All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:54:17
The Event (Raw Deal + Wisdom Circle) - 02 February 22 - Guest: Christine Massey
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't know.
It says the broadcast is live, but if so, it's only... Jim?
Yes, yes.
Can you hear me, Mitchell?
No, I don't hear anybody.
I can't see if they're talking.
So it appeared to be live video.
This should be working.
Oh, Giuseppe, good.
Yeah, thank you that you can connect.
Okay, let me uncouple this again and let's try again.
Here we go.
Okay, share system audio.
Okay, that should be right.
Okay, Jim, go ahead. go ahead.
Yes, yes, Giuseppe, thank you so much.
Mitchell, we got the audio correct?
Mitchell, you can't hear them?
No, Giuseppe, I don't hear them.
I hear you, but I don't hear them.
Pat Rabbit just said in chatroom we can hear Giuseppe and me, but not them.
What the hell?
That's frustrating.
Yeah, completely.
I mean, it's all normal here.
Fuck.
It makes no sense.
There's not a master mute or anything there, is it?
No, no.
I hear them all fine on StreamYard.
They're all there.
Well, no one's talking except me, but...
This makes no sense.
You checked on...
Why don't you begin the show here on StreamYard and I'll keep fooling around trying to get the two things connected.
Okay.
Yeah, we can at least record it and even if it's not going live on Rev Radio.
All right, let's see.
Stop sharing.
So you want me to rock and roll?
Yeah, please.
Okay, well, unfortunately, Giuseppe's dragged himself out of bed in order to try to make the video and audio connection, which of course we have not quite completely succeeded at doing.
Michael Ivey, I'm delighted to say, has been able to join us, and I welcome him to the show.
We have a sensational guest in Christine Massey, who's an heroic biostatistician who's used Freedom of Information Act requests to prove that SARS-CoV-2, which we know as COVID-19, has never been isolated for any patient, as well as taking on the globalist fluoride poisoning scam.
She's making her first appearance here on The View.
Christine, we're just delighted to have you here today.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you so much, Jim.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Tell me how you got involved in all this.
I mean, the scams, the false data, the manufacturing, converting, you know, uh, 37 million cases of flu and just re-designating them as COVID have been part of the scam.
Come.
Reset this call.
There's Giuseppe.
He's joined back.
Sorry, it was... Are we good, Mitchell?
Yes, we got audio now.
We got audio now?
Okay, let me reintroduce our guest today.
I'm, of course, Jim Fetzer from The Raw Deal.
Giuseppe Vaffangulo, who would normally be joining us, has been struck down.
He had to drag himself out of his bed to make the connections for us today.
I'm delighted that we've been joined by Michael Ivey from Asheville, North Carolina, who's a regular on the Need to Know series we produce of analyzing the latest news development, where I'm simply delighted
To introduce our guest today, Christine Massey, who is an heroic biostatistician, who has used Freedom of Information Act requests to prove that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, this is the one allegedly responsible for COVID-19, has never been isolated.
And of course, if it's never been isolated, how could they possibly have a vaccine to deal with it?
The answer is it's not scientifically possible.
As well as taking on the globalist fluoride poisoning scam.
I remember growing up as a kid in Southern California being told that putting fluoride in our water was a communist plot.
But I know today that fluoride is a neurotoxin and that was closer to the mark than what our own government was telling us.
Christine is making her first appearance here on the event.
Welcome to the show, Christine.
We're delighted to have you here today.
Thank you so much, Jim.
Thank you for having me.
Tell us a little about your medical educational background.
Where did you study?
I don't have a medical background.
What I have a background in is biostatistics.
So I have a master's degree in biostatistics and I worked with cancer researchers.
So I used to work at a cancer institute in Toronto.
I was there for four years and then I quit for various reasons and I worked independently still with the cancer researchers and then eventually I got away from doing that altogether.
So my background was working with the numbers.
I would be the person who would clean and summarize the data and I would do hypothesis tests for them and produce reports.
So the statistical analysis So I was the, you know, I had to think very logically and, you know, and carefully about what I was doing so that things would be accurate.
And I guess that's, that type of work has helped me with what I'm doing now.
But I mean, what we're going to be talking about is something actually very simple that anybody can understand and nobody needs a special background for.
Well, please do lay on us what you have discovered, because this is utterly consistent with everything I and others, including Michael and Giuseppe, have been reporting for, well, really basically since March of 2020.
The virus has never been isolated, and therefore we're being subjected to an elaborate scam in where they're falsifying the data, manufacturing cases,
Where the year before there were 28 million cases of the flu, and the following year there were less than 2,000, suggesting that 37,998,000 cases of the flu had been simply re-designated as COVID to create the appearance of a pandemic, as John Rabaport and Edward Hendry have been reporting.
Please elaborate on what your research has established and found.
Sure, okay.
So, well what happened with me was early on I was questioning the narrative too, and because I have a background of dealing with the public health establishment, for the 10 years prior I had been opposing The fluoridation of public water supplies.
And so I had seen how the public health establishment responds when you are questioning their agenda.
And it doesn't seem to matter what evidence you show them or what logic you put forward.
They will just stick to their guns no matter what.
So the whole COVID story wasn't making sense to me.
And so I was questioning and trying to have a better understanding of what was actually going on.
And I was learning about the PCR tests being completely unreliable.
And then someone sent me a presentation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
There were two of them actually very early on, and he was explaining, he drilled down and gave more detail about the PCR tests.
He also talked about how the alleged virus, and it's really just an alleged or imaginary virus, had never actually even been isolated.
And the reason that matters is because if you suspect that there's a virus circulating and causing disease, whether you think it might be natural or man-made, it doesn't matter.
To verify that suspicion, you would need to be able to find it in the patients and the people that have the actual specific disease.
And you need to be able to purify it out.
And the reason you need to do that is because if you want to then carry on and in a logical scientific manner, you need to be able to sequence that particle.
You need to be able to characterize it and you need to perform controlled experiments because you need to, you know, just finding something doesn't tell you what it is or what it does.
It doesn't tell you if it's a, you know, a disease spreading thing.
So you need to be able to identify it very specifically in order to distinguish it from other very tiny things that might look similar.
And you need to find out, does this thing actually cause disease to be spread from host to host?
When hosts are exposed to it in a natural way, in the way that it's thought to be spreading disease.
So, you know, if you haven't done that very first initial step of actually finding this particle in patients and purifying it, obviously you haven't followed up with the other steps.
And so, Dr. Kaufman talked about that, and he gave a really nice overview of how an alleged virus could be purified if it actually existed, and what is actually being done in virology instead.
So, there are many, many papers where virologists are claiming to have isolated and sequenced this alleged virus, but when you read the methods and find out what they actually did, what they refer to as isolation, you find out they did nothing of the sort.
They actually went in the opposite direction where they mixed the patient sample with other complex things and thereby contaminated it, and then they drew wild assumptions So I can go into the details of that more if you like.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
But I first want to offer Michael the opportunity to welcome you.
He's quite a fan of your research and what's going on in this area.
Michael, your thoughts?
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
I want to thank you so much for joining us today, Christine.
You've been sort of, I guess you could say, an unsung hero standing in the background doing a very vital work for these guys who are more out front.
Just so you know, I'm a big fan of Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, the Bailey's, Rappaport, all those people are, you know, on my top shelf.
In my case, I'm a retired investigator who, once retired, started investigating things of the world, and my interest in Virology was originally piqued by a book about 10 years ago written by Nancy Turner Banks called AIDS, Opium, Diamonds, and Empire.
And in that book, she goes into the lack of proof or lack of connection between anything that came to be known as HIV with a condition called AIDS.
Then when I was starting to follow Andrew Kaufman, someone asked him that question, like, what started him down this path of looking into modern virology and the relative misunderstanding and or fraud that is involved there?
And he said on an airplane flight, he started reading that very book, AIDS, Opium, Diamonds and Warfare.
So it was his It piqued his imagination as well.
I just think it's fabulous that you're performing this role in exposing this emperor has no clothes character of current virology.
So thank you so much for joining us today.
Oh, thank you for having me.
It's just it's really good to help get the facts out to more people.
Please elaborate more on the nature of the scam as you have uncovered it, because the public really needs to understand they're besieged with so much propaganda and false information being deliberately disseminated.
It's an epical moment in world history that a scam of this magnitude should be taking place with such devastating consequences.
It's overwhelmingly greater in magnitude and significance than, for example, faking the moon landing Concealing that there was a conspiracy in taking out JFK or that 9-11 was completely orchestrated to benefit Israel by Dick Cheney even appearing to be the executive director.
What we're talking about here with COVID overwhelms all of those even put together.
Please tell us, Christine, what you have discovered and what has been most alarming after Michael interjects.
Yes, Michael.
