Bill, slightly off topic but i trust you are well in the loop with Mark Bailey's latest publication coming out yesterday (NZT)? Assuming you might add this to the virus debate chronicle article.
Of course this essentially turned into 'battle of the grifters' with the initial team imploding. Who would have guessed with such an amiable fellow as Richard Fleming!!
You can imagine how big the can of worms is that Christine would open up for the Committee by calling out the non-existence of a virus. As I have watched the virus-no virus discussions play out, it is clear that germ theory folks are almost as protective and defensive about the certainty of viruses as the covidians turned out to be about all things covid. That said, it is probably the most critical discussion we need to have, as "no virus" means "no pandemic" and, by inference, a clearly criminal operation from start to finish.
Much of the Committee's work has assumed the existence of viruses, and nearly all of those who have contributed to the Committee's effort believe in their existence; most have made their livings either identifying or fighting "viruses." Does the Committee risk alienating all these folks, and starting a fair bit of infighting, by opening the virus-no virus discussion?
Is it not so that 'science' doesn't need to even look for a virus as it derives the result from biotechnical computer assisted modelling of a tiny selection from indeterminate samples.
The pretext given by 'sympathetic' Reiner to balance his attack dog Wodarg and the woman who then 'protected' him from critical response(!!!) was that the issue of do viruses exist was deemed not helpful to the prosecution of a case.
But they never did prosecute a case excepting as a 'public opinion' for 'truth' - but only convenient truths that effective save their ass or serve their private agenda.
I dont say they haven't brought a lot of information to the public (who seek it) that has merit and Wodarg has in the past fended off the Swine flu scam (with others). My issue is not judging persons but observing the dynamic in act.
Its the old Noam Chomsky gambit: yap for decades and pretend to do something and pretend to care while doing absolutely nothing. That is one of the specialties of the kabal: control both sides to prevent all action
More like Corona Coverup Committee ...
I am sure attack dog Wodarg is looking forward to once again dealing with the matter of the lack of proof for the existence of SARS-CoV-2. :-)
Bill, slightly off topic but i trust you are well in the loop with Mark Bailey's latest publication coming out yesterday (NZT)? Assuming you might add this to the virus debate chronicle article.
Nick, i have a separate post coming soon just about Dr Bailey's new essay.
I don't think it belongs on the Tracking the Action article, because it is not directly connected to the Settling the Virus Debate' statement. Thx 👍
It is an amazing article (and long -- I'm halfway through only).
Reiner and his buds all they do is talk the talk. And that’s it. In two years they haven’t accomplished anything. Frauds from the get go in my book.
Glad to see some fellows kicking against these grifters.
I redflagged him a while ago here https://thegreatreject.substack.com/p/on-the-corona-investigative-committee?r=1342fs&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct
Thx, subbed 🙂
Reiner Fuellmich Concludes Bogus Hearings, Begins “Crimes Against Humanity” Tour To Grift More
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmich-concludes-bogus
I still remain hopeful.
Of course this essentially turned into 'battle of the grifters' with the initial team imploding. Who would have guessed with such an amiable fellow as Richard Fleming!!
You can imagine how big the can of worms is that Christine would open up for the Committee by calling out the non-existence of a virus. As I have watched the virus-no virus discussions play out, it is clear that germ theory folks are almost as protective and defensive about the certainty of viruses as the covidians turned out to be about all things covid. That said, it is probably the most critical discussion we need to have, as "no virus" means "no pandemic" and, by inference, a clearly criminal operation from start to finish.
Much of the Committee's work has assumed the existence of viruses, and nearly all of those who have contributed to the Committee's effort believe in their existence; most have made their livings either identifying or fighting "viruses." Does the Committee risk alienating all these folks, and starting a fair bit of infighting, by opening the virus-no virus discussion?
Is it not so that 'science' doesn't need to even look for a virus as it derives the result from biotechnical computer assisted modelling of a tiny selection from indeterminate samples.
too bad Reiner has left the Corona Ausschuss. Apparently pushed out ty the other two. Wonder what hapens next.
The pretext given by 'sympathetic' Reiner to balance his attack dog Wodarg and the woman who then 'protected' him from critical response(!!!) was that the issue of do viruses exist was deemed not helpful to the prosecution of a case.
But they never did prosecute a case excepting as a 'public opinion' for 'truth' - but only convenient truths that effective save their ass or serve their private agenda.
I dont say they haven't brought a lot of information to the public (who seek it) that has merit and Wodarg has in the past fended off the Swine flu scam (with others). My issue is not judging persons but observing the dynamic in act.
Its the old Noam Chomsky gambit: yap for decades and pretend to do something and pretend to care while doing absolutely nothing. That is one of the specialties of the kabal: control both sides to prevent all action