Even one injection!
3 Likes
Rich, last week I had a lady in to do the housekeeping, for our first lot of gite guests. She studied psychology at university and is ‘an awake person’. She works as a carer for elderly people. In France to do that job you must have had the jabs (I believe it’s the same in the UK). She knew what the implications of the jabs might be, yet she needed to keep her job, otherwise she might have ended-up destitute.
At Nuremburg most of the Nazi doctors were hanged, for forcing medical procedures on people.
Let’s hope there will be a Nuremburg 2.0.
3 Likes
hi @RobG , to me destitute or death looks like the Eddie Izard “cake or death” sketch! But easy for me to say ! A friend has just gone into hospital to solve issues suspiciously like jab - side effects, what are they advising whilst waiting for test results -the 4th jab, ffs!
Nuremburg 2.0 trials need to be a lot wider than Doctors!
cheers
1 Like
I must admit that while this could be an essential message that Prof Cahill imparts, I’m really not keen on her message and her delivery. Given that most people have had ‘one jab’, it’s incredibly cold. You’re fucked mate. But I think it’s also probably the wrong conclusion. Wouldn’t it be much more helpful to lay out the evidence for, and the mechanisms by which this certain catastrophe is predicted to happen.
It’s not that I think that her message is not founded on evidence, but in flatly saying that everyone will die, she doesn’t do anything to justify the level of severity, certainty and scale in these words.
She’s been saying this since 2020, when the predicted timescale from vaccine to body dropping off its perch was a few months. Though the severity of the possible outcome is the hardest to contradict (because many have died along the lines she has outlined), that it hasn’t happened on the scale+timescale (taken together) envisaged should at least merit an update on her thinking. It would be very useful if she outlined the mechanisms and possible pathways by which ‘the inevitable’ might be forestalled.
As Pierre Kory’s group (FLCCC) have done for example:
FLCCC launches Post-Vaccine Syndrome Protocol
I completely agree with her warnings before the vaccines, of what the risks were - and there was good reason to think that these risks were more like certainties. As she says the vaccine trials into mRNA vaccines only demonstrated that they were very unsafe. And I don’t think the problems were in any way resolved. But even ‘certainties’ aren’t certainty of death, but certainty of risk. Given that most people have not died and aren’t about to, it would be useful to have her explanation of what is happening as it all plays out - rather than a simple stretching of the predicted timescale of doom.
5 Likes
Hi @Evvy_dense , great comments, thanks. Definitely doom laden stuff from DC - I wonder if she’s just absolutely pissed off with telling people the long story and her conclusion, only to be ignored, so she’s gone for the dramatic approach. I agree even that approach needs some technical support otherwise it’s just a rant!
The link to the FLCCC is really useful, thanks.
Of course my half glass empty self is telling me to watch this space!
cheers
1 Like
omg, I’ll believe it when I see it. Definitely a game changer if she’s right. Doing the job of climate change, but quicker.
1 Like
“Doing the job of climate change, but quicker.”
And before the humans can wreck the rest of the planet and wildlife. Environmentally friendly 
. Now there’s a new selling point for the vaccines …
Ah, this is the approach that gets the headlines - I hadn’t thought of that CJ! She does look pissed off, in a glass-empty way… Though she could set people on the path by giving a mention of the possible ways to combat the effects she is talking about, or just throw in a link or a name.
Hi Ev,
She seems to be saying that it’s the mRNA that’s lethal. She says everyone who’s had an mRNA injection will die in 3-5 years time, NOT everyone that’s been jabbed.
It’s entirely possible that a majority of people have had a placebo, especially with the first jab. John O’Looney believes that the perps are using an advocate system whereby, say, only 15% of the first-jabbed get the mRNA shot and the rest get a placebo. The 85% placebo group are advocates for the jab because they don’t suffer adverse effects or die from their first jabs. The 15% mRNA’d who - according to DC have died or will die - are almost certainly not going to have mRNA as the cause of death. So far, no one will have noticed what’s happening. More will have died when the 2nd mRNA shots were delivered and even more will die with the 3rd, 4th & 5th shots etc. It stands to reason that as time goes on the ruse is more likely to be discovered.
