Alicia Ninou from Time For Truth (www.timefortruth.es) interviews Dr Patrick Quanten about the many questions that are playing on people's minds surrounding viral infections and the possible dangers of you catching it.
Dr Quanten is known for his scommon sense approach to life and he always searches for the basic truth within science and research programmes, especially those of the medical profession. He has been publishing on infections and viruses for twenty years.
This interview provides answers to many pertinent questions people are being confronted with and it aims to provide clarity within the confusion governments are creating surrounding the 'threat' of an invisible enemy.
There is a lot of questions that have not been answered property right now. If you agree, we should try and reduce the level of confusion amongst the people.
First let's talk about the existence of the corona virus. Does it exist, does it not exist? Is it a lie? People are very confused.
For human beings, “to exist” very often still means to have been demonstrated in a physical manner. We need to measure it, or to visualise it. The existence of bacteria was only confirmed when they were seen under a microscope. The existence of energies is only accepted when they have been measured. This is why human beings – let’s say the intelligentia, the ‘scientists’ – struggle to accept the concept of God.
If you then ask the question about the existence of the corona virus, which is one type within the concept of ‘a virus’, we need to first of all address the question as to the existence of ‘a virus’. If a virus exists then it should not be difficult to imagine that there may be more than one variety, in which case we could name one ‘corona virus’. Has a virus ever been visualised? The answer is ‘yes’. A virus is, in fact, the name given to a tiny encapsulated blob on an electron microscopic picture of a cell. These are still photographs obtained after a long tenuous process of preparation of a very thin slice of living matter, that has been killed in order for us to examine it. So, there is no movement on the picture and it is in black and white. However, some tiny enclosed particles seen within the cell, on the edge of the cell and outside the cell (information gathered over very many photographs) have been named ‘a virus’. This means it exists.
However, what it entails, what it does and how it functions, those are separate matters from the sheer existence of it. If I showed you some pictures pointing towards a separate figure either standing in the hallway of a house or leaning against the wall of the house or being in front of the house and I told you “that is a man”, then that figure will now be known as ‘a man’. A man truly exists simply because I have noticed something and gave it that name. When I later told you that ‘a man’ steals, burns and destroys and I support my story with a picture of ‘a man’ inside a bank, next to a ruin and in front of the burning city of Rome, you may want to believe me but does his presence in certain places and at certain times make him out to be the kind of character I am portraying him as? Let’s not do that and let’s decide to stick with whatever information science has been able to gather about ‘a virus’ and its conduct.
First of all, the physical structure of a virus can be described most easily as a bit of genetic material (DNA or RNA) encapsulated in a single membraned bag. Or in other words, a small bag containing a short genetic code sequence. Remarkably, there are no further organised structures such as an energy production system or a circulation system or a nervous system within the bag. In effect, scientists have categorically stated that a virus does not feed, does not excrete and does move. It is, to all intents and purposes, not alive. By itself it can’t replicate either as it only has a singular strand of genetic coding and the story goes that it uses the host cell to reproduce. In fact, the story tells us that this little, non-living bag is capable of finding a way through the membrane defences of either our breathing system or our digestive system (some doctors even have claimed via the eyes!!) without being picked up by our anti-invader system. It then, apparently, finds it way via the blood stream all over the body, again being completely fignored by the patrolling cells of our immune system. Once it has found a suitable organ it needs to penetrate a three layered, heavily guarded, cell membrane without the cell rejecting its attempts. Inside the cell, inside the cytoplasm of the cell, it still means nothing, as it does not do anything. It can’t do anything. It has no metabolism, no function. But in spite of this shortcoming, the story tells of a heroic journey through the entire inner workings of the cell, making its way through another heavily protected membrane into the nucleus of the cell, into the control chamber of the cell. Here the midget is confronted with a gigantic structure of complex genetic coding, the inner layout of a computer memory. The coding inside the virus can be compared with about three or four words out of the entire works of Tolstoy, and yet, so the story goes, these three or four words will place themselves strategically inside the text of the cell (the entire works of Tolstoy), which will have the effect, apparently, that the entire cellular metabolism is now in the hands of the virus. It forces the cell to produce nothing else but viruses. Quite a feat for a small bag with nothing in it but a few genetic codes and with no possibility of doing any action whatsoever, don’t you think?
