Mar 11, 2023·edited Mar 11, 2023Liked by Misha from Gamzuletova
The Queen Bee of this hive mentality and that which must be preserved at all costs is indeed the embedded belief in the existence of viruses. So they support the existence of all viruses thus the need for the entire childhood vaccine schedule( 78 injections before the age of 7). Their issue is safety,not necessity. Louis Pasteur admitted in his private notes that his germ theory was bullshit,supported by blatant fraud,his own. Well at least he admitted it, although stipulated that his private notes ( 3,000 words) only be released after his death.
They are defending RFK Jr's first book, Fauci, whose first chapter's title is "A Mismanaged Pandemic," and his coming book pushing the "lab leaked engineered virus" narrative. And maybe his possible upcoming presidential run. He has made "Pandemic"/"COVID"/"SARS-CoV-2" the core of his analysis as to what's being going on, and questioning the existence of any of these three pillars undermines his program.
1. Given that CHD admit they are open to the 'no virus' stance and are happy for their audience to make up their own mind I suggested they publish two versions of their articles and videos (1) a version promoting 'viruses', 'covid', 'lab leaks' and vaccines (2) a version that stays true to science.
2. A common defence is that the 'no virus' position might be technically true, but it's a losing strategy for winning the hearts and minds blah blah ... but if that was true the mainstream media would point to the 'no virus' camp as the opposition to the official narrative and completely ignore the likes of CHD, Malone, McCullough etc in order to depict the 'health freedom movement' in the worst possible light.
3. The medical science vs medical tyranny war is primarily a war of words (terminology). To use words like virus, immunity, gain of function etc is to concede everything from the outset and lose the war all by yourself.
4. The idea that we have to convince everyone to accept the 'no virus' stance in order to win the war for health freedom is false. Victory is secured when it's considered acceptable to debate the topic in the mainstream public discourse. If civilised debate is considered valid, then dissent is valid. If dissent is valid than there can be no coercion, no mandates, no tyranny. To simply HAVE the debate is to win. Even the fact that virology doesn't have a leg to stand on is of secondary importance.
Are you on telegram Misha?
Did you also know that RFK is pro-vax? He specifically wants ALL Americans fully vaccinated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-har7k6brY&t=2596s
Del Bigtree is also not "anti-vax" either....he also advocates for "safer vaccines", whatever the hell that means.
https://aleczeck.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-robert-f-kennedy
Continuing the lying does not help save any lives. (Oops, responding to a message of a new comment here, but i don't see it any more).
The Queen Bee of this hive mentality and that which must be preserved at all costs is indeed the embedded belief in the existence of viruses. So they support the existence of all viruses thus the need for the entire childhood vaccine schedule( 78 injections before the age of 7). Their issue is safety,not necessity. Louis Pasteur admitted in his private notes that his germ theory was bullshit,supported by blatant fraud,his own. Well at least he admitted it, although stipulated that his private notes ( 3,000 words) only be released after his death.
Thank you for this, Misha :)
xoxo
They are defending RFK Jr's first book, Fauci, whose first chapter's title is "A Mismanaged Pandemic," and his coming book pushing the "lab leaked engineered virus" narrative. And maybe his possible upcoming presidential run. He has made "Pandemic"/"COVID"/"SARS-CoV-2" the core of his analysis as to what's being going on, and questioning the existence of any of these three pillars undermines his program.
1. Given that CHD admit they are open to the 'no virus' stance and are happy for their audience to make up their own mind I suggested they publish two versions of their articles and videos (1) a version promoting 'viruses', 'covid', 'lab leaks' and vaccines (2) a version that stays true to science.
2. A common defence is that the 'no virus' position might be technically true, but it's a losing strategy for winning the hearts and minds blah blah ... but if that was true the mainstream media would point to the 'no virus' camp as the opposition to the official narrative and completely ignore the likes of CHD, Malone, McCullough etc in order to depict the 'health freedom movement' in the worst possible light.
3. The medical science vs medical tyranny war is primarily a war of words (terminology). To use words like virus, immunity, gain of function etc is to concede everything from the outset and lose the war all by yourself.
4. The idea that we have to convince everyone to accept the 'no virus' stance in order to win the war for health freedom is false. Victory is secured when it's considered acceptable to debate the topic in the mainstream public discourse. If civilised debate is considered valid, then dissent is valid. If dissent is valid than there can be no coercion, no mandates, no tyranny. To simply HAVE the debate is to win. Even the fact that virology doesn't have a leg to stand on is of secondary importance.
Mary Holland; fun times.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MSjDMbgafwN0/