Is Mr. G a superhero or a villain — or both, or somewhere in between? If he is a friend, then to whom? If he is a foe, then what could be his goals?
This is not a survey, nor a yay or nay poll. If readers would like to offer a response or take a specific stance, please do your best to substantiate your insights with evidence (preferably primary sources, such as scientific literature, industry white papers, or news releases from academia).
Over the past year and a half, as I argued with friends and family about the absurdities of the Covid narrative, many of them speculated my objections must stem from a lack of belief in science.
I now realize how right they were. I was a heathen. I didn’t believe.
But recently, I made a discovery… and the scales fell from my eyes.
Like others who follow this blog, I’ve read lots of the scientific studies media and government officials point to when claiming “science supports” whatever they say about Covid. We know these papers prove nothing. They offer no credible evidence. Many are not, and never will be, published in established scientific journals. Yet their mere existence confers the blessing of scientific “support.”
As long as the authors use impenetrable language to describe scientific-sounding work on a hypothesis… and as long as the media likes that hypothesis… voilà! Lo-and-behold, science supports it!
At that point, the hypothesis emerges from the cocoon of imagination, spreads its wings, and manifests into glorious reality.
Come to think of it, it’s a lot like the Law of Attraction—a concept I’m embarrassed to admit I once believed in.
Man, was I stupid. The Law of Attraction never supported any of my hopes and dreams. Not a single one.
I dedicate this exploratory essay to my friends and family who received a COVID injection (without proper informed consent); and to all the individuals way back in the cheap seats, who may not be able to hear what I am saying, due to the drowned-out noise of Gain-of-Function (GOF) research, lab leaks, and e-mail leaks.
SPOILER ALERT: When I refer to a “spike protein” herein, it is NOT because I support the notion that a protein arose from a virus, nor do I think it “sheds” or operates in the way that has been postulated by individuals referenced below (all of whom maintain that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus).
There has been much recent drama (and rightly so) centered around the spike protein of the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus, and more specifically, what is being described as the expression of the synthetic spike protein as a result of COVID injections.
It seems that Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Joseph Mercola (see here and here), Judy Mikovits, Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Russell Blaylock, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny all agree that the spike protein — at the very least, the one that is being produced for/by the injections — is a toxin (see Endnote 1). The general consensus among them is that it is a bioweapon. Indeed, Tenpenny emphasized (interview linked above) that the spike protein is the bioweapon (not “the virus”), based on a study of a “harmless pseudovirus” that was conjugated with spike proteins, yet caused pulmonary arterial damage.
I am content knowing we can all move forward in agreeing this may be a lab-created bioweapon; however, why do so many still have tunnel vision, remaining fixated on GOF research? Could there be other labs doing related research — perhaps protein R&D, or even more precisely, “spike protein” R&D (sans virus)? And how do synchrotrons factor in to all of this? As you read further, I offer a plot twist in this regard, so I hope you can stay tuned as I set up the prelude . . .
Yesterday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) reintroduced our 23-million acre, 5-state ecosystem bill, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (S.1276) in the U.S. Senate (117th congress). First introduced in 1992 by Rep. Peter Kostmayer (D-PA), this legislation is the first of its kind to take a “beyond borders” (ecosystem) approach to public lands protection. Based on John and Frank Craighead’s work in Yellowstone National Park, primarily studying grizzly bears, we have tried to incorporate the most valuable fish and wildlife habitat in the “Wild Rockies bioregion” into legislative form to protect what’s left of “untrammeled nature” in the Lower 48.
Of course, not a single senator from the West signed on. But then again, not a single southern senator signed onto the Civil Rights Act. The (abusive) powers that be control the bills that pass through congress, lubed with big bags of money delivered by K Street lobbyists, so we’re not expecting passage in this congress. But what is life without vision?
Part 8 the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
I will keep this comparatively short and sweet . . .
I consider myself a honey enthusiast. I am not a beekeeper, although I purchase local raw honey from reputable beekeepers. When I say “reputable,” I do not imply that I have verified through some meticulous process that their honey is 100 percent pesticide-free, or superior in flavor and consistency than another. I simply seek out, and consume, honey using my intuition and asking basic questions about the purveyors’ source and methodology. In any case, I indulge in the consumption of raw honey nearly every day for culinary purposes — in my herbal teas, on my fresh fruit, on gluten-free toast, and sometimes by the spoonful sprinkled with cinnamon and cardamom. As I said, I am a honey enthusiast.
