Here is today’s regular edition of Lcodown Times. Not that anything i include in this newsletter is ever really “regular.” :-) Starting with Biomedical.
Biomedical. For the second time, Dr Sam Bailey has managed to get an article into a mainstream media outlet.
Creating numbers for the pandemic industry, Dr Sam Bailey, 7/5/24. Dr Sam Bailey is a medical author and health educator from New Zealand. Her books include Virus Mania, Terrain Therapy and The Final Pandemic.
Last month, I wrote an article for the Canberra Daily titled “How to create a pandemic”. It outlined how pandemics can be declared more easily, if not misleadingly, since 2009 when the WHO unilaterally redefiined the definition of ‘pandemic’ and the words, “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness” were suddenly excluded from the existing meaning. Hence, in the past two decades, all that has been required to declare a “pandemic” is cases.
Even within the medical world, a “case” is not the same as a clinical diagnosis or a disease. In general, a clinical diagnosis is based on symptoms (what the patient reports), signs (what is physically detected by the clinician), and sometimes laboratory test results. The definition of a case can mean “instance of disease” in the narrower sense, but in the wider epidemiological sense, it simply means “the criteria for categorising an individual as a case.” In other words, a case is whatever the inventor wants it to be.
Defining cases can have a role in helping us understand and manage disease outbreaks. For example, the sudden appearance in the 1950s and 1960s of cases of ‘phocomelia’, a condition where babies have seriously malformed limbs was linked to the drug thalidomide. In that instance, the case definition was very specific due to the newborn’s unmistakable physical deformities and the unique correlation to the toxic pharmaceutical taken during the pregnancy.
Conversely, if a case definition is too broad or non-specific this can result in completely meaningless data. For example, if a case was defined by a test that could detect the presence of red blood cells then every one of us would test positive and be counted as cases.
COVID-19 cases were nonsensical because the World Health Organization published its official case definition in 2020 stating that a confirmed case was, “a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.” It meant that the cases were ultimately created through a test result that had nothing to do with whether the person had a specific disease or was even unwell at all. It is why statisticians such as Pierre Chaillot demonstrated how there was no new disease outbreak by using the official “case” numbers and other population data. The huge number of cases included individuals who were sick for all kinds of reasons and in a large proportion, individuals who had no symptoms as all.
The use of this technique to make cases appear out of thin air is surprisingly well established as we documented in our book The Final Pandemic. In fact, it can also be used in the opposite direction to make case numbers go down or even disappear, particularly when a vaccine has been introduced and needs to be portrayed as effective.
COVID-19 cases typically relied on either a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a rapid antigen test (RAT) – the former amplifies selected genetic sequences, the latter reacts to particular proteins. These genetic sequences and proteins were said to be specific to SARS-CoV-2, a virus particle – that is, an infectious, disease-causing parasite consisting of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat.
The claim was that if one of these tests was positive, then the person was infected with the virus and had a disease called COVID-19. In 2020, the president of Tanzania, John Magufuli showed how preposterous this was when he had one of his laboratories apply the PCR test to non-human sources including a papaya, a quail and a goat. The result: all were positive. Did this mean that tropical fruit could also be infected with the “virus” and come down with COVID-19? Clearly, these so-called diagnostic tests were not fit for purpose.
The fact that these genetic sequences and proteins can be detected on or in humans, animals, fruit and sewer water makes it plain to see that they are not specific clinical diagnostic tools. To illustrate this point further, imagine an individual who has inhaled some pollen, something we all do in our lives. If we took a nasal swab and performed a PCR test we may have a positive result for the pollen’s genetic sequences. However, it would tell us nothing about the individual in question – they could be completely well, they could have symptoms of ‘hay fever’ or they could even have died a week ago.
In this application the facts are clear: the PCR simply amplifies whatever sequences it is designed to detect, it cannot determine the relevance of their presence or whether the person (or papaya!) is afflicted with anything. (The same principle applies to the RATs.)
