In my defense

In my defense:

If you are reading this, I have offered it to you in self-defense. I am unvaccinated and will stay that way for as long as humanly possible. The pressure to vax comes from above, around, and below. I am told that I am harming others, spreading a virus, and that the hospitals are filled with unvaccinated people. None of this is true. I do not imagine that I am smarter than my accusers, only that I have spent my time these past 21 months trying to understand the nature of viruses and bacteria, illnesses, and contagion. Nothing is as I first imagined on 3/11/20, the day we were told there was a worldwide “pandemic.”

Since that day I have come to realize that there are no viruses. But for the sake of the pharmaceutical and other industries, viruses are seen as essential. Obviously for drug companies they are a huge source of revenue, both for sale of drugs and vaccines. But viruses also protect other industries. The polio “virus” protected the pesticide industry, as that disease was actually caused by lead arsenate and DDT, two poisons used to combat the gypsy moth, which was devastating crops. Because they were able to blame the virus, there were no lawsuits where there should have been thousands of lawsuits. The same with Zika, West Nile, Hantavirus, and many others. In fact, in 2016 Germany’s highest court ruled that there was no scientific evidence of the existence of the measles virus.

Virologists are paid to find viruses. If they don’t discover new ones regularly, they become Uber drivers. The technique by which they “isolate” viruses is junk science, even science fraud. I could explain that, but then this brief essay becomes long and unreadable.

The PCR process is amazing, but the PCR test used to detect viruses is junk science. Every PCR test result is false. Testing “positive” is purely random, and the people behind the test can turn it up or down depending on circumstances. If they want to make it appear that a virus is spreading, they turn it up. Turning it down makes it appear that the virus is in retreat. By “turning it up or down” I am referring to amplification, or amp cycles used, explained below.

The PCR process when used as intended is a powerful tool. Law enforcement, genealogists will all attest to its power. Real scientists take a strand of DNA and magnify it to perhaps 2 raised to the 25th power, or 25 amp cycles, 33,544,432 times the size of the original sample. At that magnification, scientists can compare it to other strands of DNA and see if they match. There’s obviously much more to it, but that’s enough for this purpose.

In PCR testing, amp cycles beyond 25 begin to lose accuracy, just as a copy of a copy degrades. Scientists have calculated that at 30 amp cycles, the test is only 20% reliable. At 35 … only 3% reliable. Beyond 35, GIGO, or “garbage in, garbage out.” The test is then worthless. The WHO and CDC know this and yet tell laboratories administering the PCR test to use 40 or more amp cycles! GIGO! They are really using the PCR test to spread fear and simulate a virus that is spreading.  If you test positive for Covid by means of a PCR test, the result is false. If you test negative, also false. It is junk science.

If you are locked down in your home for fear of a virus or quarantined due to a false PCR (or antigen) test, you are a victim of crimes against humanity. (By the way, there is no such thing as an “asymptomatic carrier,” but without that false concept, there would be no pandemic.)

The vaccine seems real enough, that is, they really want us to take it. It has nothing to do with any virus or illness. It has some other unstated purpose. I don’t know what that purpose is, and cannot speculate, as that is unwise. I only know this:  Due to crimes committed by Nazis, there was a meeting at Nuremberg after WWII, and there the US and many other countries signed what are called the Nuremberg Accords. Part of those Accords is this: No one is allowed to experiment on other people without first obtaining “Informed Consent.” Since we are not being told what is in the vaccines or their true purpose, we cannot give informed consent.

Thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions worldwide, have died due to the vaccines, unreported in our news media. Many people are being forced to take the vaccine; others are being misled by its promoters. This is all a massive crime against humanity. It appears that the world is in the grips of organized psychopathy.

For this reason, I have refused to vaccinate. There is no virus, the tests they are doing are meaningless junk science, and we do not know what the vaccine is about. I am in perfect health, and I am not spreading something not even proven to exist and am well-informed and will not allow a vaccination containing undisclosed ingredients.

I rest my case but can expand on all of this, including the role of the news media, to the point of tedium. I choose not to.


Mark Tokarski

December 24, 2021

93 thoughts on “In my defense

  1. This was exactly the bracing tonic I needed before heading to the gathering, where all, save me and my ladies, are under the spell. Your timing was perfect, and it’s an excellent summation of the present predicament, should anyone attempt to engage me on the topic. Thank you and have a warm Noche Buena, POMers!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Kary Mullis shared Nobel price for creation of PCR protocol for copying and increasing nucleotides to provide researchers sufficient quantity. Genetic research and DNA codes resulted. Mullis’ comments on diagnostic misuse of PDR
      can be found on YouTube unless recently removed by the usual suspects.


    1. Me too. But he already has in the past.

      Mark; perhaps a nice Table of Contents (and possibly summaries) would be of great aid to others whom may have not read all of your content (and other posts here).

      Also, maybe favorite (high value) links to say, Jon Rappaport’s content, whom has also done a spectacular job expanding on this … “dilemma” over the years.


        1. I don’t think it needs to be fancy (yet). By “Table of Contents” I simply meant that some minimal amount of time is required to gather the relevant blog posts / essays by writers here at POF, and then just creat a single blog post that introduces them (or just lists them out – sometimes an essay’s title is sufficient.) The topic’s core appears to be “COVID19” pandemic, but it clearly goes beyond that; A “Virology / Biology / Scientific Method audit” of sorts?

