Most of them wear masks when on camera. Not when the cameras are gone, because they know that they are useless.

We know that they know that masks don’t work:
https://aflds.org/medical/masks

The Nobel prize awarded to the most toxic injection ever.
1- Here is Denis Rancourt about the injection causing a clear rise in mortality
2- From emails we know that most agencies already know that it is a disaster.
3- According to real-world data, the injections should be called anti-vaccine
4- Here is the reaction of Robert Malone who invented the mRNA vaccine

Fauci and other “health” officials explain why masks are not necessary:
https://twitter.com/musicbyscott/status/1367953467797630981?s=28

Masks do not work at all. And they all know it.

A lot of people promote fake science.
And if you oppose fake science, they say that it is anti-science.
But we all know that these people are all fake.

What is Fake Science?

Fake Science is deceit and fraud, hidden behind a facade of scientific buzzwords or scientific “status”. Sometimes by just wearing a doctor’s coat.
It means that deceiving ideas are pushed, while there is clear evidence of the opposite.
This is done for political gain or for profits. Often breaking common sense or human ethics.

The goal is to create doublethink.

Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.

Doublethink can also lead to self-deceit, even self destruction. Which can be obvious to others, but not to themselves.

Fake Science is an essential part of propaganda.
Here is a documentary about Edward Bernays, master of propaganda
He discovered how he could get women to smoke.
Propaganda is also very common in advertising and politics.

Mainstream media LOVES Fake Science, because it gives them a tool for pushing certain Narratives.

A Narrative is a story-framework that is given to a target group about a certain Subject. By completing the story-framework, the target group think they got all information about the Subject.
But that is not enough. They also need to be emotionally involved. By combining emotional attachment to this story-framework, people hold on to this Narrative. And will oppose information that conflicts with that Narrative. Even when there is clear evidence supporting that opposing information.

Fake Science is often used to strengthen a Narrative.

KILLING people with Fake Science

The push of Fake Science is not harmless. It literally has killed people.

To support the Narrative for Experimental Toxic Injections, the Scientific Frauds needed to stop ALL alternatives. The first to go was HydroxyChloroQuine (HCQ). Which is actually working well against Covid. In trials they could save more than 95% of the patients with early treatment of HCQ and Zinc.

Video with Chris Martinson explaining the science of HCQ and Ivermectin.
What did happen was that the protocols were not followed, and science was faked.
1- They used HCQ only on people that were near to death, and compared them with people that were healthier. And claimed that the HCQ was causing more deaths.
Many more of such fake science trials were done.
2- The FDA conducted a trial where they used 3x maximum dose of HCQ, causing patients to die due to overdosing. This is Murder.

In the mean time, the successful treatments were attacked by the institutions.

Censorship

Fake Science does not work well without censorship. Because facts shows contra-dictionary information.

And we can see that doctors and scientists were censored to the extreme when they published something that did not support The Narrative.

Fake Science and the Covid “vaccines”

All mainstream science about the Covid “vaccines” is Fake Science.
But there is so much fraud that I have to write a longer article about that one.

The changing of definitions is a good indication of Fake Science.

The media and manufacturers started calling these experimental mRNA and DNA injections a “vaccine”. They had to change the definition of a “vaccine” several times to make that fit.

Fake Science: Somehow everyone forgot that the mRNA/DNA injections are an experiment

DarkHorse Podcast shows the reason that they want forgot about it - 7 doctors hanged in 1947 for violating informed consent: Now COVID has broken the Nuremberg code

Fake Science: Definition of efficacy was falsely changed to make the injection seem very effective.

Just based on the risk reduction, there is no effectiveness.
And that could be expected with a disease that gives 99.98% chance of survival (average), and far more when you are young. The disease is not worse than the cold.

In many studies we also see that the definition of “unvaccinated” does not mean that they did not get “vaccinated”. In hospitals it often means that they don’t know the status. In many cases a person only got the status “vaccinated” when the person was injected longer than 2 weeks ago. The administration could delay this even more.
So all injected people that got side-effects or a “breakthrough”, were counted towards the “unvaccinated”.
The delay already causes a fake “effectiveness” as explained in the article: The very best of cheap trick. And in this podcast

The scientific frauds also pretended that there was no seasonality in the disease. So when the frauds introduced the injections during spring in Israel, they could claim that the reduction was caused by these injections.

Fake Science: Giving dangerous mRNA/DNA injections to young people that never need it.
All scientists involved already knew before the trials that they did not need it, but still they did. Which is a criminal act to injure children.

Fake Science: Combining mRNA/DNA injections with vaccine passports.
Note: from documents we know that it was always the goal.

Fake Justice

Fake science causes Fake Justice.
And we get fake punishments against manufacturers that killed people.

How do we stop the Fake Science?

It is hard to play the blame game, when in respond good science is attacked by the scientific frauds.

But we know that people have knowingly lied and deceived nations causing deaths.

And we know that people knowingly broke the Nuremberg codes.

But most of all:

We need to reconstruct our scientific integrity.
Not via peers or authorities that can be corrupted.
Science needs to become open and clear,
logically consistent, supported by evidence,
and must allow alternative ideas and open criticism.

Is it real or made up?

The Real world: Matter escapes from black holes

This is in contrary what a black hole is supposed to be.
Where-ever there are supposed to be “black holes” we see either nothing. Or we see matter escape into 2 directions. These “Black hole jets” are beams of electric active plasma. These beams extend very far and can be at the center of galaxies. Probably these beams are even responsible for forming those galaxies. And when there is nothing, there is never any reaction from it. Maybe it is just empty space?

Or maybe it is just a big solid object. Being big is natural in the universe.
Just as your mother always told you.

Something escapes a black hole at almost the speed of light
Escaping from black holes… happens all the time

Black hole jets. One of the greatest mysteries in the Universe
Something very energetic is happening in certain places.
Sending beams of matter into 2 directions.
Note: Wheelchair guy did not really proof anything.

Nobel prize for observing objects rotate around a “black hole”
https://keckobservatory.org/nobel-prize-ghez/
Guess what: All objects escaped.

Theory of black holes: Mix up of conflicting theories

Because we officially can not see them it only has a basis in theory.
The basis of black holes is a combination of Einstein’s gravitational theory, and the Netwon’s theory of gravity.

Newton’s gravity defines an “escape speed”. Escape speed is the speed at which an object can just escape the gravitational pull of an object. On earth this is the speed at which a bullet must go to escape earth and fly into space. Not counting the air resistance, and not counting the magnetic resistance.

If a gravitational object is so massive that the “escape speed” is equal to the speed of light, there is the theory that even light can no longer escape the object. The distances at which this occurs is called the “Schwarzschild radius”
Because physics goes both ways, an object falling into a black hole will even go faster than light. Because its falling speed would be equal (or more) to the escape speed.

This concept breaks theory of Einstein. According to Einstein, light always goes with the speed of light. It will never slow down. And nothing can go faster than the speed of light. It would be impossible, a singularity.

So this would be an impossible concept, and was disregarded. Until people claimed to have found evidence for black holes. But was there really evidence?

Evidence based on energy

The first “evidence” for a black hole, was based on very high energetic outbursts.
Like Super Novas. And these energetic events did not have the signatures of atomic bombs.
So instead they assumed that all energy came from gravity.

There is clearly a lot wrong. Because if light can not escape, why would it give off huge amount of energy?

Maybe we can see it by studying the sun better.
Solar Flare X2 (2023-03-03)
Solar Flare X class (2023-02-11)
In both cases we see huge outbursts of X-rays, from our nearest star.
It seems like a natural phenomenon of stars to produce very energetic outbursts.
Note: I am now also working on an article to explain these better.

I think it is far more likely that there are objects that are far more active than our star, and will produce far stronger flares.

Like those very active objects that send out huge beams of plasma..

Center of Galaxy M87 sending out a plasma-jet.
It does not really look black, doesn’t it?
Looks a bit like a constant flare. I think there is some similar physics going on.

Evidence based on Gravitational Lensing

According to Einstein’s Gravity, heavy objects can cause effects similar to a lens.
That is because the time for light to go through an area of higher gravity is different from a area with low gravity. This would create a diffraction.
Diffraction of stars during a solar eclipse are important evidence for the gravitational theory of Einstein.

We might get a similar diffraction with different plasma densities.

Above image is a composition of different images. We can clearly see that the sun has different densities of plasma. How much is the plasma really responsible for diffraction?

Now let’s look at the lensing evidence.

Gravitational lensing evidence - Einstein’s Cross

These are objects that are similar, positioned in a cross.

Are they really the same object?
Or are they similar, because they have a similar origin?

Explanation 1: They are from the same origin

Stephan's Quintet: Halton Arp Vindicated Again | Space News
Stars are often connected and have similarities due to their connection.
According to Halton Arp, galaxies grow from nearby galaxies via different stages.

Here we can see how 4 galaxies are pretty similar, because they are connected.
And the small number of "Einstein crosses” that we find may just be similar stars or galaxies.

Explanation 2: They are like a Fata Morgana / Mirage

Wikipedia on Fata Morgana / Mirage

Fata Morgana is a phenomenon that is pretty common on earth.
Different layers of air cause reflections and/or diffraction.

Several types of plasma layers in space can be responsible for a shift in the direction of light. And this can cause double or more stellar objects.

There are far more types of reflections possible if we include crystals.
Here is a video about ice-crystals causing all kinds of halos and additional lights.
At far distances, we will not see any diffraction phenomena. Only the reflections and projections can seen from far.

Gravitational lensing evidence - Einstein Rings

If we study them closely, we can see that there are also REFLECTIONS in of galaxies in these images.

Gravitationally lensed image reveals a secret about the structure of the universe

Second image studied

The only reason for reflections is that we are looking in the direction of smooth mirroring surfaces. Mirror surfaces have free electrons. So there is some kind of circular or tube of plasma.

And tubes of plasma are called Birkeland currents.
The FIRST Ever FLOWING Intergalactic BIRKELAND Current DISCOVERED!

So instead of “Black Holes” were are looking at inter-galactic Birkeland currents.
Or maybe they are plasma jets from “black holes”.

According to Plasma Cosmology, Birkeland Currents are responsible for forming the Web of the Universe.
Astronomers spotted shock waves shaking the web of the universe for the first time

Circular structures are actually very common. And after they become dark, their reflections will show rings or lights in cross. And since most “einstein rings” contain mirror images, we can be certain that this is the result of a reflection and not “bending of space/time”.

Evidence: The black hole image

Here is the black hole image as generated by the algorithm.

Yes there were 4 different ones. Didn’t they tell you?
They just merged them all together in the end.

Each one was generated with AI from a slightly different training-sets.
The AI was to pick the images that were most likely to be valid, matching with their training-set.

There were no real images, they had to generate them by combining the very noisy data from different telescopes. And by letting the AI select the “good” ones, they tried to generate an image.
Official Lecture about how the images were generated

This is what they were looking at:

The dark spot was added. It far smaller than a pixel in reality.
You can see how there is a plasma jet coming out.

There was a huge problem though. The radio-telescopes are not capable of reaching the resolution, nor the required signal to noise level. They did not overcome that problem.

The professor in real-world imaging using radio-signals explains below why the black hole image is data-fabrication.

Robitaille is supported by several astronomy experts:

But if it is all noise, how is it possible that these images were so similar?

Possibility 1 Bias in Training-set - The AI training set was preferring noise that resembled rings. So they all got ring-like images from the noisy data.

Possibility 2 Bokeh - The radio-telescopes together create a huge lens. This is by using a mathematical process that combines phases of the radio-waves in such a way that they interfere with each other. Creating diffraction via a mathematical calculated lens.

Problem 1: In the lecture the team-leader states the problem that the data was not even accurate enough to be in phase. And the phase-data was used anyway without the focus.
Problem 2: The radio-telescopes are placed on continents around the earth. This means that the Oceans are dark parts of the combined lens.
Problem 3: Explained in the video above, the data is missing essential focus data.

And if you do not have good focus, your lens will create Bokeh. Which means that you will see the dark places in your lens in your image.

A lens with a blacked-out center will create rings from bright objects that are not in focus. Or are we seeing black holes everywhere?
So, if most your dataset is out-of-focus it will have a lot of ring-like images. And other images that are similar to the placing of your radio-telescopes.
The algorithm will think that these ring-images are the real ones, over images that show a single star. And so a black hole image was born.

Possibility 3: Plasma ring? We are seeing a bigger plasma ring caused by plasma interactions. Somehow this is what the algorithm is choosing. It is not the black hole, but a product of the plasma-jets.

For fun: You can make your own plasma ring

Evidence: LIGO detects Gravitational waves from merging Black Holes

As shown above, we don’t know any valid evidence of Black Holes.
Nor do we know of any Black Hole “mergers”, which is a Black Hole object falling into another Black Hole. We don’t know of any object even falling into a black hole to begin with.

And we do not know of any gravitational waves. We have never seen any evidence that they may exist. And the theory behind it is also based a mixture of assumptions, which are likely to be false.