It is important to understand some of the key points about these tests in order to appreciate their limitations. Their widespread application and the finding of many “positives” creates not only meaningless case numbers but also an illusion that there is an ‘it’ – that is, a claimed virus or a specific disease. It is one of the reasons that our book Virus Mania has the subtitle, “How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense”. As my co-author Dr Claus Köhnlein explained in 2020, the only pandemics we are witnessing are those of testing.
Given the recent threats of a ‘bird flu’ outbreak, it is vital to appreciate the true nature of these “pandemics” and why there is no ‘it’ to fear.
And, Christine Massey has the latest update regarding her colleague Courtenay, imprisoned on the Isle of Man for being a part of her project to collect responses to FOIA requests for evidence of certain alleged microorganisms and of contagion.
Tynwald Day, July 5, 2024. Christine Massey, 7/5/24.
Greetings and Best Wishes,
(Pdfs of my last 3 newsletters along with searchable copies of the evidence can be downloaded for safekeeping, here, here and here.)
A former HealthCare Innovation Consultant to two Isle of Man “Government” departments remains politically imprisoned on the island since March 12th, over emails and tweets to a key figure in the island’s “covid-19 PCR testing” fraud. All key figures in the deadly scam, unprecedented in scale, remain at large.
Communications conveyed over the years by the former consultant, Courtenay, in the public to people acting as politicians, reporters, Ramsey Grammar School head mistresses and dozens of Manx police agents for the purpose of identifying and preventing “HPV” and “covid-19” injection and “testing” fraud and harm have been ignored or met with attempts at suppression.
For example, today, July 5th, is the island’s annual Tynwald Day, a national day of “celebration” where petitions of grievance may be presented. [Screen shot]
Five years ago today, the Justice for Jabbed campaigner who advised on health matters in the “Cabinet Office” and “Department for Economic Development” between 2012 and 2016 was “arrested” (on video) at the Tynwald Day event whilst attempting to present a petition addressing harms caused by injections that are fraudulently passed off as “vaccines” to prevent cancers caused by a never-shown-to-exist human papillomavirus, “HPV”.
As reported by Manx Radio, Courtenay:
“…was at St John's to present a petition and highlight the issue of what he perceives as the harm caused by the HPV vaccine, something he calls 'a crime against humanity'.” (bolding added)[by Massey, for this sentence.] [Screen shot]
Courtenay stated in his video-recorded interview several days after the arrest:
“We could stand there quite happily. I didn’t want to get into a discussion with the police officer. An officer of the corporation dare I say……They decided to move me on. Under what acts or statutes I have no idea.…I was assaulted. But I shall forgive Officer 282 Cubbon, because he had no jurisdiction to arrest me.”
According to the companion news report, someone acting as policy officer insisted that the assault and interference with Courtenay’s presentation of “HPV” fraud and carnage evidence was intended to “prevent a breach of the peace”. The incident was captured on video (the police interference begins @4:20).[Video]Richard Cubbon, the “arresting officer”, failed to apprehend any of the “HPV” perpetrators. Like their “covid-19” counterparts, the perpetrators remain at large to this day.[2 screen shot]
[Poem by Factsninator, statement by Coutenay from June 2018 about Terrain]
And, Mike Stone writes about antibodies.
Merrill Chase Inadvertently Disproved Antibodies in 1942. Inadvertently: without knowledge or intent, Mike Stone, 7/5/24.
When I first began uncovering the fraud of virology, I was still somehow convinced that there was such a thing as an “immune system” that utilized substances called “antibodies” in order to protect us from outside pathogens. While I understood that vaccination was dangerous due to the toxic recipes used in their creation, my counter to those pushing for vaccine-acquired “immunity” was to argue in support of naturally acquired “herd-immunity.” I was stuck in this false-binary paradigm as I was still working through the unscientific methodologies used by virologists to claim that invisible pathogenic “viruses” existed. I also had not let go of the idea that bacteria and fungi were invading pathogens as I had not expanded the scope of my inquiries to go beyond “viruses” at that time, and I had yet to truly understand the terrain theory.