          No pressure, all just suggestions – readers are still free to explore the large amount of posts. I only chose to write about this because the reader above was not aware (for whatever reason) that he/she was able to peruse through a massive gold mine of information relating to the pandemic (including outbound links.)

          Another note: You could also see if your blog software allows for tagging entries and this could be done via the method of tagging instead of Table of Contents approach.

          As for the book approach, I still like that idea. An easily distributable PDF, but yes that is quite a bit more work (but the right person should be able to do it quickly)

          In either case, organizing and / or tagging information here on your site is still essentially required – and it does take “Knowledge Management” dedicated time. So my sincere suggestion would be to hold off on the book and perform the gathering / organizing phase first.


    2. My original draft did so, and was tedious, unreadable. One subject at a time. For instance, virology has bad techniques, but practitioners who are convinced what they do is meritorious. Perhaps they are corrupt or corruptible, but to deal with the problem requires multi-level analysis in a short essay. Once it becomes unreadable, it is pointless.Best just to lead with the conclusion and hope anyone who reads it reads further and wider.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, please do expand. One chapter at a time is how a book is made. I would buy, trade, work, etc. for a book on these subjects by Mark Tokarski (2022?). That way, the government, Google, DARPA, NSA, 5-eyes or whichever agency calls the shots on censorship in all its various forms would have to physically come to my home and take the book from me so as to burn its ideas/contents. The sun may have some magical power to take down the whole digital network. I do not know. Producing a book would be a good thing, and might inspire others to do the same. Crazy, I realize, but far from impossible.


      2. I believe this is just one of several ‘scientific’ paradigms that are about to seriously shift. You probably know Rupert Sheldrake already, but have you read his son’s new book, Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Future? Full circle, as they say.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. To elaborate a little on qPCR, the specific PCR test that is used to detect an “infection”:

      The quantitative realtime PCR (qPCR) is not quite the same as a PCR-based test as used in forensics. In forensic research, PCR is used to accumulate target DNA to have enough to search for a match. This search is done after the PCR.

      With the quantitative realtime-PCR (qPCR), target DNA can be detected during the PCR.

      Labeled probes bind to the target DNA if it’s in the sample and are undetectable when the probe is intact. Once the Polymerase Chain Reaction starts, the probe starts to degrade and begins to emit light of a specific wavelength.

      The more target DNA is copied the more probes start to degrade and the signal becomes stronger. When the amount of light emitted by the degrading probes reaches or exceeds a set detection limit it is assumed that the target DNA is in the sample.

      I’m sure if you run enough (too many…) cycles the amount of light emitted will reach or exceed the detection limit, but that doesn’t mean the target DNA is in the sample.

      And even if the target DNA is in the sample, that doesn’t mean it’s from a virus.

      And if it does come from a virus, assuming viruses actually exist, that doesn’t mean it’s from a current infection.

      Using qPCR to detect an “infection” is a layer cake of steaming BS.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks XS. PCR technology is infinitely confusing to me, especially the “lighting up” part. What I am certain about is that any technology used by the people behind this Scamdemic is designed to f*** us over.

        The information on amp cycles was taken from a paper published in Oxford Academic, Jaafar et al, linked below.

        That paper was cited by the Portuguese appeals court in its decision to overturn quarantines and grant habeas corpus to four German nationals. A Google translation of that court decision follows.

        Dr. Tim O’Shea, who has done good work while clinging to the virus myth, writes today about two of the freest states remaining in our union, Texas and Florida, and a tourist destination that has eschewed most of the Covid nonsense – no masks, testing or quarantines: Mexico. (Scroll down to the part about Thailand.)

        It so happens we are later next week taking a trip, first to Florida, and then to Mexico. God willing and the creek don’t rise. As much as possible we booked everything to be refundable. But we chose our destinations well. We have to PCR before returning home, and if either of us fails, Mexico does not care. We just extend our vacation. [Florida Gov DeSantis signed an executive order requiring that all PCR testing disclose the number of amp cycles used. I was forced to do a PCR prior to surgery, and demanded from Jefferson County (CO) to know the number of amp cycles used by the labs they use. The answer: 40+.]

        By the way, since PCR results are random, if someone is facing quarantine due to a positive test, take it again!


        1. 40+ is ridiculous. Like Karry Mullis said, if you run enough/to much cycles you can find anything with PCR. According to him, it’s not possible to cheat with the test itself, but with the interpretation of the result it is.

          I do believe that qPCR is not only used because it gives a result instantly but also because qPCR only tells you something is found not what it found. When you run to many cycles the result becomes meaningless.

          Testing again after a positive test result seems to work for football players and the like. If there are not millions of dollars at stake a second negative test might be interpreted as a false negative.


          1. It would (is) possible to “cheat” if index hopping, reference bias and other artifacts introduced by [q]PCR, some of which only pertain to pooled analysis (when a single machine is loaded to ascertain the result of a plethora of human lavage / mucous / tissue etc.



            And then there is THIS: I knew it would be removed eventually…


            ^ This page cannot be found

            Well, at the time, I took a snapshot of it!


            As with any diagnostic procedure, the positive and negative predictive values for the product in a given testing population are important to note. As the positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 decreases, the positive predictive value also decreases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as positivity rate decreases, irrespective of the assay specificity. Therefore, healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts, etc.

            Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result. The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain. Thus, the IFU will state how to interpret specimens at or near the limit for PCR positivity. In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.

