What a beautifully written, concise and powerful speech. Thank you for putting into words the experiences of so many whose greatest crime was seeking truth.
🙏 Dr Craig. It’s disgraceful too the way the bereaved have been treated after having lost a loved one to the injections. One example, here in Australia, is the death of 34 years old Katie Lees, where her parents had eventually received $70,000 in compensation:
The biggest danger is believing viruses actually exist in the first place, which allows these evil criminals to do what they want under a false umbrella of fear!!
Germ theory believing idiots are merely rowing a different boat along the same river!!
Thanks for offering a reasoned response to Chelseabern's questioning. I recently offered an equally cautious response to a Sasha Latypova comment which drew an hysterical invective riddled reaction. She is getting quite a reputation.
Why this question matters is that the reifying of the virus justifies the need for potentially life destroying vaccines. I have not yet formed a clear on opinion on the no virus issue but am jntrgued by the role of bacteriophages.
What we need is the open debate you called for. People like Sasha appear to have an interest in ensuring we don't have one. She hopes the searing experience of confronting her will warn people off. This is too important a subject to be dominated by ideologues and people on the Big Pharma take.
Very fair comment. I come from the holistic world and have always subscribed to terrain theory where an individual's susceptibility at any given moment in time is more relevant than the external factor. I understand their rationale for 'no virus' which is that no virus has been isolated. But I always respond to them saying that it doesn't mean there's no microscopic trigger factor, to which I never get a response. Haven't really tuned into Sasha, but have seen her comments recently and she sounds angry and frustrated. We all are somewhat frustrated, but people like Claire and I think your goodself try to channel that into something helpful. I always appreciate voices of calm in the storm like yours.
Thanks for this obsevation MSB I have only recently become aware of the intense hostility that exists between opposing sides of the argument. I understood the disagreement but not the extremes of emotion that came with it.
I think this is part of the role of social media to divde us up. We are positikned in our competing silos and encouraged to ignore anyone who disagrees with us. That is why the rare exchangez between isolated opinion holder,s when they fo happen, are often hostile. It is also why people are so often perfectly oblivious of alternative views.
In Sasha's case, she seemed to be fighting very hard to protect a position by reacting with hostility to anyone wbo challenged hdr sense of superiority and orobably her jncome.
I don’t think social media is the problem but rather human ego. Already noticed last year few fairly prominent medical freedom people (whom I respected) were criticising others for having joined late. Didn’t think this was fair nor did it need to be a purity contest. Surmised they were jealous and resentful as the ones who came in late ended up being more popular and garnering more views. One of the critics has retracted since then.
Even now I see someone who is very smart, did some fantastic research, then got mad that a US senator cited his research without crediting him. I’m not a PhD like the writer, but common sense tells me that senators have aides who do the research for them and just give them points without footnotes. I felt he could have been more proactive and leveraged his contacts to get in front of the major health people in his government instead of complaining daily about them, and in the process drawing in shills and trolls to do the same creating more disharmony.
That’s why so many words of Claire here are so relevant and worth quoting. She’s not the only one, but she is one of the stars who shine brightly and guide us in this darkness. Finally, I’d like to say that the problem with Sasha and her ilk (including the person cited above) is that they lack nuance. When you’re trying to bring people round to your point of view, it’s foolish to hit them on the head with all these ideas that are so far removed from what they’ve always known. You have to be able to communicate in their language. For e.g. you can say it was a pandemic of fearmongering and expand on that, but you can’t there was NO pandemic.
I would say that is fair, but one has to be clear to define pandemic in ones own terms to take it away from the usual mainstream definition.
But it is true that the pandemics based on disease symptoms related to an alleged virus as they define it are made up by the authorities, hence no pandemic.
Ultimately one is trying to start from where any one individual stands and that is rarely simple.
Drs Sam and Mark Bailey are very active now in the Terrain Theory space... Sam had lots of great videos on her webpage and on Odysee video platform. She had contributed to the book Virus Mania and reproduced 'Terrain Therapy' by Dr Ulrich Williams... worth a look!
