be.

Doug Feldmann

Expand full comment

In a word, transhumanism. That is their sick goal along with anything goes gender and age-wise. Remember, psychopaths and criminals are running the planet right now.

Expand full comment

"That's why the corporations don't want to look at it because it's so complex. The amount of money and effort that would have to be put into that denies the technology. You can't afford it; you have to take these shortcuts." That's interesting. I don't think of tax evading corporations (deferred taxation in the US and accelerated depreciation in Canada, I think; not to mention tax expenditures, aka handouts, and tax havens) as poor. Of course, there's greed. From the greedy one's point of view, there is 'never' enough. In that sense, Okay, corporations don't have enough money. Pfizer Biontech making $1000 per second isn't enough.

But there's another aspect to this. Where's the scientific spirit?, the natural curiousity?, the care and concern that would lead people in the field of health care to say "Cost isn't a factor. We need to know."?

Pfizer Biontech's filthy lucre: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-pfizer-biontech-moderna-profit-analysis.html

Expand full comment

Excellent interview Celia. I heard it perhaps 2 years ago, and was then impressed. Thank you for reposting.

Expand full comment

Superb interview. Perfectly defines the state of present day life science - reductionist, mechanistic, deterministic - anti-Life and anti-Human. Thanks for sharing this!

Expand full comment

Excellent material Celia. Thank You for the cogent response to the diabolical lunacy swirling around us. Please continue. I pray for your safety and success.

Expand full comment

So, to save our world and ourselves, we have to destroy all the computers? When do we start?

Expand full comment