            Narrowing in on the most important paragraph:

            In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise

            I “quadruple taked” when I first came across this bizarre notice. Background noise? What? I too, once thought that background noise couldnt be a thing – I was told it. But now, that article is taken down, which is interesting in its own light – for whoever wrote that notice, the backlash from the dictate above could have been tremendous

            And it is more interesting when you take care to save old documents (old as in two years…) Documents I found as of March 2020 shows that Ct could be set as high as 50. Yes …. 50. Ever since the cat has been out of the bag, it appears the Ct has been suggested to be lowered and lowered from here.


            Reverse transcription 55°C 20 min x1
            Denaturation 95°C 3 min x1
            Amplification 95°C 15 sec x50 Acquisition 58°C 30 sec
            Cooling 40°C 30 sec x1

            Taking a step back from the jargon for just a sentence: When you hear “gain” (amplification), “noise” naturally follows…

            Why? Well, when replicating target nucleotide chains, there is no guarantee of perfect replication (although the liklihood appears to high.) There is additional chance of error when these assays are pooled (ran in parallel). It’s called multiplexing, and it is, what I imagine, allows for m/billions of tests to be ran (binary search algorithms and other methods are used to narrow down on “hits”)

            Many technologies (“NGS” – next generation sequencing) were introduced after the famous interviews I could find showing Kary Mullis in his full glory, dissecting the interpretation of PCR assays, btw. If he was alive, I am sure he’d be able to dissect further.


            1. @A+CALL
              Recently there was an article in the Dutch media about wrongly pasted bar-code labels. That makes it a lot easier to dismiss it as a mistake when index hopping is exposed outside the mainstream media in the future.

              Thanks for making the snapshot of the WHO article.

              Your right, background noise is being debunked by “professionals”. The less target DNA there is in the sample the more cycles it takes to find it is usually the misleading message.

              “In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise”

              That basically means to many cycles make for an unreliable outcome.

              On a side note, it contains two commonly (deliberately?) made mistakes:

              RT-PCR is short for Reverse Transcription PCR not real-time PCR. qPCR is used for quantitative (-real-time) PCR. The tests used for so-called “infection” determination for RNA viruses are a combination of RT-PCR and qPCR.

              It is yet another article that talks about detecting a virus with PCR where in reality the only thing that is detected is a specific piece of DNA. You come across this so much in articles about PCR in relation to Covid-19 that I get the impression that this is done deliberately to cloud the perception.


          2. I think I understand now somewhat better than when I wrote this piece … with PCR we need to know what is in the primers. They are looking for something, and turning up the amp cycles increases the likelihood of finding it. Here we need to go back to the fraud committed by Peter Drosten et al in January of 2020, which was critical to the success of the scam, to deliver primers to WHO said to be derived from the Wuhan virus. Most likely now it can be suspected that the primers were selected well in advance to be a DNA strand found in all of us that turns up with predictable frequency, giving WHO complete control over spread of the “virus”.

            Better late than never.,


            1. If by primer you mean template or viral-DNA, I agree. I’m not familiar with the fraud committed by Peter Drosten et al in January of 2020. Can you provide a link to that information?

              This is how I understand PCR and primers at this point in time:

              The primers used in PCR are synthetic replicas of the beginning and end of the target-DNA. The target-DNA is a small piece of a complete DNA strand. These primers initiate the regeneration process of a piece the two strands of the double helix of a DNA strand that have been melted apart in an earlier stage of the process.

              Keeping the cooling process short after the two strands have been melted apart prevents the strands from reattaching to each other. The primers attach to the beginning and the end of the piece of target-DNA within the DNA strands that have been melted apart and kickstart the regeneration process of the second strand of the piece of DNA between the two primers. That’s how one piece becomes two.

              Target DNA is a small piece of the entire DNA. Which piece of the whole DNA strand is designated as target DNA, and therefore the primers, vary from one test site to another. In my view, that makes detection of the presence of viral DNA (RNA in this case), even if you believe in viruses, arbitrary at best.

              As you said, I think it is very likely that the target DNA found, if it really is found and not just assumed to be so, is our own. If it is not, how can swabs be used for forensic purposes?



                Not surprisingly, a security alert is attached to that link. I got by it easily. They do not want people reading that article, printed in Eurosurveillance.

                XS, I’ve printed all your comments on PCR for review, as I need to understand this better than I do. I might keep pestering you with questions this week, if you do not mind.

                Can you settle an (uninformed) discussion we had here back in 2020 – our son has symptoms that look like a mild head cold, and he has tested positive. His son, our grandson, was wanting to return to work on Monday and so took a PCR test to free him up. He too tested positive.

                I am of the opinion that there is no underlying virus, but that PCR can be programmed to search for something. Could it be that head cold symptoms can trigger a positive test result? This was the discussion, unresolved, that we had months ago.


                1. Most likely, the result is caused by too many cycles. I think both your son and grandson testing positive was just bad luck. qPCR as it is currently used is a game of chance.

                  Considering that even without symptoms a test can turn out positive, I don’t think a common cold has any bearing on it.

                  The added primers do let the qPCR look for something in particular but if the number of cycles is too high it may let you know it has found something but it is unlikely that that is still the target DNA.

                  The first few cycles, about 25/30, qPCR looks accurately for the target DNA that is supposed to be a specific part of the DNA (reverse transcripted viral RNA). Which part that is varies by test site. This RNA/DNA is a fiction, so if a piece of it is found, it is most likely from something else.

