All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:59:40
The RAW Deal (04 October 2023) with Guest "Dave"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Galactic Interstellar Council on Revolution Radio Studio A, Fridays at 2 p.m.
Eastern.
Join us as we traverse the star-sea paradigm.
As expressed in the time-space continuum that we know as the divine expression of love and light.
Integrating this conscious unity into the galactic paradigm.
So welcome all, both terrestrial beings and galactic beings as one.
So be it.
You're listening to Revolution Radio.
Thank you for listening to Revolution Radio at BritishLips.com.
Any commercial advertising you may hear in this program is of the sole discretion and benefit of the host of this program you are listening to.
Revolution Radio does not endorse any commercial products, nor does it accept monetary compensation for on-air advertising of commercial products, nor will it ever.
We are and shall remain 100% listener-supported.
Any product advertising on this program are considered used at higher risk and Revolution Radio shall not be held liable for any claims or damages received from any product advertised within this program.
Revolution Radio, where information never sleeps.
Help me.
I need somebody.
Not just anybody.
You know I need someone.
I was young, so much younger than today.
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
Now, but now these days are gone and I'm not so self-assured.
Now I find, I change my mind, I open up the doors.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being around.
Help me get my feet back on the ground.
Won't you be?
Help me.
This is Jim Petzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
I have a special guest today who will be joining and may even have comments to add during my discussion of some of the latest stories.
Of course, the big one of the day, the big one of the day is Matt Gaetz's vote to succeed in ousting Kevin McCarthy as Speaker.
This is fairly astonishing.
It was eight Republicans who made it happen.
Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ken Buck of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Alec Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, Nancy Maes of South Carolina, Matt Rosendale of Montana, and Gates, who voted to remove McCarthy.
All the Democrats joined in the effort.
It was remarkable that it should happen this way, but there it is.
The conservative Treehouse reported the total vote removed Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker, yes, 216, no, 210.
None voted merely present.
This was an historic event.
It's never happened before.
There are those who never thought it would come to pass, but I believe that, in fact, Kevin McCarthy was deserving of getting the boot.
Tuesday, the House removed the Speaker for the first time in recorded history.
We're perfectly happy to drag this out as long as it takes.
That representative David Velladio, a McCarthy ally, we're going to be here for the Speaker as long as he wants us to be.
But it did not work.
Immediately following the vote, the House Clerk announced that Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as a temporary Speaker.
McCarthy handpicked McHenry's successors from a classified list.
The alley of the Californian of all the powers of a Speaker chosen via regular election.
Since House rules do not specify When a new Speaker must be held, there are a number of problems regarding the acting Speaker.
In fact, yesterday we learned that they're adjourning the Senate until next Tuesday, when they will have figured out who they prefer to have as Speaker.
Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York, Majority Leader Steve Colless of Alabama, Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota are three House leaders who have been mentioned as long-term successors.
While none have expressed interest in taking his place, that may soon change, since he's technically no longer in office.
Personally, I think there's a good chance that Jim Jordan will turn out to be the speaker Here's a fascinating development, by the way, from the acting speaker.
Patrick McHenry ordered Pelosi to vacate her Capitol hideaway office by Wednesday.
Pelosi freaks out.
As a first act as acting speaker, Representative Patrick McHenry ordered Nancy Pelosi to vacate her Capitol hideaway office by Wednesday.
Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina was appointed Acting Speaker after McCarthy was ousted.
McCarthy chose McHenry as Speaker Pro Tempore earlier this year, and he now has all the powers of a House Speaker.
This is a fascinating development.
Pelosi lashed out at McHenry and said his ruthless move to evict her from her hideaway office is a sharp departure from tradition.
The best part about this ruthless move by McHenry is that Pelosi isn't even in Washington, D.C.
right now.
She's in California attending the late Senator Dianne Feinstein funeral.
Sadly, because I'm in California to mourn the loss of and pay tribute to my dear friend Dianne Feinstein, I'm unable to retrieve my belongings at this time.
Here's political reporting.
As one of his first acts as acting Speaker, Representative McHenry ordered former Speaker Pelosi to vacate her Capitol hideaway office by Wednesday, according to an email sent to her office viewed by Politico.
Please vacate the space tomorrow.
The room will be re-keyed, wrote a top aide on the Republican-controlled House Administration Committee.
The room was already reassigned by the acting speaker for speaker office use.
McHenry, a close McCarthy ally, was first on his list to become acting speaker after the California man was booted in a Tuesday afternoon vote.
Only a select few lawmakers get hideaway offices at the Capitol by the way, compared to their commonplace presence in the Senate.
Fascinating development.
I love it!
This was a very appropriate thing to do.
Meanwhile, McCarthy has declared he will not run for the Speaker's position again.
Representative Kenneth McCarthy announced he will not run for the Speaker of the House again after Representative Matt Gaetz succeeded in his effort to oust him from his Speakership Tuesday.
Bunch of old news.
Jake Sherman broke the news that McCarthy would not run.
He actually sent out a tweet.
I don't know if you call it an X nowadays.
I think it was ridiculous that Elon Musk changed the name of Twitter to X. Twitter had a well-established brand, the whole language of tweets and the like, and retweeting was part of the common vernacular.
But as the owner, obviously, that's his choice.
Here's Sherman's tweet, breaking again.
Kevin McCarthy will not run for Speaker again.
He's about to make the announcement in a closed GOP meeting.
He went on public and made a lengthy statement and, in my opinion, highly inadvisably attacked Matt Gaetz and the others who had deposed him.
As though they had been wrong when the justification for giving him the boot was clear-cut.
He'd made solemn promises to the Freedom Caucus that he violated, and it had to do with funding for a Ukraine war.
He actually circumvented them by making a side deal with Biden, the guy who calls himself Biden.
So, in my opinion, when I was watching, I felt McCarthy was just slitting his own throat with this outrageous claim, which was placing all the blame on Gates and the other members of the caucus, when it was he who had violated his word that brought about his removal from office.
Despite calls from loyalists in the House to let his name be placed in nomination for Speaker again, Kevin McCarthy, Tuesday evening, told his Republican colleagues he would not run again for Speaker.
The California lawmaker's announcement came in a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference less than two hours after he became the first-ever Speaker to be unseated on a motion to vacate the chair.
The motion, launched by McCarthy nemesis and Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, passed 216-10.
8 Republicans to 210.
8 Republicans joined with 208 Democrats to vote aye and thus oppose McCarthy.
At this point, discussion has begun on who the Republicans can nominate for speaker and who can hold their majority membership together and thus defeat House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries for a vote on the House floor.
Remember, the Speaker is simply decided by a majority vote, and typically, of course, if the Democrats are in the majority, they're going to elect a Democrat Speaker, such as Nancy Pelosi, If the Republicans are in control, if they have the majority, they'll elect their speaker, Kevin McCarthy.
Majority leader Steve Scalise of Alabama is the next in line in the House GOP leadership hierarchy.
His recent announcement that he's battling cancer makes it unlikely he will run.
Several sources agree.
House Republican Whip Tom Eamer is Scalise's understudy and as of Tuesday was the most often mentioned speaker candidate.
A stalwart conservative.
Emmer served in the Minnesota Legislature, lost the governorship in 2010 in one of the closest ever statewide races in the Goverstate.
I would bet dollars to donuts it was rigged after Obama set it up so all the way down to the precinct level the federal government could intervene and change the outcome of elections.
Four years later, he won an open House seat and served as chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee when his party won control of the House in 2022.
Generally well-liked by colleagues Emmer, he's been praised by Gates and others who are critical of McCarthy.
The vote could take place as early as Wednesday afternoon, though I do not believe it will happen that fast.
Indeed, I mean, that would be today.
I'm rather astonished, by the way, by this development.
Trump advisers, he didn't back Gaetz's effort.
Advisers at Donald Trump questioned Florida Republican Matt Gaetz's comment, indicating the former president supported his effort as Speaker Kevin McCarthy, NBC reported.
McCarthy on Tuesday became the first speaker to be removed after Gates forced a vote on the motion to vacate.
Eight conservatives joined with all 208 Democrats that oust him.
Before the vote, Trump posted a true social comment regarding GOP and fighting.
Why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves?
Why aren't they fighting the radical left Democrats who are destroying our country?
After the House vote, Gates suggests that he had Trump's backing.
My conversation with the former president leaves me with great confidence that I did the right thing, Gates told reporters.
Trump advisers, though, had their doubts.
I point you to President Trump Truth from earlier today, Adviser Chris LaCivita said.
Another Trump adviser also directed NBC News to the Truth Social post.
Let's hear Trump say that, a Trump ally said after hearing Gates' words.
The ally, though, added, I meant coming out and saying what he just said.
The president owns this, whether he likes it or not.
Trump, in New York this week to attend the beginning of his civil fraud trial, well, it's already turned out that 80% of the cases Nolan Voight, because of statute of limitations, where Letitia James had to know from the beginning that she was beefing things up, by what?
400%?
Only 20% of her case is legit.
She obviously knows the statute of limitations, if she knows anything.
She knew, therefore, 80% of it was already out of bounds, so she was grandstanding, trying to make maximal political impact by exaggerating the case against Trump.
Outrageous!
But exactly what we've come to expect from the Democrats.