Just before you go there, something you said earlier, Christine, made me pull up a Carey Mullis quote.
And the context is, again, the connection between HIV and AIDS.
But the quote says, I think it's simple logic.
It doesn't require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field.
So that corresponds to what you were saying earlier.
It is simple.
It really is.
I would say if the public knew what is being passed off as virus isolation and sequencing, they would be shocked.
And if it wasn't such a serious situation with such You know, deadly consequences.
They would just laugh about it.
I mean, it would be hysterical, but it's not hysterical because so much harm has come about as a result.
So what I learned from Dr. Kaufman, and I verified myself by looking at the virus isolation publications, What they're actually doing when they say they isolated a virus, they take a patient sample, they might filter it somewhat, and they'll assume that there's a virus in there based on a PCR test.
And the PCR test is a sequence-based test.
So obviously you can only have a valid test for something if you've already shown that it exists, right?
So we'll get back to that later.
So they assume that there's a virus in the patient sample, but instead of looking for it, they skip that whole step of looking for it and then purifying it out so that they can then do some logical scientific steps.
Instead, they take the patient sample and they put it in with a cell line, and it's usually monkey kidney cells, which are called bureau cells.
They put it with the monkey kidney cells and their explanation for doing this is that if we look in the patient's sample, we won't be able to find the virus.
And this is despite the fact that their theory is that the virus has already infected the patient.
It replicated and caused so much interference to the extent that it caused a disease.
And we're all potentially, even if we don't have symptoms, we're potentially spewing it to each other every time we exhale.
But if we look for it in a patient sample, we won't be able to find it.
Now that in and of itself sounds ridiculous to me.
I mean, if there was so much of this little particle in someone that it made them sick, you should be able to find it.
Another thing that they say is, well, they'll say, well, a virus only replicates in cells.
So you won't be able to find it outside of a cell.
But what we're looking for is not records of a virus replicating, we're just asking to find it in the patient sample.
And if viruses go from one cell to another to infect another cell or to infect another person, obviously they have to be able to exit the cell in order to get to another cell or another human being.
So they have to exist outside of cells too.
You know, we're told that they Replicate in cells, but we're not told that they self-destruct the moment they leave a cell.
If they self-destructed, then obviously they wouldn't be any danger to anybody.
So, but these are the excuses that they give for putting the patient sample with the monkey cells.
They say, well, we have to let the virus have a chance to replicate because we wouldn't be able to find it in the patient sample.
There would be too little of it.
Now, how does that make sense when supposedly the human was the host that it already replicated in, and now you're going to put it in non-host cells because somehow it's going to replicate better?
Like, that doesn't make sense either.
But that's what they do.
And then they also add fetal bovine serum, and that is added as food for the monkey kidney cells.
So you've got material from a human with whatever bacteria, fungi, the human RNA, all this material, you don't know what is in there.
And you're mixing it with a monkey kidney cell line that can also be contaminated with who knows what.
And then the fetal bovine serum, which again, who knows what all is in there.
They're mixing these three things together.
And then the lower the amount of the fetal bovine serum, for the monkey cells to the point that now the cells are being malnourished.
So they're being contaminated, but they're also being malnourished.
And they also had toxic drugs because they don't want bacteria or fungi growing in this mixture.
That's what they say.
So they had toxic drugs that are harmful to the cells.
So basically they're starving and poisoning the monkey kidney cells.
And they watch for several days.
And when they see the cells breaking down or they call it cytopathic effects, instead of saying, well, maybe that's because we starved and poisoned the cells, they say, oh, we isolated the virus. - Yes.
And this is literally what they call virus isolation.
They haven't identified a specific thing.
They haven't taken anything out of that mixture.
Even after they did this procedure on the premise that we have to give the virus a chance to replicate in the monkey kidney cells, they still don't try to purify it out.
What they'll do is they'll look in an electron microscope and they'll find a very, very tiny particle or particles in there and they'll put some arrows on their image and they'll say, that's the virus.
But you don't know if that particle even came from the patient sample.
Maybe it's from the monkey cells.
Maybe it's from the fetal bovine serum.
And you certainly don't know just by pointing at something that it's the cause of the disease.
Maybe some people have suggested, you know, there can even be artifacts in the electron microscopy image where it looks like there's something there, but it's not even there.
Or even if there's something there, you don't know, maybe it has nothing to do with the disease, or maybe it's a result of the disease.
Maybe it's the cell breaking down.
Maybe it's an exosome, you know, maybe it's an extracellular vesicle.
So because there are other things that are known to exist in that same size range.
So just pointing at something and saying that's a virus and that's what caused the disease, obviously that does not prove anything.
And that's not, it's not logical or scientific.
So if urologists were really scientists, they would look in the patient sample and purify from there, but they don't do that.
They skip the purification step, they go straight to the contamination step, and they draw wild conclusions based on the results.
So that's what they're actually doing, and that's what people will find if they take any of those publications that say that they isolated the virus, and you actually read the methods, that's what you will find.
Yes, and the wild conclusions that they draw are amplified by a further huge step called genome sequencing.
So, you know, everybody thinks that that's so esoteric an art these days that we can't understand it, but they know what the genomes are.
And that's a total misunderstanding and or fraud, depending on who's doing it, I suppose.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So, um, if you really wanted to sequence something again, you would need to purify it because then you could extract the genetic material just from that purified sample.
And that way you would know that the genetic material you have is coming from that specific thing.
It's not coming from, uh, it's not coming from other sources, but they don't do that.
So what they'll do is they'll either work with the patient sample, which may have been filtered somewhat, But they haven't purified.
They don't check an electron microscope.
They don't do all the steps to try to purify something that tiny and then check an electron microscope.
They just filter somewhat and then they take all the genetic material from there, all of the RNA, said to be an RNA virus.
That's what they tell us.
And sometimes, quite often actually, even more bizarrely, instead of taking the RNA from the patient sample, they'll take it from the monkey cow human mixture.
So that cell culture that they did, where they said they isolated the virus, they'll take all the RNA from that, which is even more absurd.
And then they, all you can do at that point, obviously, is make assumptions about how to now Determine a genome because you have literally millions and millions and millions of pieces of RNA.
They don't come with a little flag saying, hey, I'm from a virus.
You know, you don't know.
All you can do is make assumptions, right?
I'm from a cataclysm.
Sorry?
I'm from a calf fetus, can't you tell?
Yeah, exactly, right?
So it doesn't work that way.
So they make assumptions and they decide which ones they're, they detect millions of sequences in this mixture.
And they, also Dr. Stefan-Lonk has been talking about the fact that when they're doing this, they'll run PCR tests.
He calls them dirty PCR where it's non-specific and they run a lot of cycles.
And we know when you run a lot of cycles on PCR your results are unreliable.
So this is how they detect a lot of these sequences.
The sequences aren't even necessarily present in this mixture, but they end up with all these millions and millions and millions of sequences, and then they have a computer Patch them together in various ways and in some papers you'll see them saying trimming, editing, mapping, aligning.
It's all based on just assumptions and a theory.
And they end up with a long sequence of 30,000 base pairs and they say that's a viral genome.
Even before they get to that point, they'll They'll talk in their papers often, they'll say viral RNA, but you haven't shown that there's any virus at all.
You're just calling it viral RNA, but it's just a soup of RNA from a patient or from a monkey-cow-human mixture.
So people need to understand this because they know that there's all these genomes uploaded online.
You can look them up and I think now there's well over a million of them and this is what convinces a lot of people that we're nuts.
We don't know what we're talking about.
Of course they isolated and sequenced the virus because they have all these uploaded genomes.
But again you have to go to the methods and if you look at the methods you will always see That they extracted RNA either from the patient sample or from the monkey-cow-human mixture.
And to me, you really don't need to know anything.
You don't have to try to read all their complex details.
It's very intimidating because they mention different softwares and all these terminology that the average person isn't going to know.
But just knowing the fact that they took all the RNA from one of those mixtures, how do you determine a genome now?
You can't.
All you can do is fudge it.
What you just said about genome sequencing reminds me of the analogy or metaphor that Tom Cowan uses frequently about finding a piece of a hoof of a unicorn without ever having seen a unicorn and then being expected to create a unicorn based on a piece of a hoof.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So that's what is behind COVID-19.
There's no science.
And they certainly don't ever get around to doing any valid studies to show causation of a disease.
What they do when they do their cell culture experiment and they observe the cytopathic effects on the monkey cells, you know, they seem to take that as evidence that, yeah, it causes a disease.
But you're just looking at things in a dish.
You can't Assign causation to any specific thing and you don't even know if whatever you have in there Which is not not one particular thing.
It's many many things.
You don't know if it's gonna cause a disease in actual humans or animals and It's now considered unethical to do experiments like that on humans, but they do do animal studies in virology mice We lost the video.