Recently, more and more researchers and professors are renaming the virus an exosome. They would like to create a different image to the one we historically have grown up with. And there reasons for that. In a way this is a human trade: we first see sharks only as indiscriminate killers, to find out later that this is a total misconception. What is it they refer to when scientists call something ‘exosomes’? These are tiny blobs that manifest inside the cell, particularly seen inside cells that have trouble functioning in their normal way. When these increase in numbers they are moved towards the cell’s outer layer, the membrane, and they are being excreted. The cell may or may not recover from this phase but it is quite clear that these exosomes originate from within the cells, cells that have become ill, and that they are being expelled from the cell. What do these exosomes consists of? It is a simple singular membrane encapsulating a small piece of genetic coding.
Instead of following a complicated, hazardous journey from our environment into the body and into a cell of the body, it has now turned into a simple journey from inside the cell, where it originates, to the outside environment of the cell. Here the exosomes come into contact with the cells of our immunity system and they are being gobbled up by these cells. End of the story!
Can you see why it is all so confusing? Yes, viruses do exist but they do not behave, not even remotely, like the virus in the story. They are generated by diseased cells and expelled in an effort to restore health.
Are you saying that what doctors call "viruses" are actually "exosomes"? Since when does science know about the existence of exosomes? We, the people, had not heard of it until now... Does academic science not link them at all to “viruses”?Does academic science think they are different things?
Since more and more electron microscopic pictures are being examined, researchers have realised that some to the blobs they see in and around the cell membrane are in fact on the move from the inside outwardly. That's when the name 'exosome' was corned. Now some scientists are saying that those exosomes look a lot like viruses. In terms of research on extremely tiny particles what does that mean? It means that when they analyse bits that they harvest from exosomes and bits they harvest from viruses they find nothing more than short singular strands of genetic material (DNA or RNA) and some protein structures in both. So "the theory" (this is science!) is that they could well be one and the same thing.
Here we have an example of how authority is capable of maintaining a lie by structuring society. If you give research material to one group of people who you give a nice laboratory to and you tell them they are investigating viruses they will come and tell you what they think they have discovered about viruses. If you then give the same research material to another group of people, whom you house in another laboratory, and you tell them they are investigating exosomes, how would these people even know they other one existed, let alone what they are doing? If you, on top of that, also control the publications and the spreading of information (the media) then it is no wonder the people have no clue about what is truly going on. It usually takes someone from outside either world to make the link between the two. This allows the authority to seriously question his knowledge and "expertise". In fact, the only expertise we are now talking about is common sense, something that has been in very short supply recently.
If viruses exist, are they dangerous?
A virus, which we now know has been generated by the cells themselves, is of course not dangerous. On the other hand, the appearance of these exosomes (viruses) inside the cell are an indication that the cell is not functioning normally, is, in other words, ill. The virus did not make the cell ill. The virus is the result, is a manifestation of the fact that the cell is ill.
When lots of cells have become ill and expel these viruses that then surely must contaminate the environment of the cells. Would that then become a hazard to the surrounding cells and possibly making them ill too?
A virus is an exosome. That means it moves from the inside to the outside. When it is on the outside there will be no cell inclined to absorb the exosome, to let the virus enter. This makes viruses in the surrounding area totally harmless to the existing cells. What we, however, should be concerned about is the actual cause of the illness to the cells. Surrounding cells have already received energetic messages from diseased colleagues, to which they respond in a similar fashion in order to try and protect themselves against the specific circumstances all these cells are operating under at that moment in time. So they are all under the same threat. So they all, en masse, respond in the same way, whereby they all produce the same kind of exosomes. These are expressions of specific work circumstances for these cells. It is these circumstances that are the ill-making factor of which the viruses are an expression of.
Can a virus be manipulated? And consequently become dangerous.