The former president is clearly the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
He is so far out in front, 40 points, 50 points over to Santas.
In January, when McCarthy was trying to secure the speakership, Trump spoke to lawmakers.
The opponent publicly endorsed the Californian.
McCarthy eventually became speaker after a 15-round floor fight.
NBC News reported that Trump spoke to some lawmakers during the recent fight to run the government and avoid a shutdown.
The former president reportedly told some conservative members they ultimately could do whatever they had to do.
However, some conservative members who heard from Trump during the funding fight did not hear from him over the effort House McCarthy.
Until the House votes to find a new speaker, Representative Patrick McHenry will serve as interim.
McCarthy said Tuesday he will not run again as speaker.
Now, my guest today has an extensive background in science, and we're going to talk a number of very scientific issues about viruses, for example, the vax, the pandemic, and what is to come.
Dave, I'm glad you're here, my friend.
Comment on— How do you know I'm here?
Do you have any proof or evidence of me being here?
Dave?
Yes, Jim.
Jim, can you hear me?
I can.
You're on the air, my friend.
Go ahead.
Give us your thoughts.
Yeah, so there's evidence that I'm here.
That's good, because we need to use evidence for anything, and the evidence has different qualities.
And Jim, one thing that we're running into a very big problem.
If the echo is a problem, I will move to another area, but... There's no problem.
Dave, there's no problem with the sound.
I'm not getting any echo.
You're good.
Okay.
The problem that we're having is that people don't know how to think, and they're easily distracted by strange arguments Which really have no basis.
There's no argument.
There's no logic there.
And that's why, you know, it's very useful to interact with you because you cut to the chase.
You immediately know what the logical fallacy is that people are being tricked by.
And there's lots of inferences that they get.
They connect many things together.
I can think of this guy, Dr. Artis, who came out saying that there was venom in the water and venom all over the place.
And, you know, there's no venom in your tap water, I don't think.
There might be fluoride.
Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, you're getting ahead of where I wanted to go.
I want your thoughts about McCarthy's ouster by Gates and all this.
I want your thoughts about that before we turn to these other issues where you're making a wonderful preparatory statement.
Could you comment on the ouster of McCarthy and what your take on what that's all about and what it means?
Jim, I know nothing about political science or the political system.
The only thing I can say is that's a significant, it looks like a very significant thing that's happening right at this time when they've got the Biden impeachment going on and the Trump, you know, arrest trials going on.
I think it's more than a distraction.
I mean, who are they going to put in there?
What's going on in Washington, D.C.?
There's huge disruption in D.C. and in the government.
I think that's what I feel.
That's just my general intuitive feel here, is that this is all pushing the way to some sort of a revolutionary activity.
I mean, they're saying that Trump said all these violent things the other day.
But, you know, I list MSNBC and five minutes, 41 seconds, they didn't show any of the evidence.
There was no video of Trump saying anything.
They had Biden talking about it.
They had these other talking heads, you know, the dark guy with the round glasses who looks so smooth and, and, and upper class.
I mean, come on, this is, this is the worst kind of garbage.
It's like daytime TV, like, uh, You know, the price is right, come on down, or all of these things.
And for people to have accepted this and to continue to watch their TV is shocking to me.
I turned it off a long time ago because I knew that I wasn't getting the right information.
I wasn't as sharp as a lot of other people, but I just knew something was seriously wrong with this.
People don't have the ability to know what a good source is and a bad source.
So when I hear Jim Fetzer speak, I say, you sound just like the professor that I heard or other professors who knew what the hell they were talking about, and they were talking about concrete things, concrete evidence like you.
It's not high-level physical science, you know, physical chemistry, which, you know, I can't even comprehend.
It's down-to-earth stuff, but it's so connected together with full evidence that I know that you appear to me to be the real deal.
So isn't that the name of the show?
That was the name of an earlier show, indeed, and I appreciate all that, Dave.
Today's show is The Raw Deal.
I did have a show by the name of The Real Deal way back when, and I'm glad to hear all those thoughts about reasoning and the citation of argument and making cases, drawing conclusions.
And I know you have a lot to tell us about some controversial issues, including claims that there are no such things as viruses, that I believe will be of great interest to my audience.
Proceed.
Well, you know, if you're going to say that there's no such thing as viruses, then how do you prove a negative?
Well, one thing you can try to prove is you can try to prove that those people who are claiming that there's viruses have no basis for their claim.
So you can go and take these virology books.
They're real thick.
They cost like $200 each.
I was looking them up.
And they're almost like review articles.
Or you can just find a review article online or go to a science library.
You can also go to a university and ask some Biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, someone who has experience, even somebody who teaches biology 101, and try to glean from them.
What is the key evidence for viruses?
What are they claiming?
That is point number one, and I put it on Cowan's article on your bit shoe.
I asked him two questions.
What is the key information that virologists use to show or to make them believe that viruses exist.
And number two, can you refute that evidence?
They don't do it.
They come up with some big scheme like, oh, it hasn't been isolated, and they define isolation.
And so they put a very small box that you've got to stand in.
And if you don't stand in their box, then they've disproven it.
And this is foolish argumentation.
You know the fallacies.
Can you educate us on the fallacies, Dr. Fetzer, in that, our type of argument?
Well, there are several types.
I mean, special opinionists decide only the evidence favorable to your side.
It's also known as the method of selection and elimination, where you select the evidence that favors your position and you eliminate the rest.
Your point's about, you know, the fact that there are courses in virology, texts in virology, lots of publication, journals devoted to virology and the like, is all significant and very weighty evidence for the existence of viruses and a science devoted to their study.
So right off the bat, we have the commission of the classic Fallacy of special pleading, which is widely practiced by lawyers, politicians and used car salesmen.
Dave.
Yes.
Continue.
Yes, Jim.
I know I was just saying yes.
I was just agreeing with when you say used car salesman.
I mean, that that's always really eye opener for some people.
And it's important to get down to where the people are.
Now, I've seen people on here, you know, and I just made a few comments and I asked them a few questions.
I didn't say I believed they existed or they didn't exist, okay?
I didn't say any of that.
And they said, oh, well, you believe all this horse crap you've been presented with.
They made all kinds of innuendo comments and I shot down each one.
I said, I didn't make a claim here on any of this.
I'm asking you these questions.
And, um, you know, they came back with nothing.
Finally, I asked the two questions.
What do they claim?
And can you refute it?
There was absolutely no response to that.
Then I attacked.
I attacked.
I didn't attack.
I just showed some articles about this WAGH person.
I think someone of Indian descent who was taught, allegedly taught over in the UK, who claimed all of these great accomplishments and degrees and study of viruses.
And then Eric Polino and another guy came out with articles saying she's a fraud.
There's no evidence that she ever did this.
They called the college.
Now, I don't know.
I don't know.
I didn't do that myself, but they're saying this, and I think it's very strong to look at that information, these detailed articles by intelligent people saying this person is a fraud.
And then Dr. Merritt has this person on.
Dr. Merritt would certainly know better than doing this.
I can't understand why she would do this, or he, or whoever it is.
There is a problem here, and I don't know if these people, some of these people that are on the internet, who appear to be sincere, they're selling lots of supplements, Jeff Rancic talked about these people, they're out selling supplements, and they're not even sincere, reasonable people.
They're not sincere.
They may be very intelligent, they may have had a lot of education, and this is something we have to consider.
Who is real here, and who is not real?
And we have a lot of discernment to use, and if we don't have the level of technical skill, listen, Don't have the oil change mechanic work on your transmission.
Is that good advice, Jim?
Seriously.
Well, there are lots of reasons to believe that jiffy lubes, for example, often rip off their customers.
I had it happen to me when I needed to use their services under unusual circumstances.
And I had recently put in a new air filter that I'd obtained, I don't know, at Walmart, but it was brand new.
And the guy, the mechanic said, you need a new air filter, and he showed me the air filter with a big blob of grease across it.
And it was, I mean, I knew instantly this was a guy who just manufactured this problem.
And was ripping me off.
The question was, did I call him on the spot or just get the hell out of there and not come back, which is what I decided to do as a matter of practicality.
But yeah, sure, you want to go to experts and transmissions.
I mean, a place that they have specialized knowledge of all the details.
If you don't have that information, You better not touch that thing, because you're never going to get it back together and working.
I mean, yeah, there's a chance in, you know.
Right, Jim?
I mean, come on.
Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead, Dave.
Just go ahead.
Just go right ahead.
Yeah, well, the other thing I have to say, You know, this Cowan and these other folks, there was a guy, I had sent him some information before about this whole virus issue when he was on another network where there was a nitwit who didn't know anything and he's following this Kauffman stuff.
He's not reading this statement on virus isolation and realizing that this SOVI document, to me, it basically says that if something hasn't been shown to exist, Dave, hold that thought.
We'll be right back.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.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 it has 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. - Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, the cosmic oracle.
If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Thank you.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern. 8 p.m. Eastern.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslips.com, the people's station.
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.
Dave, I'm very pleased to have you here, but I feel we're covering too many topics and running things together that would be a good idea to separate.
There are listeners to this show who very firmly believe that viruses do not exist, and they're getting support, or what appears to be support, from a lot of different sources.
Before we continue and persevere, I'd like for you to just give a thumbnail sketch about your background, because I know you have a scientific background, and in my opinion, that is significant.