Where's Giuseppe?
Oh, sorry to hear that.
Oh, now we're back.
Okay, should I continue?
Yeah, continue.
Continue, Christine.
Yeah, please.
Sorry, I lost my train of thought now.
I'm trying to remember what I was saying.
It's my understanding, again in the subject of genome sequencing, that I'm not sure if it's a paper that one of those guys found or that this is like stage 3 of the series of experiments that Stefan is
Engaged in I think it is stage 3 having to do with genome sequencing anyway, but one of the conclusions that I heard that was reached was practically literally all of This culturing is done as you said earlier by using bovine calf serum as an ingredient in the mixture and
And it was established that one could take just the bovine calf serum, using PCRs, pull any section of that genome out, or the genomes that exist in there, there could be more than one, and using those primers create any virus that's on record.
Yeah, I've been hearing him talk about that.
I'm not up on all the details.
I'm a little, um, forgetting right now exactly, but I know he has talked about that, that because they do things in such a dirty fashion and they literally just make these genomes up.
I mean, you can make it, force it to be whatever you want it to be because you have millions and millions of little sequences at your disposal.
I mean, you could, it makes sense that you could come up with anything that you want to come up with.
But I know what I was talking about before, it was the animal experiments.
So people might also get confused because they see studies published where they did do animal experiments, but again, they're never working with a purified alleged virus, something that could be a virus.
It's always a soup of material.
And then they don't even expose the animals in a natural way.
So if we think this is something that people breathe in or maybe you pick it up from a surface and touch your mouth, they don't let the animals get exposed in that way.
They'll do things like inject them or, you know, force something down their throat or do something unnatural.
I think it's usually injecting or putting something under the skin.
And then the symptoms that result, if any, sometimes they don't even end up with anything much happening.
Or if they do, it's something that's not even related to COVID.
It's like bristled fur, something like that.
But it doesn't matter.
In virology, that counts as a success.
So it doesn't matter what aspect of their evidence you look at.
It never adds up to anything meaningful.
And what I found out through Dr. Kaufman and Callan and others, again, is that this problem isn't just specific to COVID.
This is virology in general.
And I mean, some of them are talking too about germ theory in general.
So also that bacteria have not been shown to be the cause of disease.
I don't talk about that as much because they haven't investigated that much at all.
But we do have freedom of information responses now on many of the alleged viruses.
So it includes all the well known ones like HIV, HPV, measles, polio, smallpox, you name it.
We have freedom of information responses.
I've been focusing mainly on the CDC when it comes to other viruses.
Every virus I've ever asked about, they have no record of any of them having been purified from any patient.
I also have the Public Health Agency of Canada on record because I live in Canada.
I did a request to them for any records of any alleged virus having been purified from any human by anybody on earth and they have no record of any of them.
So and then when it comes to the bacteria we haven't done much on that but we did do a few requests.
I did the CDC and my colleague did the Ministry of Health and some other big Institutions in New Zealand and they had no records showing that the Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is said to cause TB, they have no record of any controlled experiments using purified bacteria and showing that it satisfies Koch's postulates.
And Hoag's postulates are a set of postulates where they were developed specifically for bacteria and it's just very logic-based steps saying, you know, if you want to prove that a bacteria is the cause of disease, these are the logical steps that you should follow.
And the CDC and the New Zealand authorities, they have no record of that even having been done.
So I suspect that what Dr. Cowan and Coffman and others are saying about bacteria is true as well, but I haven't had a chance to investigate that myself.
But it's definitely something for people to open their minds to and start thinking about.
Speaking of your being in Canada, you know the big story of resistance that's happening with the Canadian truckers action.
That's the big story in all of the media that we like.
And I was listening to, you know who the five docs are that are organized?
Sherry Tenpenny, Lee Merritt, Larry Palevsky, that group, Carrie Moret.
Okay, they go by the name Five Docs, and they did a show last Thursday, and they had Patrick King, who is one of the organizers of the Canadian Truckers Action, on while he was driving his truck on his way to Ottawa, and it made me wonder if
You know, he's the same Patrick King that initially beat a court case for a fine by making them prove that there was a virus to be an emergency in the first place.
And they couldn't do it at first.
It's my understanding that their lawyers have come back and found a loophole in what he was saying.
But my question is, do you know Patrick King?
Did he contact you?
And get information before he did that court case saying prove it?
No, what happened?
I met Pat after that had all happened.
So what he told me was that he had seen the Freedom of Information responses that I had.
He had seen them online.
He and his colleagues had learned about this so he went ahead without contacting me and I'm so glad that he did it because he alerted a lot of people to this issue.
So he used basically the same wording that I had used in the Freedom of Information requests.
He put that in a subpoena.
For the head medical officer for Alberta, who is Dina Hinshaw.
So he had subpoenaed Dina Hinshaw, asking her to produce the proof that the alleged virus had even been isolated or purified.
And so my understanding of what happened, it's been a while since I was reading about that, and I have met Pat since then.
What happened was the subpoena was quashed, And he didn't get to actually get her on the stand.
And, um, what happened was he, he knew he needed to subpoena her and he was, went to a Justice of the Peace and the Justice of the Peace signed the subpoena, but didn't tell him, no, you need a judge to sign this.
So the subpoena was not considered valid.
So it got quashed for that reason.
And then in his paperwork, too, there was a section where, as you're saying, they said, we have no material evidence relating to what he had asked for.
So some people interpreted that as an admission that they don't have any records of the alleged virus being purified.
But then other people were saying, no, it just means that they didn't have the record.
They didn't have any evidence relating to Pat's particular charge because he had wanted to challenge the basis of the entire public health order that was saying you couldn't gather in large groups.
But because he wasn't familiar with the process, he didn't realize to do that, you're supposed to file a certain paperwork letting them know.
I think it's a notice of constitutional challenge.
He was supposed to have done that in order to challenge the actual law itself and he didn't know that.
So that was another reason why things didn't actually work out for Pat.
Like he didn't actually even win his case.
He still ended up with the ticket to pay.
But he was successful in Bringing this issue to a lot of people and I'm really, really happy that he did that.
He did his very best that he could and he has a really big heart and I did meet him in Ottawa back in the summer and I've had communications and we did one interview together as well.
And he's, he's a wonderful guy.
And after that, because of what had happened, so many people were saying, well, you know, they weren't really admitting that they don't have any records of isolation, they were just saying they don't have records pertaining to Pat's particular case.
But so I followed up and I did the Freedom of Information requests to Alberta Health.
And to the Premier of Alberta.
And so the Premier admitted, I think it took a few months to get the response, but the Premier is on record.
His office admits they have no records.
And Alberta Health has kept me waiting for over five months when they're supposed to respond within 30 days.
They kept asking me the same questions over and over again.
And it's anyway, so I followed up with him recently.
It's 100% clear they do not have any records or they would have provided them from now, but they're stalling.
They haven't actually given their formal response yet, but they clearly do not have any records.
Yeah, and the general subject of legal actions against people reminded me that evidently some false charges were filed against you recently, and you were arrested for your actions in serving a piper to an official?
Yes, so what happened was, I live in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, and so we have a fairly new medical officer here.
His name is Thomas Piggott.
And he works for Peterborough Public Health.
And myself and others had tried to go to Peterborough Public Health and serve him papers there.
I had wanted to serve him and Larry Stinson, who was the Director of Operations.
But what has been happening is, because they know that there are people in the community who are very unhappy with what they're doing, with all this fraud that they're getting away with, and all the harm from the injections, they know that people want to serve them papers, so they hired security guards to keep people out, and they literally... another group went...
And they did get in the building, but the security guards were trying to block them.
And when I went on January 5th, I literally was not even allowed to set foot in the building.
The security guards called the police.
I was given a trespass ticket.
But I knew I had learned enough at that point that the trespass ticket didn't apply to me for various reasons.
And I just immediately wrote, rescinded no contract.
You're talking about a public building, aren't you?
No, so this is in a privately owned office building.
It's a building that normally the public can come and go from anytime because it's an office building with various tenants.
And that is our publicly funded office and our so-called public servants.
So we should be able to access them during normal business hours.
And I was all by myself when I went.
I was not threatening.
I was just wanting to literally peacefully just go upstairs to the office and hand over these papers and turn around and leave.
But I was blocked from doing it.
And so some of the activists here in town, they had found out where Thomas Piggott had recently moved and they knew where he lived.
So they had already done a protest outside his home.
And so then I thought, well, you know, we're not being allowed to serve him at the office where we should be able to access.
So let's try going to his home.
So it was not a protest.
There was no noise, no signs.
It was literally just another attempt to go to his door and hand him the papers or, you know, nobody wants to get served so you can just drop it at the person's feet if they won't take it.