Viruses change all the time, on a natural basis. Why? The story is that they, for unknown reasons, mutate. This means that, for reasons unknown to scientists, the DNA that the tiny bags contain displays different sequences all the time. Whenever anybody ‘looks’ a new sequence has been discovered, a new virus has been born. With this corona virus, experts have told us that it isn’t just one virus. There are multiple corona viruses and the reason for this is because the DNA sequence, which is in fact the only defining element of a virus, in one sample is not quite the same as it is in another sample.
The real explanation is much simpler. When a cell is no longer healthy it will try and restore its function by doing some repair work to the structure. In this case, when we talk about viruses, the cell will try and restore the genetic communication within the cell. It will throw out the series of false or inadequate messages by bagging them up, making them harmless, and expelling them from the inner workings of the cell. So, within a group of cells this sequence will be the same but in the same group of cells at a different time or in a different specimen of the same organism it may vary a bit. The point is that these waste bags are being thrown out and that the cells do not want any of that stuff. So, viruses in the outside environment are never a danger.
Yes, in a laboratory they can make up new genetic sequences but they do not form a danger for living cells. In spite of what some people may want to believe viruses are not being used as biological weapons. They have been tried but quickly found to be completely useless. They can, however, be used very effectively to make people ill if you manage to convince people that they are facing an invisible deadly enemy. The fear will kill people and those deaths can then be used as “proof” of the viral attack on the population.
If there is no danger to our health why are people who work in viral laboratories in need of such elaborate protective clothing? It does not form a protection against non-living viruses. It is because these people are in constant contact with highly toxic chemicals and mixtures, both in physical matter as well as in gas form (contaminated air).
The most effective non-gun and non-explosive warfare is chemical warfare, not even biological. Even using bacteria, such as anthrax, is an amateur way of trying to eliminate people on a large scale. Even when we come in contact with unusual bacteria the majority of people quickly adapt and survive. Viruses are completely useless for this purpose. Chemicals, on the other hand, are highly effective. In fact, for all large scale viral epidemics and infectious diseases, scientists have found chemical intoxications to be the real cause. It is also important to know that each time this has been published, and I may add in the most reputable medical publications, it has been quickly buried underneath the “discovery” of the virus that caused that particular disease. Examples of these include polio, mad cows disease, AIDS, and even corona!
You say fear kills. That is very easy to say. But how does fear kill? Most people would say this is a metaphor...
Remember the "immune responses" the medical profession is using to backup their story about immunity and resistance? Well, medical research has shown that those responses, measured in specifically setup studies, that fear consistently and dramatically lowers those test results. Some studies reveal that fear can lower resistance up to 80%. Most studies have talked about a greater vulnerability to diseases between 40 and 60%. Psychological studies have shown that people become seriously less resilient in their capability of dealing with stress situations when they are consumed by fear. In this respect it may be worth mentioning the historical observation around smoking and serious lung diseases. The main peak in the increase of cigarette smoking within the population happened during the industrial revolution at the turn of the nineteenth century. The main peak of increased lung diseases happened in the late fifties and sixties, shortly after a mass advertising campaign was launched via posters, radio and television, about the bad health effects of smoking.
Fear keeps us alive. When you are faced with a life threatening situation it is fear that will keep you alert and at your most powerful. However, nature only foresees such situations to be of a very short time period. Either you escape the threatening situation or you succumb to it. Then you rest. You calm down and continue as if you have never been threatened. The fear within humanity that kills us is the fear for something that we can't remove from our lives (ongoing fear) or the fear for something we cannot perceive (invisible enemy). The first one is a battle you can't win. You put all your energy into it and you know you are going to lose anyway. Your strength drains away! The latter also creates a continual momentum of fear because you don't know exactly when you may be attacked, what that will look like or what you can do to protect yourself. This is a hopeless situation. You are on constant alert without achieving peace and calmness. Your strength drains away!
Everything in nature can support live and take it away: water, sunshine, and so on. Everything in nature is meant to have its ups and downs, its powerful times and its weak times. This allows for times of stress (the most incredible things are achieved under enormous stress) and for times of rest and peace (regaining our strength, recuperation time). So it is how we have used fear as an everyday factor in our lives that is killing us. In nature it was never meant to be a permanent feature of everyday life.
Who are the experts that are advising governments? Are these “expert opinions” science?