Let's begin there, Dave.
Okay, Jim.
You know, I don't want to throw around degrees and all this stuff, but I think I'm forced to say, listen, I'm just a guy like anybody else.
Sure, I was top of the class in science in high school, in college, and then I got to graduate school and I was probably middle of the pack at a high level graduate school.
You know, I mean, all these other people were smarter, smart like me, or smarter in science.
And that's my specialty.
All this history stuff and stuff I couldn't prove, I didn't like to deal with.
I liked math when I was younger.
So I have a degree in, it's a PhD.
It's organic chemistry, but it really involves physical organic chemistry, which is the mechanism, the mechanism of how things happen, how reactions occur.
And that was much more interesting to me because knowing the mechanism, you can predict what's going to happen rather than just memorizing a bunch of little equations.
So, and I did some work in biochemistry with biochemistry folks.
I'm not a biochemist, molecular biologist, or Or those things.
I'm not expert there.
So I'm just talking from a level that's even outside of my field.
Dave, Dave, Dave, when you say you're not expert in certain fields, even though you've taken advanced courses in those subjects, you've got to understand, levels of expertise is relative.
Compared to most of my audience, you're going to be an expert in those fields, but the question is not your expertise so much as the arguments that having the background you have enable you to make in support of certain conclusions.
I'm a scientist, Jim, and the most important book I read was not in graduate school.
It was in undergraduate.
It was called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn with an introduction by Karl Popper.
I remember the basis of that.
I was looking for the book the other day.
I couldn't find it because I was going to a reunion where we got that.
But those are your background folks, too.
You studied under those guys, didn't you?
Isn't that right?
Well, Kuhn was at Princeton when I was there as an undergraduate.
I did my undergraduate thesis for Karl G. Hampel, who was a leading philosopher of science among professional philosophers in the world at the time.
I dedicated my first book, which was on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, to Karl Popper.
And of course, I've dealt with Kuhn and his work.
On scientific revolutions in many different contexts, Dave.
Now, what I'm getting at is the following.
I have always believed that three of the most primitive, perhaps the most primitive forms of life, were viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
And if we're asking about the existence of any of those, if there are challenges to the existence of any of those, even though there are sciences, texts, Experts in each of those fields, how does one go about responding to the denial?
I mean, I've not heard denials.
Jim, I want to go across the aisle, so to speak, and talk and talk about people are saying that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, whether it exists or not, did not cause COVID disease or any new disease.
And that is a very interesting concept, and it can be debated simply because if you look on Rens' site, he shows the flu dropping off to zero, you know, and the numbers being the same as some of the cases of COVID or something.
I mean, maybe that's a generated diagram that gives you only one perception.
But let's take that idea that maybe the flu and 5G, as Rashid Batar in one of his last videos, the one he was talking about the 5G signal today, I heard him say, because I just listened last night, he said that it can open gated channels in cells to let things in.
Now if it's going to let the flu virus into a cell, and it's going to be the flu virus that multiplies and causes the problem, and somehow it enhances the disease, that is a distinct possibility.
It could be that both things were acting at the same time, like in Wuhan.
Look, they put a big 5G thing going up, and there's this whole theory that that induced this.
My best guess is that SARS-CoV-2 was going around there, and then they forced everybody into the hospitals with symptoms, and the symptomatic people caught SARS-CoV-2 virus from others.
So there's a lot of possibilities.
Dave, once again, you've done so much in the field that you're laying out a whole lot of things.
I want to be a little more patient and painstaking.
Forgive me.
Dave, just hear me out.
My own research has shown that John Rappaport and Edward Henry are absolutely right that the pandemic was manufactured.
The year before, there were 38 million cases of the flu.
The following year, only 2,000 because they took 37,998 cases of the flu and reclassified them as COVID to create the false impression of a pandemic.
It turns out that study showed there was no increase in the death rate in any relative category because of the pandemic.
In other words, the pandemic was fake and was designed purposefully and geniusly and then promoted with fake data to induce people to take the Vax, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I mean, the Vax appears to be deadly toxic.
It has a vast number of ingredients, Dr.
Butar, you were citing, was mentioning it even has Roundup!
I mean it's got...
Unbelievable!
It's got weed poison in graphene oxide and a host of others.
Yeah, that's what he's saying, but let's see the data, let's see who put it out, let's see if a lot of people are finding this or not.
I mean, I don't just believe it because he saw one thing of it and he didn't even cite any citations.
So, I believe real evidence and proof.
But I appreciate Buttar's very smart.
Dave, I've done a Huge amount on the pandemic and the vax and all that.
There are all kinds of weird stuff in the vax, including graphene oxide, which interacts with electromagnetic sources, and that's why there's a lot of concern.
Jim, I haven't seen convincing proof that there's graphene oxide in there.
Okay, Dave, I'm telling you.
I've seen it, and I've cited it in many of my studies of the past.
I will talk to you about it offline because... Oh, you can talk about it to me online.
That's not a problem, Dave.
I don't care if we have a difference.
That's okay.
I welcome differences.
I don't learn from people with whom I agree, but from those with whom I disagree.
And I've seen videos showing where electromagnetic sources make the graphene oxide dance around and do weird things.
It creates a mind-brain electromagnetic interface that I believe... Yeah, I've seen that stuff too, Jim.
I've seen it bouncing around, but the question is, is it there?
And also, Dane Wigington said they're spraying it up in the chemtrails.
Dane Wigington, I think, is a very reliable guy, but I could be fooled.
I mean, I haven't really seen his data.
I haven't been in his lab.
So, you know, this is all secondary information.
Dave, you're being a bit of a purist.
Dane Wigginton does a lot of good work on geoengineering.
Whether he would be an expert on graphene oxide is another matter.
If he's claiming he's found evidence It's in some of the chemtrails.
I'd certainly be open-minded about that.
We know aluminum particles and barium and strontium are in those particles and that those are all accelerants, so if you drop them over a forest and then you ignite it, they're going to make the fire burn faster and more intensely, and I'm terribly worried because in the Pacific Northwest, there's been a lot of the chemtrails and I worry is setting it up for what we had taken in Luhaina or in Paradise.
Let us, as an aside, talk about those two cases, Luhaina and Paradise.
There's one thing I have to go back to.
Can we go back just one step and I'll make a statement?
Sure.
It was about you saying that the whole pandemic was fabricated, and you're getting this from data of epidemiologists or John Rapoport, which, you know, probably isn't really an epidemiologist, but there was a guy from Stanford.
These are all number-crunching things, but when I see specific cases of people who have severe disease, much more severe than they ever would have from the flu, And there's other evidence that shows that something more serious was happening.
Now, whether the cause was SARS-CoV-2, viremia, lots of those particles in the spike proteins, or whether it was other things is debatable.
But there was some significant incidence of something else that happened.
And I think, you know, we need to look at that more closely.
I wouldn't just jump on one person's viewpoint based on a bunch of numbers.
That's different than the physical differences that we're seeing in the disease.
And I've gone to specific doctors, and one guy I know, to try to find out the information, what he sees, because he is on the ground, and we are out here looking at numbers.
There's a big difference.
Dave, I'll grant you all that.
There's practically nothing we could address.
That couldn't be disputed, and you could argue about going back to the raw data and the experimental evidence and the whole bit.
Now, roughly speaking, what I'm suggesting is we can argue or discuss these matters conditionally if the pandemic was largely manufactured, which I happen to believe, even though I do think There were some problems, something going around.
The whole idea of the vaccines appears to have been the agenda to get everybody vaxxed.
It was a massive program.
Let me ask you one question.
Dave, let me finish my thought.
You've interrupted me repeatedly.
Excuse me.
And yet there's reason to believe, based on the science of virology, that the COVID Virus mutates so rapidly that vaccines cannot be effective because by the time they're designed and put into production, the virus is mutated into a different form that's not affected by the vaccine.
Would you agree with that last point or no?
It's partially true, but at the outset it was a selection pressure an evolutionary selection pressure, which caused the alpha and other variants like that to be suppressed.
This is the idea.
So if it suppressed those things, then the other ones survived.
And that's the way I understand it from people who are educated in that area.
Of course.
We have the mechanisms to generate diversity, genetic diversity, and we have the mechanisms that select which is the genes survive to reproduce in subsequent populations.
So anytime you have an evolutionary process taking place, of course selection will be at work.
But my understanding is, you know, these coronaviruses rapidly change in their genetics.
Is that false in your opinion?
In my opinion, RNA viruses mutate readily compared to DNA viruses.
And so, given that, yes, basically what you're saying is right, but they have to be RNA-based viruses.
Now... Okay, good.
Would you agree, as a generalization, That the introduction of the pandemic was generated, and I say purposefully, to create kind of a hysterical reaction to get the vax, and the government went all out of its way to compel people to get the vax short of actual physical violence.
Would you agree with that?
Well, I could hardly agree with that, Jim.
I mean, they only put down millions and billions of messages in the two weeks, first two weeks of the whole thing, like Sherry Tenpenny said.
It was just like the constant news of 9-11 and all these other things.
It's all psychological war.
So actually, I'm agreeing with you.
I'm just joking that I'm not agreeing.
I figured.
I figured.
I figured, Dave.
Now, would you also agree that the death rate from the Vax Compared to the death rate from the virus is staggering.