That's all I was trying to do.
And we purposely went out of our way to make it as Low key and not threatening as we possibly could, but I needed people to come with me to witness and film because we knew there would be accusations made because this is what happens, right?
Because they don't want to be held accountable, so they'd rather make us look bad and criminalize us.
So about seven or eight of us went.
We broke up into smaller groups, just two or three people walking together so that we weren't approaching this house in a crowd.
Like I said, there was no noise.
There were no signs.
It was not a protest.
The other people were there just to witness and film.
Only two of us went onto Thomas Piggott's property.
Myself and one other person who stood two or three feet behind me the whole time just silently filming.
That person didn't say a word the whole time.
I got up to the door.
I knocked.
I waited.
And this is all on video.
Over 25,000 people have seen it.
Eventually, Thomas opened the door.
I was polite to him and friendly.
I was holding the Tupperware container, making it look like the paperwork was in the Tupperware container.
You brought him some brownies!
Yes, we were welcoming him to the neighborhood.
So I was talking nicely to him and he was talking nicely to me and I was just saying, oh, I understand you're new here and welcome to the neighborhood.
And then he became suspicious of the gentleman behind me who was filming.
And he said, who, what, who's that gentleman?
And I said, oh, that's my friend.
And at that point, Thomas Piggott slammed the door.
So I didn't have time to get the lid off and get the paperwork out and even try to give it to him.
I should have just given it to him immediately.
But anyway, we were trying to do things a certain way and it didn't work out.
That's hilarious that you brought it in a Tupperware container.
It was somebody else's idea, but I thought it was a good idea because we thought, you know, we wanted him to open the door.
So if it looks like, you know, we're bringing him some cookies or something, he'll be more likely to open the door.
So then I just immediately put the paper in his mailbox.
And again, this is all captured on video.
And we literally turned around and left his property immediately.
We didn't hang around.
And again, there was no noise.
There's no property damage.
There was no threat.
So we left.
We went around the corner.
We were walking back to our cars.
We were finished and we were going back home.
And two police cars show up.
And at least four officers got out, and the one that was speaking to us said that Thomas Pickett had called them and said that I had tried to hit him.
So we just thought that was hysterical.
I thought it was really funny because he knew we were filming.
Like, why would he do that?
It's going to backfire on him.
Yeah, yeah.
So I just thought it was funny.
And then I went home and didn't give it another thought.
Well, at midnight that night, three officers came to my door claiming that they had a warrant.
But it was very strange because they were giving me a choice into whether I get arrested now or, oh, just leave it and maybe you'll get arrested another day.
It'll be on your record.
And I didn't trust what they were saying.
And I told them to leave and they left.
So again, I thought that was the end of it.
But then three more officers showed up the next day in the afternoon, and they actually had a piece of paper that is labeled as a warrant.
And they arrested me.
They put me in cuffs for about five minutes, and they charged me.
And anyway, so it's all documented on my website.
With assault and battery?
Or with assault?
Not assault.
So this was what I thought initially.
Oh, and the officers that came in the afternoon, they, they confirmed for me that the three that came the night before at midnight did not even have a warrant.
They lied when they said they had a warrant.
And, um, they said, you're not getting charged with, because I said, have you watched the video?
Like we, we tried to give the officers, um, that showed up on the street immediately after we left Bigot's house.
We told them we have video, like, please look at our video.
We wanted them to, like, it proves nobody tried to hit him.
But they wouldn't look at the video.
And so I was saying again to these officers who were arresting me, I said, you know, have you even seen the video?
And they said, oh, you're not getting charged with trying to hit him.
So he obviously backed away from the accusation that I tried to hit him.
So it wasn't assault, but it was harassment.
And a new section that they had added very recently to the criminal code Specifically something along the lines of interfering with the work of a medical officer of health or public health staff.
Something specifically to discourage the public from trying to hold these people accountable.
So I know I did nothing wrong.
There's nothing wrong with going to a person's store.
There's nothing wrong with trying to serve a person.
And even if you read these sections of the code, they don't apply because it's, you know, it's only if you're doing something unlawful, you know, and the one, it sounds like, you know, if you're casing someone's house, you're watching them for a while, I don't know, up to something nefarious, but I didn't do anything nefarious.
That will all get dealt with somehow.
I don't know exactly what will happen, obviously, but that's what happened.
If you just try to hold a medical officer accountable in Canada, and I'm sure a lot of other places, you run the risk of being deemed a criminal.
And of course, the media has a field day with that too, right?
So is this case still pending?
Is it on the docket of a court?
I don't know if it's on a docket, I tried to contact, everything's very fishy because the warrant indicated that it was digitally signed by a certain Justice of the Peace, it had his name, but it also said Ontario Court of the Justice.
In Ontario, we don't have an Ontario Court of the Justice, it's just Ontario Court of Justice.
So I noticed that and I've been making inquiries to the police and to the court, the Ministry of the Attorney General.
I've been asking them, what is Ontario Court of Justice?
Because nobody I've talked to, there's no trace of it anywhere and nobody will give me a straight answer.
They also used something called the Modified Form 7, which doesn't seem to exist anywhere either.
So I think it's all very... It felt like it was just a media stunt.
It looks like these are fabricated documents, Christine.
I mean, how outrageous is that?
A fake arrest, claiming they have warrant when they don't have a warrant, then having phony documents.
This is all a sham.
Yeah.
And more importantly, I mean, I've been learning more about what you might call common law or natural law lately, and they did not have a verified claim from any man or woman that I actually did wrong or harm to anybody.
Thomas backed away from his accusation that I had tried to hit him, and nothing specific was even said.
Nobody was claiming that, oh, you did try to hit someone or you threatened someone or you damaged his property, anything at all.
All they could do was say sections of a code to intimidate me.
And I, like I said, even those sections of the code don't apply, but even if they, I don't, I won't try to, I'm not a common law teacher.
There's other people that are better explaining those things.
But at the end of the day, there was no actual man or woman saying that I had actually done wrong, anything to warrant arresting a person.
So, so I will be, I will be fighting it for sure.
Going back to virology and what you're doing in your public work right now, it's very encouraging to me.
I guess I've been aware of this for about 18 months now.
I mean the whole issue related to the pandemic and SARS-CoV-2.
It's very encouraging to me that gradually I'm seeing more Truth-telling doctors that are high-profile people in this situation gradually beginning to lend credence to the idea that the entirety of modern virology is an emperor with no clothes.
And specifically, I guess about five or six months ago, maybe a little longer than that, I heard Lee Merritt saying something in that regard that would indicate that she was thinking that Cowan and Kaufman were correct.
And lately, I didn't hear her say this, but someone told me that Sherry Tenpenny had said something that led them to believe that she was going there as well.
And the last person I'm going to name is Michael Yaden, the former Pfizer Chief Science Officer.
He did a great interview on Monday that's posted to the Jim Fetzer BitChute site.
With a an Australian woman named Maria Z And in part of that interview Let's see, I've got it right here Sorry coming up coming up There it is.
He says, So they've wrecked your economy, they've frightened you to death by lying in your face, and they're still doing it today.
PCR tests don't mean anything, lateral flow tests haven't been properly calibrated, and most people survive infection by this particular virus.
If it even exists, who knows?
But certainly, if you get ill, you should do early treatment and most people will be fine.
But the fact that he put that phrase in there, if it even exists, I thought was significant.
I have had email communications with Michael Yeadon, and I have an email from him from I don't know.
I guess it was maybe a couple of months ago where he admitted that just listening to Dr. Kaufman for one hour shifted his point of view greatly and that he did have real doubts as to the existence of the alleged virus.
But what Michael Yeadon, like a lot of other of the experts and lawyers out there, nurses and what have you, is saying That is not the way to go about challenging this right now, that we should just basically focus on all the other aspects of the lie, you know, show that the tests are meaningless and whatnot.
You mentioned Dr. Sherry Tempenny, and she actually, there's an interview of her that I saw back in spring of 2020, where she was agreeing with Dr. Kaufman.
She realized that no virus had been shown to exist.
But again, she was taking the same strategy.
She thought that's too big a stretch to ask the public to, you know, suddenly understand that.
And so She went along with this whole story of the virus, just like Mike Eaton, knowing full well that it's, you know, either they know it's not true or they have serious doubts about it, and they just carried on.
And that's something that I'm really, one of the reasons why people such as myself have to keep doing interviews and speaking out, because And the same applies to Reiner Fulmik.
Reiner Fulmik is also on record as admitting, oh, back in 2020 even, that the virus hadn't been isolated.
And again, very recently, he realized that it had only been, he said something like, it had only been isolated on a computer.
Christine, Christine, hold that thought.
We'll return and discuss the politics of all this after this break.