Experts are always carefully selected. A person will be named an expert by his peer group, people who declare that this person - in their opinion - is expressing whatever they believe in the best. In other words, the current experts have gone through a selection process that has taken them years to satisfy their colleagues that they are their trustworthy representatives. So who are these people named to be the medical experts within this story?
There are two types of medical experts advising governments. There are virologists and epidemiologists. Neither of which deals with patients or patient care. Virologists work in a laboratory and epidemiologists play with statistics. Field doctors such as lung specialists or intensive care doctors have been specifically banned from speaking out on this issue. In the first few weeks many angry and critical comments have been published from a number of high ranking professors and heads of departments within clinical setups such as hospitals but they were quickly removed, never to be repeated again. So it very much appears as if the expert advice had to be kept away from clinical information and should not be confused by clinical observations and experience with dealing with viral infections within the population.
These experts have not been selected by and appointment by the government. The medical profession delivers these experts to the individual governments, thereby ensuring the distribution across the world of identical information wrapped up in the same rhetoric. This makes it look as if, across borders, all experts agree, which gives the population the impression that there is only one 'real' story, which obviously then must be true.
Virologists live in an enclosed, separate world of virtuality. They never really 'see' what they talk about (viruses), which allows for assumptions to cross over into believed truths without anybody noticing it. For instance, virologists still believe they isolate viruses, but each time - and they desperately try to avoid it - they have been forced to publish exactly how they have done it the scientific community has pulled them back. Each time it turns out they make fundamental scientific errors which allows them to believe they have isolated the virus, while in fact they cannot prove the origin of what they think they have found. It is these people that inform us about all the clever things they know, and we don't, about viruses, their behaviour and their effects. By keeping virologists away from clinical settings and clinical information the medical profession establishes an entire army dedicated to keeping the viral story alive. They develop new techniques and new interference plans, being focussed on going forward, away from the starting point of what is a virus and what isn't, what does or doesn't it do. Always looking for exceptions, which are welcomed as new information and as progress.
Epidemiologists are statisticians who work with computer models in order to predict the future. The accuracy of their predictions is entirely dependent upon the design of the models. Whatever one wants the outcome to be, one can programme and design the model to provide you with that answer. If you desire a high output you can organise that. If you desire a low outcome you can fix that too. Once again these people have been professionally taken out of circulation and given a pristine office in exchange for the right results. Once again, these people do not know anything different from the enclosed world they work in and they have no way of relating what they do to the everyday reality people live in.
Science is a bunch of theories. In science, it is common practice to embrace all theories about a subject as long as no single theory has been proven to be the correct one. Real scientists may have a preference for a specific theory but they will acknowledge what they cannot prove and accept that a different theory cannot be ruled out. This means, for instance, that a real scientist may tell you that he believes that viruses are causing diseases in humans because they are being spread around via water droplets that have been expelled by an infected person. At the same time he will tell you that he has no definite proof for such a theory and that there is always the possibility that he might be wrong. A scientist will never force his opinion upon an entire population as he himself cannot be entirely sure of what he believes to be true. He is still investigating his theory.
This leaves us to conclude that indeed these experts that have been appointed by the medical profession, with exclusion of any of their medical colleagues, are especially chosen because they are not scientists. They work for an employer, who has handed them a unique and powerful job, and their employer is an industry of laboratory research.
Is immunity the same as resistance?
In people's minds - and don't forget that doctors are people too! - immunity means "being protected against an infectious disease". However, medical science has not been able to provide us with any evidence at all about what absolute immunity in real terms means. In other words, the medical profession has failed to deliver standard tests by which they can determine such protection against diseases.
Basically there are three different tests used in correlation to the immunity story: immunoglobulines, antibodies, and T-cell levels. The principle is always that when the test results show a high level of activity it translates into a message of "you are protected". However, researchers are having to stress continuously that those test results have no direct correlation to being protected, let alone to being immune. It turns out that with each of these tests they are unable to link high levels to effectively being protected. In a medical setup, such tests are not being used to "prove" immunity but rather to demonstrate an immune reaction. In other words, they use the tests after a specific event such as vaccination or clinical signs of infection to demonstrate a higher than usual level of activity within what they have called the immune system. It is nothing more than a primitive way to say "look, there is a reaction!". However, to draw any real conclusions in terms of protection from these test results they have to distance themselves entirely.