I mean, there's staggering numbers of deaths from the Vax and comparatively modest numbers from the pandemic.
These are not independent data sets.
What happened is the vaccine came out and it eventually, I mean, listen, the Alpha The Alpha original version had already mutated greatly and decreased by the time they had the vaccine out.
So I guess my argument, I'm not even going to state it because it doesn't seem I'm finding a fallacy in my what I was going to say.
If you were going to say it, and you found it fallacious, it's worth addressing because you're a very smart guy, you know a lot about this field, and you only commit very rarely fallacies, so if there was one you were on the verge of committing, it's probably worth addressing and explaining.
That the vaccine caused selection away from the Alpha and the Delta versions.
Well, the Alpha, I think, was down to a very low level by the time the vaccine came out.
So it couldn't have selected against that, hardly, but it could have selected against the Delta, and it did have an effect on Delta.
And also, Dr. Kevin Stillwagon has said, and he studied these things very well, although he was A pilot and a chiropractor, he's gone into an independent sort of study into immunology.
And he said that, listen, if you've got something that attacks the spike on a virus called an antibody circulating in your system, it's going to reduce the symptoms that a vaccinated person has.
And so this is very consistent with some of the positive things That probably occurred, and in my estimation mechanistically, like a physical organic chemist mechanism, that I would understand should happen.
I mean, I make judgments about what's going to happen based on the mechanism that's active.
But if the mechanism isn't actually active, then my conclusion is ridiculous.
You know, it doesn't have a basis.
Kind of like these guys who don't have a real basis for saying this, there's no viruses don't exist.
I mean, there's crystal structures have been done on viruses and other sorts of methods have been used to show the structure of these.
I mean, if viruses don't exist, are we going to say that atoms don't exist?
And we're going to say all these other things don't exist.
It's just because people have a lack of understanding of the field and the techniques used, and they haven't been in the lab doing research and getting results and finding That they can convince themselves that certain things happened, that they're real, even though they can't see them.
None of the stuff that I dealt with, they were small molecules.
I mean, they were invisible to the naked eye.
But I believe in this, in what I saw, because I saw distinct evidence.
Like if you look at an NMR spectrum of a compound, why don't you study that?
That will give you some great information about the structure.
It won't give you the three-dimensional structure, but it'll be absolutely consistent with the three-dimensional structure, and then you use other things.
Use elemental analysis.
Maybe you can get a crystal structure on the compound, and then you can see it in three dimensions.
If you believe that the diffraction patterns can be interpreted, but if you didn't go deep into science and you just change oil, well, you're dealing in macro reality.
I was dealing in micro reality.
Do you get my point, Jim?
Sorry about that.
I think I do, Dave.
Let me just return to that very basic question.
What do you think are the strongest arguments for the existence of viruses, given that there are members of this audience and a whole lot of others You want to deny they even exist?
I mean, look, I think there's a point at which, you know, conspiracy theorizing, given all the false flags that take place, of which I've investigated quite a few, can be carried excessively far.
And that the denial of virus is an example of going just too far and thinking something's made up.
When it actually appears they have a firm scientific foundation.
Would you agree with that?
Dave, I don't know why.
We lost you there momentarily.
I couldn't hear you.
Go ahead.
Yes, Jim, I'm sorry, I was in a room that blocked it, I think.
So, I think nothing exists, and we don't have evidence of anything, and so we should believe that everything in the world is all a conspiracy.
And if you believe that's the case, don't go out and get in your car and start it and drive off, because it doesn't exist.
I mean... Well, you're being satiric.
I'm trying to tell you something that I'm going to lose out of my mind here.
The evidence that I want to put forth for viruses to exist is what I wrote on that Cowan video.
Number one, what are the evidences?
You haven't come up with any, folks.
You haven't come up with any evidence that you refuted the virologist's claim.
That's the evidence that you're totally off track and you have no argument.
I'm reluctant to give arguments for viruses to exist for two reasons.
I'm not a virologist.
I'm not in there.
And the other reason is I want people to do their damn homework, and I don't want to give the answer to the student.
Now, I'm willing to mention a few things here if you want, but I really think people need to go out and do some homework, and I want to get out a whip and lash them, because they're not doing anything, in my opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Well, you are wrong.
People aren't going to go out and do their homework, Dave.
Come on, you know better than that.
Just give me what you think are the three strongest arguments for the existence of viruses, about which I have no doubt myself.
I certainly believe in viruses and virology and the research efforts, publications, the whole bit.
I just want to hear your way of presenting it.
I provided an article to Mike Rivero that came out of a virologist in Columbia University, and he's an educating virologist guy, and it was on the structure of Zika virus, and I think the Zika virus they did an x-ray crystal structure of.
If not that one, they mentioned others.
The tobacco mosaic virus, I think they did an x-ray crystal structure on.
I'll have to find the article and send it to you and review it myself.
What you're saying is In some cases, the existence of viruses is not in serious doubt, because we've even done x-rays of their crystalline structure, right?
Yeah, I mean, so, show me that x-ray crystal structures are fake.
I mean, go into the lab, go into an x-ray... No, no, no, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave You're multiplying the problem.
I don't want to hear the way you're going to respond to the deniers.
I want to hear the way you make the positive case.
Don't go up and tell me that they don't have evidence that show they don't exist.
I'm asking you forgive me just your simplest case to prove they do.
Here's another evidence that was very convincing to me.
I'm really good at getting people upset, Jim.
I'm sorry about that.
It's not a problem.
This is radio.
I talk fast myself.
I've had to slow down.
And if you get too many issues tied together, no one can follow what's taking place.
That's why I'm just slowing you down so you're more accessible and intelligible to the audience.
For which this question is a big deal.
That's all, Dave.
It's not a problem of upsetting me.
It's a matter of... I know, I know.
It's a matter of presentation on the radio.
And since I'm the host, I have the obligation to make my guests accessible to my audience.
That's all that's going on here.
I don't have an argument... No, no, I agree.
I agree.
I'm just saying things, Jim.
Just allow me to say stupid things once in a while.
But, you know, there was a guy named Paul, and he came up and he said there's never been any images of viruses to his knowledge.
They've only been like these molecular structures that are drawn by computer.
And at the end of the talk he was given with this other guy, William, trying to put the final nail in the coffin that viruses exist, I said, Did you even Google it?
I mean, you didn't do any homework and you're making this kind of claim.
So, the second thing that was very important to me was that That Chris Martinson came out with a phylogenetic tree.
This is an evolutionary tree of the sequences and the evolution from the alpha version to the delta and all other versions and different locations that these appeared and how that tree developed.
And when you have the development of one species from another to another to another, I'm calling them species, they're not really species, but you know the variance.
And are we to assume that what people are saying is, well, these are in silico constructs of the sequences and they're not real?
Well, then how do you have, when you look up all the sequencing papers, how do you have tens or hundreds of thousands of papers?
You have more than 10,000 scientists and technicians around the world seeing a picture which is cohesive.
That they're seeing this sequence or this similar sequence and this variant sequence and this other sequence.
How are they getting all those?
Are they all in this big conspiracy?
I'm telling you, I know scientists and people are not that dishonest at this point.
What you're saying is there's a vast cohesive literature reporting research on viruses that hangs together That is consistent with evolution.
That appears to be supported by multiple modes of proof, including x-ray studies of their structure.
Would that be correct, Dave?
That's fairly correct, but yeah, yeah.
But I'm talking about SARS-CoV-2.
Go ahead.
I'm talking about SARS-CoV-2 virus only.
And of course, they've done this for other viruses too.
So if you want to claim that their method of sequencing is wrong, go into the lab and prove it.
But don't just make crazy statements if you don't know what you're talking about.
Dave, glad to have you here.
Here we'll be right back with Dave after this break.
You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
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 a 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. - Go!
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.
Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
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.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Well, Dave, of course, I agree with almost everything you've had to say since you began speaking on the show today.
It's just been a matter of slowing down a bit and being a bit more methodical in terms of key points that make a difference to the audience and understanding what you're saying, you know, without taking for granted issues that they may not appreciate or fully understand.
That's why I'm going back to, as it were, the The basics here, and you're talking about studies that have been done specifically on the COVID SARS virus.
There have been arguments about whether this specific variant, COVID SARS 2, existed.
I'm sure you'll acknowledge those arguments.
I take it you also believe there's sufficient research to establish that COVID SARS 2 does indeed exist.
And that it's been tracked and traced, even though initially it appears that in relation to the development of the VAX, I don't think we have any good reason to believe the manufacturers gave a damn about the features of COVID SARS 2.
They had a VAX they wanted to put up.
They wanted to market.
They wanted to market it as an emergency use so they wouldn't have to even identify the contents.
And they wanted to demonize Ivermectin and HCQ because they were readily available already on the market alternatives, which meant that they couldn't secure the emergency use unless they could demonize and denigrate those alternatives because according to the law, not that they're fateful law abiders, they regularly violate the law in all kinds of ways.
But according to the law, no Drugs may be given emergency use if there's a readily available alternative already on the market and there it was, ivermectin and HCQ.
Hence, we have the bizarre situation that physicians who are having fantastic success in treating their patient with ivermectin or HCQ.
I remember in the beginning, there was one that had 500 patients, every one of whom had come through their COVID experience successfully and survive because they were treated with ivermectin, similar with HCQ.