But LIGO found “proof” for all different things at the same time

A lot of astronomers were eager to accept LIGO’s extremely wild claim. I found almost no skeptical astronomers. Probably because scientists like to look at new theories and do not like to verify older theories.

Here is LIGO’s first “detection” of a black hole (2015)

You can see it, right?

Maybe you can see the 2017 version?

Well, what do you see?
1- A signal that resonates continuously. So the system has some continuous resonance going on. Likely a resonance between the mirrors.
2- A signal that is reaching its maximum amplitude. Should give some non-linear effects. The movement of the mirrors is reaching its maximum effect.

They must have filtered those signals out? Right?

I chatted with some LIGO PhDs about this. They explained that they just applied the standard frequency filters using discrete Fourier transform (DFT). This adds a repeating signal, but they claimed to have magically moved it away using normalization. But that only works under limited circumstances.
If you do not use the DFT, but use a standard digital filter (high-pass and low-pass), you do not see any signal. And that is a clear indication that there is no signal.

A laser goes through a mirror and a beam splitter. The splitter goes through 2 very long arms (2km?) of the big LIGO pipes. The mirrors at the end of the pipes are reflecting the laser back. They use a Fresnel lens in each arm to sharpen the phase of the laser-waves. The interference between the two beams is measured via the push-force on a mirror.

Can you already see how many possible resonances this can introduce? And what about non-linear interactions, like the movement of the mirror? And what about sound generated by heat as demonstrated in this video.
The system is not shielded from magnetism. So any magnetic field can influence the polarization of the mirrors (Kerr-effect). Most electromagnetic signals are similar to what the LIGO tries to detect. So it is very likely to be seen as a false signal.

The LIGO has 2 different facilities. And they combine the signal of both facilities to determine the location of a signal. But the huge problem is that the noise is so huge that they also use it to determine the validity of a signal. So if the noise matches with both facilities, they claim to have found black hole merger. And that happens almost every month.
With the addition of another facility at the other side of earth, they do not find matching noise patterns at all 3 facilities. Should be once in a few years if it was just noise, right? Yet when they find a signal at 2 facilities, they still claim to have found a black hole merger. This all smells more and more like a scam than genuine science.

What Evidence for Black Holes is left?

There may be very heavy objects in the center of galaxies and that is it.

But it may also be an illusion.

Additional force due to relativity:

With relativity I mean that movement of objects adds magnetic force to the electric force. This means that two objects with the same polarity are attracted to each other if they move in the same direction, depending on their speed.

So if we have fast moving objects near the galaxy center, they may exchange similar forces that pushes them into the same direction.

Additional force due to electromagnetism:

We can observe on the sun that there are a lot of electromagnetic interactions going on. The electric fields appear to cause electrical currents visible as plasma ropes and solar flares. And the electrical currents themselves cause magnetic fields, which we can measure via the Zeeman effect.

Galaxies and Plasma-jets show a lot of Zeeman effect. And this means that there is a lot of electromagnetic forces active.

If the stellar objects have electric polarity, these electromagnetic forces can be far stronger than gravity. And this can also create an effect that looks similar to gravity.

Now the Black Holes are finished

I can start wiping

I hope you found this a fun read.
And let this inspire new astronomers to look at the actual evidence,
instead of swallow possible bullshit. Think critically about old theories.
Especially when new findings are breaking with what was expected.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." ~ Richard P. Feynman

Let’s first start with the basics of Quantum Physics (also called Quantum Mechanics)

There is Light

Light is made of electromagnetic waves. I will go deeper into electromagnetism in another post. But it is something that is well known and can be measured very well.

We can create most of this light with electronics. Radio waves can be created with an alternating electrical field (or electrical current). We can generate light directly from electricity with diodes. And X-rays are made with electric discharges or electron beams.

The Photo Electric Effect

Light arrives at a surface and it can bump away the electrons in the surface. This works only when the light has a high enough frequency.

It can be hard to visualize what is happening.
We see an electromagnetic wave releasing an electron.

To illustrate this imagine a wave splashing a person out of the pool.

All light is electromagnetic waves, but Einstein had a different idea.
Einstein thought that he was seeing collisions. Einstein thought that light was made of particles. Light particles called photons.

Einstein thought that when a light-particle hits a surface, it will generate a splash. And in this case release an electron.
So Einstein saw the photo-electric effect, as proof for a collision of a light-particle with the material.
Einstein wanted to forget about the waves, maybe he did not like to swim either.
So he pretended that the waves did not exist for real, but were somewhere hidden in the light-particles.

Max Planck had a different hypothesis, but he started believing Einstein.

And Quantum physics was born, where only particles exist. And where waves only exist in maths.

But because light is waves, Schodinger combined both particles and waves using this great mathematical trick!

The formula is very simple and very human.
It defines the statistical probability of a particle in a certain state (position and speed) And the formula always produces something that looks like a wave.
Think of millions of bouncing balls. If you have so many, it starts looking like waves.

Video with the bouncing balls

This trick was used for statistical physics, and based on the energy of the system and surroundings one can predict the average state of objects in the system.
Simple example: A pendulum will usually be in a certain position and speed, following a wave-like swing. A lot of physical systems behave in a similar way.

Now with this trick we get both a wave and a particle. The wave is mathematical only and defines the chance that a particle (one of trillions) is at a certain place (or speed).

But we can make it far more confusing…

In quantum physics this trick also works when we only have “one particle’.
It behaves as if it is resonating with a lot of other “particles”.

Very small particles are so small that they react to the thing that you are measuring with. So if you try to see the actual result, you also influence the result. You can even influence the outcome.
So you are often influencing the outcome of the experiment by trying to observe it.

But if you don’t observe anything, you have no idea what the experiment is doing.
So according the the mathematical world of quantum physics, if you do not look, the particle does not even exist.

To make it “simple”, quantum physics turned all force-fields into force-particles. And these particles carry forces for other particles to exist in. And wave-functions define the probability of all these particles.

You understand that things are getting much clearer if you learn more about it.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." ~ Richard P. Feynman

Particles to transfer force-fields makes no sense

The idea of particles transferring forces has always been very popular, but has no scientific basis. The idea is that electric force is transferred when a photon-particle hits the target.

The electrical fields and magnetic fields are continuous. This means that they do not suddenly stop or start. A small change in position relates to only a small change in field-strength. The fields can also be completely constant in time, with no interruptions. The electrical fields are measureble at atomic level, and we can see from electron-shells that the field is still continuous on that level.

If we use particles instead, our continuous and constant force-field becomes chaotic and erratic. From observations we know that small force-transferring particles give brownian movement.

The leading theory is that we have billions of force-particles, even for the smallest scale. This breaks with the idea that one wave-cycle is one photon. Now you get billions for one cycle. But that would still cause leakage due to missing hits, or hitting too often. So electrons would not be able to stay one single femto-second in their electron-shell. It only works when you have infinite particles, which is the same as no particles but a continuous field.

The solutions are also in conflict with the premise of quantum physics. The photons can only transfer force when they are measured, which will never happen because the frequency is too low. The photon theory appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of electric fields.

The most accurate lie in physics

There are other problems. If you have a static electric field, then there is no wave and no quantum mechanics.
So what do you get if nothing moves?
Feynman (?) had an idea: “Virtual particles”. Particles that move in and out of existence.

Relativity was seen is the biggest problem. If something moves very fast these particles will follow special laws. Special relativity was another special invention of Einstein. And this conflicted with the mathematics of waves as defined by Schrodinger.

So to solve all this together, Feynmann and Dyson created Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). It was a lot of complex mathematics combined together.
And it is claimed that QED made the “most accurate prediction” in physics.

But this is a lie. There is no free lunch. Quantum Electrodynamics is full with mathematical holes and lies. They hoped that the problems would be resolved in the future, but they never did.

So the “experts” made an assumption that their problem would be solved in the future.
But it did not. But because everyone regards them as experts, nobody questions the problems any more..

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~ Richard P. Feynman

Schrodinger’s cat. Is it dead or alive or both?

Schrodinger did not lose his mind and thought about the problem:
If I watch, I see a particle, and if I do not it is a wave?

So what if instead of a particle, I have a cat.
Then I make the life of the cat depend on a particle.
So if the particle is still in the wave-state, the cat will also be in the wave-state.
A wave-state between dead and alive.
According to the formula, it will only be dead or alive, when I look into the box.

No cats were sacrificed, because Schrodinger thought that it would be impossible.


And the cat was thinking the same thing. If I am between dead or alive, does Schrodinger really exist?

And if there are two cats depending on each other existence. What would this wave function be?

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." ~ Niels Bohr

All kinds of different interpretations

It is clear that something does not add up. And many have tried to answer this paradox. With all kinds of magical ideas called “interpretations”.
1- Multiple worlds
2- Pilot waves
3- It’s just maths, who cares
4- Superstrings
5- Quantum Foam
6- Virtual particles
7- Moving through time
More alternative
8- Decicion is made by Consciousness
9- It is all Aether

People often use a mixture of these magical ideas, because they usually see the failure of each “interpretation”.

None of them tell whether the cat is alive or dead or in-between, if it depends on the wave-state of one particle.

So what is the real problem?

The measurement problem

This fundamental problem of cats in Quantum Physics is called the “measurement problem”.
It means that, if you look at a quantum system, the wave in the system becomes a particle. The look is called “a measurement”.
And where does it end? Who is measuring you?

Let me describe it with a simple question: Which atoms will react to the light?

In quantum physics we have a mathematical description of the statistical possibility of an atom reacting to light.

Only one atom will react.

Quantum physics only describes the mathematical propability of the exchange of energy from one atom to another. While the light is underway, quantum physics has no clear definition. So the photon does not exist, instead the mathematical wave exists and spreads to all atoms.
At the time of the measurement, one random atom will receive the photon. According to quantum physics, this is purely random. And if we do not measure the atoms ourselves, the atoms will stay in an undefined state.
So in some sense the atoms do not exist, until we measure them.
But where does it end? Do we exist ourselves?

This is called the measurement problem.

The change of a quantum state is a process that takes time

If the state change takes time, there is no global state change. Instead we have hidden local state that is partially hidden. And changes can occur slowly, maybe even continuously.

See popular science article: Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time

Original article

Explained a lot better:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/06/quantum-transitions-take-time-this-is.html

The way they did it is really cool, but the advance here is an experimental one, not a theoretical one. They used a superconductor to produce a macroscopic quantum system that behaved like an atom in that it had a small number of discrete energy levels that it could transition between. Then they "tickled" this "atom" with microwaves and observed that the resulting response exhibited the kind of interference effects that would be expected if if were transitioning through superposition states. It's very cool, and a very impressive technical achievement, but it is in no way unexpected or surprising.

It is not suprising, because we repeat this kind of experiments every time. What is surprising is that if it takes time, we have no global state. So there is no measurement that changes the global state.

The global state is that energy and momentum is conserved in every process, even over distance. We also have conservation of a wave-phase, which we have expressed in maths with schrodinger’s formula.

The photon IS the measurement problem

As you can see, it all started when we assumed that light was made of photons.
But light is clearly a wave, caused by well-understood electromagnetic fields.
Electric and magnetic forces are essentially the same force, and we do not need any photon at all.

So what if this light spread evenly in a very normal way.
And the receiving atoms are all in random energy states, because their electron shells are storing some of the previous received light waves.

It looks very simple:

Each atom can store the light in the electron shells, and only visibly shift in energy when a certain amount of light has been received. So the storage will have certain thresholds. Depending on the initial state we can tell exactly which atom will change its appearance.

The atoms accept the light in their electon shells, storing some of the energy.
Most likely we will only see one atom change, very similar to quantum physics. Because the electron-shells slowly load up with light-energy.

But there may be no atoms that change in state. Or 2 at once. Or even more.

This is exactly what Planck came up first, and called it the Loader theory. He omitted it, because he thought that all atoms would have an empty state at the start. But there was no good reason to assume that.

Here is the history of the Loader theory and how it was forgotten.

Can we test it? YES we can

With our technology, we can make a pulse of light so small that it is equal to one release of one electron.

1. IF light is continuous, and the atoms on the surface have some kind of light-storage, we will see light spread to all atoms evenly. Because they start off with random initial states, they will reach thresholds at random times.
2. IF light is a packet, the light will not spread to all atoms evenly. It will only reach one atom at a time.

If enough energy is transferred, the surface will release an electron. So it works best with high energy light, like gamma rays.

And what do we see:
A- We detect the release of one electron.
B- We detect the release of no electrons.
C- We detect the release of 2 or more electrons.
All at random, but (C) happens far more when the light has a very high frequency (gamma rays especially).

Source

The release of 2 electrons is more common when we use higher energy waves, like ultra-violet light. Or even X-rays.
In most quantum experiments the scientists use much weaker visible laser light, which causes the thresholds to be reached much slower. And this is why most scientists do not even know that you can get a lot of multiple detections. They think it is just some noise.

The experiments are at:

http://www.thresholdmodel.com
Note that some links do not work, and that the presentations are not very good.
This person is a lab worker, and not a good communicator.
Which is the reason why I try to communicate for him instead.