They have observed that these test results return to their "normal" levels pretty quickly, leaving the profession totally in the dark as far as the question "am I now immune or not?" is concerned. They are, in other words, no indication for the level of protection at all. Furthermore, the profession has noticed that people still got infected although they were demonstrating high levels in any of these three tests, and the opposite, that people with very low levels seem to be completely protected in as much that any attempt to introduce specific infectious diseases into the body of such a person repeatedly failed. So they use the tests to demonstrate what they call an immune response, but they are unable to manifest disease resistance in this way.
Maybe at this point it is also worth pointing out that they are still working on the basic theory that when you have physically been in contact with an infected person your own system must demonstrate some kind of response, either to become infected too or to show the system fighting of the intruder. Allow me to give you a scientific fact about how resistance against diseases works in nature. In this experiment one introduces a very specific infection into a tree at the centre of a wooded area. Scientists know that in response to that specific infection that specific tree generates a very specific protein that will help the tree to protect itself against that disease. Once the infection has been introduced they very quickly measure rising levels of this specific protein, as you would expect. However, a very short time later they also measure rising levels of the same protein in all other same species trees in the surrounding area, even up to the edge of the forest. Scientists do know that there has been no physical contact between the trees, nor has there been enough time for the experimentally infected tree to become ill, and yet all other same species trees demonstrate an immune response to an infection within their environment. Hence, the immune response occurs without any direct contact and results in true protection against the disease, even when the level of the immediate response drops away. You don't need the contact, and you don't need to sustain high levels of "protective proteins or cells". After the initial reaction the system settles down in the knowledge that it is ready, that it can recognise whatever might be coming its way. Now I am truly protected.
Unfortunately, the medical profession cannot demonstrate this protection in any of the tests they currently use.
Is correlation the same as causation?
It is too easy to accuse on circumstantial evidence. It is not because I pay taxes to a government that I am responsible for the sales of weapons that government is profiting from. There is, of course, a correlation between me paying taxes and the government manufacturing weapons, financed by tax money, but my ‘presence’ in that story does not make it my responsibility.
In the same way, the principle of innocent until proven guilty should also stand in scientific research. A theory remains accepted as a possibility until it has been proven to be false. As far as infectious diseases are concerned the investors who saw benefits in the system proposed by Louis Pasteur decided there was no need for that principle. They started using the media, the publications, the rhetoric as their main weapon disregarding truth, eliminating all other possibilities (theories). Extending research conclusions into areas beyond the scope of the study became a common practice. Hence, if you can identify a particle, of which you have said in advance that it is responsible for a disease, you have "proven" the theory. This, I am afraid, is scientific (and lawful) total nonsense! First you point an accusing finger saying he is dangerous. Then you show that he was there. Now you conclude he did it!
Yes, there is a correlation between an infection and the presence of bacteria. If there are no bacteria present within diseased tissue doctors have called that situation an inflammation. If they do show the presence of bacteria within the inflammation site they have called it an infection. So there is a clear correlation between the two as even the definition of an infection depends on the presence of bacteria. Every effort – and it is coming up to two centuries now – to prove that the bacteria were causing the infection has failed. Not once has science been able to apply all of the conditions needed to prove a causal relationship between bacteria and an infection.
Actually it became a bit of a problem in the sense that many infections, as they were called by doctors, even did not have bacteria in them. This is a bit embarrassing if you are convinced that an infection is only caused by microbes and you do have an infection – you say so yourself, Mr Expert – but there are no microbes to show for it. How can I have an infection if the cause of the infection is not present? At this point they required a microbe that, for obvious reasons, would not show up in their tests but that could be blamed for causing the infection. They found one in the name of ‘a virus’. You can’t see it. You can’t detect it. But you know for sure it is causing the infection. So now you have created the situation whereby you have an infection, you look for the microbial culprit and you either find a bacteria in it, in which case that is the cause of the infection, or you don’t find anything in it, in which case it has been caused by a virus.
