Dr. Tm Cowan explains the well-known scientific methods for virus isolation and asks for a paper proving the isolation of Covid-19, AIDs, and other so-called viruses.
Christine Massey reveals to the Health Ranger: Covid-19 “virus” has NEVER been isolated and shown to cause disease…
“EVERYTHING COLLAPSES WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A VIRUS”- DR ANDREW KAUFMAN, SEPT. 7, 2021
“Gain-of-function” experiments are often conducted to deliberately develop highly virulent, easily transmissible pathogens for the stated purpose of developing preemptive vaccines for animal viruses before they jump to humans. More insidious is the “dual use” nature of this research, specifically directed toward bioweapons development. The Wuhan Cover-Up pulls back the curtain on how the US government's increase in biosecurity spending after the 2001 terror attacks set in motion a plan to transform the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, into a de facto Defense Department agency.
The standard testing for CoVID-19 utilizes a technology that its discoverer warned should never be used for diagnosis. This technique, known as PCR, has led to massively inaccurate and misleading conclusions. Public health authorities currently are basing societal mitigation policies and recommendations almost exclusively upon this technology by tracking putative numbers of “cases” instead of deaths and hospitalizations, and the result is an unprecedented negative impact upon society that is futile and unnecessary. It is futile in the naïve assumption that SARS CoV-2 can be contained in the population and unnecessary since deaths and hospitalizations and attendant consequences therefrom are back to pre-pandemic levels. It is imperative that tracking data upon which ongoing mitigation practices rest revert back to accurate figures for deaths and hospitalizations from CoVID-19.
PCR Test Founder Kary Mullis Speaks Out Against the Misinterpretation of the PCR Test
The Covid Test That Isn’t.
What is behind the so called COVID-19 “pandemic”? After two years of PCR testing that were used to drive pandemic hysteria, CDC announced the withdrawing of this diagnostic protocol, at the end of 2021; why? What was wrong with these tests? If you want to know the answer, and see how pseudoscience has supported the narrative of the “pandemic that is not”, read this booklet; with more than forty references to the international scientific literature, it will show you the real science point of view on the diagnostic procedure that literally created this “pandemic”, and you will see how the protagonists of the “great reset” have used bad science to bring about what we can, with good reason, call “the millennium fraud”.
Through April 2020, the official recommendation by the Journal of the American Medical Association was unambiguous.
“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”
Part of that lack of evidence in fact showed that cloth facemasks actually increased influenza-linked illness.
In contravention to established science, States, municipalities, and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the promulgation of medical countermeasures during a public health emergency stating a “belief” that face masks limit the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that a mask prevented the transmission of or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole population clinical trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.
Masks: Science or Political Science?
Do we really need to wear masks? From the New York Times Bestselling authors of Plague of Corruption comes the must-read guide on masks and re-opening following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Truth About Masks is the book all America needs to be reading as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on. Written by New York Times bestselling authors Dr. Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively, this book reviews the evidence for and against widespread public masking as provided by the Centers for Disease Control and the Mayo Clinic, as well as top scientific publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. This debate needs to take place without fear and paranoia. Important questions raised in this book are the effect of masks on oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, how COVID-19 spreads, the effectiveness of various types of masks, those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19, and what measures should be taken by schools as children continue to return to in-person classes.
Maxim of Law 51i “Individual liberties are antecedent to all government.” C.L.M.
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 237-38 241 (1990) “Every violation of a person’s bodily integrity is an invasion of his or her liberty. The invasion is particularly intrusive if it creates a substantial risk of permanent injury and premature death. Moreover, any such action is degrading if it overrides a competent person’s choice to reject a specific form of medical treatment. And when the purpose or effect of forced drugging is to alter the will and the mind of the subject, it constitutes a deprivation of liberty in the most literal and fundamental sense.” “There is no doubt, as the State Supreme Court and other courts that have analyzed the issue have concluded, that a competent individual’s right to refuse such medication is a fundamental liberty interest deserving the highest order of protection.”
Maxim 86m. No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear or unquestionable authority of law. Union Pac. Ry. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251.
The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. Therefore, the basis for the Massachusetts statute and the Supreme Court’s determination is moot in this case.