Ofcourse, we do need to repeat these experiments and all its variants.
But the idea is so simple and fundamental that it requires serious attention.

Overview of Falsifying Observations

1- The photo-electric effect is showing double “photon” observations at higher frequencies. So there is no evidence of photons, only of waves.

2- Static and continuous electrical fields do not work with force particles.

3- There is no proof of “virtual photons”. QED which uses virtual particles has many other problems too. It is just hiding the fundamental problems in very difficult maths.

4- How many waves is one photon? There is no good definition. And we need multiple waves to create one “photon” observation. And yet we can transmit quarter wave with electromagnetism, just by switching the power on of any device.
Light from a single accurate laser source can even create an interference pattern with any part of the wave. Here is a video demonstrating it. Based on this Huygens Optics thinks that photons are a infinite wave. In essence this theory completely gave up on the original Photo-electric effect, and invented a new definition of the photon. And also in this definition photons can not exist, as all things are finite. And why did they not stay with the wave instead, and just forget about all the quantum magic?

5- The measurement problem. In short: If some tool is used to measure something, we can not make a clear statement about that tool. This says more about the tool than what you are trying to measure. But many reversed the logic by claiming that what they were trying to measure does all kinds of magic things, including the tool.

6 - Quantum “jumps” take time. So, there is no sudden measurement that changes the global state. Instead we have local, partially hidden state.

7- No interpretation actually solves these problems. They only obfuscate them and make them more complex.
The only solution is not to use the quantum.

Conclusion

The experiments confirm that thresholds exist.
And that photons do NOT exist.

And let that sink in: PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST.
Quantum physics has been falsified.

How does a non-quantum world work?

Let me start that it is much easier.
Because now things exist.
And they exist all the time.

And we can forget about all the quantum magic of virtual particles, particles moving through time, multiple worlds, hidden dimensions. We can return to the real world and start asking questions: What are we really seeing?

Atoms are clearly visible with special Atomic Force Microscopes.

A movie of the above picture A boy and his atom - IBM

Atoms are all like spheres. The electron-shells form a sphere around the nucleus.
These shells themselves all react to light.
If the shells receive a certain frequency of light, they will start to resonate. If they resonate for some time the shell can reach the next state, or even release an electron.

Like a glass resonates at a certain tune. If the resonating takes long enough, the tune can even break the glass. Different glasses react to different frequencies of sound. Just like different atomic shells react to different frequencies of light.

Here is an example of this growing resonance happening on a chip. A multiple of waves is necessary to create one electron.
Single-photon emission from single-electron transport in a SAW-driven lateral light-emitting diode

Change of super-conductor state has its own chapter. But it is an interesting area to study more about wave-states.

This model explains fluids and super-fluids

From the observations we see that the electrons must be in some kind of resonance.
And they form some kind of shell with a certain threshold.
So instead of electrons circling free around in random paths, we have electron shells that have clear structure to it.

In molecular bounds these shells will look differently. I think they will look more like stretched out sigar-shapes. Or sometimes Donut-shapes. Yet, they will also have thresholds. These threshold determine how these molecules will bind with the atoms and with each other. In combination with other forces.

With high temperatures, the thresholds are often reached and no bounds can sustain for long. So we have a plasma.
With medium temperatures the shells of the atoms can connect and form molecules. In my thoughts these molecular shells are sigar shaped, but can be any shape. Still they will form some kind of shell.

See also: First-ever high-resolution images of a molecule as it breaks and reforms chemical bonds

With low temperatures more thresholds are reached. And molecules will start to attract each other. And new “sigars” will form. Usually they will form small clusters that we find in liquids.

At colder temperatures, the sigars will become dominant over the normal atom shells. And this will help the atoms to form a solid structure.
The liquid phase can be skipped if the normal atom shells are small already. And this is what we can see beyond critical points (temperature and pressure).

But if we go even colder we will get weirder stuff. The sigars will cross many atoms, because their threshold is even lower.
A gas that can not become a solid, will become super-fluid.

And a material that is normally conductive, will become super-conductive. That is because the electron-shells and the electron-sigars themselves are super-conductive.

Instead of individual atoms we get electron-shells as structures. And these shells all have certain thresholds.

More about atoms

Can you see an atom?

The atomic structure is very very straight. As if they are in exact resonance.

Crystal grows one atomic layer at a time
Again we see some kind of resonance, where atoms seem to form before they are really there. It might be a side effect of the scan.

Watch gold atoms merge under microscope
We see a whole structure merging. As if they move from one resonance to the other.

Jumping atoms on the silicon surface
The silicon is not so solid as it seems. The movement may come from exchanges between storages.

It does get weirder!

We can do the same thing with small sub-atomic particles.
With Alpha and Beta radiation.
(Link to experiments on thresholdmodel.com does not work now)

This means that some kind of wave-structure may exist within atoms, in combination with some kind of shells.

And life may use electron-shell connections between atoms as basic building blocks
Bacterium could be Quantum Biology Milestone

This is good science!

Before you think this is bad science, or even that the experimenter is a lunatic,
this is what old-school science was based on.

Good science starts with experiments, observations and good logic.
Not with how good Feynman can spread a fake theory.

We see experiments that confirm that this model is possible.
We can observe and use this model in many different situations.
The logic is clear and simple.

It is the simplest model that explains all of “quantum physics”.
And this according to Occam’s Razor we have to look at this model first before we can even consider an other.

There are many experiments that can be performed to increase our knowledge in this area, so we can finally progress in science. So even if it would fail at the end, we will still have new knowledge that we would otherwise not get.

If you fall from a building, wouldn’t it be weird when the building was on the ground before you reached the ground? Note that you have air-resistance and reach only a maximum speed of 200km/h.
What resistance would a building meet? Every part of the building itself.

But at 9/11 these 3 buildings were falling near free-fall.
That is just as fast as you falling down, or faster depending on the terminal velocity.

A lot of material from the buildings were expelled side-wards. So much that some people survived standing underneath the towers.
Some parts were even falling faster downward, due to an initial explosive push.

Even the steel core structures inside them, were not hindering the free fall.
While they really should have. They are keeping the towers standing.
The resistance was like open air. All solid structure underneath was removed just before the rest of the building fell into it. It was moved side-wards.

The structures were made to resist airplanes. And to resist huge fires with heat resistant steel (contains Molybdenum).

Steel that was found back in the dust in small iron spheres. These spheres show that the steel was vaporized. The dust was also extremely corrosive, damaging cars and nearby buildings.

Additionally molten Molybdenum was found on nearby buildings.
With the remains of some of the fire-fighters.
Fires went on for weeks, even under water.

Maybe we were lied to by the officials.
Maybe they had something to hide.
Like trillions of dollars.

For more information look at:

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - https://www.ae911truth.org/

Richard Gage - https://richardgage911.org/

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe (pdf)

The basic physics explained by David Chandler.
He can tell it better than I can.

Some questions and answers

Here I answer some questions that I encountered on forums.
At the Architects and Engineers site, they will answer these questions a lot better, so check them out, if you are not satisfied with my answers.

Wouldn’t the fires from the planes cause damage to the structures?
The structure was only partially exposed to fire. Starting with one fireball at the initial impact, that consumed most of the kerosene. And according to fire-fighters the fires were under control and no longer dangerous. No other parts of building 1 &2 were on fire. The fire of building 7 was also very local.
A local fire does not weaken the whole structure and steel spreads heat reducing much of the effect. That is how (heat-resistant) steel structures of buildings can be completely on fire without any problems.

Wouldn’t cause the collapse of floors some kind of side-ways force due to the compression of air?
The movement of the dust can tell us exactly how the air and gasses are moving. And we can clearly see that the structures move sideways in front of the gasses and not following them. Dust is even following it, as these structures appear to desintegrate in the air.
We can also see that the compression happens after the floor collapse, and not just before.
In a normal situation, the air would leave through the open windows and will not affect the heavy and strong structures much.

I saw a building in Iran collapse from fire. Isn’t this the same?
The building in Iran was fully on fire for a long time, and clearly did not have a heat resistant steel core. Maybe it also had wooden structures that were affected?
The building regulations in these countries are very different.
The collapse clearly shows no signs of outward expelled heavy structures, which means that the building was weakened a lot on the inside.
While the collapse seems fast, it will fall slower than the WTC buildings. That is because the underlying structure will cause resistance. It is hard to see, and needs careful measurements.

I saw a video that demonstrated a fast floor-by-floor collapse in a model. Why can this not work?
Some people try to construct a small tower and let it collapse. They usually do not understand physics well.
These structures have a standing edges, the floors can collapse into each other quickly. Like a ladder.
It seems fast, but it is still slower than the WTC buildings. That is because with each next layer, the floors above encounter resistance.
What you can also see is that the standing sides are not collapsing. They are the carrying structure. So in a real tower they would just keep standing, and the tower would not even collapse. Only the floors would collapse, probably causing some damage to the building that would be clearly visible.

Steel is weak when it is hot from fires. Why do you think that this is not a problem?
1- The free-fall can not be reached with weakened steel. Even when it would turn into blubber. It would give a slow and local collapse.
2- The steel structure spreads the heat, but never reached a high temperature. The amount of kerosene is too small to create a high temperature, with a structure this large in the open and colder air. Even at the location of the fire, you can see that the structure is not weakened, but that the structure is suddenly absent.
3- The steel (with Molybdenum) and structure was heat resistant. They are made to resist huge fires.
4- Fire fighters and investigators saw molten steel. In the dust there is remains of vaporized steel.

Many inventors have dreams about making a machine that can be smarter than humans. Even before computers existed.
Now they are making computers that can do chess better than the human world-champion. Or generate imaginary worlds out of seemingly nothing. Or drive a car.

But.. they all still need a human to setup the algorithm and to classify the statistical data. And when unexpected circumstances occur, the AI can brake dramatically without being able to recover.

Over-hyped by many sides

Artificial Intelligence has been over-hyped by proponents and opponents.

The proponents think that they can make computers smarter than any human. And they believe that their own conscious can be transferred.
The opponents think that the computers will become self-conscious and replace humans.

None of this ideal or horror is true.

A computer only works with algorithms and data. So a computer has no clue what to do with it, and a programmer has to select these for the computer.

Algorithms may be used to filter and censor your messages. Or they may use it to automatically kill a person in a war. All these actions are based on programmer defined settings and criteria. The same programmer has no idea what the real environment and circumstances is where it will be used in the future. And because environments and circumstances change, the computers will fail at the end.

Computers can also run out of batteries. Robots can get stuck in mud, break a sensor, get painted or set on fire by activists.
NASA’s robots that were send to Mars are a good example of what is ultimately possible. Each cycle, the robot gets a new update and performs a certain task, like moving around and making pictures.
The air-drones that are used in the army are continuous connected to an operator. An algorithm just makes it easier. But how more they automate them, the easier opponents can steal them.

Algorithms

Logical problem → Algorithm + time → Problem solved

An Algorithm is a part of a program that looks for an answer to a certain problem, preferably efficiently.

The first attempt to create AI was by using programming languages that were able to do smart things within a few sentences. With languages like LISP it was possible to make programs that made programs internally. With languages like Prolog it was possible to define a set of numerical problems and let the computer search for answers.

The best achievements were programs that played games Chess and GO. Because these games are very logical, the computer just needed to search for a good game-move as fast as possible. This is not so much an achievement by “intelligence”, but by the programmers who made very good algorithms.

Neural Networks

People have looked at neural networks within the brain for a long time, and tries reverse engineering some of the structures that we see there. We see neurons connected with nerves and synapses, in separate layers.

To make it simple for a computer, it is represented by matrices and vectors. The neurons are represented the vectors, and the synapses are represented by the matrix. Example: A connection from neuron A (position 6) to neuron B (position 30) is a number 1.0 (in row 6, column 30 of the matrix).

Information is just the ON or OFF of the neurons, represented by 1.0 and -1.0. Or the values in between for analogue-like data.
The output starts with an initial value, and change these values in very small steps to see what minute change works best.

The educational channel 3Blue1Brown has a great overview of neural networks, where you can learn the details.
Link to videos

Neural Network algorithms

The most similar algorithmic model to the brain is the Hopfield network. It is also the simplest one. It is just two vectors with one matrix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopfield_network

While it resembles the brain the most, it does not work so well.
So they improved algorithms and the most popular one is now Back-propagation.

Back-propagation can work with different layers, which saves a lot of space and time. And with each layer one can calculate what parameters works best.
There are also layers in the brain, but they work differently.

Machine Learning

This is how most people think it works.

The network is just a whole lot of numbers stored in matrices. Input is just data presented at the input in an array of ON (1.0) and OFF (-1.0). When you present data at the input the box will automatically produce an output in a similar representation of ON and OFF.

The reality is far more difficult.

The massive data is training data, with the same amount of values as the input.
This massive data is categorized and useful data is added.
Like is this picture a “cat” or a “dog”? What is the age of the animal?

The huge statistical database are the matrices with all the numbers that represent the connections between neurons.

During training (learning) the numbers in the matrix are modified a bit. The goal is to work towards the correct answer/output. The categorized data should contain this correct answer in some way.