Right back with Michael Ivey and me and Christine Massey.
You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
Oh!
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do.
and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us.
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
A U.S.
geological survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read America Nuked on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Hey, Christine, I've got a question queued up while we're waiting for Jim to get back. - Okay.
The things that you were talking about Before the break went to the issue of whether people were ready to hear this kind of thing or not, and whether it does the movement good to pursue these lines.
And that brought up your open letter to Dr. Mercola, which I did my best to spread around as much as possible.
Do you mind if I read an excerpt from that letter that you wrote to him?
No, please do.
Just in context, this is a letter that Christine wrote as a response to an article that Mercola put out about, oh, I don't know, 10 days ago, coming down solidly on the side of, yes, there's a virus, and people who are saying there's not are not doing us any good.
And he He included an interview, not one that he conducted, but with a journalist named Jeremy Hammond that had all kinds of error in it that's been shown by Cowan and Kauffman since then.
But the letter, an open letter that Christine wrote to Dr. Mercola, here's an excerpt from it.
Now in your blog you state that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Now, this is Christine.
I hope we can agree that a specific thing must be known to exist in order to know that it is pathogenic.
Not believed, not imagined, assumed, or wanted to exist, but known.
Because otherwise it's impossible to establish even a correlation, let alone prove causation of anything.
Pretty much speaks for itself, but if you want to comment on that.
Yeah, well it's true.
RNA genome of 30,000 base pairs surrounded by a spiky protein shell actually exists.
Pretty much speaks for itself, but if you want to comment on that.
Yeah, well, it's true.
I mean, nobody, again, it goes back to that thing that, you know, they'll point at something in an image and insist that's the virus, but they never purified that thing.
They never extracted genetic material from it to find out what, you know, its genome might actually be or how long it is and analyze, you know, the outer shell, you know, assuming that it has a shell.
So yeah, there's just nothing, there's just nothing there at all.
But a lot of people don't want to address this issue.
They want to just, I say it'll be a never-ending task if you don't go to the very root of this whole story, they will continually roll out new alleged variants or other viruses.
They're already talking lately about smallpox could make a resurgence, you know, and what they'll do is they'll blame And I know it's not easy.
or whatever else, you know, lots of things cause disease, they'll blame it on a new variant or another virus.
And there'll always be new injections to deal with new tests.
You'll spend the rest of your life forever arguing over statistics.
And meanwhile, you could just bring forward the fact that this thing hasn't even been shown to exist.
And I know it's not easy.
You know, the public, there's a lot of people that will be very resistant to this.
But number one, it's the truth and the truth matters.
And number two, of course, nobody's going to believe it if nobody's telling them.
And if it's only just like a handful of people that are talking about this, you know, a lot of people are going to have to hear it over and over and over again to overcome all the years of conditioning before they'll even be willing to open their minds to the possibility.
So we have to take this opportunity when the world is so focused on viruses.
This is the opportunity.
Like I said, it didn't begin with COVID.
People were being coerced to get their children injected to go to school.
You know, with all these different so-called vaccines, none of them are vaccines.
None of them have anything to do with the virus.
People had to get injections for workplaces.
I was pressured once to get certain injections for a workplace.
I was working from home.
It didn't even make sense, but nevertheless, I was pressured.
So it happens to a lot of people and it's been going on for years and people were even put in jail for allegedly spreading HIV to other people.
And the horrors, you know, of the toxic treatments that people have endured.
I mean, it's been going on for decades and decades.
It's just more escalated at this point, so people are noticing it more.
But it did not just begin.
The fraud did not just begin.
The carnage did not just begin.
And it will continue until we expose virology completely for what it really is.
Yeah, when I first came to realize how deep this rabbit hole was, and that was from reading Tom and Sally Fallon Morrell's book, number one, the Virus Mania book.
And there's another beautiful book written by an English couple called What Really Makes You Ill.
And realizing that literally all of our lives, we've been subjected to this false information That, you know, goes over the borderline into intentional propaganda when you're talking about pharmaceutical companies making money.
It's just amazing the degree to which they've been able to establish this false belief of viral infection in the entire population of the world.
Mm-hmm, 100%.
And maybe a good thing for us to talk about a bit would be, you know, the things that come to people's minds when they start hearing this for the first time and they find it hard to believe.
Usually one of the first things people will say, well, okay, so explain what has been making people sick.
And I don't know, to me it's kind of obvious, but I guess it's not to a lot of other people.
But people seem to forget that Dying and respiratory disease are not something new.
We always had that and respiratory disease can be caused by many different things.
Maybe part of the confusion and why people are fixated on this idea that there really is one particular thing behind COVID.
I guess because they've been told for two years that there was one thing.
So when you tell them, no, that thing does not exist, they want to know, okay, then what is that one thing?
They think it is one thing.
That's a point that John Rappaport made.
Early on, in terms of shaping of the public mind, and the colloquial term is brainwashing us, how important it was to give it a name.
So we see that in the people all around us now.
Whoever gets sick, it's always COVID.
He's got COVID.
I had COVID.
So the fact that a name was given in all the media is a very important brainwashing technique.
Mm hmm.
And I think people, a lot of people still assume that the tests actually mean something.
And so this is an important point to get across.
Every single test is literally meaningless and completely useless.
And all of the statistics, all of the COVID data is completely useless.
And the reason I say that is you can't even say, there is no common denominator behind them.
So even if you just look at the PCR test, there's other tests as well.
So obviously they would have a different, you know, what is actually being called a case or a positive based on those tests is something different.
But even if you just focus in on the PCR tests, They are different labs are doing their own, they're doing the test in different ways.
They're not standardized.
And but we know they're testing for various sequences, and it varies from lab to lab.
But there's some testing for what they call an E gene sequence, there's the N gene sequence, there's RDRP, there's the spike protein sequence.
So there's various sequences that get tested for.
And so you could have one neighbor who was positive because they tested positive for the spike protein sequence, and another neighbor who only tested positive for, say, the E gene.
I know in Ontario, they only need to test positive for one sequence.
It doesn't matter if they're negative on all the others.
So you don't even have a certain sequence in common behind all these cases.
Let alone any certain symptoms or a particular thing that you might call a virus or even a genome.
No, no.
And not even one of those tiny, tiny little sequences that they test for.
It can be different sequences.
So you have all these different combinations or maybe some person got, uh, they got two of them, but you know, somebody else got a different two and there's all sorts of variations.
And then you learn, well, you don't even know that they had that sequence that they tested positive for because so many cycles were run on the PCR that the results are completely unreliable.
Even Anthony Fauci admits over 35 cycles, it's useless.
You don't know if the person even had the sequence.
So, The PCR is completely useless and then you learn oh 22 health scientists published a report pointing out nine other major flaws with the PCR test.
So you know even just learning like basic facts about PCR it should be clear to people there's no common denominator.
You can't even shift from saying okay okay so there's not a virus they never showed there's a virus but they all have Something in common.
There's nothing that you can say that those people had in common.
All they have is a completely meaningless test result.
That's it.
And then the other tests, again, they're never testing directly for a virus.
It's impossible to do that when no one has identified a virus.
None of the tests have been validated.
It's impossible to validate any test when you have no gold standard.
You don't have the alleged virus.
So, different tests, testing for different things, all of them are equally useless and completely meaningless, meaning all of the statistics are completely useless and meaningless and it's a complete waste of energy to try to analyze them because they mean nothing.
So then why do people get sick?
Well, they get sick for all the reasons.
You know, there's all sorts of things that can contribute to respiratory disease.
As usual, you know, stress and smoking and poor nutrition and, you know, people just living toxic lifestyles.
Eventually your body needs to start getting stuff out somehow, pushing it out.
And then you add all the extra stress that people have had because of this whole COVID phenomena, the lockdowns, the fear, the terror.
People being neglected in hospitals, people being in isolation, the very toxic treatments like remdesivir that some people have had or being put on the ventilators, even knowing that when you put someone on this ventilator, there's a very small chance that they're going to get back off it.
And then in Wuhan, in particular, Wuhan is known as having horrific air pollution.
People were already protesting for years, putting their life on the line to protest the air pollution.
And then just before COVID started, 5G was turned on.
So people were being exposed to these new super high frequencies that they weren't used to.
And vaccines had been mandated in China shortly before.
And then there's always new chemicals coming into our atmosphere, you know, that we're always being exposed because of industry.
There's constantly new things that we're being exposed to.
So there's any number of all sorts of different factors, you know, and every person would need to be considered individually to figure out, okay, what was it for them?
And you never maybe know for certain, but you could at least say, okay, well, I was under a lot of stress, and I was really scared, and I was hearing 24-7 about a respiratory disease.
And even just psychosomatically, you know, you can trigger symptoms in some people just by constantly talking to them about it.