2 Likes
Hi Rich
Yes it’s just the mRNA she’s very specific about it, thanks.
Yes that placebo trick would be a smart way of concealing deadly effects. There’s also been analysis saying it’s specific batches causing sudden deaths. That’s probably an additional, separate possiblity to what Cahill is talking about! I’ve not been able to get my head round a possible depopulation angle on top, though some of the facts may fit. Bill Gates keeps accidentally fuelling it. But it’s a conspiracy theory par excellence, with much more ‘conspiring’, and greater secrecy and control needed. It’s not that the level of badness is beyond credulity - there’s been callous disregard shown for large scale death already, even just in the witholding (and undermining) of early treatment. My guess is that given what TPTB get from ‘the pandemic’ without actually trying to kill massive numbers of people, it would be deemed an unnecessary risk.
Cheers
Cheers Ev,
I just found this:
“So, in the USA, where ~200M people have been fully inoculated, the number of deaths will not be the 10,000 or so reported in VAERS, or the 150,000+ scaled-up deaths from VAERS, but could be closer to tens of millions when the inoculation effects play out!”
LOADS more here:
Hi Rob,
I know quite a few people who had the stab for similar reasons and knew they were taking a big risk. And quite a few more who were jabs because they believed the bullshit - most of them still believe it. TMF - Totalitarian Mass Formation.
1,600 Nazi doctors were brought to the US by Allen Dulles for the MK Ultra programme. Dulles got loads of Nazis off the Nuremburg hook including some really top level war criminals. At least one was on speaking terms with Hitler and was responsible for the murder of 100,000 jews. And there was also Reinhard Gehlen, head of Nazi intelligece, who was made a US general by Dulles and then sent back to West Berlin after the war to run German intelligence until the 1960’s. He even tried (and failed) to get Goering out of it.
1 Like
Interesting stuff! Not watched the vid…but actions have consequences…not a popular belief I’m sure, nevertheless, I’m inclined to believe that there is only so much personal sovereignty one can, “expendiently”, surrender before the consequences of such catch up with one (“Maam!”), …
1 Like
Hi Ev,
Dolores Cahill interviewed yesterday (30th December 2022) by Jacqui Deevoy expands on her statement that people who’ve had an mRNA shot will die within three to five years:
Dolores’s segment starts at 01:26:15
2 Likes
Unfortunately, Dolores comes across as a bit incoherent in this interview. Has anyone here any idea of what ‘natural law’ really is? Some sort of fad amongst the realpolitikally unrealistic? Can anyone offer a short, clear precis of what it’s supposed to mean?
My initial response when hearing Dolores going on about it is that it sounds like something into which realpolitikally-unrealistic people might, for a while, put a lot of - bound to be disappointed - hope-driven faith. I’ve heard other people going on about it too; all of them people whose street-savvy about realworld politics seems to me to be less than adequate. Seems to me that our Western legal systems currently are entirely swamped in corruption. They’re just not fit for purpose. Anyone trying to get legal redress for injustices and crimes suffered in the covid scam are not going to get anything much from the law. The system is well stitched up.
I hope she knows what she’s talking about, in spite of sounding so confusing (to me), and some sort of breakthrough legal move will break the dam, as she seems to think. But I really don’t get what she’s talking about.
In fact, I’m being dragged, most unwillingly, towards the dire conclusion that only some sort of full-on revolutionary upheaval is going to be able to cleanse the miasma of universal corruption - in the West at any rate - in which we now marinate.
3 Likes
Dolores Cahill is certainly a most interesting figure. She has put herself out on a limb big time. I imagine she’s been turfed off most of her paid work. In the video she says her email and mobile number are available to anyone. She is standing upon the burning bridges!
Thanks for this update Rich.
Some paraphrasing of what I think she said…
The legal system is a financial administration mechanism of …corporations. A financial transaction. I think she implies that representatives thereby misrepresent themselves.
She stresses the legal system is not the law.
Need to inform police, to launch suspicious death claims, inform coroners of need to investigate suspicious deaths. Can only be done by trial by jury.
On the 3-5 years claim, DC says that in 2020 she told Del Bigtree she was speaking to particular court cases.