                  If the light emitted by the degrading probes reaches or exceeds the set threshold, the small piece of target DNA has been found, but it is impossible to know where it came from, so the result is meaningless. It could very well come from your own DNA.

                  After about 30/35 cycles, the result becomes even more meaningless. If I understand correctly, the primers and probes begin to attach to random pieces of DNA, so when the emitted light reaches or exceeds the threshold, it is because it is being pushed in that direction and not because the target DNA has been found.

                  All that is needed for the test to be considered positive is for the light emitted to reach the threshold. If you run too many cycles, chances are this will happen, but by then it has nothing to do with the target DNA anymore.


            2. What the Drosten crew delivered to the WHO in January 2020 was simply a hypothetical genome that they supposedly got from the Chinese. All they actually did was modify the genome on file for the 2003 SARS, which was/is also a hypothetical/fictional computer model. Every supposed virus genome is the same fiction; not one ever properly isolated, all the way back to the beginning of virology in the Rockefeller labs.
              My understanding is that health authorities and labs are free to choose whatever DNA fragments they like from the genome model when designing a test, and therefore they choose the appropriate primers to match those fragments. Thus there’s many different tests looking for different things.
              Agree, I think they had this all figured out long before Jan 2020, and know exactly what fragments will be detected in some percentage in the population.
              For those interested, here’s the original Drosten paper:
              And here’s the peer review that shredded the Drosten paper, that was ignored by the press:


              1. The Drosten paper is a tough read because of the thick virology lingo, but I encourage everyone to at least read the “Introduction”. In my view, the last paragraph of the Introduction tells you everything you need to know about the scam that kicked off this whole operation.


                1. Several plane flights coming up, will be able to read the Drosten piece, and thanks for the clarification. Earlier when I linked to the peer review it was security blocked, had to go around that to get to it. Things likes that need to be printed, as nothing digital is secure.


        2. Have you considered the possibility that they’re poisoning people with the ‘covid’ test swabs in order to produce a constant stream of symptomatic people? I think there’s lots of evidence pointing in that direction. So many people are getting sick right after being tested, and knowing that there’s no virus begs attention on what might be happening during the testing that could be making people sick.
          Why the special ‘covid test kit’ swabs, when a simple generic sterile swab would do? And why the need to stick it all the way to the back of the sinus cavity, to the most sensitive and delicate spot? None of it makes sense unless there’s a hidden motive.
          If I’m just following the evidence, I can’t help but suspect that there may be a toxin on the special swabs that’s making a lot of people sick.
          And even if the swabs aren’t poisoned, agreeing to be tested is the same as agreeing to masking, quarantining, and the poison jabs, in my view. It’s all cooperation with tyranny. I will have none of it.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. About the light emitting, I believe it is similar to what is in glowsticks. In qPCR not only the primers but also the probe bind to the single DNA strand which is restored to the double DNA strand by the polimerase chain reaction. In that process the probe gets in the way and falls apart causing light to start radiating.

          Here is an article about that process with bits and pieces of useful information. It is the only article so far that does not mention Kary Mullis and is more honest about the origin and development of PCR.

          Then again it also says that qPCR plays an important role in the detection, quantification, and characterization of viral pathogens, when all it does is amplify a specific piece of DNA.

          The most common misconception is that PCR can demonstrate the presence of a virus, when in fact, if you don’t run too many cycles, it only proves that the target DNA is in the sample. If you can’t determine where that came from it doesn’t mean much.

          The problem with too many cycles is that primers and probes will bind to random pieces of DNA causing probes to fall apart that have not bound to the target DNA but give the appearance that they have.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Mark, if you fly into Miami, be sure to rent a car and drive 100 off shore (from Homestead, south of Miami) to Key West! Im certain you will enjoy it. There is a beach park on Southernmost end of island…that where the iguanas hang out…in the trees. It’s on Coast Guard property I believe…they let you in freely. Can go in the water there too.


          Rent a 1982 Chrysler Cordoba Convertible and put on some Bertie. Smoke a cigarette for me. Have a nice Scotch too while you are at it 🙂


          1. And one of the islands has the Key Deer! These are small pygmi deer…I’ll think you’ll see signs to slow down. You can pull over and drive around…I think they are like 3′ tall! Adorable 🙂



            They are almost as cute as Scottish Highlanders!

            It’s good to take things in and leave the “academic” nonsense behind sometimes. As one might have guessed, I value what’s real moreso than the academic.

            I can see the fucking ocean!! I can see the birds and Belted Galloways…not so much a f’n Nano Router nor MAC Address!

            Enjoy your trip! I’m thinking about driving out to San Diego…exactly 750 miles. Nonstop? Most likely 🙂


            1. Don’t worry, you will have 30+ academic papers and links awaiting your return 🙂

              Some totally BS like that Spanish Colonia whatever the Hell they call themselves 🙂


      2. And then the virus is supposed to be RNA so you have to Reverse Transcriptase it to DNA – not that I really understand a thing about it, just that it seems a perfect kind of operation to produce dud results.


        1. With Reverse Transcription, the single RNA strand is mirrored to change the single-stranded RNA into the double-stranded helix (if it really is a helix, this shape if I understand correctly is an interpretation of an artist commissioned by Francis Crick and Dr. James D. Watson) of DNA.

          That, in itself, is a reliable method to be able to perform PCR with RNA. But you are right that with each additional step in the process it becomes easier to tamper with.


  2. Exactly, Mark; Ebola ‘virus’ caused by cyanide used in the gold mining industry, deflection from the real causes/causers (if that’s a word).