And then the poor diet, you know, not getting enough exercise, people being forced to stay indoors and breathe stale air and not getting out for their usual exercise.
Sam Bailey just put out a video answering that question.
It's about 16 minutes.
Jim, I could keep going.
Do you want to jump in with something?
I think you've been doing a fantastic job, Michael.
I'm just in awe, and it's so wonderful.
You and Christine are having a fabulous conversation.
I'd love to get reaction of her colleagues to this, whether they're all on board, the politics of this, the collapse of the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, it seems to me, all the regulatory agencies that are supposed to ensure that something like this could never happen.
Well, what you just said reminded me of something that I heard Rainer Fulmisch say recently, and that was that they had enough information to bring down the whole field of virology.
whatever she's able to offer, but you're doing a fabulous job.
Please do continue, Michael.
Well, what you just said reminded me of something that I heard Rainer Fulmish say recently, and that was that they had enough information to bring down the whole field of virology.
Well, yeah, the whole vaccine industry is really what he was saying, right?
But Big Pharma, really, the whole vaccine industry was what he was alluding to.
I hope so.
I hope that's the case.
That's what you're talking about, these official structures that exist around it.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I'm interested in Christine's observation.
I mean, they have similar agencies in Canada, no doubt.
But hasn't it been appalling how they've utterly folded under, you know, the corruption is so enormous.
I mean, it's mind boggling.
Christine, please continue.
You and Michael are having this wonderful conversation.
Well, the way I look at it, these institutions are doing what they're actually designed to do.
Because again, you know, For example, if you look at the CDC or the Public Health Agency of Canada, these are the institutions that are supposed to know about things like viruses.
And then we find out they have no record of any virus on the planet, you know, any of these viruses that they've been injecting, people have been injected for for decades.
So it's not like they just dropped the ball when it came to COVID.
And, you know, the CDC has been known, I mean, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has talked for years about the fact that the CDC has dozens and dozens of patents on vaccines, like they have a total, they have a financial interest in keeping that whole industry going.
And I'm sure, you know, I don't know as much as when it comes to Public Health Agency of Canada, but there's obviously something very, very Wrong.
And again with the FDA, how did they manage to approve injections all these years?
Same with Health Canada for things that have never been shown to exist.
Yeah, I think they're doing what they, and we know there's these revolving doors, right?
Where an executive from say Pfizer, then they go to the FDA or what have you, right?
It's all this, um, they give us this illusion to the public that things are being regulated in the public interest.
But, um, anyone who spends time, you know, looking beneath the surface, looking beneath what you're told by the mainstream media, you find out there's this whole other perspective and, um, And yeah, a lot of money is being made.
We had a former Health Canada senior scientist.
He's quite famous.
He passed away a year or two ago, Dr. Shiv Chopra.
He was well known because he and his colleagues had been under pressure to approve a growth hormone, I believe it was, like a bovine growth hormone for use in the dairy industry.
And they were being pressured to approve it, and they wouldn't because there weren't safety studies.
So he became very famous.
They fired him.
Anyway, he wrote a whole book called Health Canada, Corrupt to the Core, and he wrote that years ago.
So a lot of people, if this is All new to them.
I guess it is all new to a lot of people, but there's a lot of information that's been known for years and years that, in fact, these institutions have been corrupt, you know, maybe from the beginning.
Yeah.
Captured agencies is the general term.
They present a public patina of working in the public welfare when, in fact, they're Yeah, that's been known for a long time in the health care field about the CDC.
The CDC is even a private corporation.
I'm not sure about the FDA.
I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't either, and of course NIH and NIAID.
Those are all complete tools of Just so you know, early on in this process, you mentioned Anthony Fauci earlier.
Just so you know, early on in this process, you mentioned Anthony Fauci earlier.
And in these parts, Jim coined the term Tony the Rat Fauci.
He figured he needed more of a mafia designation to match his true character.
So that's how we refer to him these days.
Well, I understand Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
recently wrote a book about Anthony Fauci.
I think it's called The Real Anthony Fauci.
I haven't read it, but I've heard it's really sensational.
And it doesn't even go into the fact that the viruses have been shown to exist.
But even without even going there, there's decades and decades worth of I have read that book and I so recommend it.
I think it's a very important book for our period of time because he goes into a lot more general factors than just Anthony Fauci in that book.
So, yeah, there's a lot.
I have read that book, and I so recommend it.
I think it's a very important book for our period of time because he goes into a lot more general factors than just Anthony Fauci in that book.
Fauci is involved sort of weaving a thread through it.
But what he lays out in that book in incredible detail, you know, he's a good environmental lawyer.
So there's I think there's over 2000 references in that book.
And and it could provide just what's in that book.
In my mind, could provide information for a whole lot of lawsuits.
Yeah, and the CDC is relied on very much by other countries.
We have Freedom of Information responses from some countries where they admitted they didn't even try to do the bogus cell culturing, the fake virus isolation step.
They just relied completely on PCR tests.
And they're just totally trusting other institutions, such as the CDC, To have confirmed that there really is a virus.
So, CDC is hugely influential.
So, yes, if people and the Anthony Fauci Institute, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, if people just probably read that book, it would be hugely eye-opening for a lot of people.
It is.
Some good news.
You mentioned Dr. Lee Merritt and how she had Started to catch on a few months ago.
She actually spoke to Reiner Fulmik in the last I think it was just in the last couple of weeks or very recently I think it might might have been her second time.
I'm not sure but she was explaining to him quite clearly she seemed to have It had sunk in more because I'd heard her talk about it a few months ago and it seemed to have sunk in and she was getting a clearer understanding of Okay, yes, this whole virus isolation thing is completely nonsense and it's not just specific to COVID.
She was laying it out for Reiner Fulmick and we have some good news that on Friday this week, just two days from now, Dr. Anna Kaufman will be speaking for the first time with Reiner Fulmick as part of that committee where they've been interviewing people.
So that should help a lot.
That will get the A lot more people exposed to the reality.
And like you're saying, I keep hearing every week or two, you know, I hear of more doctors that are speaking out in a plain, simple language saying there is no virus, like no virus has been shown to exist.
So I think even though there were a lot who were aware of these issues and didn't want to go there, They're going to be finding themselves under more and more pressure as time goes on.
They're going to have to start to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
I did an interview maybe a few weeks ago with Dr. Andrew Cowan.
That was my very first time talking to him.
He was aware I had had some communications directly with Dr. Peter McCullough.
Dr. Peter McCullough has been getting a lot of attention within the so-called freedom movement.
And I had challenged Dr. McCullough on different occasions to prove that the alleged virus actually exists.
And I've put those on my website.
And so Dr. Cowan was encouraging other people to write to Dr. McCullough too and ask him to back up his claims.
And I think this is what we need to see happening is when people are on podcasts, when they're being interviewed, the The people interviewing them, um, you know, need to start challenging them and not just let them off the hook when they start, you know, talking about the latest variant or, you know, just how bad the virus is or like Reiner Fomich, you know, I appreciate that he's exposing information about the test, but, you know, um, a few weeks ago I heard him talking.
He was making what to me was a very incoherent argument.
He was saying on the one hand, He realized that the alleged virus had not been properly isolated, and that the PCR tests are completely useless.
But at the same time, he was saying there is a virus, and he knows its mortality rate, and it's similar to a seasonal flu.
Which doesn't make any sense, because if it hasn't been isolated, you don't know it exists, and you certainly don't know its mortality rate, especially when the tests are completely meaningless, even if there was a real virus.
Yeah, I think that doctors like that have an intuitive fear of using the phrase, doesn't exist.
And it brings up the point of the importance of language.
You know, they've redefined isolation from way back in 1954, I believe.
And they've redefined a lot of terms in this whole thing in order to make it fit the agenda and fit their narrative.
Michael, if I might interject, we're almost to the break.
We're going to invite callers, Christine, with your concurrence.
The number 540-352-4452. 540-352-4452 to call in and speak with Christina, Michael, and me.
Michael, you've just been doing a superb job with this.
Christina, we're just delighted to have you here.
Peter McCullough will be a guest here on the event in the next couple of weeks.
Really?
First time I heard that.
First time I heard that.
You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslifts.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support as this made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, Freedom Substance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution.
Radio, radio, radio, radio.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSedge.com, the people station.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read America Nuked on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Okay, we're back.
I just wanted to finish the point I was making about the phrase, doesn't believe in the existence of viruses.
And it occurred to me the other day that that's being used as a term of denigration, of course.
The same as anti-vaxxer is, or you could name many more.
The more general would be conspiracy theorists.
That's why these doctors are afraid of it.
They know how it's being used.
But it struck me that that phrase, that somebody doesn't believe in the existence of viruses, is essentially a strawman argument.