I mean, it was just a phenomenon, Dave, where the government was abusing its role by denigrating safe and effective treatments and promoting others that were unsafe and ineffective.
Yours.
Well, Jim, let's be self-consistent in our logic here.
If this disease state required the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which were never used before for the flu, why do you think it was merely the flu?
Think about that.
Dave, I'm not... You're not debating me, for Christ's sake.
I'm just saying this is what happened historically.
I'm saying... I know what you're saying, but... Dave, Dave, Dave...
Let me finish and then I'll give you all the time you want.
I'm describing the attitude of the CDC and the FDA and NIH and the whole damn government in demonizing ivermectin and HCQ.
They demonize them, you know, horse-paced and all that nonsense, when they were in fact readily effective and available alternatives.
Well, if we're dealing with issues like this, Dave, where some believe they are real and some they're not and all that, it can get complicated and easy to make arguments that are predicated upon failing to appreciate some arguments are hypothetical and others not.
Now, I give the floor to you.
Go ahead.
Yeah, well, I will comment on those.
And I see your point, because it could be argued that those two would also work against the flu and maybe we have an enhanced flu that was enhanced by 5G or some other technology that that is is being hidden from us and and nobody really uncovered it or if they did they're dead before they could open their mouth or it's obscure obscure and we haven't found it so I'm not you know but at the same time there's huge evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 and variants exist.
Now you did you did say something about that I was convinced that uh I forgot what you said, so I can't really reply to it right now.
But no, I'm convinced that there's sufficient evidence to believe that SARS-CoV-2 exists.
And I will say, you can debate any of the evidence, but they did structural analyses of this by, I think it was cryo-electron microscope work.
Where they froze a sample and they sliced it so thin that you couldn't believe it.
And then they did electron microscope work on that.
Now people say, well, you know, anything you run an electron microscope on is dead because you had to put all this osmium tetroxide or whatever would kill anything that's living.
Well, at the same time, the same folks say the viruses aren't alive and of course they don't have all the functions of life.
But this is just a code of a machine that creates protein and creates more viruses.
That's what a virus is believed to be and which I suspect it 99.999% is, but I'm never confident 100%.
Okay, so I will allow debate, you know, but what happened was with the hydroxychloroquine Chloroquine, Chris Martinson, PhD Pathology, MBA from Cornell University.
He's at peakprosperity.com.
He did a video, and this information was given to me by a genius called Steve, and I won't say anymore.
He's been on RBN, but isn't any longer, but as a guest.
And the whole point is that with hydroxychloroquine, they took some data from four people.
One was an adult adult content model and the other one was I don't know what.
There's four people in Africa who could have never gotten this data, according to him, because he was, you know, he could never have gotten sufficient data to show that this hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and caused these problems, you know.
Well, I did speak to somebody over the weekend and they did say that hydroxychloroquine could create certain problems and they have been using it themselves.
So yeah, maybe it's, Totally unaware.
does have some problems, but it's been used widely for like 60, 80 years in Africa for malaria.
I'm unaware of any problem with HEQ or ivermectin, for that matter.
Totally unaware.
Believe me, I think I would have run across it if any such problems were real.
Well, let's take a testimony to one person.
They were wonderful.
They were being extolled by the scientific community when they were first introduced as medicines as virtually wonder drugs, you know, that were really effective with virtually no side effects.
So far as I can see, I'm unaware of any side effects of HCQ or ivermectin, either one of them.
Go ahead, Dave.
Okay, but I have information from one person that there was something from hydroxychloroquine.
I can look into that, and I'd like to speak to medical people who are on the ground.
Now, I did speak to a medical person who was on the ground in a group setting at a table, and I said, you know, about...
I said something about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and he said, you know, all the studies show that ivermectin doesn't work.
And that's true.
No, but it's not ridiculous.
It's actually true.
It's because, and Chris Martin, let me explain.
Chris Martinson has gone over this, and other people have gone over this.
Mercola's had stuff on it.
I mean, all these guys who actually know something.
And Mercola isn't at the top of the chain there, but he aggregates information amazingly and maybe makes a few errors here and there.
Very, very few, I found.
But the whole point is, hydroxychloroquine, there's a whole scheme by the Virginia, what is it, where Pierre Corey is, that Virginia group.
And there's a viremia that occurs as a first stage.
And then you see the effects because the virus is built up and been given time to be in the body.
This is SARS-CoV-2 or variants I'm talking about.
So in order to cure the disease of hydroxychloroquine, what it does is it gets, as far as I understand, it transports zinc inside of the cell, which inhibits the RNA enzyme that duplicates RNA.
Okay.
And if you don't duplicate the RNA that's in there, then you can't make more virus particles.
But if you allow the virus to multiply inside of the cell, then you have a buildup of the virus in the body.
Once you have a buildup in the body, you have disease symptoms.
So if you cut it off early with zinc and some ionophore that gets the zinc into the cell, then you can stop The disease that's based on assuming that SARS-CoV-2 exists and it's being replicated and all of this.
Okay, so the studies, what they would do is they would administer hydroxychloroquine and zinc late after the 10-day incubation period where the viremia is occurring, 10 or 14 days, or they would eliminate zinc altogether.
Well, these studies were designed to fail, designed to show no effect.
But so this physician type guy is telling me what he sees, not looking deep into it.
And I'm going to have to explain to him the deeper stuff in there so he can actually look because he's not stupid.
He's not at all stupid.
So if I can get people, if I can pry their eyes open just a little bit, maybe they'll see.
Beginning to open Pandora's box.
Bill Eagle said, I have to pry people's eyes open.
Remember Dr. Bill Deagle?
Whether he's good or bad, all over, you know, some things he, but he said some very important things.
And he also said, the world you think exists, never existed.
And when I consider that, and I look at what's happening, I realize, yeah, I had no clue about this 9-11 thing until I had a catastrophe in my life that made me look and realize how evil things could be, and then I could believe it.
We have Stanley Monteith.
He was on GCN long back, an osteopath, I think, and he wrote The Brotherhood of Darkness.
Well, I recall one time he said he looked at Building 7 collapsing.
He looked at that video a hundred times before he broke out of his belief system and said, they did it.
They was the people he trusted in, you know, the great U.S.
They, not all of them, but you know, They were involved.
And he couldn't accept it until he saw it a hundred times and he said, you know, I mean, it's astounding, right, Jim?
I mean, this is the biggest, the biggest thing about 9-11 that's out there that should be obvious to people eventually.
And most people don't even know what happened.
Bill 7, of course.
Dr. Stan and Bill Deagle both interviewed me multiple times, quite a few years in the past.
I held them both in high regard.
They're both, I take it now, deceased.
I know for a certainty Deagle, I believe Stan too, right?
They're both gone.
Yeah, Stan was a while back before Deagle passed.
Deagle passed this last year, I think.
But they did a lot of good.
They did a lot of good in their time, for which I'm indebted to them.
I mean, that's all we can do is our best.
And I'm fascinated by everything you're having to say, Dave.
I'd be astonished if there were evidence that Ivermectin isn't an extremely successful drug for a whole variety of ailments, some of which appear to be related to the Vax.
I mean, you've got me baffled on that count, but of course I'm open to new evidence and alternative hypotheses.
No, I didn't say anything bad about ivermectin.
I didn't.
Yeah.
Well, there's studies showing that it works apparently now.
Six or eight studies, I think.
Jeff Rentsch has been mentioning this, and I don't know, other people.
You know, I'm not up on all the details, Jim, of everything, but I look at the treetops sometimes.
And I see where things are going from my perspective.
So, the SOVI, the Statement on Virus Isolation, we were cut off by a break earlier, and have you had a chance to read that over, Jim?
I have not.
You go ahead.
Go ahead.
Tell us.
Okay.
Well, folks can read that, and this is my perception I get from it.
It's basically saying that something that's not shown to exist can't be known to exist.
Well, and if you read that, you say, yes, if something hasn't been discovered, it hasn't been discovered.
I mean, does it mean that if something hasn't been discovered, it could never be discovered?
I mean, this is what I gleaned from this statement that says we were using the laws of logic or the rules of logic here.
It says it right in the statement, but it is psychobabble mind control.
And one of the authors is maybe a psychologist who was a biochemist, I think, maybe at Harvard.
A microbiologist undergraduate, I believe.
And that speaks very well.
And the guy is intelligent.
But the statement seems to be very couched and misleading to people that need to examine the logic of it.
So I'd ask you to read that, examine the logic, and present that to us and see if you find fallacies.
Because maybe I'm missing something.
Probably what I'm missing is how far off it is and what logical fallacies are really there.
That's the only thing I think I'm missing with that one.
So your comments on that sort of statement of, you know, you can't discover anything that hasn't been discovered.
I mean, are we supposed to draw that conclusion?
There are all kinds of ways in which that fallacious, or lots of beliefs and things that don't exist, like Santa Claus and two fairies, Plus, you can always fabricate evidence, you know.
I mean, there's been a massive effort to bake out Lee Oswald as the lone demented gunman, but turns out he was actually standing in the doorway of the book depository when the JFK motorcade came by.
But the government went out of its way to fabricate evidence, similarly for the 19 Islamic terrorists on 9-11.
Two of the planes weren't even in the air.