The statistical database is a just a different representation of the data, in lots and lots of statistical numbers. There is no smartness added, no intelligence.
All decisions come from how well the data is categorized and how well this matches the statistics that is stored in the matrices.

It is not easy.. The programmer has to do a lot of things

The programmer has to configure all kinds of settings.
Order and categorize all the data, sometimes by hand, or by the users themselves.
The settings determine how the data is represented in the numbers. how many layers and connections are in the statistical database, how fast the numbers change. And when the algorithms have to stop.
Then the programmer needs to figure out if it actually worked, and do a lot of it again if it did not work.

For the programmer the huge statistical database is mostly unreadable. So he/she does not know what it is doing most of the time. So he/she has to find out by trial and error if something worked or not. That is why this work is often connected to scientific research that requires the writing of papers too.

In my university department someone graduated by showing how well his programmed neural networks worked. The person after him found out that it only worked with one example. That is why neural networks are mainly a problem.

What is the best that a computer can do?

Data that is known is converted to a statistical database, using “machine learning’ so it becomes “wellknown”.

Deep fakes:

The selected images of one well-known person get replaced with the selected images of a different well-known person. Using the statistical database, the personal traits of one person is exchanged with the personal traits of another.

Samsung’s AI: Megapixel Deepfakes - 2 minute papers

Make images from words (DALL-E)

The selected well-known words get translated into objects.
And the well-known objects get translated into images.
And the well-known images get merged to a final image.
These translations are all taken from the statistical database.
To make the image impressive, the program uses some statistical manipulations so the images seem to match well.

OpenAI’s DALL-E 2: Top 5 New Results - 2 minute papers

We made slightly offensive Kid’s Toys -Corridor Crew


Fill in details of a program

The statistical database is full with examples taken from open source software. So when the text of a program looks statistically like one of these examples, certain details from the example are retrieved. And these can be filled into the text to complete the program.
This only works well when the new program looks (statistically) a lot like the existing examples.

[ML News] AI models that write code (Copilot, CodeWhisperer, Pangu-Coder, etc.)

What can a computer NEVER do?

It can not do any of the tasks that a programmer NEEDS to do to get the computer working.

A computer can not distinguish between good data and bad data

The computer can produce an answer, but can never know if it is the good one.

There are some feed-back loops possible, but that is essentially a programmer’s action. The programmer is still deciding what is good data and what is bad data, even when he is programming a feed-back loop.

It can never improve itself automatically

Alan Turing proved that a program could never know everything about itself.
He did that in the most simple explanation possible: The Halting Problem
In short: A program can not know if a part of its computation will ever end. A good example is a math-proof, based on an infinite search. The computation will likely never end, and there is no program that can predict the infinite search,

And thus when a computer can never know everything about itself, AND does not know what is good and what is bad, it will not be able to improve itself.
It does not know much about the real world, it does not even know that a real world exists, or that the computer itself exists.

So a computer will never be intelligent

Intelligence means that you can adapt to different circumstances, automatically.
But when a really new situation occurs, the computer will fail.

We see this clearly in Tesla’s autopilot driving:
1. It can not detect a cart pulled by horses. Often has same problem with pedestrians.
2. It can drive very fast when the driver is asleep:
("I'm Speechless": Police Chase Down Tesla On Autopilot Doing 90 MPH With Driver And Passenger Asleep)
3. Tesla malfunctions and crashes into a man at high speed while the driver was trying to park. Video (NSFW- person gets hit)
4. Search: Tesla Autopilot tries to kill me

There is no statistics and no algorithm (and no feed-back) that can make a computer adapt to a problem before it occurs.

Humans are different

We can prepare for something before it occurs, even when we have never been in the situation.
The best way to prepare is by using our imagination and thinking. We can build a house and prevent accidents by looking in advance in our minds.

Can’t computers do something similar? Imagining data (like DALL-E above) to prepare for something unexpected?
The data-set is infinite. So you will mix data with lots of imaginary and useless data. As you have seen above, the computer does not know when to stop/halt computing. And can not distinguish between good and bad data. It will be just one big chaos.

Humans can distinguish between real and imaginary problems, with reasoning. And by playing out the situation in our minds. We can also dream about impossible situations, and recognize that they are not real. The latter usually afterwards, when we are “awake”.

If humans are different from neural networks, then how do humans think?

With programs and big computers we can simulate something very similar to the brain. Or maybe we may in the future.
But as I described above, the neural networks are just statistical databases of categorized data.

Who is doing the categorizing in the brain? There is no programmer?
Who is doing the selection of good data and bad data, since most what we hear and see is full with noise.
Who is doing the remembering what is important?
Who is doing the reasoning?
What is even reasoning?

A computer needs a programmer. A neural networks needs a programmer.
But the brain has no such thing that decides all these things.

Observing of Memories

What are the things that you remember?
Usually those are things that you like to remember, or things that you don’t really want to remember. Because they have some kind of emotional value. And some things are strangely hard to remember, like a birth-day (sorry!).


So emotion is very important in how we remember things.
More emotion, the stronger the “connection” with the memories.

Awareness help to remember things. And you can only be aware if you are excited and not bored. So things that excite you are easier to learn. Also very similar to emotions.

So we can conclude that emotions and the level of excitement are deciding factors here. So these help to categorize the memories.

When things go bad, like in a war, with traumas and over-excitement due to fear and stress, people may store memories mixed with imagination. If the trauma is treated, the reality may come back a bit, but that usually takes a lot of work. And sometimes people do not want to know the reality.


Observing of Reasoning

If you reason, you start with one problem and look for memories related to that problem. The brain seems perfect for that, because it has all kinds of connections. A neural network can also find statistical connections.

When you reason you also use your imagination. What if this is going on? What if that is going on? So you traverse more and more from one memory, or one way of thinking to the other.

So we have different things here.
1. Attention. Your attention is following the series of memories and/or thinking-patterns. If you are trained it goes quicker via certain memories.
2. Imagination. If you are not trained, you have to use more of your imagination to try out different options.
3. Decision maker. Deciding what path to follow. What would be the best way to solve the problem? What weird things might you come up with?
4. Intuition. What new solutions do you come up with?

These are not things that we can find a computer. The computer can simulates these things a bit by doing things at random, like DALL-E.

Where are memories stored?

The brain clearly makes connections, and will do some work. Based on brain-scans the information from the eyes and ears are stored in a layer in the brain. First is the short-term information stored. This is later processed into the long-term memory. At least that is the theory.
These memories in the brain-circuits are usually vague, low resolution and very hard to manage and order. The chemical system has to decide what connections to make and what to forget.

But there are people that do never forget anything. They can even remember useless data, like a telephone book. Exactly.

The Spirit in the Machine

We started looking at the human brain, and simulated the neuron-structures as best as possible. Still it is not enough!

So we have to take a better look at the human brain

We have to see what else is going on in the human mind.

So we get to Near Death Experiences. The observations of the brain during near-death are just as valid as the observations of the brain during awake state.

When people are brain-dead, during an operation, they are still able to observe things around them.
There are lots of such observations, see some of this unordered list of interviews here.

These observations are usually different. The persons are perceiving as if they have left the body. Which is logical, because it is brain-dead. There are reports of blind people seeing for the first time, and even experiencing colors for the first time.
The memories are often very vivid and stored in long term memory.

They seem to observe things like a spirit, instead of a normal human. Whatever is going on, there is a good indication that consciousness may not even be related to the brain at all.

We need the Spirit in the Machine

Our model of the brain, with neural networks and algorithms had no chance of working. On almost every place it needs a programmer, a decision maker or something.
Without it, the brain would be just chaos.

But now we have a spirit that can observe things, even decide things. This is exactly what we need to make our brain work. Maybe we even need more, but this is a start.

We can simply not create something out of nothing.

In another post I will go further into a model of the spirit.
See you there..

Conspiracy theories?

What are they? - They are theories about crimes that are committed by groups of people. Crimes are very common, like we see with the experimental injections that are not effective and very harmful. It not usual to have so many people involved, but that happens more when a lot of money is involved. And in this case we have many trillions of dollars as a good reason for people to cover up some of the details.
Because criminals try to hide the crimes and evidence around it. So people have to fill in some details of how these crimes were committed. So in this case, all details of Pfizer failed trials were hidden from public. And also their contracts with the governments. In the details that became public, we saw that huge crimes were committed against humanity. So these people have a good reason to cover them up.

Why do they flourish? - People start to see that something is really wrong. So they start looking for answers, which are hard to find due to the huge coverup going on. And in the case of the experimental injections, we see that all Nuremberg codes were broken. We see that all harm was covered up.
And if people start looking for answers, they quickly find that huge crimes are going on and hidden. So they discuss it and spread their concerns.

What logical errors are used by EU/UN?
- They gaslight people that there were no crimes, but that it is just a belief.
- They pretend that a crime is committed without any planning or by a multiple of criminals.
- They pretend that the evidence is only “coincidence”.
- They pretend that there are no criminals, or people (willingly or unknowingly) working with criminals for money.
- They scapegoat people that are witnesses, experts and researchers.
- They make people angry against people that are genuinely worried about their body and freedom.

How to recognize a Propaganda Narrative

Check the author? Who is writing this and why?

Is the author working for Big Pharma, Big Tech, mainstream media or a governmental agency? Or is the author getting money from them?
If so, the person tries to convince you of something. Because that is the person’s job. Sometimes the person is an expert in convincing people.

Check the source - Is it reliable and reputable?

If it is from an official agency, Big Pharma, Big Tech, or from mainstream media. It is probably a made up narrative around something that they want to become public.

Is it balanced and fair or sensationalist and one-dimensional?

If the author is bad, it is sensational. And anyone not in line with the narrative will be demonized. This is very common on social media.

If the author has written the propaganda well it will appear balanced. But if you study it a bit more, you will see that they left out critical details or used made up facts. Often they borrow these narratives from other authors. This is to hide intent of deceit.
A lot of propaganda follows a program. So if you see different articles in the same narrative, you will have to look a bit deeper to see what they are falsely representing. So the currently program of the EU/UN is that you should not doubt the narratives.

What about my own beliefs?

“Covid-19 is frighting” ← There it is written in the script .

The fear propaganda has been very overwhelming and it will take a lot of time for people to become reasonable.

“They can be dangerous”

It can be very dangerous for criminals to get caught. Especially in the public.
So they hide behind other people, and just give orders to those people.

They also blame other people, especially witnesses and experts that are showing what is really going on.
So the best thing is to support all the experts, whistleblowers and witnesses that were banned from social media or are punished by the governments.

“The link to antisemitism”

Indeed. Many crimes against humanity were done. Like all Nuremberg codes were broken.
We are also seeing the rise of extreme totalitarianism, promoted by the governments. Where they ruled with police violence and extreme fines against peaceful protesters.

We are also seeing a huge health problem in Israel caused by the experimental injections. This is so bad, that Israel may lose most of its population soon. But the same is also true for many other western states that joined the experiments.

We can see that big money is behind the push for totalitarianism. Just like when world-war 1 and world-war 2 started. There are extremely rich people behind this all, of all religions and of many countries. And many of them have spoken about this long before Covid started. They want a global government with control over most resources. So it is very reasonable to recognize their involvement in the global crises.

“Prebunking and Debunking”

Warn people that crimes exist.
Encourage critical thinking, questioning and check the real science.
Alert people about the problems with the local news narratives, as they are pushed from global organizations.

Focus on the facts:
Covid-19 is not dangerous at all and we have good medicine.
The injections are not safe and not effective.
The new fear is CO2 and Nitrogen(-dioxide), to control the energy-supply and to destroy the local farmers.
Refer to the huge well researched science that is behind these facts.
We do not need to hide in fear from each other.

Do not:
Follow the nonsense regulations. We already know from science that none of these are actually working.
If you want to wear masks, go to the theater. Or join the police or government.

“How to talk with someone”

Be warned, they may react very agressively, because they are hypnotized by the fear.
Most people had more than 2 years of fake news and fake science, so they may not be able to reason with.

Encourage open debate and questions
Ask questions about their theory. Why they belief their non-scientific fiction.
Ask help from someone who fell out of the narrative. Notice that no people got into the narrative, after they saw through it. It is a one-way path. And at some time they will have to get out of it. Or die suddenly.
Use a variety of sources. Make it clear that Bill Gates is not a doctor.
Don’t push it. They may be very afraid of falling out of the narrative. They have trusted their lives on it. They may have had side-effects and are still denying it for themselves.
Go step by step. Focus on logical things and proven facts.

“The link to COVID-19”

A part of the Covid propaganda is to project a continuous changing impression of reality. This military level propaganda is by design to dumb down the logical brain, and to make people believe more in the narratives.

This propaganda was in almost every country, by politicians deeply connected with the WEF. They are prominent in the EU and UN. And in certain cases there are clear letters from the WEF, were the politicians were informed about the great reset.
In my opinion, many of these politicians and rich figures in the WEF are very concerned with the climate, and are looking for a global communist way to control the climate. But not all of them have the same agenda.
It is clear that Big Pharma had their own agenda of profiting from massive vaccine use. They have been pushing for this for more than 10 years already.
The more hidden agenda of certain people appears to be depopulation, but they would understandably use other agendas to cover up such a huge crime. At the start of World War 1, we saw a similar strategy of two different agendas, and I think the same trick was used here.