    1. “Causative factors” or even “contributors” would work. Not everyone exposed to cyanide … or lead arsenate / DDT develops clinical symptoms (maybe too small dose or a resilient biome / organ filtering in a particular individual)


    2. You’re on the right track, Jackie, but Ebola is not caused by cyanide poisoning. The symptoms tell the story. Cyanide poisoning presents as a hypoxia; the blood is chemically unable to absorb adequate oxygen, and there’s systemic blood coagulation. Interestingly that’s one of the common ‘Covid’ symptoms.
      The characteristic Ebola symptom is systemic hemorrhaging, along with severe abdominal pains, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. If you look up the symptoms of coumarin poisoning (aka ‘rat poison’, Warfarin), it’s a perfect match. And if you research why there’s ‘outbreaks’ of poisonings from rat poison, one discovers that it’s become a common ingredient in illicit street drugs across Africa.
      And the dark agents of the Anglo-American empire love to find these tragic situations and exploit them for ever-more power & wealth. Enter, “the virus”.


      1. Thank you, David, Jackie, Mark and everyone else – for this Ebola/coumarin insight and many others. Merry Christmas everyone!


      2. I first read about cyanide/Ebola from a link by a regular poster here (I forget who it was) which was very enlightening, since then I’ve read other links about Ebola cases at gold mining operations in Gabon, South Africa, and Ghana.
        Cyanide and also sulphur dioxide are spread as dust particles in the air by the blasting and quarrying which as a consequence pollutes the surrounding environment. In addition, arsenic, which is used in the process of crushed rocks, flows into the local water supplies, and damages forest vegetation.
        Whatever the cause, it’s the ‘Shift the blame, call it a virus’ stratagem.


  3. The current state of humanity: Where one quite sane, rational and decent human being has to publish a “defense”.

    Good God we have fallen..


    1. If you get a chance, watch Being the Ricardos on Netflix. There’s plenty not to like about it, but it does capture the Red Scare pretty well. That particular psyop was also very intense. They just lacked technology to make everyone swear an oath and carry a card to enter a restaurant. It is technology that is doing us in. As Marshall McLuhan said, roughly quoting, with every advance in technology comes a corresponding loss of freedom.


    2. That’s assuming large swaths of humanity were ever sane or logical. Look no further than previous worldwide pandemics (such as the “Spanish Flu” and the “Black Plague”) and you’ll see the same thing. Nothing has really changed.


        1. I need to do a deep dive, and my inclinations these days are to avoid the rabbit hole. My initial suspicions (having lost an aunt (well before my time)) to the Spanish flu, a newly wed woman in her prime, and reading the work of Mike Baillee who saw in the Greenland ice cores of this period large granular matter in the air (I have checked, there were no comets passing by then)), is that the Spanish flu was real and remains un-investigated. Scientists back away from it, as it contains evidence that they do not know what the fuck they are doing. Rosenau proved it was not contagious. Virologists stumbling on an H1N1 virus in a frozen corpse are up to their usual malpractice shenanigans. The ailment, whatever it was, affected mostly young people in their prime, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of corpses piled up, no room at the morgues and cemeteries. Don’t be quick to assume that everything is fake. Also don’t be quick to assume that people in power understand or cause everything.


          1. My above comparisons are there to demonstrate that humans haven’t changed their attitudes towards massive psyops like the Coronavirus pandemic. They don’t say anything about the validity of the pathogens themselves, but rather how the masses react to such perceived health threats, which is little different to how people reacted to staged terror events like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

            As for the “Spanish Flu” being real, while that is a possibility, I haven’t seen any irrefutable evidence to prove that it really existed, much like the lack of reliable evidence proving COVID-19’s existence. In fact, no one is even sure where it actually came from before it first broke out in the American Midwest. If you have any concrete facts to the contrary, you’re more than welcome to share them to me and I may reconsider my stance on the subject.

            I don’t know about your personal family history, but I suspect that your relative may have died from bacterial pneumonia rather than the Influenza variant at the time. Mainline publications (such as the ones linked below) have shown that most people who were diagnosed with the so-called “Flu” suffered from bacterial pneumonia (which is often attributed to inhaling carbon dioxide and other toxins contain by face masks), so it’s highly likely that she may have died from that instead of Influenza, but that’s a given.



            I admit that I don’t know for certain whether the “Black Plague” was a real viral pathogen caused by unusual celestial activity or it was something else entirely, so it may merit further research on my part. But I do suspect that at least some of the stories about the Medieval pandemic aren’t true, such as the claim that it was spread by rats from Genoese boats.


            Also, I’ve seen little surviving physical evidence from this period that suggests that there was a massive outbreak in Europe that devastated large populations and how people lived, besides circumstantial evidence that I find to be highly questionable. However, I don’t discount that there may have been smaller outbreaks that made life in some areas hardly bearable.

            But again, I’m open to be proved otherwise by yours truly.


          2. “Also don’t be quick to assume that people in power understand or cause everything.”

            Why would I assume that the controllers would know or “cause” every single thing? No human being is capable that having complete control over every action we take or every little aspect of our lives, even when there’s ample resources and power at one’s disposal.

            That doesn’t mean, however, that they don’t know what they’re doing or they don’t know a great deal of many things, nor does that mean that what they say and do don’t have a huge impact on the world in some fashion. These scumbags are guilty as sin.