The other two were still in the air four years later.
So the idea that they crashed on 9-11 and wanted to control these Islamic terrorists is absurd.
But there's plenty of ways in which a government has sought to induce those false beliefs.
I mean, this is in accord with Bill Casey's observation.
when he first became director of CIA, to wit, telling the assembled staff, our disinformation program will be a success when everything the American people believe is false.
Frankly, Dave, I think we're pretty damn close to that success right now.
Well, the problem there is, Jim, that if you and I think we've found the truth about certain things, maybe we're actually deceived at a different level.
And I've been told this by other people, that other things are happening, and they seem to be possibly at a higher level.
So I'm not going to negate that, and we may be shocked to find out that other things are happening that we're not aware of.
But I'm not there yet.
And I think many of the things that you say and talk about, even when you start talking about this, This hook shooting thing.
It's like so shocking to me.
I don't want to believe it.
I don't want to believe any of these things and but then I have to question.
I say you sound so.
So perfect as as a as a professor with all this data, but all this data I cannot verify, but I can verify a few things and then I've spoken to other people.
I've verified a few other things such that now I understand.
That the weight of the evidence is clearly in your favor in my mind.
So, you know, we do have to question things, and there's a lot of ugly things we don't even want to believe.
And many of these people who are on the liberal side of things, they want to live in a beautiful, great life where Hillary never did anything wrong, and everything's great, and we can just, you know, greet people and be very gracious to them, while the country goes around killing people.
All over the world and pulling babies' heads out of wombs and chopping them off before they're born.
Sorry, the fantasy that the U.S.
is really all that great and doing great things all the time is not correct.
There was a Latin American professor who spoke to me this last weekend, and he said that at the college, he gave two lectures on Latin America.
The first one he said, All about USA interference in Latin America.
The second lecture he started, and these people went up to the balcony and rolled this flag down.
And I remember that happening, because they thought he was rotten, and telling a rotten story about the good U.S.
Well, then he went and spoke to another professor, who was a light-skinned guy, and said, well, Frank, you said the same stuff I did, but they didn't do this to you.
And so, you know, it's rather interesting what can happen.
And that's a little bit of an aside.
Let me just say, Dave, and then I'll turn it back to you.
I've just published a piece about the nature of immorality.
It's on UNZ.com.
It's also on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
I've put it on my Twitter at Jim Fetzer, where I'm talking about What's wrong with, you know, assassinating a president and replacing him with a guy of your choice?
What's wrong with, uh, you know, a foreign power constructing an atrocious act in order to yield beneficial results?
What's wrong with faking these shootings and blah blah blah?
We know they're wrong, but why?
I'm addressing the nature of immorality.
What makes them wrong?
The conclusion of my piece is that Alas, the United States may be, I even say it is, the most corrupt nation on planet Earth.
I mean, it's just astounding how much evil the United States has done, how immoral our nation has become.
And the proofs are just staggering, I mean, from every direction, virtually.
It's preposterous where we have sunk to this low level of deceit, deception, and corruption.
Dave, back to you.
Well, the only thing I will cite regarding that is, Jim, if your thesis there and opinion is correct, there is a prophecy in the book of Revelation in the Bible that says that the great harlot or the great whore will be destroyed in one hour.
Well, you know what's interesting about that, Dave?
The identity of that is right here, unfortunately.
What's interesting about that, Dave, is if the Russians were to launch a strike against the U.S.
because they're convinced we're about to do that to them, it would be taken out in about one hour or less.
There you go.
So, I mean, let's not ignore the prophecies that many have come true.
Everybody has a different belief system, but don't just throw the whole book away.
I mean, you believe in evolution.
Well, evolution, you know, trans-species evolution, and you sent me stuff on this, is something that I don't see happening.
But the evolution of different variants of SARS-CoV-2, we see right before our eyes.
So that does occur.
And just because people use the word evolution and don't believe that they're talking about inter-species evolution, they're talking about things that we've actually observed in our own lifetime.
In the last two years, I mean, so I just, you know, people have religious ideas and I don't want them to be disqualifying certain words and being turned off.
But there's another evidence for the existence of these, well, related to the existence of the SARS-CoV-2.
Now labs, there's much evidence that labs were making these, the bat lady, the bat viruses coming out of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
What's the professor down there?
And going on funding all this gain of function out in China and probably perhaps even in Canadian labs, who knows what labs, maybe Ukraine.
But listen, if they didn't engineer any of this stuff, if they didn't spend all this money doing this genetic engineering, which we know happened, we know they spent this money, then why did they do it?
Was it just for a big show to deceive us?
That the flu is going to be turned into a big pandemic thing?
I don't know.
Something to think about.
That's all I'm saying.
I mean, we're going to let Fauci and all these guys off the hook when they may have done something like this?
This huge crime?
Let them off the hook.
Go ahead.
We're approaching the break, and I just want everyone to know you're welcome to call in, and I won't be surprised to have a lot of controversy in our phone period.
540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
We'll get callers, David, after the break.
Go ahead.
5452. I welcome ideas.
5452. We'll get callers, Dave, after the break.
Go ahead.
Final thought before we go to break yours.
Well, I welcome everyone's ideas, and we need to respect all these ideas and discuss them at the level that people are at.
But I'll tell you, a lot of these no-virus leaders have done science fraud, and that will be displayed a little later.
And John Moore also had talked about, he's studying the MAC addresses that people are having.
and and exhibiting and i had questioned that but i think there's a lot of evidence showing that some people are showing mac addresses and whether they were vaccinated or not i i don't know where this is for certain coming from but uh this is really strange so um i think there's evidence for it talk to you later yeah good well stick around dave because we're going to be having callers Call in 540-352-4452 for Dave and for me.
Take advantage of the opportunity.
You've got it right now after this break.
Oh, we got one more minute.
One more minute, Dave.
A further thought, you want to repeat that last thought?
You and I have four minutes to talk just ourselves, is this what you're saying?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We've got one minute to the break, and then after the break we'll be taking callers.
Oh, okay.
Well, there's science fraud done by certain of these leaders of this no-virus movement.
They've done fraud, and it's really very serious that these people who are following them should recognize that there's strong evidence that they've done certain things.
And I'll put the articles up, and people can look at them, and if they think they didn't do any science fraud or any frauds, that's fine.
But, you know, you've got to consider the sources.
And it's astounding that... Stand by, Dave.
Stand by.
We'll be right back with Dave.
Call in.
5-4-0-3-5-2-4-4-5-2.
540-352-4452.
Here are you on the other side.
540-352-4452.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this lesson.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
This has 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, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supporter radio station on the planet.
Revolution.
This is going to be 20 minutes, 30 minutes.
This is going to be 20 minutes.
This is going to be 20 minutes.
Join Revolution Radio, every Wednesday 8 p.m.
Eastern Time, on Studio B, for Momentary Zen, with host, Zen Garcia, at freedomslip.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 in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuke 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.
Well, Dave, you might not know, but I was sure our first caller would be the very party you mentioned, I'm certain, when you mentioned Paul.
He's here from California.
Paul, join the conversation with Dave and me.
I got mentioned?
I didn't catch that.
Was I mentioned somewhere?
Yeah, yeah.
Oh, I must have missed that part of the show.
I actually tuned in and out as I was doing things, but the part that I wanted to address, first of all, I'll say this.
The idea that Stanley Monteith needed to see Building 7 collapse 100 times I find to be absurd.
I think, of course, it's probably hyperbole, but I used to occasionally tune into his show now and then.
He did it out of Santa Cruz, actually, here in California.
I met him one time at a conference.
And I remember he told me and some other people there gathered around talking to him that nobody does five hours of radio a day, but he actually said, you know, it's kind of insane, but I do it.
I found that kind of interesting.
I heard comments about viruses and the so-called non-virus people committing fraud or fraudulent science, and I really have no idea.
It's not a long enough show.
We only have a half hour, right, to go back and forth on this.
But I got to tell you right now, Dave, if you're not familiar with the work of Sophia Smallstorm on this, okay, she's taken a couple of really deep dives into what really is going on.
And what we think our virus is, what they've led us to believe, okay, they don't exist.
In other words, this sort of, some sort of a organism or a thing that You know, has some sort of capacity to act in a particular way or cause the body to act and to do things.
You know, that's not so.
But they are reducing things in laboratories to the essence of the crystalline form.
And it's these very, very, very small crystals that they're actually working with in all these labs.
And that the idea that a, quote, virus is going to infect you and make you sick is absurd.
I think it's been proven so.
By multiple people, and I don't buy for a minute that any of the notions they put in people's heads about viruses are true at all, and for me, all the evidence that I need is all the drawings and animations that we saw.
I mean, Jim, you remember, and I'm sure you do as well, Dave, and the newspaper articles and the news stories, all there ever was was what I call cartoons, cartoon pictures, and that they even admitted in many Just two brief comments before I turn this to Dave.
Most of the, shall we say, the base pair research and all that was just in silico.
That'll be a good statement.
Paul, just two brief comments before I turn this to Dave.
We spent most of the time talking about the existence of viruses.
I thought you would be glued to all of that, but it's clear you only heard parts.
Also, interestingly, Sophia was my guest on Friday, but we did not talk about the issue of viruses.
Dave, this is Paul from California.
Oh yes, hi Paul.