What ideas does the EU/UN really not like?

- Based on the scientific evidence, the virus was likely created in a lab via gain-of-function. But people that were involved, like “The Science” Fauci, clearly try to cover it up.
- The virus might have been spread intentionally.
- Cures like Vitamin-D, Oxygen, Hydroxychloquine and Ivermectin were intentionally withheld.
- Lockdowns, Vaccines and Masks are causing harm.

The “intentional” part is what they call a “red flag”, so it may be interesting to look deeper into it.

STOP the Narratives

-Share transformed with funny memes
-Do not use “fact-checkers”, which are controlled by Big Pharma.
-Most of the “fact-checkers” are journalists and people with little scientific understanding.
-Contact author with scientific studies or articles with good references that show how the narrative is wrong.
-Contact your local press when they made up news or published a fake narrative.
-Make silly fun of the people who think (or pretend) the narrative is true.

Journalists

-Emphasize core facts, not narratives, in headlines
-Reinforce core facts with good evidence or scientific information.
-Make fun of propaganda narratives that are going around
-Explain how the narratives are misleading, preferably with evidence (like how politicians are not wearing masks without the cameras, or how many famous people got horrible side-effects)

Some sources related to this article

While the EU and the UN are promoting FAKE science,
I already wrote some articles about the things that they try to cover up.

Introduction

I was sick at February 2020, with symptoms that were very similar to Covid. I had a severe fever, while I never got sick from flu. I had one day problem with breathing. The food tasted bad, My condition was suddenly very weak, and my blood pressure was strange. It took months to recover, and eating healthy helped me.
Note: Eggs were really good for recovery. Turmeric appeared to help well. And steaming my airways.
Check out http://flccc.net or http://amflds.com if you look for treatments.

I was already thinking that it came from a lab. Not just from Wuhan China. It may have been spread before that.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

I bet $1M that the virus originated in a lab. Anyone want to bet against me? I didn't think so.

Whenever there is money at risk, you quickly find out who has conviction in their beliefs and who does not. So making an audacious bet is a good way to quantify conviction in a belief and expose fraud. Guess what folks…there is no conviction in the “natural origin theory…

Read more

4 years ago · 454 likes · 625 comments · Steve Kirsch

1- People were dying with a positive Covid-test and not from Covid

This changes everything:

Deaths for any reason within 28 days of a positive test

Different guidelines for reporting fatalities.

The governments gave the hospitals and doctors money for each positive “case” that they treated. So due to the “Cobra Effect”, the hospitals were trying to find lots and lots of “cases”.

There were also bonuses for Covid-deaths. And families were often urged to join in the fraud, so they could get a bonus from a diseased family member. This bonus could be the burial and/or the costs of the hospital treatment.

2- A positive Covid-test was based on a PCR test that gives 99% false positives

For the PCR test, the institutes use a falsely calibrated PCR test with far too many cycles. It was calibrated with 2 RNA-series based on a sample, with no direct connection to the SARS-Cov2 virus. The PCR could give false positives on a different viral infection, like the cold.

If performed correctly the PCR tests uses around 25 or 27 cycles. Beyond that it gives bullshit results. That was stated by Gary Mulish, “the science” Fauci, and many more people that used the PCR test.

The PCR test only looks at the remains. It can not tell if a virus is alive or dead, or that there are only remains that look like a virus. It can not tell if a person is ill, or even spreading a virus. There should be other testing after a positive test is found.

The PCR tests were performed with far too many cycles. The cycle threshold was usually over 35 (from 40 to 60 depending). This means that the test-sample is multiplied by 2 to-the-power-of 35, which is 32,000,000,000 times. This means that a extremely small contamination or a mistake in the multiplication would lead to a positive test. And samples were often reported as contaminated around the testing or in the labs.

A lot of false positives turned out to be influenza-A or influenza-B. Which is also due to the PCR being falsely calibrated.

The number of cycles was varied, depending on how eager the governments wanted to push the narrative of a wave.

There were also other tests, which were also badly calibrated. The only way to verify being sick of SARS-Cov2 is to do multiple of tests. And do proper sequencing.

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

Sanger sequencing vs. NGS sequencing

Sanger sequencing Sanger sequencing allows a lab to find the DOMINANT strain of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample. Two labs with the exact same sample should always find EXACTLY the same genetic sequence. This is important because a person might have 100 variants of the genome. This test finds the genomic sequence that is the most popular real, existing sequence…

Read more

4 years ago · 48 likes · 46 comments · Steve Kirsch

Due to the many false positives, there is a lot of confusion about whether COVID really exists. But we do see a new disease in certain hospitals according to doctors who treat them. And some of the doctors also got it themselves, like McCullough.

3- People with positive tests got the worst treatments

After you tested positive in the hospital, whether you got into the hospital for a broken leg, or for a lung-infection, there were no treatments for you. You were placed in isolation with a mask. Or in New York, you were placed back into the elderly care until you were too ill to stay.

Your actual problem was often not treated. There were no antibiotics used against a lung-infection. They did not have medicine that worked. Remdesivir pushed by “the science’ Fauci was shown never too work, and even cause kidney damage.

When people got worse, which happens sometimes when you do not treat them, they were put on a ventilator. Which is the worst thing ever. You would be put in an artificial coma so a mechanical lung could take over your body. If you had weak lungs due to an infection, it would slowly damage your lungs too.

So a lot of the “Long Covid” is caused by not treating the bacterial lung infections, damage to the lungs from the ventilators, etc.

Some doctors became whistleblowers in reporting that the ventilator killed patients. You could have 50% to 90% chance of death, depending on what hospital you were. Instead patients should be put on oxygen, which does not damage the lungs, and does not put people into coma.

… sometimes to murder them

This is based on reports that have to be investigated, but probably never will be investigated.

There were also reports of increased euthanizing of patients. In England the usage of the euthanasia drug was a lot larger. Were these patients choosing that for themselves out of fear? Or where the doctors deciding this for them? Funny enough the average age of deaths rose in England in 2020, because the disease seemed to replace the flu and was weaker than the flu.

Other reports were from hospitals in New York, where people would be given toxic doses of medicine related to the Ventilators. This was for profit, because the bonus for a Covid-death, was more than for a Covid-cure. In these hospitals the death rate was around 90%, instead of about 50% as in other places. Where no ventilators were used, there were far less deaths.

Later certain hospitals gave toxic doses of Hydroxychloroquine. Three times the maximum dose, which was well known. It is a drug that is safe enough to take every day, even when pregnant, when used in normal doses.

4- In many places, we already reached herd-immunity before the summer of 2020.

Herd immunity means that most people have good protection against the disease, which reduces severity, deaths and spread.

With no lock-downs and no social distancing, the herd-immunity is reached a lot faster. When a person has no symptoms he/she usually spreads so few viruses that other people receiving some viruses acquire immunity instead of getting sick. Irish study: chance within a household is 0.7%. Chinese study: chance of spread is 0%. The virus needs to transfer a large amount of viruses before another person can get ill.

5- Even the sun works together with Vitamin D

The Covid-19 is seasonal, due to the effectiveness of the respiratory system changing with the seasons. See video with Professor Gordon Lauc

But also is Vitamin-D essential for the workings of the immune system.
We see a huge effect in this study from India:

6- Many treatments and cures were blocked or even forbidden

The cheapest drugs worked very well. A full list of treatments and studies can be found at http://c19early.com

Hydroxychloroquine worked very well in combination with other drugs to increase its workings. Compared to other doctors, these doctors saved about 90% of their patients. Which can get a lot more when the other doctors used the killer treatments.

We also discovered the Nobel prize winning drug Ivermectin. A drug that works against many diseases, and can even treat cancer.

But for some “reason” the other “scientists” were not finding any improvements with Hydroxychloroquine.

Around Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) there were many FAKE SCIENCE studies. Some studies were completely made up, with fake hospitals. One was comparing a group near death with a healthy group, where HCQ was used as a final attempt. One was a query from the internet. And this went on. None of the Big Pharma studies were using the real protocols for HCQ. They did not use Zinc or other drugs that increased the effectiveness. Instead they made up their own protocols.
The worst one was performed by the FDA, where the patients got 3x the maximum dose of HCQ, making it toxic. In other words: people were murdered on purpose.

7- The POWER OF MONEY

It is very easy to see how much money is involved in blocking the treatments that do work.

We can also see how influential some of the extreme rich people are. People who are pushing for the GREAT-RESET agenda.

These people control most of the media and Big Tech. And many people in the governments via the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The WEF is building a communist world government via a network of very influential people.

8 - Some wise words

We have to support each other in building this new world, where we can use cheap and safe treatments. And where we are not government by rich psychopaths.

It will be a long way, but together we can do it.

The easy part is that any communist or totalitarian system will always fall apart. And when most people know what they are planning, this is even failing faster. We are now in a state of divorce.

The difficult part is that we have to work towards independence and the life that we want. So we have to act like it.

What if Covid hits a nursing home?

9- Not so wise words

For a full Analysis with references see:

Here is a short video: Lethal by Design

Introduction: There are 2 different agendas at work

Agenda 1: Global control. You will own nothing, they will own everything.
We already are seeing that the global elite and their WEF puppets in the governments are trying to install global totalitarian communism. They want to control people using social credit scores and a linked global digital currency. The vaccines are part of the social credit and global ID system. The currency can only be used if you have enough social credit. The CO2 credit is also part of the social credit.
All the actions are leading towards this.

Agenda 2: depopulation.
The data and science show that the “vaccines” are very destructive. And lethal by design.
This is in conflict with the above agenda, because now people have good reasons to reject the “vaccine” program. They are now fighting for their lives and for their children’s lives.

Below I will investigate the Depopulation option, and why this should be considered a real agenda.

Things that should never be done with immunization:

1- Why are they targeting children and pregnant women?

2- Why are they targeting healthy people?

3- Why are they targeting the natural immune people

4- Why use something that does not work?

5- Why are the side-effects actively hidden from public?

6- Why are we completely misinformed by the media?

7- Why are working medical treatments forbidden?

8- Why all this terror for a disease with a 99.98% survival rate

9- Vaccine mandates and other enforcement of the vaccines

Conclusion: They are pushing something that does not work. Even on people that will never need it.
This logically means that this is not for health or medical reasons.

The majority of people are affected by side-effects:

1- Extreme amount of short term deaths and permanent wounded
The majority of people had strong fevers and other side-effects. These became more severe with each “booster”.
Based on the data we have about 2% of people having permanent side-effects from the vaccine. (Via data from Steve Kirsch)
Ed Dowd: "Millennial age group, 25 to 44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality"
Bhakdi/Burkhardt pathology results show 93% of people who died after being vaccinated were killed by the vaccine

See http://stevekirsch.substack.com and http://jessica.substack.com for a good analysis of the real side-effect counts (short-term).

2- Extreme bloodclots caused by injections, in the majority of deaths.
Steve Kirsch: Embalmer reveals 93% of cases died from the vaccine
Steve Kirsch: Pathologist Ryan Cole on the mysterious blood clots

3- More than 60% of people have elevated D-dimer, indicating clots.
Emergency Medicine Doctor shows Micro Blood Clots in D-dimer Tests Following COVID-19 Shots
Dr Charles Hoffe - The D-Dimer test shows that 62% of patients have blood clots. Many have permanent damage in the capillary blood vessels.

4- All injected people have reduced immunity
This became visible after doing white blood-cell counts before and after the injections.
More widely reported is the VAIDS phenomenon.

5- The injections increase the rate of infection and the severity of the variants (or whatever is going around)

6- Abortions. Of the 29 pregnant subjects receiving C19 injection, only 1 healthy baby from the lot.

Massive Miscarriage Rates Among Vaccinated Pregnant Women Found Buried In The Pfizer Documents
Note that the trials started with 270 pregnancies and ended with just 1 normal outcome. A trial should have tracked every one of those pregnancies. The death/injured rate could be anywhere from 97% to 99.7%. Likely closer to the latter, due to the fraudulent nature of these trials. And additionally it causes infertility.
All by design, because we knew that this problem existed from the animal trials.

source - https://openvaers.com/covid-data/reproductive-health, via twitter

7- To hide these problems, the officials are committing fraud to blame those who did not join with the experiments

8- Covid was listed as the number 1 side-effect of the experimental injections. And this is logical because the injections cause a flood of spike-proteins in the body. And these spike-proteins give severe covid side-effects by default. Including long covid.

9- Poisoning by Lipid Nano Particles (Yes they are toxic)

10- Allergies related to virus vectors
(Because your immune system wants to fight them)

11- The enormous variations in the Batches indicate toxicity testing. This means that the injections are “tuned to kill the right amount of people.”. The right amount means that the deaths are hard to notice in the statistics.
Here is a discussion about this toxicity tuning (which is forbidden to perform on humans).