Recently, instead of a local store purchase, I ordered New Zealand-produced Manuka honey online. Though I can buy it in nearby stores, it is produced exclusively in Australia and New Zealand. I have been enjoying raw Manuka honey for the last five years, for its potentially therapeutic properties, including internal healing, such as aiding in digestion and anti-inflammation. I always keep some on hand in the event of external wounds as well. It is an expensive item, so I use it sparingly. If you are not familiar with Manuka honey and its individualized “grading system” called Unique Manuka Factor (UMF), please read here.
Due to its purported medicinal value, and its UMF ranking (in addition to other rating systems), Manuka honey production is recognized for its strict enforcement. This also follows because as one of the most expensive honey products, the adulteration and “counterfeiting” of Manuka honey is reportedly rampant. Hence, it should not have been a surprise when I saw that this particular Manuka honey brand had a scannable Quick Response (QR) code on the jar lid, to verify its traceability, and therefore, its authenticity. I had not noticed that when ordering.
“We’ll have nanobots that . . . connect our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud . . . Our thinking will be a . . . biological and non-biological hybrid.”
~ Ray Kurzweil, TED 2014
Part 6 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
Influenza and Zika and COVID, oh my!
Not to worry . . . the pandemic panopticon-obsessed problem-reaction solutionaries are here to save us! So they say . . .
In November 2020, I had an “aha” moment, when reading Hacking Matter: Levitating Chairs, Quantum Mirages, and the Infinite Weirdness of Programmable Atoms. The author, Wil McCarthy, who holds a patent in the sector of quantum dot technology, asserted, “At the nanoscale, where we find very tiny, very simple objects . . . the behavior of particles is governed by quantum mechanics . . . your ‘gut feel’ about how a particle should behave is virtually useless for predicting what it will actually do. This is because on the nanoscale, what we call ‘particles’ are really ‘probability waves’ . . . Probability waves can do ‘impossible’ things like leaping across an impenetrable barrier, or existing in many places at the same time, or apparently predicting the future, or being influenced by distant events much faster than the speed of light should allow.” McCarthy continued, “Objects much smaller than a micron in size start to behave in some very non-Newtonian ways . . .”
Essentially, at the nanoscale, quantum effects begin to dominate the behavior of matter. Let’s just say it gets more spooky.
I have a sense that when top scientists discovered the bio-nano realm with their atomic force microscopes, they saw a land of opportunity for profit (i.e., in the field of bio-nanomedicine), but I also think they saw a land of plenty — intriguing depths of additional space with which to harness control. The nano space, similar to secret societies, has been highly occulted, as unsuspecting human beings are not equipped with atomic force microscopes with which to peer into our bodies, and the bodies of neighboring plants and animals. There is an entire world inside all of us much smaller than the micro level. When heading way down to the bottom of life’s existence, life has a meaning and function that literallydisobeys the laws of gravity.
Is anyone still waiting for the end of all this global, digital flim-flam? Like perpetual (conventional) warfare, the ruling class can never quit inventing new methods to control the masses and snatching up an ever greater percentage wealth and natural resources (including “human capital” i.e. slaves). Psychopaths and sociopaths need someone else to blame for their own failings. But who is left to call an external enemy when the entire world is now controlled by one, unified power alliance? The so-called terrorists of the late 20th Century aren’t scaring anyone, and it’s pretty well known that they’re our terrorists, funded via our allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc.) in the Middle East.
CJ Hopkins over at Consent Factory, Inc. has a nice overview of our current situation.
“A globally-hegemonic system (e.g., global capitalism) has no external enemies, as there is no territory ‘outside’ the system. Its only enemies are within the system, and thus, by definition, are insurgents, also known as ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists.’ These terms are utterly meaningless, obviously. They are purely strategic, deployed against anyone who deviates from GloboCap’s official ideology … which, in case you were wondering, is called ‘normality’ (or, in our case, currently, ‘New Normality’) … [t]he new breed of ‘terrorists’ do not just hate us for our freedom … they hate us because they hate ‘reality.’ They are no longer our political or ideological opponents … they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder. They no longer need to be argued with or listened to … they need to be ‘treated,’ ‘reeducated,’ and ‘deprogrammed,’ until they accept ‘Reality.’”
