Anyone advocating the poison-stabs for children is a prime candidate for the dock at Nurnberg 2 - if we ever see it (my comment, not Kit’s):
1 Like
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , there are a few holes in KK’s article - all of which are covered in the excellent McCullough speeches which you recently posted 
viz:
- short term injuries and deaths directly from the jab are going through the roof
- this means the risk of being injured or dying from the jab for youngsters exceeds the risk of getting covid and being injured or die from it ( on the basis that without the jab you avoid all jab risks and you’re only risk is the tiny one of getting covid, which for kids is almost 0 and even less given the availability of therapies to treat it.)
- jabs don’t work to protect the jabee from getting covid - particularly the widely prevalent Delta and its variants
cheers
3 Likes
Sound stuff, C. But - er - do we actually feel that the actual existence of the ‘delta variant’ has been proven, any more than the actual existence of the original Sars-Cov2 ‘virus’ has been established; or that the actual existence of any ‘virus’ has been established; or that any of them, if purified and demonstrated to exist, actually cause illnesses?
These look like still-open questions to me. The dissidents from this current orthodoxy have some pretty awkward questions about it. (Phlogiston, phlogiston, where are you now! We ALL so believed in you at the time…)
Otoh, Kit’s analysis of the relative dangers from the covid illness - whatever it really is - to children, and the dangers to them of the poisons-stabs, using only officially-endorsed figures, is pretty sound anyway, isn’t it? If you want to credit the figures… 
1 Like
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , you’re right to raise these points I’m half in the McCullough camp ( which was the source for my comments above) and half in the Zach Bush camp (which would put the pollution of our bodies and our environment when combined with the virus as the cause of the so-called covid19 deaths).
Both accept that the virus exists and both regard the vaccines as dangerous. McCullough clearly accepts the current official covid paradigm but seems to focus on fixing the patients through available medicine including ivermectin and stopping the vaccines. Bush regards the virus as a benign carrier of important information and focuses on his theory of the virome and microbiome to explain our problems and solutions. Both regard the authorities as the centre of our public health problems but from different angles, and only McCullough raises malfeasance in office!
The Cowan, Kaufmann and Sam Bailey ( Virus Mania ) camp clearly show the failure of virology, microbiology and vaccinology to prove viruses pass the Koch postulates , failing at the first fence to isolate anything. They put a nail through the McCullough theory of viruses but he survives the burial through his clear sited approach to putting the safety and survival of patients first. Bush would also survive in that he does not claim anyone has died from a virus, regarding the terrain as the key and not the virus. At the same time he challenges the C-K-B camp with a theory of a virome filled with trillions of viruses and trillions within all living things which seems to me to make sense.
Stefan Lanka’s latest CytoPathic Effect research ( fitting closely in the C-K-B camp) seems to be a further, possibly final, nail in the official germ theory but only in so far as proving there is no connection between viruses and specific diseases. This would still enable Bush to agree with him without overturning his theory of the virome.
My money is on Zach Bush for his theory of the virome at the moment, but science is all about change isn’t it?
Where they all agree is the alternative treatments for dealing with our current health issues and the disaster of the covid vaccines and most of our public health responses to date.
Finally, I would also place a heavy side bet on eugenic/WEF bioweaponry GOF machinations kick starting this whole thing off.
If they actually put something together that kills or injures and released it deliberately or recklessly, they don’t need to prove isolation, they actually have the blueprint! This wouldn’t be nailed by any of the three camps.
cheers
3 Likes
Very well precis-ed, C! I got the impression when I first came across the Bush view of things that he prefers to think of the alleged ‘virus’ as a more neutral ‘exosome’ - a messenger between various members of the whole ecosphere, and an ancient and essential communications system; and, for the truly healthy, an essentially benign process!
At all events, an alternative view that seems to me to be likely to make headway against the current orthodoxy. When anomalies in an established theory pile up like this, it seems usually to signal a Kuhnian paradigm-shift as being imminent. Oh dear, how the gocos will shriek! 
But you’re right: all this does beg the question: what are the gof-crooks actually manipulating when they strive to create their tailored killer pathogens? That still strikes me as a puzzle, especially, if they’re working with a defective and soon-to-be-abandoned ‘virus’ theory…?
There’s also the question of what do researchers actually see when they put stuff under electron microscopes? Do they see actual genes? Or is it a weird blend of unidentified blobs seen, together with lots of ‘in silico’ speculation, which of course is always subject to the GIGO principle…? (And hasn’t that been demonstrated recently with the wildly-wrong computer-aided predictions of the ‘deadly global pandemic’ shriekers?)
The - alleged - identification of a covid pathogen by that route is surely open to a lot of scepticism, since the challenge, apparently still unanswered, remains: show me a genuine, fully-purified physical sample of a virus; and then run it through Koch’s Postulates, to prove that it really is a pathogen. It now certainly appears that that challenge still hasn’t been met. I smell phlogiston!
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , I’m pretty sure that Stefan Lanka’s CPE experiment has blown up the assumption that viruses cause diseases but I am unsure how far he has got in proving viruses don’t exist. Proving a negative is of course the ultimate difficulty.
I think you’re right about ZB’s approach - he does seem to lean towards the friendly exosome messenger descriptions for viruses.
When you combine ZB’s friendly messenger with secret labs’ GOF gene manipulations you get closer and closer to Gates-land - where the business plan kicks off with the creation of a virus that would drive the sales of software or in this case a vaccine.
Perhaps we should start referring to this thing as a Trojan Virus ( TV for short!):
As they say “beware of Geeks bearing gifts”
cheers
1 Like