Guess who got “special batches”?

Long term side-effects

1- Heart problems
This is the most known side-effect. We see how healthy people suddenly die.
And the media try to pretend it is due to climate or stress or whatever.
Which is interesting, because we can see that the media is involved in covering up the side-effects to extreme extends.
The NIH now knows that the COVID vaccines can cause death 1 year from the vaccination date

2- Cancer
There are already waves of cancers. Due to the weakened immune system, and weakened DNA repair, we can expect more waves of cancer. Ryan Cole mainly reported on this.
Covid Vaccination and turbo cancer - pathological evidence

3- VAIDS
Even weak diseases are spreading now through the population.
And these diseases will become more deadly.

4- Auto-immunity
The immune system will attack the own body.
We will see this in organ failures, like liver and kidney.
Study: mRNA Vaccines may trigger Autoimmunity in of recipients (5.5% 2 dose, 17.58% 3 dose) — link to paper

5- Reduced male and female fertility
We see now a huge reduction in the amount of births in many countries.
Taiwan: Birth Rate Dropped -27.66% in June 2022!
The effect of BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine on menstrual cycle symptoms in healthy women
Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors

6- Prions
The vaccine spike-proteins are very similar to structures that are common in prions.
This means that they are likely to cause long term damage as prions.
Video on Bitchute - Interview

Conclusion: The majority of injected people may die due to the side-effects

More than 60% of people have heart problems, immune system problems, potential hidden deadly diseases like cancer and auto-immunity.

Because almost no-one is treating the real problems, many will not be able to cure it. People may recover if they work very hard to improve the health and self-healing capability of the body. But only a fraction will actually put effort in it.
Check http://www.flccc.net for how you can treat harm caused by the injections. And start the treatment if you had such an injection.

How many people will die from it within 5 years? Is 50% a reasonable estimate? Or is it lower because of some super-cure. Or is it higher due to the more hidden side-effects?

Depopulation is nothing new for Big Pharma

1- Big Pharma is filled with scandals
And a lot of them have been covered up from public.
The syphilis “scandal’,
Aids spread via contaminated blood plasma
Vaccines cause the disease that they should protect against.
Up to 500,000 Dead from a Headache Pill: The Pharmaceutical Mafia and Merck's Drug of Death

2- Sterilization for eugenics

3- Vaccines intimate connection with Eugenics
In Africa and India these practices were widely known.
The sterilization of a vaccine was named a positive side-effect.
The father of Bill Gates was into Eugenics.

Who Is Bill Gates? (Full Documentary, 2020)
Interview 1619 - Whitney Webb on the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links
All In The Family: Meet The Inbred Eugenics-Obsessed "Elite" Who Are Shaping Our World
The Technocratic Agenda: Sustainable Development and Climate Eugenics

The Winnowing by Isaac Asimov (book about depopulation by random poisoning)

The double agenda: do they want to control us or kill us?

1- Control over the world

This is what the WEF appears to be about. The richest and most powerful people gather together to make plans for the world. To have full control over all resources. Print money via central banks (=free money). They want to make themselves even richer.
The control over energy via CO2 is part of it. But also control of all the food supply.
Enslave the rest of the population via self-printed money and social credit system.

2- Depopulation

This appears to be the secret plan by a smaller group. More related to Rothchilds and people who hate other people completely. People that start wars and conflicts. Even Epstein is involved in it, as we can hear from his victims that they hated other people and wanted to use them as sex-slaves.
Goal: Reducing the population to maybe even below a billion. The recently destroyed guide-stones were mentioning 500 million. They pretend that it is for the “greater good” of humanity, like almost any genocide.

Will they use hunger as a weapon for depopulation?
With the current destruction of farming and agriculture it really seems part of the agenda.

Solutions

1- Do not follow any of the rules

2- Make other people think

3- Do not listen to Big Pharma

4- Take care of your own health

5- Go away from the madness

There are some sites that report on damage to biological systems caused by non-ionizing radiation.
http://microwavenews.com - where you can find 100s of scientific studies showing the bad effects of EMF.
http://emfscientist.org - protests against the technology to prevent further harm
globalresearch.ca - has some articles.
the Defender - several articles

Personally I do think that non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. But how can something that seems so universal harm you?

The technical basics

Ionizing radiation is radiation that splits molecules into ions. And we already know that at low levels this can be harmful. But what about non-ionizing radiation? From most sources we only learn that it may cause damage via heat.

In technical sense you need two things to make a biological system react to a non-ionizing electromagnetic wave:

1 - an antenna, which is anything that is conductive. The magnetic part of the wave can cause induction in a circular circuit. The electric part of the wave can cause a voltage difference between the poles of the antenna. They work best at certain wave lengths.

2 - A resonator. In a circuit we would see a capacitor and a spool. Something that resonates with the frequency and stores the energy from the electromagnetic wave. This stored energy can then later affect other biological systems in many ways. Due to the electro-chemical nature of biological systems, some of this can be hidden in the chemistry. Piezo-electric resonance is also possible. This is often used as clocks in silicon chips. Finally there is nuclear spin, but it is hard to tell how that translates to the biological system.

3 - An amplifier: Something that converts the electrical field into a biological reaction. In biological systems there are many things that react to the electrical field. There are lots of free ions. Lots of electrochemical sensitive systems. They can react locally to heating. The electrically polar structures can resonate or be broken.

Damage shown directly in experiments

First let me explain the different pathways in how non-ionizing EM-radiation have been shown to cause damage.

1 - Any EM-radiation can be ionizing, it depends on the power not just the frequency.
The most simple example is the spark-gap antenna.
A spark-gap antenna see wikipedia was the very first antenna that was discovered by Hertz. And by causing a spark in one machine, he could generate a spark in a different machine. A spark is the ionization of the air and can certainly be considered ionizing. But in literature the “ionizing radiation” is usually related to ultra-violet or X-rays. But as we can show “ionizing” can take place with any frequency.

2 - At a high level, plasma in cells can become conductive like a grape in a microwave.
See veritasium YouTube
This means that a low frequency EM-wave can cause ionization. And this ionization can create a very conductive area, which then can collect a lot of heat locally. So much that it starts radiating.

3 - Non-ionizing radiation can damage DNA.
Because DNA is conductive and reacts to electrical fields. This is more complex, so let me list the experiments:

Chemical engineers discover how to control knots that form in DNA molecules.
The MIT team found that they could manipulate knots in these pinned DNA molecules by varying the strength of the electric field.

CIA: Effects of non-ionizing radiation
p13: The effects of superhigh frequencies (accumulation of effects) Two weeks after the ending of exposure of rats to the 50 microwatt/cm2 field, the level of chromosome damage was considerably higher than after the end of the exposure. ..the chromosomal anomalies caused by irradiation from the 500 mircowatt/cm2 field markedly declined 2 weeks after the end of irradiation. This, can be explained by the fact that changes originating in the bone marrow cells under the effect of the high intensity of SHF radiation are so great that the damaged cells are eliminated. This leads to a reduction of the quantity of chromosomal damage.

4 - Electrical fields can push Ions through membranes and damage them. This is demonstrated in the experiments:

CIA: The effects of superhigh-frequency EM radiation on Electrophoretic mobility of erythrocytes
p1: (about previous experiment) We previously obtained direct experimental data on the effects of SHF waves on permeability of human erythocyte membranes to potassium and sodium ions. [These are also very active in the brain] Exposure of a suspension of erythrocytes to 45 mW/cm2 SHF radiation in the range of 1009 Mhz elicited an increase in amount of potassium ions and decrease in sodium ions in the incubation medium, as compared to the control...

5 - Electrical fields are related to regeneration and the shape of the organisms:
This is a far more complex phenomenon. The electrical fields seem very much involved in the shaping of our cells and our body. The video below lists the experiments that were showing this:

Video: the secret behind regeneration YouTube

Biological Antenna systems

For an antenna system you need 2 things. 1. Antenna 2 Amplifier or resonator. Together they determine which frequencies are received.

Antennas in biological systems: anything that is conductive.

1- DNA as a fractal antenna
2- The nerve-system
3- The ions in the blood streams
Probably many other pathways

Resonators:
These need further research!

1 - Microtubules may have certain resonating frequencies.
They may also be conductors.
From microscope images, I noticed that viruses follow these microtubules 2 - Micro-engines with electro-chemical actions
The mitochrondia contain micro-engines that generate ATP using electrical fields.
3 - Big molecular structures with electrical dipoles

Amplifiers:

1 - Any voltage gated ion channel. Calcium channels or the Synapses of the nerve system
Martin Pall: Electromagnetic field exposures act via calcium channels YouTube
Any change in the electrical fields can change how they function.

Problems with scientific research

1 - Current safety guidelines are based on the obsolete hypothesis that heating is the only harmful effect of EMFs. As Markov and Grigoriev have stated, “Today standards do not consider the real pollution of the environment with nonionizing radiation”.[94] Hundreds of scientists, including many signatories to this appeal, have proven that many different kinds of acute and chronic illnesses and injuries are caused without heating (“non-thermal effect”) from radiation levels far below international guidelines.9 Biological effects occur even at near-zero power levels. Effects that have been found at 0.02 picowatts (trillionths of a watt) per square centimetre or less include altered genetic structure in E. coli and in rats, altered EEG in humans , growth stimulation in bean plants, and stimulation of ovulation in chickens.

2 - Why Peer Review Panel and NTP Interpreted the Same Animal Data Differently http://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-peer-review-sees-tumor-risk

Now I am going to criticize some ideas that were spread recently about 5G ..

But feel free to investigate and discuss the things that you found.

I see a lot of horror stories circling around pretending to be real. This increases the division. That is why I educate how these are wrong

Covid and 5G - unrelated

The 5G is unrelated to covid. We can look at France (no 5G but high number of severe cases). Sadly the video explaining the information has been censored by youtube

There is also confusion of what and how much radiation is actually produced compared to wifi and 4G (and other factors). There are many different technologies in 5G and 6G, and most seem related to surveillance. We also need to look at other factors, like food, Vtiamin-A, B, C, D and medicine like HCQ/Ivermectin.

The reason why people thought that it was related, was because some of the symptoms seemed similar. And because 5G was started in Wuhan before the break-out. This was not true in all areas, but initiated a scare-wave.

The radiation of 5G and 4G and WIFI may reduce the natural immunity, may affect oxygen intake, and could have some influence in that sense. But it is not the same thing. People have no trouble breathing when they have their 5G phones near their own heads.

Vaccines and 5G - unrelated

The experimental injections falsely named "vaccines", are not containing any technology that could react to specific EM-frequencies. So there is no relationship between 5G and the "vaccines".

Here is my safety analysis for the experimental "vaccine". And I think that they are very harmful.

Does the experimental "vaccine" resonate with the 5G?
No. And this needs a tech person to understand why not. You need an antenna-system and a resonator or amplifier. Certain biological structures can act like an antenna. The voltage gated calcium channels are the amplifier. They amplify the electrical signal to a chemical change in the cells.
With graphene we see nothing of that.

What about the patents for magnetic graphene or self-assembling structures or the interface with the brain?
They are working on all kinds of technologies that can work with very specialized equipment in a laboratory. But in no way do they work outside the laboratory and without the specialized equipment.
Each new technology has a lot of limitations. And if you are worried about it, just look at those limitations first. It is usually one big hype. And they need the hype to get investors. So the makers of these patents pretend that it is all very advanced and working. But in reality it is never that easy.

"Magnetic vaccines"
The evidence for "magnetic skin vaccines" is very bad. You can verify this with magnetism measurements, but they only do it with small magnets or coins. Some of the videos are clearly faked for internet-points.

Here is magnetic boy Ivan with the very sticky skin
And this sticky skin may explain why the coins or magnets stick to the moist skin. It is probably related with the severe inflammation that the "vaccines" cause. And this is already a bad side-effect.

If you want to measure magnetism, you should measure with iron and with copper. And magnetic poles.
You also have magnetic cards that show you exactly how the field is located. Sticking things to the skin is not proof of anything. It just proofs that your skin is sticky.

I saw videos with people using bluetooth scanners to proof that there are bluetooth devices nearby. Like smart-lamps, fridge, TV-monitors and smart-phones. All these devices form a long list in a busy place. So these people claim falsely that people themselves are now blue-tooth devices… due to the injections. It is just crazy talk. Please stop that. You are only scanning the smart devices around you, of which there are so many today.

"graphene oxide"

The evidence for "graphene-oxide" is very weak. It is mainly hype mixed with science-fiction. It is based on a few researches finding something that “might” be graphene oxide. Or something else entirely. Additionally there are some patents about graphene-oxide on which mRNA is planted. There were plans to use these as vaccines.

Then there are many people looking with a microscope and find all kinds of pollution in the “vaccines”. It does not look like real graphene-oxide, which are single thin straps.

Whatever this is. This pollution should not be in there.
Note that real graphene is used in filters. It could come from the filters in the laboratory as it is advertised for usage in the lab. It can also come from masks or other sources. There is no quality assurance (QA) in the production, and pollution can be expected. Without proper QA, it should never be used in the first place.