I've spoken to you before.
I did mention a Paul earlier, and I didn't disclose which exact Paul that was, but You might know the guy if you look in the mirror, so I will admit that.
Okay.
But regardless, you know, I hate to point out and get down on particular people.
I mean, too much.
I mean, if you have to, you have to.
But the idea that pictures of a virus are shown, alleged virus are shown, is no evidence against their existence.
It's, I mean, do you think they're going to post all these highly scientific articles up on USA Today for people to read?
I wish they would.
Put one or two up, you know, the reference to it, part of it, let people look at what virologists use to show that there's, you know, to show they can believe that there are viruses, this evidence.
So I haven't actually heard you give any evidence Um, for anything that you said.
You're making references to them, but we don't have any specific evidence, so I can't confirm or deny anything that you're saying.
Um, and we can't really investigate it.
Yeah, so... First, I would... What are you talking about?
Me giving evidence for what?
I'm saying to you that the basis of many things, especially, of course, in law, is one who makes the claim must, of course, produce the evidence and prove that claim.
So we're told that viruses exist and that they make us ill, and there's never been any, and this is, of course, me going back years now with, you know, Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Robert Young, Dr. Thomas Cowan.
I'm talking about, I have no idea how many hours, but there's another person I know on RBN, right, Republic Broadcasting, William Rapillan.
He's done more, he's taken a deeper dive than even I have into this.
Well, Paul, the fact that you can't cite anything doesn't mean that nothing's there.
I've mentioned some things on the show here, and I'm asking people to go look at the evidence that virologists produce.
I mean, Stephan Lanka had some kind of a lawsuit, didn't he?
That he wanted people to show that, what, the poliovirus didn't exist in one single article, and it took him more than one.
Was he the guy who did that?
I'm forgetting the details.
Stefan Lotka challenged anyone to produce any evidence whatsoever that the measles virus existed and or that this measles virus had been shown to cause disease and no one ever stepped forward to prove the claim.
He never had to part with $100,000 even though one guy claimed to have brought some sort of evidence of this and it actually went to a German court and guess what?
He won.
So therefore, who is he?
Who is he?
I know.
Yeah.
I would just want to be clear to the audience.
Yeah.
Okay.
So let me, let me just ask you this.
All right.
So have you ever, wait, I'm going to personally respond to your statement there, Paul, because what Stefan Lanka required was that this was shown in one article as I understand it.
And the guy showed it with multiple articles.
So, and that's the way science is sometimes.
And if he actually did produce evidence based on multiple articles that was convincing to him, it may not have been convincing to Stephan Lanka.
That's okay.
Everybody doesn't think the same.
Yeah.
Okay, but articles are not evidence of anything, okay?
And what Thomas Cowan has done, together with these other people I mentioned, Dr. Andrew Kauffman, Dr. Robert Young, so on and so forth.
What they have done, and I'm talking about, in my opinion, very convincing and excruciating detail, is to deconstruct and to dissect so-called scientific articles in so-called peer-reviewed publications that clearly show that these people don't know what the hell they're talking about, and or they're just liars and committing fraud.
The whole, quote, science of virology has been fraud from day one.
That's my contention.
And in my opinion, I have never seen anything to prove otherwise.
And by the way, this journey of mine started in March or April of 2020, when this whole thing got kicked off.
And I went online, unlike millions and millions of other people who have never done this, right?
I typed in, what is a virus?
Definition of a virus.
And I started reading.
And what I found is this, by the way, in two years after that, walking around talking to people, nobody else had done that.
Okay.
I did that.
And of course I went beyond the initial two to three hours of reading after I typed in definition of virus.
And I got to tell you, Dave, within 20 to 30 minutes of me reading, I was just saying to myself, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
So many things.
And I'm talking about mainstream publications, right?
WebMD, you know, I bounced all over in this initial dive and I kept coming across things that I knew not only had not been proven, but in my opinion were unprovable.
Such as this phrase, which I kept running into over and over again, hijacks the cellular machinery and tricks the cell into replicating the virus.
Now I'm thinking to myself as I read this phrase over and over again, hijacks the cellular machinery, what machinery are they talking about?
And how do they know this?
They can't get inside of a cell, put a little camera in there, and say, oh look, look what's happening, the cell is reproducing the virus.
Because as you know, if you know what they say a virus is, the virus cannot reproduce on its own.
It has to have some host organism and trick some cell into reproducing the virus.
Now how does that even work?
That makes zero sense whatsoever to me.
And the fact of the matter is, as I came across in the subsequent months and years, no scientific experiment has ever proven that any cell replicates the virus.
And I challenge you to bring it to the table.
If you're challenging me about evidence, you bring that evidence to the table and I'll read it.
Well, Paul, what you're making is summary statements and you're making, you know, which have no specifics in them in general, and you're making statements about things that some other folks may have analyzed some articles and found flaws in them, but you've mentioned no articles and no flaws, so it's very hard to understand and to analyze what you're seeing from my perspective.
It really is.
So I've given some evidence that I thought was convincing to me and I'd ask you folks to go ask a virologist, ask these molecular biologists and stuff what they understand if you want to know They have all the papers, they've done publications, they've measured things in lab, they've seen them.
Jim, I gotta tell you, that's like somebody saying to you, Jim, or to me, hey, go ask a lawyer, go ask a judge.
Are you serious?
I cannot believe, to be honest with you, it's hard for me to believe some of the things that you're saying to me in response to what I said, okay?
You haven't given any evidence disproving any of this stuff, Paul, any specific evidence.
I'm not trying to disprove it.
I'm not trying to disprove it.
I gave Jim at least three to four points of evidence that are rather convincing to me that everyone can access.
And if you listen to the show, the previous hour, listen to the show.
I'll go back and listen to it.
Yeah, and I didn't want to give that to people.
I wanted people to come up with it themselves, do their homework, but I don't find that they're doing them.
Now, I want to listen to Sophia Smallstorm, what she says, and if you can provide that information to Jim or me, I'd appreciate it, and it may enlighten us in some way.
You know, if you have evidence, it's great.
You keep telling me, you keep saying to me, I have evidence, I have evidence for nothing!
What do you mean by that, by evidence?
You know, this isn't just one of these terms that people throw around.
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
It makes them sound like... An autopsy of a body.
So if it was an autopsy on a body done, would you think that that's evidence of perhaps what might have caused their death?
Well, again, this is a broad statement.
I made this statement on air at least a couple of times.
Well, that's a yes or no question, Paul.
Is that correct or not?
I have no idea what it is they're looking for.
You know what they do when they do an autopsy?
They cut open the person, they take out the organs, they weigh them, then they take microscopic slides, they look at them under the microscope, they do all sorts of stuff examining the tissues, mostly looking for signs of poison or signs of trauma, toxicology.
So they're not looking for viruses, okay?
So, again, evidence for a virus means exactly what to you?
I'm not talking about evidence for a virus.
I'm talking about... I'm asking you that if an autopsy is done on a body and evidence is produced which should suggest the cause of death, is that evidence?
It's physical evidence that they're citing.
It may not be even related to the death, of course.
Sure, like, for example, if you find a bullet inside of a body, that's evidence they were shot.
Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to.
Okay, again, you're tossing out these concepts like autopsies and saying words like evidence and virology, but you're not really saying anything in my opinion.
So again, all this work has been done by other people, not myself.
All I've done is accessed their work, listened to them, read some of the papers they published, watched the videos they produced, and it's overwhelmingly in my mind, it's overwhelming.
The fraud has been committed by them against us, getting us to believe that a virus is some kind of organism that transfers from one person to another, and that makes somebody sick.
When you understand the electrical nature of the body, and everything is basically electron transfer, okay, we operate on voltage, it's very well known, you can look up Dr. Jerry Tennant, start with healing is voltage, and keep pulling that tab, and you will find out that almost all toxins, for example, Robbed the body of electrons, okay?
They actually do free radical damage because they steal electrons everywhere they go.
As opposed to good quality food, fresh air, sunshine, good quality water provides fresh electrons for the body.
And so essentially when people are sick, okay, they are low in voltage.
They don't have that many free electrons to do the work the body needs to have done.
All metabolic processes are basically electron transfer.
In the end, when you distill it down, that's what we're talking about.
And if you really, really understood the work of these people, you would know that simple truth.
All they've been doing to us all along is poisoning us.
That's all they do.
That's all they've always done.
I don't believe any lab has ever produced any virus bioweapon.
And as I made the point on Jim's show years ago, I said, first of all, if it was true, they wouldn't say anything about it.
They would just do it.
OK, they wouldn't have to lie and make up a virus and then tell us we need to get an injection for the virus.
They could produce a virus that would kill us.
They would just do it, and they wouldn't tell us about it.
They wouldn't talk about bioweapon and gain-of-function and all this other nonsense, which again, in my opinion, is complete and total bollocks.
Well, thanks for your opinion, Paul.
Dave, we have another caller I want to bring in.
Well, I just want to respond to this very quickly, and the first thing is, yes, the terrain and things in your body are, you know, Come on, of course that's very important to your health.
And this Jerry Tennen stuff may have a lot of validity.
But it seems to me, Paul, that what I'm gathering that you've done is you've looked at one side of the argument and you haven't looked at the evidence and arguments on the other side.