          3. “The ailment, whatever it was, affected mostly young people in their prime, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of corpses piled up, no room at the morgues and cemeteries.”

            Yes, many people, including the youth, at the time were ill, but it wasn’t really because of the Flu. It was because of the vaccines they received for the virus. For instance, young American soldiers were vaccinated against Influenza, many of which died soon after because of adverse reactions to the jabs. That has been extensively well-documented. Plus, bacterial pneumonia from accumulated toxins in their lungs.

            As for “no room at the morgues and cemeteries”, I’d like to know where you got that information from? Do you have reliable primary sources for that claim? Also, where is the “anecdotal evidence of corpses piled up” that you speak of? Do you have pictures of such things that were taken during the 1918-20 pandemic?

            If those questions were already answered in a previous comment, let me know.


            1. I am using Dr. Andrew Kaufman as the man from whom I heard say that they were piling bodies on lawns because morgues were full. I have no other evidence.

              What evidence I have is this: The Rosenau experiments wherein the US Public Health Service tried and failed to prove that the illness was contagious. They took people suffering from the specific illness and matched them up with healthy volunteers (military) for exchanges of snot and breath.

              A vessel of some kind had been out to sea and not ashore during the period where the disease was breaking out, I believe in Cuba. There was an outbreak aboard the vessel. I vagueliy remember this coming either from Cowan or from his book coauthored with Morrall.

              The disease affected not young people, but mature young people in their 20s and 30s. Kids and the elderly escaped it by and large.

              The problem with all of this, including your saying that it was all fake, is that it has not been studied. When Rosenau found it not to be contagious, it went against all of the accumulated wisdom of the time, and people, including Rosenau, backed away. You should, however, read about his work. If you search the blog for that name, you should be able to link up to outside sources.


              1. Thanks for explaining some of your points. I gladly appreciate that you provide your reasoning behind your views about the “Spanish Flu”. But I think that it seems odd the only source for the claim of piling dead corpses is a certain Dr. Kaufman, the man you mention above. If this was so widespread and public, I believe many people would’ve mentioned it and photos and footage would surface showing evidence of this happening. Nonetheless, I may look further into Kaufman’s works at a later date per your suggestion towards the end of your response. Perhaps I may end up with a different conclusion by thoroughly looking at many sides of the story.

                I find it interesting that there was a study done to prove the existence of the Influenza pathogen, which resulted in many people involved getting sick in the process. Perhaps some of the cases were caused by the experiments done for that project.

                Since you didn’t specify in the other comment what age group you were talking about, I assumed you were talking about teens or adolescents. You were pretty vague about that aspect of the story in your comment.

                And for the last point, I agree that it hasn’t been fully studied to make any kind of satisfactory conclusion. However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some validity to the claims that there was some degree of fakery involved. The fact that we really don’t have any reliable physical evidence to go by is one example (unless proven different). But regardless, there’s certainly one thing I think we both agree on: the mainstream version of events don’t remotely reflect the reality of the situation, just as the official story doesn’t reflect the truth about COVID-19.


                1. Just to be clear, I do not trust Kaufman. I think he is controlled opposition. Because I had repeated something he said, I had to give my source, weak as it was. Regarding everything else, you’re on your own, just like the rest of us, to take it in, evaluate and judge. I stopped, months ago, visiting the Kaufman and Cowan websites. Both had monetized, both were portrayed as real doctors who left the profession in disgust. My red flag detectors were beeping loudly.


                  1. Me too. His name alone was a huge red-flag for me, as much of a stretch as that may sound. I suspect the same might be true for Mike Baillee, but only deeper digging into him will show whether he’s a trustworthy source or not.


                    1. I did a brief inquiry into Baillee, but genealogy just bores me to tears. Indeed he is somewhat juiced, and the unusual spelling of the name raises an eyebrow, but his book is so obscure that only people like me read it. Do they really have such mastery over perceptions that they catch everyone?


                    2. Since these people enjoy widespread influence over what can and cannot be seen on our screens and on print, especially for mainstream outlets and publications, then it is reasonable to assume that they wield great mastery over people’s perceptions of reality.

                      As for genealogy, while it may seem like a daunting task, I think it holds many answers as to who we’re dealing with and how the controllers have operated throughout the centuries. In my view, Mike Baillee is no exception to that rule. Therefore, he merits as much healthy scrutiny as anyone else in this field, including even people like Miles Mathis.


                    3. I am glad you do genealogy, and hopefully in a less sloppy manner than MM. For me, since I find it so mysterious tedious and boring, I would never develop much talent at it and would be mistake-prone.


                    4. I’m still perfecting the art. Whenever I stumble upon similar names or backgrounds of the people I’m researching, I try to never make any definitive conclusion if there’s not enough concrete evidence of direct links to back it up. Hence I sometimes say person A is “maybe” or “probably” related to person B if or when there’s no clear connection.

                      In all honesty, it can be tedious at times, but I never find it to be boring, for genealogy work can often reveal plenty of interesting relations when it concerns celebrities. Even ‘ordinary’ people sometimes have intriguing connections worth looking into.