Thank you for providing those suggestions as I couldn't come up with any since terrain theory has been in my blood for a few decades and I couldn't explain how I knew. But that understanding is there in holistic medicine even such as naturopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine.
It has been a long war and people are very tired. As I say to Clare in the comments the issue on viruses is that they were rebranded.
Anything microscopic is cell debris as a result of the ongoing metabolic processes which occur in healthy and diseased alike. Our bodies are like housholds which produce waste that needs to be removed, not disease causing per se but not to be left to pile up or problems ensue.
The no virus statement is problematic without context. There was, for example, no novel disease but a rebranding fear driven exercise to persuade the masses to do stupid things and eventually get a toxic vaccine.
So in that sense there was no virus as defined by the authorities.
But the matter goes deeper as viruses themselves were rebranded as I make clear in a comment to Clare in the comments which you may wish to read.
Sasha Latypova gets frustrated no doubt that so many people still do not see the truth by now, but I think perhaps too much stress is placed on the lack of isolation rather than the broad picture which is simple logic to follow.
It has been 5 years now of too many people refusing to see the obvious and it is that which irritates many.
And the worst of it is that there have been those who understood what was going on decades ago, so one has to appreciate how annoying it is when the truth is still ignored.
Thanks for your reply. I read your comment to Clare too. You are right that the narrative is muddied and I think it may be deliberate, in some quarters. Your 5 years point is very well made. We have achieved so little progress towards an understanding, collectively, of what actually happened. I believe social media has played a role here. Yes, human frailty too but these platforms are built with an understanding of that frailty.
Facebook is a good example. After Trump and Cambridge Analytica gamed Facebook in 2016, Zuckerberg was pulled in and told fix your algorithm. That does not mean it is not helping Trump now but at the time the system wanted Hillary. From that time our reach was closed down to family, friends and the groups we join. Our self-selected group choices reinforce our prejudices and so are protected from challenging views. Twitter has a different model but does an equally effective job of curating our online experience.
Now, we know we were lied to, manipulated, abused and robbed of work, dignity and friends. On Sasha, she can be incredibly hostile and foul-mouthed that her contributions and perhaps even her sanity must be considered in assessing her perspectives.
The failure of key people to come to an understanding across the virus / no virus perspectives is particularly troubling. There is the third view of Jonathan Couey too of the conflating of bacteriophages under viruses. Unfortunately. his personal attacks are tiresome and troubling. I think this is a great shame because he has a lot to contribute.
What are the barriers to an informed, open debate? Ego, money, status, bribes, promises or ignorance? I was watching 9/11 discussion yesterday on Substack's Jerm Warfare where the observation was made that 10% of scientists are demons and 10% angels. We have seen a lot of demons in recent years and their little helpers that stretch beyond that 10%.
Others here have echoed my own feelings that I almost don’t know what to add, other than I was really touched by the final part, where you not only reminded us of the importance of standing united together but also of the source of our deepest motivation. That’s what in reality keeps us all going, and we always need to remind ourselves of that just as you have done here.
Nearly everyone knows someone or of someone that died or suffered severe injuries from these COVID MRNA gene editing vaccines Laws need changing All vaccine companies should be made fully liable for all vaccine induced deaths and injuries
This talk is a very clear reification of the virus and the mainstream narrative. I find the variants story hard to accept Much like with Latypova, I can't hear anything that I won't find on a lot of Alt and mainstream media. Such an appriach has hardly frightened authorities to behave responsibly and ethically. With Malone on the FDA ACIP committee, there will be little challenge to an extreme snd expanding vaccine agenda.
Powerful. Thank you, Dr. Craig.
Thank you as always for fighting on our behalf. Such a strong clear case.
What a beautifully written, concise and powerful speech. Thank you for putting into words the experiences of so many whose greatest crime was seeking truth.
🙏 Dr Craig. It’s disgraceful too the way the bereaved have been treated after having lost a loved one to the injections. One example, here in Australia, is the death of 34 years old Katie Lees, where her parents had eventually received $70,000 in compensation:
Superb ! Thank you so much Dr. Craig, you are our light in a very dark, otherwise frightful place .