It wasn't until I fully understood the importance of purification and isolation procedures for establishing a valid independent variable when using biological materials, as well as the lack of adherence to the scientific method in the virology literature, that I began to question “antibodies” and the entire concept of “immunity” as they are so closely intertwined. For anyone unfamiliar, purification means that a substance is free of any contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. that debase it, whereas isolation refers to the complete separation of one thing from everything else. In regard to virology, this should mean that the “viral” particles are separated entirely in a single form away from any host and foreign materials, cell debris, contaminants, etc. However, the meanings for both purification and isolation have been debased in virology and do not represent the common understanding of the words. One of the common excuses used by researchers for the inability to completely purify and isolate “viruses” prior to any experiments taking place is that they are too small, and therefore, the “viral” particles will collect and co-sediment with any similar particles that are of the same size and density. It is admitted by researchers that the technology needed to completely separate the assumed “viral” particles even from extracellular vesicles such as “exosomes” that are of the same size and density, does not exist. Thus, complete purification and isolation is unable to be achieved in order to have a valid independent variable for study.
Since typical “viruses” range from 20 to 300 nanometers (nm) in diameter and “antibodies” are said to be much smaller, around 10 nm, it became clear to me that if researchers cannot purify and isolate “viruses” directly from a sick host in order to manipulate them in experiments, they would also be unable to do this for the even smaller “antibody” particles. This line of inquiry led me to examine the pivotal moments in the history of “antibody” research, beginning with papers written in 1890, in order to uncover how these entities were discovered and how they had their functioning determined. Upon doing so, I came to the realization that the same problems affecting “viruses” applied to “antibodies,” specifically in regard to the inability to purify and isolate the assumed “antibodies” in order to have them on hand to vary and manipulate during experimentation. Like “viruses,” the “antibody” was a hypothetical entity that was created to explain unnatural reactions observed when mixing blood from different species with various chemicals in Petri dishes. These particles were purely (pun somewhat intended) an imaginary concept, and were unable to be directly observed. I found out that there were no less than six different theories proposed over the course of decades trying to describe how these invisible particles form and function due to the inability to actually witness the processes that they were claimed to be involved in. On top of these problems, I also became aware of the issues with the lack of specificity of the hypothetical “antibodies” to react and bind only to their intended target. This caused many problems for the research papers written using these entities, resulting in a reproducibility crisis where researchers have been unable to reproduce and replicate their own findings as well as those of their peers due to the inconsistent reactions observed within the lab.
It was a long rabbit hole to go through, and there are still a few articles in need of being updated for the ViroLIEgy dot com site. When it is all completed, I plan to do a summarized write-up of the timeline and findings in the future. However, until then, here are the articles in a mostly chronological order based upon the date of the “discoveries.”[List follows]…….
In order to complete this investigation into “antibodies,” I have updated one of the last articles that I had written as a part of this effort, originally posted to Facebook back on May 4th, 2021. The research covered in this article took place in 1942 and 1947. Thus, it is a little out of order in the chronological timeline. However, the findings were not deemed significant until later, and I had initially stumbled upon it at the end of my investigation. The work presented below is from immunologist Merrill Chase, and it demonstrates how the researcher inadvertently disproved the notion that “antibodies” result in “immunity,” a guiding principle behind the vaccination scam.[Analysis aplenty follows, Cut to the conclusion]….
To summarize, Merrill Chase injected guinea pigs with an antigen (tuberculin) to induce a hypersensitivity reaction, which was an effect that was used as a marker of “immunity.” He then took blood from these “immunized” guinea pigs and clarified it to a point where he believed only “antibodies” remained. Injecting this clarified blood into “non-immunized” guinea pigs did not result in a hypersensitivity reaction. However, when he used less clarified samples that still contained blood cells, the “non-immunized” guinea pigs did exhibit a hypersensitivity reaction. This led Chase to conclude that it was not the “antibodies,” but the blood cells, that were responsible for transferring “immunity,” as evidenced by the observed hypersensitivity reaction. As is the case in virology, Chase used lab-created effects in order to determine the role of an invisible entity, and then accidentally disproved the role that this entity was associated with during his experiments.