                  2. I find their monetizing schemes repelling as well, but at the same time it makes sense. Of course there’s some small percentage of doctors who still have conscience and start thinking for themselves, and I think what Kaufman and Cowan have done is a natural evolution when that happens. I think Kaufman has been impeccable in exposing the Covid fraud to a lot of people in a way that’s deep and understandable for average people at the same time. I don’t fault him for turning that into a new business for himself so he can leave psychiatry behind.
                    I too found it a bit odd that the establishment hasn’t come after him, but there’s a plausible explanation. I think because he’s so articulate, calm and rational, nobody defending the establishment wants to debate him or even draw attention to him, so I think the media has no choice but to ignore him. And he’s not doing anything overtly offensive to challenge the establishment; he’s just quietly doing his own thing. I just think he’s playing it smart so far and staying off the center radar screen.
                    Nobody who’s controlled opposition is going to explain the fraud in virology as Kaufman has. Prior to Covid there was maybe a hundred people in the US who knew the work of Lanka. Kaufman was a leader in blowing the issue open and exposing it to millions. That would be a pretty huge disaster if he were controlled opposition.
                    The ones I have suspicion about are all the big names who won’t talk about the fraud of virology. Bigtree, RFK Jr., Mikovits, and so many others have a wall up on the issue, and they pretend that the medical establishment was honest pre-covid.
                    Especially RFK Jr., whose mission is supposed to be exposing the vaccine industry and challenging them in court, to be ignoring the fact that there’s no evidence of any virus? I even wrote a letter to CHD trying to encourage them to break the silence, with no response. Something’s fishy there…

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. “I think Kaufman has been impeccable in exposing the Covid fraud…”

                      I agree, and I also agree that he’s “articulate, calm and rational”, and these particular qualities set him apart, as well as do his precise takedowns of various aspects of the virological “science”.

                      I am put off by his marketing, but as you say, he’s switching careers here, and I suppose I should say more power to him.


                    2. RFK Jr. and his organization CHD are also on board with the climate change hoax.
                      But that alone doesn’t amount to controlled opposition. Every pseudo-liberal Democrat is on board with the climate change hoax, even if they suspect it’s based upon lies. Their thinking is that it’s pro-environment so it’s righteous no matter the propaganda tactics, just as reverse discrimination is righteous if it’s ‘affirmative action’, or cleansing natives is righteous if you label them ‘savages’ or ‘terrorists’. Since when has truth or justice had anything to do with US public ideas of righteousness?
                      I’ve tried to talk about climate change and geoengineering with many people over the decades, and it usually goes the same as when I talk about 9/11, the 1960’s political assassinations, or Covid. Cognitive dissonance kicks in within the first 10 seconds, and escaping with their world-view intact is all they can think about after that.
                      That reality is actually the primary objective of mass vaccination. Long-term toxic shock from vaccination keeps people in a severely-weakened and stressed state, barring higher brain function and inducing primitive survival responses that makes people very easy to control via fear.
                      So when I’m suspecting someone as controlled opposition, which is often these days, I have to keep reminding myself that the vast majority of the human population are psychologically captured and neutered, and that’s all the ‘control’ necessary for them to be supporters of ignorance and darkness.


          4. I’ve casually investigated the Spanish Flu over the past couple years, and have the outline of a probable theory. I’ve been considering investigating it more deeply and writing about it, but just haven’t found the motivation yet.
            What happened then is the blueprint for the present pandemic, with the same entities behind both, led by the Rockefeller and Gates clans working with the military, and with the medical establishment dutifully acting as their goons and the sheeple lining up for their poison injections. If you understand why deaths of young, healthy people are rising sharply right now, then you understand what happened in 1918-19.
            Regarding timeline comparison, I think we’re just heading into 1918, and the death toll this time will be 10 times more.


            1. “Regarding timeline comparison, I think we’re just heading into 1918, and the death toll this time will be 10 times more.”

              I doubt that many people would’ve died at This Time. Besides the fact that there’s no convincing evidence of tens of millions of deaths caused by the Influenza variant (“Spanish Flu”), you have to keep in mind that the stats came from the same people who’ve lied about Coronavirus deaths and even world population numbers. For those reasons, it’s highly feasible to assume that the number of deaths were probably much lower than they would have you to believe.


                1. If that was the case, then my bad. But I think you need to be less vague next time. And anyways, it wasn’t a personal missive towards you, but against historical convention’s stance that tens of millions of people perished from this pathogen of questionable origins.


            2. This rang true for me too, DL9: “I’ve tried to talk about climate change and geoengineering with many people over the decades, and it usually goes the same as when I talk about 9/11, the 1960’s political assassinations, or Covid. Cognitive dissonance kicks in within the first 10 seconds, and escaping with their world-view intact is all they can think about after that.”

              The last sentence “their world-view intact” is priceless. Why so many are resistant to changing their views in light of new evidence/logic is a sad mystery to me. Maybe a psychological aspect of materialism, possession of ideas? Mental wetiko?


    1. “Iron Maiden’s gonna get you, no matter how far.”

      Merry Christmas, Frohe Weihnachten, Vrolijk Kerstfeest, God Jul, Mele Kalikimaka, Joyeux Noel…


      1. Just wondering why the reply I sent to Jackie’s comment disappeared. It was an explanation of why Ebola is not from cyanide. Is someone else filtering the comments?


        1. I do, and I remember the comment, and did not know I deleted it. I had quite a few to read. Many are JPFN. Simply repost it, no problem. What censorship that goes on here would not affect your remarks.


  4. Does anyone remember this at the beginning of the so-called “pandemic”?

    “We have a simple message to all countries – test, test, test,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyeus – 03/16/2020

    Thanks for that Teddy. Now I see the motive behind your ‘key message’ to all nations. It’s quite clear.


    1. Not that the World Bank should be believed, ever, this character appears to have been groomed long ago. Another soldier in the war against humanity and life on earth.