Because everybody knows viruses exist, but it's not that The particles of cellular DNA and RNA don't exist.
No one is saying that what's become known as viral particles don't exist.
The question is, where do they come from?
What's their role and function, if any, in any disease or in the human body in general?
It's not if these little particles with lipid shells exist or not.
So my point is saying that it's being used as a straw argument.
Well, actually, I would disagree somewhat.
I mean, like I was saying before, we're told very specific things about SARS-CoV-2, for example, that it has a genome of 30,000 base pairs, it's an RNA genome, that it has a protein shell with a certain kind of protein with a structure that's been analyzed and whatnot.
And nobody has shown that that thing exists because nobody has ever even shown that that genome exists in nature anywhere.
My statement wasn't meant about SARS-CoV-2 in general, it was about viruses in general and what has come to be called viruses.
Okay, so I guess, yeah, I mean to me any of this the named viruses that were told cause disease like measles, HIV, etc., they Whatever they say about those things, that they know it's properties and they know how to test for it, they have never actually shown that those things exist.
Right.
Sometimes it gets a little confusing the way people use the word virus.
When I use it, I'm talking about something that we've been told exists and it's causing disease.
But yes, of course, there's little particles.
And like you're saying, they haven't been shown to cause disease.
That's the only differentiation I wanted to make.
Thank you.
We do have a caller here on the line, Scott from San Diego.
He's a regular.
Scott, join the conversation.
Hey guys, hey Jim.
Yeah, I'm really honored to talk to you guys.
I had this question, I think I posed it to you last week, Jim, about the variants.
How it's possible that, or what's the explanation for this?
specific disease changing, mutating simultaneously around the world, all to the same variant at once.
Well, I think the technical explanation is it's bullshit.
But Christine may have some additional options.
Scott, Scott, Scott!
You're making it... Scott, didn't you hear my word?
It's bullshit.
It's phony.
It can't be the case.
What would be the explanation for that?
Scott, didn't you hear my word?
It's bullshit.
It's phony.
It can't be ridiculous.
Okay, so I would like to address that.
So we were told all around the world there that there was this original virus, the, you know, I'll call it the original SARS-CoV-2.
And that story was, you know, propagated around the world.
And there's supposed cases all around the world, right?
So Um, as I was explaining, nobody's actually shown that that thing exists.
There are no validated tests and all the statistics are meaningless.
So they can tell us all kinds of things, whether it's about the original alleged virus or any new variant they want to start talking about, and they can manipulate statistics.
It's all based on nothing.
And with the variants, they don't even bother with these bogus cell culture procedures that they call isolation.
What they do, for example, with the first variant that they started talking about at the end of 2020 in December, Was the, it was called the Alpha variant.
I think it's B.1.1.17 or something like that.
And it was also called the UK variant.
What happened was, so originally, well in Ontario, for example, where I live, originally a person had to have two, I think it was three, either three, I think it was two sequences that they had to test positive on.
And then later it was dropped down to just one.
You'd be called a positive case just based on having one sequence, even though you couldn't find the other ones.
And so and if, say, somebody didn't have any of the sequences, they would just be a negative.
And in some other protocols, you might have to have two.
So you might have to have the spike protein sequence and another sequence.
And the spike protein is what we're told is how the alleged virus gets into a cell.
But then they started saying, Oh, in some people, we can't detect the spike protein, but we still think they have COVID.
So they send the sample, which again, remember, it's never a purified sample of the A potential virus.
It's just a mixture.
They send that off to the lab to create another completely meaningless bogus genome that corresponds to nothing in nature.
And they say, oh, despite protein, that part has mutated.
And so they have, you know, yet another genome and they start calling it a variant.
So they just relabel things and they do it however they want and they can easily manipulate the statistics because, you know, you can have labs start running fewer cycles if you want to find fewer cases or you can, in Ontario, many times they redefined the case definition.
In the beginning it started out you had to have two or three sequences detected on PCR plus they had to confirm with whole genome sequencing.
And then later they dropped the whole genome sequencing and it was just detect the sequences.
And then they dropped it down to just detect one sequence.
And then they changed it to, okay, you can find one sequence or you can have one of these other tests positive.
So they keep shifting.
It all adds up to a great big nothing.
And they just tell people things.
But if you actually drill down and say, well, where's, where's there any science to back up any of this, you, you're not going to find anything at all.
So I hope, I hope that helps.
I mean, it's, I'm just giving a more elaborate version of what Jim said.
I totally believe it's BS.
I mean, that's why I'm asking the question.
I haven't heard anybody on, on the, you know, the, the lamestream media ask this question.
Nobody asks any questions.
Scott, they're all in on it.
I mean, come on, man.
They're bought and paid for.
They are promoting the hoax, Scott.
They're bought and paid for.
I mean, the mainstream isn't going to give us the truth unless they have a gun to their head.
And even then, it's doubtful.
So you got a great question.
We like it.
It sort of brings up the fact that the onus is on the people telling us that there is a virus to prove it.
It's not on for us to disprove it.
So that would be a great question for, you know, I think your name was Scott, was it?
Yeah.
You know, I have a template.
I have a template on my website.
If you want to send Freedom of Information requests, you know, you could to your wherever you live, your local, either your federal or your your local public health unit, whatever you happen to have where you live, and ask them, you know, ask them where, you know, either you can use the wording I did where I'm always asking about any records describing the alleged virus having been purified from any patient sample by anyone on the planet ever.
Because we know they would have to do that to actually prove that there's a virus.
So you could send that or you could send a simpler version where you just say, you know, please send me the evidence that you rely on for proof that this alleged variant exists or that it's been detected in our community and see what they send you.
And that way you're gathering evidence, you're putting them on the spot and you're gathering evidence to help us You know, show people that look at what they're actually relying on.
It's, there's no science behind it.
So getting people to look at that is the hard part.
I know.
I know it's not, it's not easy.
Um, like I said, though, if we don't talk about this, humanity will never find out.
Imagine if Dr. Cowan and Kaufman and Stephan Lanka had said to themselves, Oh, nobody's going to believe me.
You know, I better not talk about this.
I'll just attack the test or what have you, then nobody would know, you know, so.
We are making progress.
There are more and more people catching on all the time.
And I think if we keep going, you know, we have a real chance of blowing this whole thing virology wide open once and for all.
But yeah, for sure it's not easy.
I hope so.
I still have even more questions.
I just want these people to be held to account.
I just want to see them answer the questions.
100%.
100%.
Thanks.
Thanks, Scott.
Good question.
Good call.
Thank you.
Christine, you did a lot of research on fluoride and fluoridation.
I'd like you to address that, too, while we still have the opportunity.
We're so pleased to have you here today.
Okay, so just so you know, When COVID really got going and it became apparent like this, they were turning this into something really serious, telling us to stay home and whatnot.
I left, I had to put the fluoridation issue aside because it seemed to me that COVID was a much bigger threat.
Fluoridation is really bad.
Don't get me wrong.
Like I have very serious concerns, but at least fortunate with fluoridation, it's not implemented everywhere.
And even in Canada, it's less than half of Canadians are on fluoridated water.
There's a lot more in the U.S.
I think it's more like 70 percent, maybe higher.
And most countries don't fluoridate.
It's only actually a handful of countries that fluoridate, and COVID was affecting pretty much everybody.
So I put the fluoride aside, and I just want to mention that so people know I don't even have the most up-to-date information.
There's been lots going on in recent years, and I Kind of keep an eye on the emails, but there's other people who could give a much better explanation as to where things are at.
That's just fine.
We have another caller, also a regular.
Paul, please join the conversation.
Paul from California.
Yeah, thanks.
Nice show so far.
Thank you for having Christine.
Just for the heck of it, you know, because you were talking earlier about trying to deal with people and, you know, does virus exist?
Does virus cause disease?
And then there was a statement made earlier, I believe by more than one person that said that, you know, you don't need special, you know, knowledge of any field, you know, to think about these things.
Anyway, it's been a long time since I've actually done it.
But I've gone back and forth with multiple people in the past and it's really kind of fun when, you know, okay, so you're saying virus, there's no virus, the virus doesn't cause disease, is that right?
Yeah.
Let me ask you a question.
Okay.
Are you sick right now?
No.
Okay.
What about all the other days of your life that you're not sick, which is the vast majority, right?
Yeah.
You're hardly ever sick, correct?
Yeah.
So where's the virus then?
Where?
Tell me where the virus is.
And you know, you can do this sort of thing with just about anybody.
And in many cases, you know, they will get frustrated because you were making them feel stupid, which I got to admit is my goal in many cases.
But I'll just I'll give you another example, which is kind of fun.