I think when she was quoted it might have been in that context.
She explains the mRNA sets up the organ it ends up at, only to be attacked by the immune system. People would die of whatever they were going to be susceptible to years later. The 3-5 years to death was an equivalent based on the previous trials; animals and babies.
She says we know from the mixing that some of the batches had more mRNA; also some may have had placebos. But in general people who get the mRNA will be dead in 3-5 years. She says the way the immune system works you are priming yourself.
(Abt 1.55) Says she has been studying the law all her life. Distinguishes between the legal system (which she says is the financial administration system of business, or something like that) and the law. She mentions the natural law a lot. She says interesting things about that, eg asking people representing the police in Ireland if they are employed as a police constable (or whatever they are dressed up as), she seems to be saying this is a key question; needs more context, there might be more on the site of the World Freedom Alliance which she works with. I think what she is saying is that a doctor or nurse (for example) is responsible for what they do, irrespective of their own systems of operation; likewise, a judge, or coroner.
The trials should have been stopped because after five days x thousand people had had life threatening reactions. This is obviously reasonable - but I think she means under a natural, code not just medical rules which give scope for almost unlimited evasion by allowing doctors to claim sole medical rank. (That’s ‘Science’ for you!)
She says it just takes one case whereby a vaccinator (or I guess, a defender like a judge) is held to account by a jury to have caused actual harm.
I don’t really get this myself. The accused would cite their own rules; a nurse or Dr would refer to medical advice from their own hierarchy, poor though this may be. I can’t see how there would not be reasonable doubt that the harm (which might be expressed as a bad risk benefit ratio) was unknown to the accused - surrounded as they are by the claims of their profession, even if these claims are false. I would expect you would need to be able to show you proved the harm to the accused - and they don’t make that easy!
I still think the death within 3-5 years claim - applied to everyone jabbed - is not justified, and a bit reckless; though two years on we are seeing rising excess mortality. Also the cancers link from the jabs (eg from Dr Ryan Cole) was probably unexpected.
But irrespective of career, Professor Cahill has stood her ground and is seemingly willingly to die on the metaphorical hill herself. In reference to the opposition she advocates at all levels, she may well believe a popular revolution is urgently needed (just noticed @RhisiartGwilym’s post) to throw off the tightly knit system of chains imposed by the capitalist system, for the purposes of its own preservation. If so, touche to the alternative great reset 
Cheers
ED
Has anyone here any idea of what ‘natural law’ really is?
I believe she’s talking about Common Law, AKA Natural Law, AKA Divine Law. Common Law is basically to do no harm. Here’s an example that might help to illustrate it although I only know the very basics.
About 6 months ago I received a parking ticket and thought I’d give Common Law a try. The ticket said it’s a £100 fine or £50 if I pay within 14 days. It also gave the option to appeal which I ignored as I was bang to rights in there eyes. So I wrote the following notice, that I got from a mate, in blue ink on their parking notice and sent it back to them.
RETURNED FOR CAUSE
WITHOUT DISHONOUR
NO LAWFUL CONSENT
NO LEGAL CONTRACT
OFFER TO CONTRACT DECLINED
14 days or so later I get their final demand for £100 which went straight in the bin. A few weeks later another threat arrived which also went in the bin. Then they sent a letter saying they were considering my appeal. What appeal? I never appealed. Ok, so straight in the bin as well. Another few weeks and I get a letter saying how legally they have this right to rob people (it’s clear in the letter that these “laws” are devised by some sort of car parking association) and then it said they wouldn’t be fining me on this occasion as it was the first time I’ve been busted in one of their car parks! It worked. What the buggers are doing is trying to get you to play their game and contract or joinder with them. They use what’s known as your legal fiction to do this. Your legal fiction is created when you were born and with your first name and surnames in capitals written on your birth certificate. Each of us is a corporation. The govt, the courts, the councils etc are ALL corporations doing business with us as corporations i.e. as our legal fiction. It’s unlawful for them to fine YOU they can only fine your legal fiction which they’ve created but even then you have to agree to contract with them.This is known as maritime law. If you don’t joinder with them there’s no contract and they can’t lawfully charge you anything. The blue ink BTW represents land law. Black ink represents maritime law which is why we’re so often asked to fill in forms with black ink. It’s the difference between legal and lawful and what’s defined by legal isn’t neccessarily lawful and very often isn’t. They know this hence their need for creating the legal fiction and turning us all into corporations. It’s all one vast scam and they know it. If you look at your correspondence with the Council you will probably find that you’re addressed in letters they send by your full name Mr John Smith but the council tax demand is adressed to MR JOHN SMITH your legal fiction. But that isn’t you! You are a living man or woman such as John son of Brian or John of Leicester. The tax demand is legal but not lawful. It is legalese. I hope this helps although I’m just a beginner.