And we totally ignore the fact that a causal relationship between an infection and bacterial involvement has never been scientifically proven. So why would such a relationship exist between an infection and a virus, the existence of which within the infection is totally impossible to demonstrate?
What is the scientific evidence for the story of how the disease is suppose to spread (via surface contact and via breath)?
There is none! There are theories, and recently we have heard a few. It spreads through water droplets we breathe out. It spreads via surfaces where it ‘survives’ until we pick it up with our hands (apparently elbows don’t pick the virus up!). It spreads even when you don’t have any symptoms. It spreads from animals to humans and from humans to animals. You can catch it through the eyes. It can enter your body through your digestive system. It can spread through drinking water.
None of these have been proven. In fact, some of them have been disproven, such as surfaces, no symptoms, animals to humans. The spread through exhaling air has only been demonstrated to be a transmission source by violent expulsion of water droplets as in sneezing or violent coughing by an ill person. This is a way of passing the particles on, but that is not proof that those particles are actually causing a disease. Why are we having so many theories and, as it appears, whenever someone suggests another possible pathway it is included in the danger zone?
That is because they are all theories. It is a theoretical model and as long as nobody has disproven the model it can’t be dismissed. If I were to tell you that you are more likely to die of Covid-19 if you are right-handed then that cannot be ignored until someone actually proves it wrong. So, simply looking at figures one can say things like ‘more black people suffer from it’ or ‘more poor people suffer from it’ and if I want to use ‘that information’ before it gets exposed as a lie, I could add that that is because they have little access to proper medical care. Shame on the white people who control proper healthcare systems.
If you want to understand more about basic thinking, theories, on which some of these measures are based it pays you to ask a few questions and to look into the matter in a bit more detail. For instance, when the medical world is declaring they have found proof that the virus can spread from an animal to a human being, you should ask the question “how did you find out?”. Because when you read how they got to this knowledge it plays out a bit like this. ‘We cultivated the virus in the laboratory. We injected a high concentration of the virus into animals and 65% of them showed signs of an illness.’ – Are these natural circumstances? Is this how life happens in nature? No, this is not a scientific experiment that warrants the conclusions drawn from it.
Observation remains a powerful scientific tool. And we can all observe. I observe that when 10 people in a room all get exposed to whatever the sick person in the room is breathing out, not all ten get sick. How can that exposure then be “a causal link”? I observe that we are constantly surrounded by an environment that is full of microbes, poisonous materials and pollution, and very few people get ill. I observe that where we have created the most sterile environments human beings can possibly create the most fearsome microbes are thriving.
No, the theories they are using do not have sufficient evidence to make it into a truth. In effect, those theories are obsolete.
Why do you think Covid-19 "tagged" people are dying?
I think that people die when their lives have come to an end. I don’t believe that we all have been given the same “right” to live a life with an average lifespan. Each life ends when it is supposed to end, even though one can argue that ending a life as a result of an accident you are cutting that life short. But at the same time, often relatives of the deceased seem to want to believe that this particular life was cut short by illness because he was only 62. To me, dying as a result of an illness should be a clear sign that life, in this manner, can no longer continue. I know doctors are trained to believe differently and they do want us to believe that it can be “prolonged”. Take a closer look at all this and you will notice very quickly that all of it is relative to the point from which you care to make your observation. If you believe we all have the right to live to 80 then 62 means you got short changed. If you look at the person at the end of his life, whether that is at 62 or 80, and you notice that there is no power left, no drive, then life is finished.
Human beings do not have the power to decide how long you are supposed to live and how you can best achieve that. We like to think we do, but for that, I am afraid, we need to be prepared to learn a lot more about life and nature.
Tagging a life with a certain illness or a certain cause of death is a human occupation. Nature is not concerned about a name for the manner in which a life passes over. It means nothing, whether you believe this life ended, because of an infection, because of a depression, because of a sadness, because of hunger, because of poisoning, because of an unfortunate accident, or anything else you care to add to this list, the only reality is that this life ends right here and right now. Nature has no need for tags.