I've made some appearances on another show, making a lot of these same claims, the same thing that you've been saying, Christine, for a very long time about the virus, about this whole thing.
And on this one particular show, there's a caller that's called in many times.
He's pretty well known on this other network.
You know, he's a very educated guy.
You know, he would tell you he's got a master's degree in organic chemistry and so on and so forth.
And he's always talking about 30,000 base pairs.
And he did that to me one time when I was on.
Okay.
And I just, I stopped for a minute.
I said, okay, let me ask you a question.
All right, fine.
I have a 2001 Mercedes-Benz right now and it's not running very well at all.
So I'll tell you what, why don't we grind it up into at least 30,000 different constituent particles and chemicals.
We'll put it in a big centrifuge and we'll band it out and we'll basically start looking at it under a microscope.
Do you think we're going to be able to understand why it's not running so well after we do that?
And he didn't have anything to say.
There was literally silence on the line for like probably the better part of 30 seconds.
And I go, I don't give a damn about your 30,000 base pairs.
It's just made up.
It's made up crap.
Nobody cares about it.
And to be honest, I can't wait.
I don't think it's going to happen, but I can't wait till this whole thing is destroyed.
I have a vision in my mind of that scene from Fight Club.
We're at the end.
They're standing in a building and they're watching all the other buildings around them just come tumbling down and collapsing.
Because that's what has to happen.
These people are such vile, demonic liars and schemers.
You have no idea.
I'm done with this rant.
I'm going to ask you a question now, Kristen, just for the fun of it.
Have you seen this film called Nano Man?
No.
Is that a Pacebusters documentary?
Yes, it's a Pacebusters.
Someone sent it to me.
I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.
It's posted on Pacebusters' website.
Okay.
I will watch it.
When you do, and when Jim sees it, okay, when Michael sees it, if he's already seen it, and anybody that sees this film, it's just one of hundreds that I've seen.
When you see this, you will realize it's nothing to do with a virus or anything.
These are vile, evil people.
We have to hunt them down and kill them.
There's no other solution.
There's no other way out of this.
There's no exposure of the whole virus mythology.
Yeah, that's fine and dandy.
No, there are people that have to be hunted down and killed.
Sorry to say it, but thanks for hearing it.
Paul, I posted that video about a week ago to Fetzer's BitChute site, so yeah, I've seen it.
Really?
It's awfully good.
It's like a deep dive that they kind of do some, what do you say, equivocation about, we can't vouch for any of this, but it might be happening in this way, and it might be, but we don't know what's in it, so we can move to another topic.
I just thought the other day, I mean, I just, you know, I'm watching it for the second time, and it's just like I said, there's so much of what they've done, that group, Spacebusters, or that guy, that man, you know, that is just absolutely phenomenal work, and, you know, and he always does, you know, throw in the caveat, but we don't need any caveat, just look at the evidence, look at the fruit of what it is they do, right?
What is the fruit that is being born in this society?
This centralized authority based upon what?
They're monsters, that's all you can say.
They're ghouls sitting around a cauldron for a long, long time trying to figure out all the different ways they can screw us up and try to kill God's kingdom.
We're getting fairly close to the end of the show, and I'd like to make one statement before we give the rest of the show to Christine, if that's okay, Jim?
Yes.
And it goes back to that Mercola article and Cowan and Kaufman's response to the Mercola article and to Jeremy Hammond.
And it's on the question of why are we pressing this point when not many people can understand it and it's divisive.
So here's what Tom Cowan says toward the end of that response.
Why is this a big deal?
Why is it important that we're talking about this?
Like this is dividing the movement?
We hear that all the time.
Andy and I are dividing the movement.
We'll be arguing about germ theory when we're in the gulag, and you're spoiling the efforts by the lawyers to support the so-called freedom movement.
My response to that is similar to what Martin Luther King might have said.
The truth will set you free.
And I would add, and only the truth, you cannot lie your way or misunderstand your way to freedom.
It just isn't possible.
I see comments at every website with people asking, why don't you look into the possibility that viruses don't exist?
So, if Andy and I weren't here, this desire for the truth would still be going on.
There are now thousands, probably millions of people demanding to know whether this whole thing with viruses is just nonsense.
If Andy and I decided to stop talking about it, it wouldn't make any difference at all.
It's still going to happen because the truth has its own inertia.
And that's how I relate to you, Christine.
That's perfect.
I love it.
Yeah, that was a wonderful, perfect comment from Dr. Cowan.
And I'll just throw out there, some people may have heard that Steve Kirsch, I never heard of Steve Kirsch until very recently, but anyway, he had published a blog, Same Yes, The Virus Exists, and indicating that he wanted to set up a debate.
And I just wanted to let people know, if you type in Steve Kirsch on my website to the search function, you can find out, I've posted some of our email correspondence there and you'll see how myself, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan and Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan and Sam and Mark Bailey, and possibly some other people like Dr. Stefano Staglio, I think, They were all willing to participate in a debate and one was being set up.
I let Dr. Kaufman handle it, him and Steve.
They were making the arrangements and Because I was busy with something else.
And then the next thing I know, I got this email out of the blue from Steve saying something like, Oh, why should I debate you when you won't even answer whether or not the measles virus exists?
And this is the first time he had asked me this question, but then he goes back to his readers and is making it sound like he's been asking and I won't answer.
And it's the second time that he misrepresented his communications with me to his readers.
So I just want people to know that we have tried, and Steve actually then backed out.
He published a blog in the last few days saying that he would not debate with us, it would be a waste of time.
So he badgered us to debate, and then when we were trying to set one up, he backed out.
And also, I sent an email, it was just this morning, I believe, to Dr. Peter McCullough because I saw something posted where him and three other doctors, I'm forgetting which ones they were, right?
One is Francis Christian, I believe, who was a Canadian doctor.
I forget the others too right now, but they were saying that they would debate anybody on COVID-19.
So I wrote to Dr. McCullough and I asked him if he would debate on the existence of the virus, which I don't think is what they had in mind.
But since they put out the challenge, I took him up on it.
And so I'm waiting to see if he responds and I will report back on my website and on social media and let people know.
If he was up for the challenge or not.
Cool.
And I think this is the kind of thing we, you know, that needs to happen again is to challenge these people and always remember that the onus is on them to prove their claims and they can't do it, so.
Well, Christine, you've been a fabulous guest.
I want to give a shout out to my dear friend, Ron, for suggesting that we should feature you.
He certainly had a perceptive and appropriate suggestion here.
And Michael, you've just been masterful today.
I'm just delighted.
I've had a personal issue here with a surgery in the family that's distracted me.
So I'm just so appreciative of the wonderful way you filled in.
Christine, where can individuals learn more about your work, your research, and your contributions, which are very impressive?
Okay, so my website is fluoridefreepeel.ca.
I put the URL in the chat, so I assume everybody can see it.
So they could just click on that.
It goes to the page where I have all the FOI responses posted.
And if you have to type it in, just type in fluoridefreepeel.ca.
And fluoride is spelled F-L-U-O.
People often spell it O-U, but it's U-O-R-I-D-E.
Free, F-R-E-E, and Peel, P-E-E-L.
I used to live in the region of Peel, that's why it says Peel.
FreudFreePill.ca.
I'm in Canada, so it's .ca.
And from there on the homepage, in the menu, you can find where it says COVID-19 responses.
And if you're looking to see my communications with Dr. Peter McCullough or Jeremy Hammond or Steve Kirsch, you could just type their names in the search bar and you will find the pages that way.
Wonderful, just wonderful.
Michael, final thoughts from you, my friend?
Well, let's see.
I would just go to a quote that I pulled from that interview on Monday from Michael Yeadon.
He says, there has never been a new emergency.
There's never been a new hazard in your environment and there isn't now, with the exception of two things.
Number one, Your government's behavior and number two, the vaccines.
Those are serious hazards.
And if you think it's the virus, there's a serious risk that we will lose our liberty, possibly permanently, and possibly our lives.
Well, well said.
That's an excellent quote.
Yes, I think that's exactly right.
Christine, you've just been a wonderful guest.
We're just delighted to have you here.
I think this whole legal thing with the non-existent warrant was just a fraud.
It was just an attempt to intimidate you.
It appears to be a complete fabrication, just as the pandemic appears to be a fabrication, and you're doing a great job of exposing what's going on here.
We're tremendously grateful to you for your contributions.
Keep up the great work.
And Michael, I say again, wonderful job today.
I so appreciate it.
And we appreciate Scott and Paul for calling in.
We hope Giuseppe recovers quickly.
He'll be back with us, no doubt, next week on the event when we return once again to this show with our large audience over Studio A and Studio B here at Revolution Radio.
Thank you all for joining us.
We're on the verge.
And thanks once again for being here.
Thank you, everybody.
God bless.
▲
Export Selection