Perhaps we should have a category on 5F called Common Law?
5 Likes
Good summary Evvy - thanks.
> She says interesting things about that, eg asking people representing the police in Ireland if they are employed as a police constable (or whatever they are dressed up as), she seems to be saying this is a key question; needs more context, there might be more on the site of the World Freedom Alliance which she works with. I think what she is saying is that a doctor or nurse (for example) is responsible for what they do, irrespective of their own systems of operation; likewise, a judge, or coroner.
In Common Law we’re all responsible for what we do and the consequences of our actions.
IIUC constables have sworn an oath to the Queen to protect the people. If a copper stops you for speeding for example he might inform you that you were doing, say, 40 mph in a 30mph zone blah blah blah and then say to you “do you understand?”. Obviously most people will say yes but what he’s really asking is “do you stand under me?” and if you said yes you’ve joindered with him. (You are his servant). He’s talking in legalese. The thing to do apparently is to ask the constable “are you acting under your oath?” (He is your servant) and take it from there. He can hardly say no to the question about his oath but he might evade the question and continue trying to get you to joinder with him. In Common Law it seems you’ve not committed a crime because you’ve done no harm and there’s no victim so he can’t arrest you or issue a penalty notice unless you’ve given him your legal fiction. I’m not suggesting anybody tries this or that speeding is a good idea BTW and I’m not trying to give advice on CL either.
These links below from The People’s Lawyer may help in understanding Common Law:
https://thepeopleslawyeruk.com/
https://thepeopleslawyeruk.com/know-your-rights-introductory/
2 Likes
Rich, I’m not any kind of expert on this, but for what it’s worth I’ll offer an opinion.
Firstly the only law is the law of the jungle (I’m afraid!).
I’ll use England and Wales as an example (it’s roughly the same in many other jurisdictions in the world). I’ll keep this brief, probably because I don’t really know what I’m talking about: Firstly, there is Case Law, which is the oldest type of law making and is based upon Norman practice, when there used to be traveling courts which tried cases and established precedents which were then followed by other courts.
The second type of law making is called Statute Law. This is law laid down by Parliament, and it is superior to case law. Statute Law comes into effect when an Act of Parliament is passed (by a majority vote in the House of Commons) and thus becomes law. Speeding fines and parking tickets, et al, come under Statute Law, which is first tried in a magistrates court. You can appeal and take it further, yet this is horrendously expensive to do. If your appeal against a magistrate is successful your case will then go to a Crown Court or the High Court. If you are successful with that (mega £££) the two systems of case law and statute law then merge, and it becomes only case law, first in the Court of Appeal, and then in the House of Lords, which is the ultimate legal authority (even though, ironically, the House of Lords is stuffed full of people who should be in jail).
I haven’t explained this very successfully. Perhaps because it is all a bit complicated. The case of Julian Assange might be a good example: Assange is being incarcerated under statute law (the minor offence of jumping bail), yet his case, extradition to America and all the other implications, is being argued under case law.
Basically we’re all stuffed, because when it comes to the law the psychos make it up as they go along.
A ps to this: a high court judge in Australia recently deemed as unlawful all covid fines (I can’t at the moment find a link to this). This ruling was made because fines imposed on people defying covid restrictions went against the Australian Constitution, such as it is. Bottom line here is - as it is in just about every other country - is that these fines were brought in under emergency powers and were never properly debated and voted on in Parliament. These emergency powers are still in place in many countries (including the UK), and any laws passed by decree are illegal.
3 Likes