Humans do. Or at least humans who need to tag in order to separate, divide and control. Cattle don’t need branding in order to have a life. Humans need to brand their cattle in order to mark which ones belong to whom. Statisticians want to know what you died of. You don’t. Makes no difference to you! To them it is of vital importance as they can then begin to divide, which allows others to control and manipulate. Having a covid test is not useful to a sick person at all. Why? Because there is no specific treatment for viral infections, so it makes no difference to the progression of your disease whatever it has been called. The test is useful for people who need this information to separate and control the masses.
Why have more care workers become ill relative to the rest of the population?
Remember the fear factor!
Care workers are sent to work every day whilst every day, or even every minute of every day, they are being told it is a deadly environment they are entering into. Day after day. They fear for their lives, and yet they “have” to go. Day by day the information they receive is getting worse. Indeed, it IS deadly; the figures show it. And yet they have to go.
They also get information about what the best way is to protect yourself against this deadly environment. They are shown these space suits on television, and then they go to work, where the only thing available to them is a paper mask and some plastic gloves. Not quite the same! And yet they have to enter that environment again and again. Propaganda is infiltrating their minds for weeks and months on end, without any end in sight. They become tired and extremely frightened. Even their own superiors, the people who know more than they do, tell them they are not protected but there is nothing they can do for them.
Do you still wonder why so many got seriously ill and so many did not survive?
General health recommendations (by the medical profession) compared with the recommendations to stop you getting the virus.
This indeed seems to be the ideal situation to install a completely new way of being. We have the opportunity to turn everything right onto its head, and people will just accept it. We know for sure because for decades we have been reversing things one by one to test whether or not thinking people will comply or rebel. We have told them that the lunchtime meal was the most important one of the day. We later said that the evening meal should be the most substantial, only to change it to breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Nobody flinched. We gave them a food pyramid which told them how to eat healthily and then we turned the pyramid on its head and nobody said anything. Apparently, in the name of progress people are willing to accept almost anything without grumbling.
Now this the time to change society as a whole. What are the most annoying things for any government? People congregating, because that can cause riots. People deciding for themselves, because that causes diversity. People finding whatever suits them best, because that causes individuality. People having freedom of speech, because that introduces different ideas. What is the ideal situation for governments? That everybody does the same thing, thinks the same thing and believes the same thing.
Medical emergency. Everybody in danger. Nobody knows what to do – except the government because they have “experts”. Don’t worry, we will rescue you. But you will have to do as you are told otherwise you won’t survive. And as you all would like to survive you will have to trust us to take care of you and you will help us to weed out those individuals who we will mark as a surplus danger to you.
This is the time to reverse all the fundamentals of our society. We all need fresh air. Stop. Stay indoors. Outside you wear a mask which dramatically increase your CO2 intake (air pollution in our cities was nothing compared to this!). We all need movement. Stop. Stay indoors. We all need social contacts. Stop. Dangerous. These people can potentially kill you. We all need physical contact for our physical and mental wellbeing. Stop. These people can potentially kill you.
There is no such thing as social distance. There may be individuals for whom close contact can be a potential problem but not for society as a whole. Keeping people apart is a standard prison procedure. Isolation is a punishment. We know what it does with people’s minds. We know that mental pain is the worst kind of torture. Isolation is causing mental pain. It has no health benefits whatsoever. But it does weaken people’s spirit and resolve. It makes them willing co-operators.
The quality of air people are breathing in no longer is relevant because the extreme bad air they are breathing in is for their benefit while before the air pollution was causing serious illnesses. Now the bad air is ‘saving’ lives.
The mountain of plastic is no longer a problem as we are now producing more plastic than six months ago. Plastic gloves, plastic containers for virus killing gels, plastic face protections of all sorts, plastic sealed bags to keep items from getting contaminated, plastic shields, and so on are an essential part of everybody’s life now. Plastic is no longer polluting our environment, it is ‘saving’ lives.
If you want to remain healthy you require the opposite of everything your government recommends to you right now. You now have the choice: you are either afraid of the virus or you are afraid of your government.
What treatments are available against viral infections and how many lives are they saving?