      “Beyond Ethiopia, Dr Tedros’ global leadership on malaria, HIV/AIDS, and maternal and child health has been immensely impactful. He was elected as Chair of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Board in 2009, and previously served as Chair of the Roll Back Malaria Partnership Board, and Co-chair of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Board.”

      “Born in the city of Asmara, Eritrea, Dr Tedros holds a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) in Community Health from the University of Nottingham and a Master of Science (MSc) in Immunology of Infectious Diseases from the University of London. Dr Tedros is globally recognised as a health scholar, researcher, and diplomat with first-hand experience in research, operations, and leadership in emergency responses to epidemics.”

      Ah, the London connection. Merry Christmas.


      1. And, of course, you cannot forget Dr. Fauci. He was also instrumental in spreading unwarranted fear about AIDS/HIV since the early 1980s, which he then distanced himself from. It all started from his May 1983 article published by the medical journal JAMA, which falsely implied that AIDS/HIV could also be transmitted by casual contact, not just sexually.

        But just like any good operative, Fauci later feigned his promotion for the end of an epidemic that never was. In early 2019, then-President Donald Trump called for the eradication of the virus in ten years with the help of bipartisan support in Congress and with the assistance of “health” bureaucracies like the HHS and the CDC. This was almost a year before the first Coronavirus cases appeared in China at the end of 2019. Fauci is one of the writers of this article in JAMA (again), which is the same publisher who published his first piece on AIDS/HIV decades ago.

        Whenever you look at any manufactured health crisis in the past 40 years, he’s almost always there.


  5. I read this piece to my parents before eating the dinner my mom made for Christmas. They both are under the spell. They nodded their heads in agreement as I read but slowly went back 8nto their zombie like state. Thanks for making this attempt easy for me! Maybe next time will be the one, I don’t think I can ever give up on them.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. As soon as they showed us people falling flat on their faces and laid out on the ground and on hospital floors I strongly suspected a psyop. For confirmation I went to Wikipedia which always gives us the clues and there I read about a Chinese research paper saying that Chinese cobras and many banded kraits were “reservoirs” of this virus with a response by biosecurity specialist, Edward Holmes, saying, “It’s complete garbage,” which is never the way prominent scientists would speak normally. The Wikipedia page stating the aforementioned has completely disappeared from the history pages.

    Knowing it was a psyop I immediately inferred that there wouldn’t be a virus because in psyops they only do what they want for real and fake the rest, psyops are all about mind control using smoke’n’mirrors propaganda not about half-doing stuff for real or trying to simulate reality as closely as possible – that is not the way they’re done. In any case, a real virus – if we accept the existence of such a phenomenon – would never have worked for their narrative.

    To me this is the definitive refutation of the scientism used to create the fake pandemic published last month by two New Zealanders.

    The COVID-19 atrocity revealed in exposure of the obvious planning of this “pandemic” by the globalist elite and in meticulous analysis of the 4 fraudulent interlocking pillars of:

    Virus isolation
    Genomic sequencing
    Outbreak modelling

    Dr Mark Bailey MB ChB, PGDipMSM, MHealSc (Otago)
    Is a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.

    Dr John Bevan-Smith BA (Hons) First Class, PhD (Auckland)
    Is a business owner, author and researcher, who has undertaken research for the Waitangi Tribunal Te Rōpū Whakamana i te TiriP o Waitangi/The Ministry of JusPce Te Tāhū o te Ture.

    Paper – The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity

    Videos of paper transcript read by Dr Sam Bailey
    Part 1 – Globalist planning, virus isolation (27 min)

    Part 2 – Genomic sequencing, PCR, outbreak modelling (23 min)

    Part 3 – Conclusion and summary, Postscript – Press conference of pathologists on deaths after covid jab (18 min)

    I also found this article written from a Biblical perspective interesting.

    And these two OffG articles, the second being letters received by Alison Blunt, a musician, to her open letter to her bandleader in response to his telling her that she would be excluded from the ensemble tour of Germany without the jab.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Copied this from Vox Day’s site.

    I’ve just had this news in from a Maidstone hospital consultant surgeon.

    There are currently 45 people in Maidstone hospital with COVID. They are listed as half unvaccinated and half vaccinated. A 50/50 split.

    But here is the realty of what I’ve been informed.

    50% have had two jabs and the booster. The other 50% have had two jabs and no booster but have been marked down as unvaccinated!

    Do not believe a word the government and their supporting corporations say. Not one person completely unvaccinated is in Maidstone hospital.


    1. I always have to chuckle, as Covid has no unique symptoms, and the test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is, as XS has explained, bogus in that PCR can detect a DNA strand, but not a virus. So how did they come about 45 Covid cases? By use of junk science, the norm these days .


  8. I was looking for something completely different in search terms, but got this in my results:

    “SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories” , published by none other than NIH.


    Here’s a sentence quoted from the introduction:
    “Believers in conspiracy theories promote misinformation that the virus is not contagious, is the result of laboratory manipulation or is created to gain profit by distributing new vaccines.”

    As you can see, they don’t even list the most compelling information, that there are no viruses as presented to us by Pasteur et alle. They don’t mention that the virus theory is just a theory as it means their house of cards would crumble. These quasi-scientist don’t have the balls to touch on the most important point of the true global conspiracy we’ve forced to deal with ever since they took over. If anything is despicable, this would be it. I wish moral indignation had some serious health consequences…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s