You gave us the much needed strength of sanity during those very dark days. Thank you!
Very clear exposé of the issues. Thank you.
The biggest danger is believing viruses actually exist in the first place, which allows these evil criminals to do what they want under a false umbrella of fear!!
Germ theory believing idiots are merely rowing a different boat along the same river!!
Why do you think germ theory is a problem for the arguments I am making?
Even if there was a virus that killed people - that would not justify the ethical and civil rights breaches nor could it explain all the mortality.
There is no need to try an turn the whole of science upside down in order to win on those points - which are the ones that matter.
Thanks for offering a reasoned response to Chelseabern's questioning. I recently offered an equally cautious response to a Sasha Latypova comment which drew an hysterical invective riddled reaction. She is getting quite a reputation.
Why this question matters is that the reifying of the virus justifies the need for potentially life destroying vaccines. I have not yet formed a clear on opinion on the no virus issue but am jntrgued by the role of bacteriophages.
What we need is the open debate you called for. People like Sasha appear to have an interest in ensuring we don't have one. She hopes the searing experience of confronting her will warn people off. This is too important a subject to be dominated by ideologues and people on the Big Pharma take.
Very fair comment. I come from the holistic world and have always subscribed to terrain theory where an individual's susceptibility at any given moment in time is more relevant than the external factor. I understand their rationale for 'no virus' which is that no virus has been isolated. But I always respond to them saying that it doesn't mean there's no microscopic trigger factor, to which I never get a response. Haven't really tuned into Sasha, but have seen her comments recently and she sounds angry and frustrated. We all are somewhat frustrated, but people like Claire and I think your goodself try to channel that into something helpful. I always appreciate voices of calm in the storm like yours.
Thanks for this obsevation MSB I have only recently become aware of the intense hostility that exists between opposing sides of the argument. I understood the disagreement but not the extremes of emotion that came with it.
I think this is part of the role of social media to divde us up. We are positikned in our competing silos and encouraged to ignore anyone who disagrees with us. That is why the rare exchangez between isolated opinion holder,s when they fo happen, are often hostile. It is also why people are so often perfectly oblivious of alternative views.
In Sasha's case, she seemed to be fighting very hard to protect a position by reacting with hostility to anyone wbo challenged hdr sense of superiority and orobably her jncome.
What reading on terrain theory would you suggest?
I don’t think social media is the problem but rather human ego. Already noticed last year few fairly prominent medical freedom people (whom I respected) were criticising others for having joined late. Didn’t think this was fair nor did it need to be a purity contest. Surmised they were jealous and resentful as the ones who came in late ended up being more popular and garnering more views. One of the critics has retracted since then.
Even now I see someone who is very smart, did some fantastic research, then got mad that a US senator cited his research without crediting him. I’m not a PhD like the writer, but common sense tells me that senators have aides who do the research for them and just give them points without footnotes. I felt he could have been more proactive and leveraged his contacts to get in front of the major health people in his government instead of complaining daily about them, and in the process drawing in shills and trolls to do the same creating more disharmony.
That’s why so many words of Claire here are so relevant and worth quoting. She’s not the only one, but she is one of the stars who shine brightly and guide us in this darkness. Finally, I’d like to say that the problem with Sasha and her ilk (including the person cited above) is that they lack nuance. When you’re trying to bring people round to your point of view, it’s foolish to hit them on the head with all these ideas that are so far removed from what they’ve always known. You have to be able to communicate in their language. For e.g. you can say it was a pandemic of fearmongering and expand on that, but you can’t there was NO pandemic.
I would say that is fair, but one has to be clear to define pandemic in ones own terms to take it away from the usual mainstream definition.
But it is true that the pandemics based on disease symptoms related to an alleged virus as they define it are made up by the authorities, hence no pandemic.
Ultimately one is trying to start from where any one individual stands and that is rarely simple.