There are none. There is no effective anti-viral treatment within the medical arsenal. They are making an effort to treat symptoms but they have nothing that will reduce the viral load within the cells, nor do they have anything that stops the virus multiplying. I am not saying ‘anything to kill the virus’ because I wouldn’t know how one kills something that is not alive. But, in the medical minds, they need to stop the virus reproducing as they believe it enters from the outside and infiltrates and hijacks the replicating system of an ordinary cell. They have been trying to find a solution to this for five decades now and the result is a big O. This should someone, perhaps, encourage to come up with the idea that maybe the premise they are working on is floored, but no, keep persisting. Overload the literature with ‘promising’ stories and corrupted studies so one keeps in charge.
Have they saved lives? No they haven’t. Not a single one of them. How do I know? Don’t ask me, ask them. Before they implemented serious restrictive measures and the lockdown, government officials informed us, and they were backed by their experts, that the reason we needed these measures was to protect the NHS. These measures were supposed to slow down the spread of the disease so that there would not be an overwhelming peak demand on the NHS when everybody was getting ill at the same time. They told us then that these measures would not mean that less people would die or less people would get infected. It would not alter any of the numbers, simple the curve of cases would be dragged out over a few more weeks instead of having it all in one go. They knew it wouldn’t save any lives or protect anybody from getting ill, but they also knew that after a good solid time in an isolation cell we would be willing to conform with almost anything.
And they were right!! Now they can all say how many lives they have saved and how different it would have looked if we hadn’t done this, and nobody protests. Yes, thank God you saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We thank you for your cleverness and foresight.
Bullshit. But hey, if the media has been put to sleep too, a source of information the population has relied on totally, then they are home and dry, fully in charge.
Do you think they want to kill a large part of the population with the pandemic?
This is simply my personal opinion and others may completely differ in theirs. No, I don’t believe that that is the main purpose. I don’t believe they care about the numbers that are left standing at the end of this. I believe they care about the kind of people in front of them. I believe this is a power grabbing exercise by the people who already are in charge of the medical system, the media system and the food production system. They want people to only believe what they tell them to believe. They want total obedience. Whether or not a lot of people die is not the main issue. Those who die are no longer a concern to the powers to be, but don’t forget that they will also need a population in order to exert their power over. So there will be survivors, mostly that can play a useful role in the new world.
What do you recommend that we can do, people who are awake and “watching” the show?
We are not all the same people. It isn’t an harmonious group and therefore I can’t recommend anything that we all should be doing.
I do not believe that this tide will be stopped. I believe that this is going to happen, whatever any of us do. The world is going to be different. Then the question is, “what will that world look like?”.
So, I believe that it will be a world of total dominance. Complete control. No individual freedom. I don’t think it will all be organised around restrictive laws. I think that most of it will be done through social control. The people themselves, afraid to lose their privileges, will demand of others to adhere to the rules. You will need to “prove” that you are doing that and then you get access to services and privileges. If you don’t, you are out.
In that kind of world the crucial issue will be whether or not I will comply but bear in mind that you will have to comply with all the rules if you want to have access to any facility. So, in other words, you need to decide whether you want to be in or out. When you are out, nobody can help you and you have no right to anything.
My suggestion is that this is an invitation to create a new world based on different principles, opposed to the world you are choosing not to belong to. I would dare to suggest that some of the central issues in your new world should be individual freedom and respect. Each can fill the details in how it suits them.
Since I see it as a dramatic split, a complete diversion from the old society, leaving that one behind, I think that it would be wise, at this moment in time, not to do anything dramatic but mainly to allow your mind to wonder over possibilities. The practical side of it all will show itself when you know more exactly where this world is going and what form the control will take. Each one of you will then have to decide if they can see themselves living like that or not.
If you can’t and you need to get out, I am sure you will find a way. I would urge you not to fight others that want out because you believe to know the best way forward. Be tolerant for people who need to try it their way and look for cooperation where possible and allow everybody the freedom to live how they want to. We should give each other the opportunity to try anyway.
For now, stay in touch with people who are still contemplating not to be totally controlled. Don’t force any of your ideas onto anybody else. Keep your doors open. Look for cooperation, not differences.
And be patient. It won’t be long now.