Merrill Chase admitted that they could not detect plasma cells or “antibodies” in their experiments (only lymphocytes), and then assumed that “antibodies” formed inside the body of the animal by other unseen and delayed means. However, as the researchers could not pass “immunity” through the use of serum containing supposed “antibodies,” only with the serum containing white blood cells, Merrill Chase had falsified the unscientific hypothesis that “antibodies” are responsible for “immunity.” Yet, instead of admitting that they were wrong about the existence of the unseen “antibodies” and their assigned theoretical function when the researchers were unable to produce an “immune” response using serum said to contain these invisible entities, it was decided to split the “immune” system into two different responses, and the B cells were given the ability by Astrid Fagraeus to create these hypothetical substances. By establishing the dual concepts of innate and adaptive “immunity,” immunology could keep their unproven “antibody” theory in the face of contradictory evidence. Despite the fact that the hypothesis had been falsified, the fiction was reworked in order for immunology to sweep away any results where “antibodies” are not detected or do not grant “immunity” when they are supposed to do so. This pivotal moment in establishing a pseudoscientific rescue device allowed the concept of vaccine-acquired “immunity” to move forward, needlessly endangering and harming many future generations in the process.
4IR. The “Labour” branch of the UK Corporate Party scored a landslide win in yesterday’s election, with its leader Keir Starmer becoming the new Prime Minister. This will make absolutely zero difference in basic policies, even if Starmer fulfills all campaign pledges. Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.
Ending this segment and this edition, some quite-bad stuff regarding Julian Assange’s record.
Julian Assange – Do the trusting fall?, Francis O’Neill, 7/3/24.
In recent years the lockdowns, mandates, and toxic injections, have served to reveal the true nature of people in positions of influence.
Before 2020 we had a different measure of people’s ethical standing -the 9/11 litmus test. This was articulated in a video, the transcript of which reads, "Everyone in government and every field of endeavor the world over is defined by their position on this event…By what they have said and by what they have not said, one can accurately judge who is an enemy of the people’s of the world.”
In 2010, Julian Assange told the Belfast Telegraph, “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
The litmus test continues, "Anyone who promotes the official story; who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or too stupid to pat their head and chew gum at the same time.”
At the Holberg Debate in 2017, Assange answered a question by saying, "on the 9/11 issue generally I don’t think it is particularly important.”
The litmus test concludes,
"Everyone in government; in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.”
Assange’s views on 9/11 tally with those of his supporter, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who despite knowing better, said of the case for controlled demolition, "I think it’s completely wrong- but also I think it’s diverting people away from serious issues. I mean even if it is true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.”
There are those who consider the truth of the foundational event of the ‘War on Terror,’ to be important, and the concordant evidence that disproves the official 9/11 story to be significant. As with others who failed the 9/11 litmus test, Chomsky went on to advocate for the medical tyranny of the 2020s, in relation to which Assange’s Wikileaks was notable only for selling masks.
Assange’s comments on 9/11 came after Barack Obama’s information czar, Cass Sunstein, addressed the question What can government do about conspiracy theories? in a paper that concluded, “ that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories” by
“-counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.”
“-formally hiring credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.”
“-informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.”
Sunstein announced the arrival of Wikileaks to the world in a 2007 Washington Post article and was co-author of the ‘nudge theory‘ utilised by governments during the lockdown era. ‘Nudge’ techniques had previously been known as propaganda, coercion, and brainwashing.[SNIP]……
My comment at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl, 7/4/24.
Assange didn’t merely ignore 9/11 truth. He went out of his way to denounce the very idea, just like Chomsky. 9/11 was a major acid test, and Julian got an F. Thanks for this excellent article, Francis O’Neill!!
That they take us for fools will be their downfall.
I'm getting to the stage where if I don't understand a thing then I don't believe it.
Maybe still an open mind but not as gulled hopefully.
Bit of a joke on *test case * - it's only a case because of a test.