By their own admission, the mRNA gene therapy does not convey immunity, does not preclude infection by a virus, and does not block the development of COVID-19 symptoms. In point of fact, in 80% of trial participants, one or more COVID-19 symptoms was induced and recorded as adverse events. In reported RT-PCR positive cases in the general population, over 80% of individuals have no symptoms whatsoever. Therefore, not only does the injection not convey individual or community benefit (save the reported lessening of symptoms when adverse events are excluded in a subset of the population), it expressly fails to meet the public benefit argument upon which Jacobson was determined.
Beyond the fact that mRNA is gene therapy technology – NOT VACCINATION – the compulsory application of an unproven medical countermeasure is without any judicial precedent. No law has been passed that says that a healthy population must become unwell for the purpose of a medical experiment.
These are the Congressionally defined definitions. mRNA does NEITHER OF THESE:
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.
This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine.
Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving  it and it also has to disrupt transmission.
And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”
The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.
And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biological system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.
So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation, but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result, it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick.
80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that gets you sick.
When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose. Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media – it has been paid for – if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.
This “Vaccine” has NEVER been shown to be safe and effective under the definitions of the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission’s Deceptive Medical Practices standard, or under any other statutory criteria. Medical trials have not even concluded yet and won’t be complete until 2023. Not only is it illegal to say that the “Vaccine” is safe and effective”, but overwhelming evidence also says that the opposite is true.
If you are reading this, you are probably aware of the fierce debate surrounding vaccination and looking for information that will allow you to make the best decisions for yourself and your loved ones. Whether you are a parent or a parent to be, sorting through the many arguments on vaccines can be daunting. Still, you need an answer, a definitive one, to the crucial question: Who has it right in the great vaccine debate – the critics, who claim that vaccines often cause serious harm, or the medical establishment, which tells us that vaccines are safe and effective and the science is settled?
Mandates, ordinances, codes, and legislated statutes enforced upon the people in the name of the law are fraud. It has no authority and is without mercy. Justice without mercy is Godless and therefore repugnant to the Constitution for the united States of America and, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” [Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)]
Historically, Americans have been unknowingly subjected to abhorrent medical research. These human rights abuses by American medical researchers caused a mass awakening after Nazi-style practices were used in Tuskegee, Alabama which allowed black Americans to suffer until death to study how syphilis progressed in human anatomy.
These actions caused Congress to pass the National Research Act which established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. In addition, Congress required The Commission “to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. On April 18, 1979, The Commission released its findings in “The Belmont Report”
The Belmont Report was incorporated into the regulatory framework of twenty federal agencies with Title 45 Code of Regulations Part 46 (hereafter “45CFR46”) known as the ‘Common Rule’, being established as the primary law of the land. No law generally exempts anyone in the United States from abiding by the ethical principles of the Belmont Report when involving humans in medical experimentation. According to the “Belmont Report”, authorities who sponsor an Investigative New Drug (IND) under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to ensure individuals are not under “sanctions,” “coercion,” and or “undue influence” when consenting to participate. International treaties, federal law, state and territorial law, in addition to the regulations of twenty federal agencies prohibit public and private entities from mandating the use of such drugs under the force of law. It is impossible for individuals to give their honest free will and voluntary consent when under outside pressures to participate.
Any party who has administered an IND (Investigational new drug) is required under 45CFR46 to obtain, “legally effective informed consent.” To date, NOONE HAS OBTAINED SUCH CONSENT AND THEREFORE, IND’s ARE BEING ADMINISTERED IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Under these regulations, “legally effective informed consent.” can only be obtained if you:
The enforcement of penalties for non-compliance is a violation of the principles laid out in the Belmont Report. According to the FDA doctors who fail to obtain “Legally Effective Informed Consent” may result in a finding of liability for negligence. The option to accept or refuse a product has far-reaching legal implications for modern-day governments and corporations who ignored the right.
The Belmont Report was written by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission, created as a result of the National Research Act of 1974, was charged with identifying the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and developing guidelines to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles. Informed by monthly discussions that spanned nearly four years and an intensive four days of deliberation in 1976, the Commission published the Belmont Report, which identifies basic ethical principles and guidelines that address ethical issues arising from the conduct of research with human subjects.
Strategic Medical Liberty Initiative With Brian Ward
Operation Bedrock: It’s Long Past Time to Stop the Genocide at its Root!