And when you live in a closet like that, you become, this is confirmation bias that you may be experiencing.
That's just what I'm saying.
I'm not trying to insult you or anything.
This is just my reading, okay?
And I appreciate your mind and your thinking, and, you know, I'd love to hear your flat-earth explanations, and Jim would love to refute them, but I have no opinion on it, and I always wanted to investigate it, but guess what?
It doesn't really affect my life, and we've got other things to talk about, so... We have a caller from Dayton.
Paul, hang on a sec.
We have a caller from 845.
Caller, just give us your first name and state and join the conversation.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
This is Reece calling from my business phone, my office.
Dave, I enjoyed listening to your presentation and the lively debate you had, especially with Paul.
I have to agree with Dave, though, to be objective, but I do have an opinion.
Paul had made numerous summary statements without a scintilla of evidence, nebulous comments, illusions, and citing names of scientists without any evidence provided.
So, I have not heard any evidence against your argument, Dave.
Maybe I've missed something here.
It's all just an illusion to me.
I mean, but, you know, but as a matter of fact, Paul did mention some very specific rebuttals to specific articles that maybe Kauffman and others have done.
And sure, we can look at that.
But those all need to be examined in detail.
And without producing the evidence, we can't examine the evidence.
And so the dead body gets buried and we don't know who killed the person or why they died.
The same with the virus.
If the virus is dead...
Yes.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
I wanted to make an illustration.
Okay, before you make your illustration, just let me say this.
I'm going to take issue briefly with what Dave just said about my confirmation bias earlier, okay?
Completely wrong, okay?
He's done nothing but make a completely incorrect, presumptuous statement.
No, Dave, I didn't have a confirmation bias.
Just look at one side.
I believed all my life in viruses, right?
I just didn't know what they were.
I never looked up what a virus was until I was a grown-ass adult a couple of years ago.
So, no, we've all been lied to about so many things, and my confirmation virus, my confirmation bias, if anything, was that, yeah, viruses exist, and we get sick from viruses.
Well, then I started digging, and I started looking, and I realized it's all nonsense.
So you and Reese can come on when you're a blather about, I haven't provided any evidence.
I don't need to provide evidence, because I'm not making a claim that viruses exist.
You just mentioned there was evidence and you didn't provide it, Paul, so this is really a problem.
What scintilla of evidence would you like me to say?
I don't want you to say it today, but Priest provided to Jim the articles and the rebuttals to the scientific articles, and we'd be glad to look at them.
I mean, I'm giving you a chance.
Okay, what I got done telling you is if you have studies, and by the way, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and others have made the same challenge.
If you have studies that prove that viruses cause disease, bring them forth and they will be examined.
I have not seen them, and the ones that Kaufman and Cowan have dissected with their unbelievably ruthless scalpel on air are laughable.
The methodology that they use to, quote, isolate viruses And then to somehow prove that they make a cell line sick.
That's all they've ever done is tried to prove that they made a cell line or a cell culture sick.
And of course, it's completely rife with fraud and contamination.
They don't have any evidence.
Well, Paul, that's a different topic than we were talking about.
We were merely talking about the existence of viruses.
That was the primary thing we're talking about here.
That other question is a separate, very good question.
And I understand that people may object to the idea that viruses cause disease.
And that's, you know, that's fair game.
It's all fair game.
I don't you know, I know you have a brain.
I know you've studied a lot of things and I appreciate that.
But I don't appreciate it when you say there's there's evidence and articles being pulled apart and we can't look at them.
So I'm sure you'll share those with Jim and we can look at that.
I never said you can't look at them.
All kinds of people look at them.
They're on BitChute.
Just go under BitChute, type in Dr. Thomas Cowan, BitChute, or Dr. Andrew Kaufman, BitChute, and do your own work.
I've already spent the time.
My conclusion has been drawn, and again, if there's somebody... Well, you haven't provided the evidence that you mentioned, so... Dave, I will say a lot of the sources Paul, his sightings are presented in videos on my own Bitchute channel, Jim Fetzer.
I don't happen to agree with them, but they're giving arguments why they have concluded that viruses do not exist.
Reese, I know you have a further thought you want to add.
Go ahead, Reese.
Yes, I think everyone will agree with what I'm going to bring out.
For instance, for many decades, scientists debated what was the nature of light.
Was it a particle, or was it a wave?
This went back and forth with very qualified scientists, like Neil Plank, and others I could cite, but the point is, we don't even understand how the sun operates.
There's two sets of schools on how the sun operates.
Is it a nuclear furnace, or is it a plasma furnace?
And there are scientists on both sides that can present compelling evidence.
I think that is also, or this applies also to the viral theory of disease.
Because this has been debated for a long time, and being that the size of a virus is so tiny and very difficult to see, even with an electron microscope, it's hard to prove something.
It's like trying to prove particle physics.
I studied in college new masons and quarks and other particles.
Scientists accepted them as existing, when we never saw one!
Including a new genome.
Of course we didn't.
But, Reece, you were talking about Max Planck, maybe?
Max Planck?
Is that who you were talking about?
Yes.
Yes, okay.
You said Neil.
You're thinking Neil Bohr, maybe?
Oh, Max, I'm sorry.
Yeah, it was Neil Bohr.
I got them confused, thank you.
Okay.
May I say something else?
Go ahead, Reece.
Let me say something else to you, gentlemen.
I'm gonna, to diffuse the energy here a little bit, just hear what I have to say about two people Who would be considered paramours of truth in the truth community.
One was cited by Paul, which was, um, what was his name again?
Uh, Stan Monteith, right?
And the other one is, used to appear on Rents.
Uh, what's his name?
The Mormon, uh, ex-Air Force pilot.
Uh, his name escapes me.
He used to come on, he wrote a book on survival.
A large book on survival.
Now, he used to come on with many great facts he would bring out.
You don't... Do you mean Standeo?
Is that Standeo?
No, that's Standeo.
He's not Mormon.
Well, this one is, and he wrote a huge book on survival.
It's an excellent book on survival.
But you know what I found out?
He was going on Truth Networks, and I heard him saying that chemtrails are nothing than contrails.
So, I called into the program one day, and I started bringing up- I have an engineering background, and I lived- You mean A2R?
No, no, no, it's not.
It's an American.
He hasn't been on in so long now, I can't remember his name, and he's very popular.
He was an ex-Air Force pilot.
Uh, so here's what he's doing.
This is an ex-Air Force pilot, That's on numerous broadcasts saying that there's no chemtrails, that there's not an aerosolized chemtrail program.
I said to him, excuse me, but I live near airports.
These planes that are spraying these extremely long lines that fan out into cloud-like structures are not traveling to or from airports.
Would you like to explain to me why there are aircraft flying across the sky Forming a grid, and they're not traveling either at the altitude of aircraft, which he should know, and they're traveling in a grid pattern.
Another long winded segue into a different topic altogether.
This is a different topic altogether.
No, it's not.
Like I said, it's a long winded segue.
No, no, it's not.
It's not.
What are you trying to say?
I'm making an illustration.
Paul, I'm making an illustration by citing this.
Your illustrations are idiots.
What's the point?
My illustration is de- meaningless or devious?
No, I said sometimes the illustrations are tedious.
What point you're making that some people don't get behind the subtopics?
Alright, here's why.
Because, here's why.
Because Sophia Smallstorm has been cited, and I've heard Sophia Smallstorm putting out the same kind of disinformation and misdirection garbage that San Monteith would put out.
Well, it's such-ass.
Well, gentlemen, I'm sorry to say we're not going to be able to go forward just because we've run out of time, but I sure appreciate that, at least up to this point, you had a very civil exchange.
Paul, I especially commend you.
And Dave, I can't thank you enough for coming on.
Great, great exchange, you guys.
Thank you all so very much.
Back on Friday.
Thanks, Jim.
Thanks for the laugh.
Sophia Smallstorm is orders of magnitude greater mine.
I enjoyed the laugh.
Thank you, Paul, for the laugh.
I needed a good laugh, and you provided it.
I thank you for that.
Let's not get insulting.
Let's just look at the data.
Thank you for listening to Revolution Radio.
Revolution Radio.
Enter into a world unseen on Raven Stars Witching Hour.
You will encounter eclectic topics from the realm of spirit brought into our Matrix of Truth.
With your host, the Solaris Blue Ravens.
Solaris will bring you an array of unique guests covering topics from ghostly spirits to amazing anomalies, covert technology, UFOs, and shadowy global events.
And that's right here at Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, Saturdays at midnight until 2 a.m.
Eastern Time.
Revolution Radio, where information never sleeps.
Let the magic rise.
Let the magic rise.
This is Thomas, a.k.a.
A Mad Painter.
I'd like you to join me Monday nights, 10 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time for Open Canvas.
Don't forget to bring an open mind.
Yes, folks, that's right.
Bring an open mind to an open canvas.
Again, that is Monday nights, 10 p.m.
Eastern.
UFOs to government corruption.
This is Revolution Radio.
FreedomSlims.com.
You don't need to expect us.
We're already here.
We did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission.
Is it disloyal?
Is it sedition?
Is it treason to uphold the hands of tyranny?
Never!
I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back.
I know not what course others will take, but as for me... Give me liberty!
Oh, give me!
A dark cloud is finally lifting across the world as U.S.
▲
Export Selection