There are indeed patents "to deliver vaccines with graphene into the cells". But that would need far more of these graphene strings than we see in the microscope. We would see billions of strings, not one or ten. They also look different.

I have seen all kinds of things in these microscope images:
a - weird strings of some kind in small amounts. (=pollution)
b -broken slices of some kind. Could be silicon-chip or glass. (=pollution)
c - cubic crystal structures that are probably caused by drying. Get a chemist to find out what they really are. They are not self-assembling technology. They are cubic crystals, so not 6-sided graphene/graphene-oxide.
d - big spheres that are actually very similar to CO2 bubbles under a microscope. Check out coca cola under microscope YouTube

Due to the hype and craze, I see a lot of videos about it that claim that the vaccine is related to 5G.
But as you can see above, there is no relationship.
And I think that the opposition is pushing the fear around this on purpose.
Partially by making a normal discussion and a normal investigation impossible.

"Is Hypnosis Fake?" Hypnotist stuns TEDX crowd - Video (Youtube)

About the use of hypnosis and mass formation in the Covid crisis

You will Comply - Hypnotist explains the Covid mass hypnosis - Video(Bitchute)

Mattias Desmet - The mass formation in the "CORONA CRISIS" - Video (Bitchute)

Mattias Desmet - Second interview

The mind is not continuous nor consistent

Your mind is split up into many different functions. Observation, awareness, attention, action, sustaining. All in one example: We can observe a ball, be aware that it is coming towards us, shift attention towards it, act to catch it, breath and balance our body at the same time.

If you have trained a lot, most is handled by the instinct, making you very fast. It does require almost no attention to be aware and act.

If you have no training it takes time to observe, be aware of your situation, shift attentions, calculate movement, start movement..

The difference is failure or succes.

In nature it is could mean surive or die. So it is one major part of our natural system. To survive, the instinct-mind rules over the active mind.

Who is the thinker and who is the decision maker?

To make it simple I split up all the facets of the mind into 2 major parts: The active mind that is able of logical thinking and reflection. And the instinct mind that is able to react quickly in danger.

It is simple:
IF there is danger, the instinct mind decides.
and IF there is peace, the active mind decides.
In this order.

So this is the first step in hypnosis. Create a situation that makes the instinct mind perceive that there is a danger. The active mind does not even need to know.

The hypnosis starts by creating a fear, while the active mind perceives help.
The perception of help is important to prevent the active mind from making a different decision.

To replace the active mind, the instinct-mind starts to create its own logic. And if ithe fear gets worse, it can create its own illogical reality.

People can become victims of their own instinct mind. They can no longer accept reality.

And people that live in their own illogical world, can become obsessed and start to force other people to become part of their world.

How to program the hypnosis

Because the instinct-mind is illogical there are other ways to program this part of the mind.
The instinct-mind tries to avoid danger.

The instinct-mind listens to commands.

The instinct-mind listens to the group

And the instinct-mind believes in a greater goal

At the same time the active mind is disabled

The programming is confusing and contradictionary, and makes no sense.

This way the active mind is not able to make decisions in clarity. The more confusion, the harder it is for the active mind to gain control again.

The only escape seems to follow the programming. And this programming is repeated over and over. Until you become part of the system.

Why follow logic?

Can we outsmart the hypnosis?

As long the instinct mind is in fear, the active mind stays the slave of the instinct mind. This means that the mind will work hard to support the programming that it receives. It will make up reasons why the programming is correct and beneficial. It will oversimplify it and rationalize logical conflicts. It will try to avoid conflicting information, nor better investigations. The person will try to convince others. And accept no questions or dissent.

The mind will try to cover-up the real-world situation, instead of solve the real-world situation.

So NO, we can not outsmart the hypnosis. But we can treat it by helping the fear that our instinct consciousness has. The fear needs to be felt and understood. It needs healing and time.

Towards healing your own hypnosis

Most people have parts of their minds in some form of hypnosis. But they can only heal theirselves. So here is an advice how to heal your own hypnosis.

Whether you are aware of your own hypnosis, does not matter. Nor what kind of hypnosis it is. The problem is usually a separation of different parts of your mind. And in this separation we may find fear.

The active mind can be very good at finding ways to avoid fear. Or being aware about it. But what one really needs is to listen to the instinct mind, without the need to act to it. It needs to explain its fears in an environment where it feels safe. The mind in fear needs the peaceful mind to listen to it.

This can be in nature with a meditation

Or enjoying nature or painting

From inner peace one can restore the connections between your minds.
You may even uncover even more parts of you that needed healing.

And from healing you grow

Introduction:
A lot of people were injected with an experimental product that was falsely named a ‘vaccine”. The WHO has changed the definition of “vaccine” a few times to backup the propaganda.

Most of the "Vaccines" against covid are not vaccines. They do not contain dead or weakened virus materials. Instead they use artificial mRNA or DNA to let the body make one single protein of the virus-model, the spike-protein. This is also the most dangerous toxic protein.

Do you think that the “vaccine” will give you 90% protection? No. It is only about 19%. And then we still forget about the side-effects. The amount of severe side-effects and deaths are higher for the vaccine group in all random trials.
[This video exposes the corrupt statements strongly](https://rumble.com/v19h3ww-secret-cdc-director-briefing-video-the-real-story-behind-the-covid-vax.html)

Many people will have already reported on the huge amount of adverse reactions of this experimental "vaccine".
How many Adverse reactions are there?
Over One Thousand Scientific Studies Prove That the COVID-19 Vaccines Are Dangerous

Summary of how these problems are caused below:

1. The spike-proteins cause damage.

..and the experts knew it.

The spike proteins are used in all of the injections. There is almost no difference between the artificial spike-protein and the spike-protein from SARS-Cov/2 (the COVID virus). The S1 part of the spike-protein is the same. The S2 part of the spike protein is even worse in its effect.

More explained by the inventor of the mRNA technology that was later used for the toxic vaccines.

The side-effects of large amountx of the SARS-Cov2 spike-protein is well documented. This happens only after severe covid, and without proper treatments.
The damage from the vaccine is far worse, because the mRNA or DNA are programmed to make unlimited amounts of these spike-proteins.

So we get blood clots, red blood cells sticking together, disabling of T-cells. It is far worse than getting severe covid.

When you are injected, the mRNA (or DNA in some "vaccines") forces many cells to make lots of spike-proteins. That is far more than a normal Covid infection does, because the artificial mRNA lasts far far longer. While a normal mRNA lasts for hours, the artificial mRNA has been seen active for more than 60 days.. The coding is also optimized for spike-protein production. There is no stopping code in the RNA or DNA. Even worse. The immune system can not recognize the mRNA to break it apart.

The cells work better when you are healthy, and will produce more of the spike-proteins. So you are making your own poison. Healthy young people make more of this poison.

From research we see that the injection spreads all over the body. Via the blood or via the lymph system. Due to the way the injection spreads over the body, the mRNA (or DNA) can be found in all organs. These cells in these organs will bombard the body with spike-proteins, until the genetic code breaks apart, after months.

Physical evidence to show this cause of harm:

a- The damage is already visible with the D-dimer test. The tests show blood-clots in 60% of injected.

b- we can also see the red blood-cells clotting under the microscope. A lot of the damage is already known from experiments with animal, where they try to understand how the spike-proteins damages the body. In the papers they state that they study the damage of covid, but it is really the damage of the vax that they are showing.

c- Update: Coroners find big sticky bloodclots in majority of bodies, which are all injected with the experiments. Cononers with their findings 1 - 65% and 2 - 93%.
Investigated by Ryan Cole

d - Spkie protein binds to and changes cells in the heart

e - The Spike protein can cause long-term prion diseases.
MIT senior scientist Stephanie Seneff (knows a lot about prions and Alzheimer)
The injections are likely to make prions and cause a severe brain disease Video on Bitchute - Interview
Jessica Rose on Prions (1) RSFIEDLLFNKV... are we looking at weaponized amyloidosis? And what of prions? An exploratory piece. (2) Prion Diseases are no joke

f - The Spike protein impairs the DNA-repair and the adaptive immune machinery. See recent paper in comments.

g - The spike-protein causes neural-damage paper.

h - The spike-protein causes Pulmonary Vascular Endothelialitis, Thrombosis, and Angiogenesis paper 1.

i - These spike-proteins get into every part of the body (paper), and stay around for a long time,even up to 4 months paper

j - The spike proteins have protein structures that can cause prions Other link

k - Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality

2. Your immune system will destroy your own cells by design

Just how do you think the immune system will react when your own cells start to produce a toxic product?

Cells all over the body will be invaded with the mRNA or DNA in a way that they start producing the spike-proteins for a long time. For at least 60 days.

Because they are producing the spike-proteins and these are visible on the surface, the immune cells will see them as a target. The immune system sees these cells as an enemy and destroy them.

This means that a lot of important cells are being destroyed by your own immune system. They can be cells in vital organs, like the liver, heart or the brain.

This form of auto-immunity, and has been detected in 50% of autopsies (for now).
It will happen faster if you are already immune, like many people (>50%).

If the immune system overreacts, it can also produce antibodies against its own cells. This means that the own cells will be seen as an enemy. Forever.

There are reports that the immune cells themselves are also infected. They may absorb the mRNA from the cells that they have killed. This may be a reason for the continuous attacking that we see in some victims.

Physical evidence to show this cause of harm

There are a lot of people with leaking blood-vessels. These are directly caused by the immune system attacking the cells with injected mRNA or injected DNA.

Blood clots and Leaky Vessels - Doctors4CovidEthics
Bloodclots and leaky vessels may also be visible on eye-retinal-scans (Dr. Bhakdi).

Autopsie results: Most victims died due to auto-immunity caused by the experimental "vaccine"

Prof. Schönitzer: Activated killer cells or antibodies destroy the cells of the vaccinated person that are marked with spikes

Damage to the immune system is confirmed in this study

3. The artificial genetic codes of the mRNA are causing harm

The artificial mRNA disables your immune system

The mRNA uses artificial codons instead of the natural codons. They use the modified Uridine nucleoside denoted as Ψ (modified) instead of its natural form U (Uridine). It is more stable and not recognized by the immune system.

This is to prevent detection by the cell's own anti-viral defense. It also breaks a part of the immune system.

Newly discovered science: This seems to confuse the cells, and disables the full anti-viral and anti-dna defense. These cells are now more open to viral infections. The cells will no longer stop broken DNA from entering the cells. And this means that broken DNA can spread among cells. This can cause cancer. Observations: There is 20x more cancer among vaccinated. Note: It can also be caused by other factors. Like the reduction in killer T-cells (cd8) and other disturbances.

Stabilizing the code

According to this research ( https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm ), the mRNA can embed itself into our own genes. The same may be valid for the DNA injections, but needs more research.

4. Antibody Dependent Enhancement.

From many early animals studies we have seen this problem a lot. And for this reason the companies invented the “booster”.

The immune system does not fight a real virus, so it has trouble to figure out how to balance the antibodies. There are identifying anti-bodies (targets virus) and neutralizing antibodies on the B-cells (destroys virus). For some reason, it is more effort to make (and keep making) the neutralizing antibodies, so they can be lacking.

This means that the virus can be identified without being killed. And not even by the other parts of the immune system, because they recognize the virus as "identified".

So when the neutralzing antibodies are declining, the experimental "vaccine" can make you more sick.

There is also the problem of antibody “specialization”, as described by Geert vanden Bosche. By having a lot of antibodies for one specific variant of a virus, the immunity is less for other variants of the virus.
See here interview with Malone and vanden Bosche

Physical evidence to show this kind of harm

It is a well known problem. We saw this in the problem in laboratory tests with animals. It is also the reason why there are 2 shots necessary, and boosters at later stages.

In places where almost all people are injected, we see also an increase in the number of deaths from the virus. Especially after some time. While in the same country the un-injected have less severe outcomes.
Another factor is the damage to the immune system by (1,2,3 above).

See studies animal trials and the publications by Dr Robert Malone videos (heavily censored).
link: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext"

• Antibody Dependent Enhancement (many studies)
  https://ghionjournal.com/humanity-crosshairs-vaccine-generated-antibody-dependent-enhancement https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2538-8
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32920233/
  https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-the-coronavirus-vaccines https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-vaccines

• Ferret Studies:
  https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
  Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15755610/
  Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets | Journal of Virology https://jvi.asm.org/content/78/22/12672.abstract
  SARS vaccine linked to liver damage in ferret study | CIDRAP https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
  The SARS-CoV ferret model in an infection-challenge study - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18234270/

• Rabbit Studies: Humoral immune responses in rabbits induced by an experimental inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine prepared from F69 strain - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15569476/

• Mice studies:
  Comparative evaluation of two severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) vaccine candidates in mice challenged with SARS coronavirus - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16476986/

5. The vaxed are a variations factory

You are spreading it to another

The antibodies also have trouble with identifying small variations, unlike natural immunity. This means that a virus can easily pass through the defenses. And even better, because the immune system relies more on the anti-bodies as it was trained to do so. In air-born diseases the infection comes first via the respiration system. This has its own immunity system. There are T-cells to fight the viruses and a slime-cells that capture the viruses. These cells also use the remains of the viruses to build anti-bodies. That is why most people only get a cold. With the injected experimental "vaccine" the immune system has no time to build anti-bodies and immediately has to go into panic mode. Which is why most get a strong fever.
This will also cause a reliance on this defense, and the antibodies will only activate in the blood. The airborne infection can still spread via the respiration system and infect other people. It can also much easier create variations that can pass through the anti-body defense. So by design, the injected create their own variant that can no longer be recognized by the antibodies.