Drs Sam and Mark Bailey are very active now in the Terrain Theory space... Sam had lots of great videos on her webpage and on Odysee video platform. She had contributed to the book Virus Mania and reproduced 'Terrain Therapy' by Dr Ulrich Williams... worth a look!
Thank you for providing those suggestions as I couldn't come up with any since terrain theory has been in my blood for a few decades and I couldn't explain how I knew. But that understanding is there in holistic medicine even such as naturopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine.
It has been a long war and people are very tired. As I say to Clare in the comments the issue on viruses is that they were rebranded.
Anything microscopic is cell debris as a result of the ongoing metabolic processes which occur in healthy and diseased alike. Our bodies are like housholds which produce waste that needs to be removed, not disease causing per se but not to be left to pile up or problems ensue.
The no virus statement is problematic without context. There was, for example, no novel disease but a rebranding fear driven exercise to persuade the masses to do stupid things and eventually get a toxic vaccine.
So in that sense there was no virus as defined by the authorities.
But the matter goes deeper as viruses themselves were rebranded as I make clear in a comment to Clare in the comments which you may wish to read.
Sasha Latypova gets frustrated no doubt that so many people still do not see the truth by now, but I think perhaps too much stress is placed on the lack of isolation rather than the broad picture which is simple logic to follow.
It has been 5 years now of too many people refusing to see the obvious and it is that which irritates many.
And the worst of it is that there have been those who understood what was going on decades ago, so one has to appreciate how annoying it is when the truth is still ignored.
Thanks for your reply. I read your comment to Clare too. You are right that the narrative is muddied and I think it may be deliberate, in some quarters. Your 5 years point is very well made. We have achieved so little progress towards an understanding, collectively, of what actually happened. I believe social media has played a role here. Yes, human frailty too but these platforms are built with an understanding of that frailty.
Facebook is a good example. After Trump and Cambridge Analytica gamed Facebook in 2016, Zuckerberg was pulled in and told fix your algorithm. That does not mean it is not helping Trump now but at the time the system wanted Hillary. From that time our reach was closed down to family, friends and the groups we join. Our self-selected group choices reinforce our prejudices and so are protected from challenging views. Twitter has a different model but does an equally effective job of curating our online experience.
Now, we know we were lied to, manipulated, abused and robbed of work, dignity and friends. On Sasha, she can be incredibly hostile and foul-mouthed that her contributions and perhaps even her sanity must be considered in assessing her perspectives.
The failure of key people to come to an understanding across the virus / no virus perspectives is particularly troubling. There is the third view of Jonathan Couey too of the conflating of bacteriophages under viruses. Unfortunately. his personal attacks are tiresome and troubling. I think this is a great shame because he has a lot to contribute.
What are the barriers to an informed, open debate? Ego, money, status, bribes, promises or ignorance? I was watching 9/11 discussion yesterday on Substack's Jerm Warfare where the observation was made that 10% of scientists are demons and 10% angels. We have seen a lot of demons in recent years and their little helpers that stretch beyond that 10%.
All trust is gone. We were lied to: the authorities made stuff up to control our behaviour. All trust is gone.
Others here have echoed my own feelings that I almost don’t know what to add, other than I was really touched by the final part, where you not only reminded us of the importance of standing united together but also of the source of our deepest motivation. That’s what in reality keeps us all going, and we always need to remind ourselves of that just as you have done here.
Nearly everyone knows someone or of someone that died or suffered severe injuries from these COVID MRNA gene editing vaccines Laws need changing All vaccine companies should be made fully liable for all vaccine induced deaths and injuries
Thank you.
Concur Dr Craig
Bravo
Great talk. Thank you.
This talk is a very clear reification of the virus and the mainstream narrative. I find the variants story hard to accept Much like with Latypova, I can't hear anything that I won't find on a lot of Alt and mainstream media. Such an appriach has hardly frightened authorities to behave responsibly and ethically. With Malone on the FDA ACIP committee, there will be little challenge to an extreme snd expanding vaccine agenda.