Part 3 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
In this installment, I address a sub-topic related to viruses and vaccines. For the purpose of this analysis, I will not debate whether a virus has been properly purified and isolated (see this compilation of FOIs and responses on SARS-CoV-2 isolation, last updated on February 7, 2021), or whether a virus is a “virus,” or an exosome, or some other phage-like entity. If you want to explore this, see this January 2021 discussion with Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman, which was facilitated by Derrick Broze, of The Conscious Resistance. Additionally, to consider an alternative perspective that questions traditional viral contagion, see The Contagion Myth, by Dr. Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell. For an enhanced understanding of mRNA vaccine methodology, listen to Tom Cowan’s recent explanation (and for a juxtaposed mainstream position, see Endnote 1). Dr. Cowan reminds viewers that Moderna did not require a physical sample isolate of a virus to manufacture their vaccine, as directly claimed by its developers.
When reading my exploratory essay, below are questions readers may want to reflect upon:
Can a self-spreading vaccine be mistaken as a self-spreading infectious virus (a curious case of stolen identity)?
Why would a self-spreading vaccine be used to mimic a virus?
What could questions #1 and #2 have to do with digitalization and virtualization?
If there was a situation in which non-consensual vaccination were to be intentionally utilized among the human population (as it has in animal populations), should there be an opportunity beforehand for public discourse to discuss the ethical issues?
Before delving into my presentation, it may help to consider that some reported epidemics, including the 1918 Influenza epidemic, may have had an iatrogenic cause (unconfirmed by mainstream allopathic scientists), as opposed to a true, wild-type source of contagion.
Along the lines of this iatrogenic hypothetical premise, I am proposing an alternative framework of contagion within the context of a purported pandemic— which may initially appear to be paradoxical. Accordingly, can a transmissible physical agent (a biomarker, such as an antigen) be spread throughout the global population via a recombinant vaccine-based vector (such as an influenza vaccine), along with a virtual agent (being called a virus) that mirrors the physical biomarker (which has been “tagged” to enable traceability) to reflect its movement through said population? Please note that I have not referred to this biomarker as a pathogen, nor infectious (in ways previously taught in school/medical school). Also, when I consider that a vaccine may be transmissible (AKA “contagious”), I am NOT referring to the “shedding of a virus,” NOR am I referring to “gain-of-function” research (see Endnote 2). Contrary to the concept of gain-of-function studies, there are studies (see here, here, and here) indicating that self-spreading vaccines may involve the application of synthetic biology and genetic engineering (including recombination) methods to enable the transmissible vaccines to be LESS virulent, with “subdued” effects in its serial transfer among a population. Lastly, within my hypothetical framework, I am NOT implying that previously identified influenza cases would be re-categorized as a novel infectious disease, although it does not rule out that possibility. In fact, my theory could potentially offer an alternative explanation to the seeming disappearance of a reportedly common infectious disease, such as the flu.
So what then could I be talking about? Let’s drill down a bit.
One emerging framework within the massive scope of digital transformation — riding in on the crowned Trojan horse of the Fourth Industrial Revolution — is Digital Twins (DTs). In June 2017, Ben Rossi of Raconteur, defined digital twinning as “the mapping of a physical asset to a digital platform.” In its simplest explanation, digital twins digitize the physical world. The approach of using a digital replica of its original physical representation can be applied to nearly any sector of business and society, and integrates big data (captured via embedded sensors), machine-to-machine communication, and machine-learning technology.
Digital twin technology has been practiced since the 1960s, first gaining ground by NASA in space programming. The actual terminology of “digital twin” was reportedly first mentioned in 1998, referring to a digital copy of actor Alan Alda’s voice.
In this essay, I am focusing on one small element in the field of digital twinning, involving healthcare and bioinformatics, and the merging of these two domains within the context of purported epidemics.