Physical evidence for this kind of harm

We see the growing of variants in all countries that have high rate of people injected with the Experiments.
See the publications by Geert van der Bossche video YouTube

Vaccines: Breeding Ground for COVID Variants

• https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/

• https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

• https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20171004/scientists-learn-how-flu-virus-changes-so-quickly

• https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx

• https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1

• https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001009/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdf

• https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9760519/Family-demand-answers-father-fights-life-ventilator-having-AstraZeneca-jab.html

• https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-bis-31-05-21.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

• https://abc7.com/delta-variant-epsilon-vaccine-coronavirus-variants/10872667/

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9775925/Can-long-Covid-cured-monthly-dose-vaccine.html

6. A lot of the data is secret, even the ingredients

Each batch (lot) the manufacturers try some new mixtures

We do not even know what is in the first serums that were released on the population. Also the manufacturers are changing the ingredients regularly. Will there be more or less poison with the next batch? Are they still doing tests?
The outcome of their tests are also secret. The governments have just accepted on face-value (=bribe-value) that the tests were done correctly, and that the data was correct. From peer-reviewers (like Peter Doshi) and the observations we can clearly see that the data was incorrect.

The manufacturers are even immune from lawsuits. Which is one of the worst things. They can now produce whatever shit they want with no oversight.

Physical evidence that show that the manufacturers are causing harm.

Thanks to lawsuits a lot of the secret data of the first trials have been released.
Deanna McLeod
Better analysis of the Pfizer data and the real world data
We now know that the first trials were never succesful and that they have been mixing up groups to get the results that they wanted.
Discussions around the Pfizer documents and Moderna documents are on other substacks.

8. Lipid Nano Particles

We already knew these are toxic

The lipid-nanoparticles can cause strong allergic reactions with sudden deaths.

• Toxicity of LNPs

  • Safe Nanoparticles: Are We There Yet? - MDPI

  • Toxicity and immunogenicity concerns related to PEGylated-micelle carrier systems: a review - STAM

• Allergic Reactions

  • Allergic Reactions and Anaphylaxis to LNP-Based COVID-19 Vaccines - Elsevier Molecular Therapy

• Biodistribution

  • Pfizer Biodistribution Study - Acuitas Therapeutics

  • In vivo fate and intracellular trafficking of vaccine delivery systems - Elsevier

9. Standard toxic ingredients

Some older vaccines were also toxic

Many of the ingredients are toxic and some of them are in very large quantities.
Some experimental vaccines (like phizer) are mostly anti-freeze, because they are stored at very low temperatures.

10. Quality problems in production and weird stuff.

What is floating around it there? Who is doing the quality control? Right. No-one.

A lot of researchers found all kinds of weird shit in the vaccines.
There is hardly any quality control of the vaccines, so a lot may be related to contamination and pollution.
Some people claim to have found experimental graphene-oxide vaccines. This has been hyped to extreme levels. But the evidence very clearly really lacking. Many people just use it as a buzzword, because they see something that they do not understand. What we do clearl see is some kind of pollution.

Big Pharma could still do all kinds of experiments on our bodies, because no-one is verifying the ingredients of the serums.
We do not even know how many of these serums are just placebos.
By varying the contents of the serums Big Pharma can also hide the side-effects of the experimental vaccines.

11. Injection right into the blood

A shot to the heart.

A problem is that the injection may not go into a vein or artery directly. To prevent this the injector needs to do several checks before it happens. And these checks do often not happen, because the injections are often don by less experienced nurses.
If it goes into the blood directly the serum will spread all over the body very quickly and cause damage everywhere. This might be the reason for the sudden deaths that we see.

But researchers found out that about 75% of the mRNA-capsules go all over the body anyway. Probably transported by the lymph system. It can be expected that this happens for all the experimental vaccines.

The serum needs to be diluted with saline solution to make it usable and less toxic. And this procedure may be skipped and serums and saline might be mixed up.

12. Enormous differences between batches

The differences appear to show that they are still experimenting with us. What is their true goal?

As more information is revealed we see enormous differences between the batches.
The lots are not the same.
We already see that some people have no problems, while others have severe problems. Why is that?

The way it is spread over time, it shows clear evidence of toxicity testing.
This is beyond quality problems or differences in reporting.

http://www.HowBad.info <- to check how bad each batch is.

This toxicity testing is an indication that these injections are balanced so that they kill, without being obvious.
This leads to the high possibility that we are witnessing Depopulation by Injection.
This can be done by just a few people modifying the gene sequences.
Depopulation is discussed here

This was all known. And it seems planned

All this was already known before we knew about Covid.

The spike-proteins of viruses were already known to be toxic. Auto-immunity was known. Artificial mRNA are always dangerous. ADE is well documented. Lipid Nano-particles are toxic.

It seems as if it was all planned by design.

This Experiment is extremely dangerous, it is "full of shit".
It is severe Covid, Ebola, Cancer, Aids, combined and does not even work for a longer time.

The experimental "vaccine" is not very effective at all.

It never worked and never could work

Here is the official data from many countries:
Each time when the injections start, the covid-deaths rise dramatically BitChute

There is no scientific evidence that this experimental "vaccine" ever saved a single life

The Covid Vaccines were designed to fail
For bad reasons, they might have wanted to create a "leaky vaccine". A leaky vaccine can increase the deaths among the unvaccinated see link

Immunology 101: why intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination must fail
https://doctors4covidethics.org/immunology-101-why-intramuscular-covid-19-vaccination-must-fail/

The COVID vaccines were designed to fail (Nov. 25th 2021)
https://doctors4covidethics.org/the-covid-vaccines-were-designed-to-fail-nov-25th-2021/

Tip: How to reduce side-effects

See: Recover protocol by FrontLine Critical Care Doctors
Ivermectin helps a lot by a large group of patients.
Fasting helps to reset your cells and increase regeneration capabilities.

Tip: How to get immune for life

Natural immunity wins
If you want to become immune, visit a friend who has been tested positive but is not symptomatic. You can also go out in public spaces and to parties. Based on the real-world data, we see that people that have had a lot of contact with other people are almost all immune. When people are asymptomatic the viral load that they spread is so low that your immune system can easily build up a defense. Use the cheapest anti-viral medicine and you will have it very easy. Link

BONUS: Expert videos on the Safety and Effectiveness of the Experimental Injections

Recently I found these great videos from channel Wishcraft8121 explaining in scientific details what is wrong.

VIDEO - Lethal By Design

VIDEO - Greatest Weapon

VIDEO - Abomination of Medicine

VIDEO - Anti-Science

VIDEO - Anti-Life

Bonus2: Additional summary by Steve Kirsch

Steve Kirsch's newsletter

Evidence of harm

Executive summary Here’s a high level collection of some of the most compelling pieces of evidence I’ve seen to date. This is not an exhaustive list, but just the key pieces of data that are impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective…

Read more

4 years ago · 670 likes · 381 comments · Steve Kirsch

Narrative level 1) The climate science is settled.

This is a total lie, as different climate models are still being developed. This does not only mean changing parameters, complicated dynamics, but also different factors.

Climate Models for the Layman with Dr. Judith Curry

The funny thing is that the ones that work best, are those that do not use CO2 in their models (Russian model).

Newer models are still being developed that also include the sun's activity
These Milankovitch Cycles (and more) are factors that influence the temperature.

So the models are showing the opposite of what the narrative is telling us.

But what this narrative did is horrible:
It blocked all valid criticism.
And this turned most of the climate science into bullshit.
Because now the scientists had to maintain the myth. So they keep claiming that that their models were settled and that all data is showing it.
To maintain the myth, the first frauds were showing soon. (first climate gate).

Narrative level 2) How can science be wrong?

a) Lie 1 - There is a huge majority that supports the narrative.

This is also a lie. The majority was fabricated by the technocracy who selected a small group of climate scientists that had papers with this result.

Maybe they did it, because they were concerned.

b) Lie 2 - Specialists / experts in climate science know best.

Similarly: All specialists in astrology confirm that astrology works.

Explanation: specialists in an area often create a group-think that confirms a positive belief in their topic.

Specialists also use the same tool and same logic over and over again.
Even if the circumstances or data change.
So specialists in such a fixed state, will likely produce errors.

Narrative level 3) The earth is getting warmer. The data is correct.

I found out that this is not true at all:
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

a) The data was often cherry-picked and manipulated.
b) Of different measurements of the same area the hottest were selected.
c) Gaps in the data were filled in with hot spots.
d) Cold spots were turned into hot spots.
e) Historical data was changed.
Fun fact: Vikings grew barley in Greenland
f) False measurements that showed extreme heat were used.
- measurements thermometers from hot sunny roofs,
- falling winds from mountains causing natural sudden temperature rises
g) The maps in the media and the maps published by NASA are continuously different.

h) water absorbs about 99% of the heat in the atmosphere, That means that CO2, NH4 (methane) can be neglected in the global temperature.

Hot water releases CO2, that is why historical records have some correlation between temperature and CO2. The causation is inverted.

Instead of gradual warming up, the climate is following the sun's cycles as a clock.

With the latest satellite data we also see other related myths disappear:

a) The sea-level is not rising.
NASA scientist explains with extreme accurate satellite data YouTube

The sea is clearly not rising. Also when we measure it via very accurate satellites.
What we see are some cities sinking due to heavy buildings standing on a moving ground.

b) Sea ice is not shrinking.

Narrative level 4) We only have a few years left.

With a few degrees warmer, the temperature will run out of control!

Well.. No.

Even the IPCC who started it is now denying this myth YouTube

Any physical system is usually stabilizing. The earth has already been hotter than today and cooled down, so it is stable towards a nice temperature.

The scientists studying the run-away model, found that there were some huge mathematical errors in it.

The idea of a run-away temperature comes from a bad and old model of the planet Venus. Venus is hot and has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the old idea is that this may work the same for Earth. That is why 100 years ago scientists started to worry about this happening.

On earth water is the most dominant greenhouse gas. So it works completely different, even if Venus is hot due to CO2.

Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is -0.02 Degrees Celsius YouTube

There is no Climate Emergency - signed by 500 scientists - pdf

Narrative level 5) Many natural factors don't matter.

a. Clouds

Yes clouds are neutral in the climate model. Yet we can see that clouds have a lot of influence to our weather. They can keep us warm or keep us cold. The hottest days are usually with a thin layer of clouds. And clouds in the night keep the night warm. But think layers of clouds can reflect the sun, and make days very cold.
Rain and snow also transport the cold in the higher atmosphere down to the surface. This can lower the surface temperature in degrees per minutes.

b. Sun

Yes, the climate scientists ignore the sun.

It is even worse: When the sun produces the most energy, the dominant climate model sees its influence as cooling. That is because the sun has slightly less ultraviolet light. But evidence shows that the total electromagnetic energy is much stronger at those times.

See Climate Forcing YouTube

c. Volcanoes

Volcanic activity can melt ice in arctic regions. And at those times panic breaks out under climate alarmists. That is because the models do not incorporate the volcanic activity. Even though Iceland and a lot of regions have hot water springs.

When a volcano spews smoke, the smoke can block a lot of the sun. With huge outbursts this can change the climate dramatically and cool the whole earth a few degrees. Yet, this is also not included in the model.

d. Jet-streams and ocean streams.

Jet streams dominate our weather completely. If the Jet stream comes from the arctic, the land gets the arctic temperatures. This can be very cold (yeti-stream) in the winter, or moderate in the summer. Note: the northern regions can become moderately warm due to continuous sunshine.

The same is when wind comes from the Sahara or other hot regions. The air becomes desert hot.

The hot and dry summer days in Europe were dominated by a jetstream directly from the Sahara. And the cold spring and wet summer in the US were dominated by the jetstream from the north. That is how simple it works.

The weather models look a bit at the jetstreams, but for some reason they are ignored when talking about the climate.

Additionally we have ocean streams that also transport heat and cold from other regions. They are more stable, but change a lot too.

The narrative climate model tries to model the ocean streams, but there is still a lot of discussion around it.

Note: the jet streams change clearly with the sun's activity.

Narrative Level 6) Human factors that don't matter:

a) Buildings - Ever been in a city during summer?

b) Airplanes - On 9/11 plane-traffic was grounded. This was also the most sunny day on Earth.

This clearly means that cloud-cover is increased by airplane traffic. The cloudforming and pollution depends on jet-engine and the height of flight.

c) Deforestation -
The narrative model sees forests are seen as heating, because they have a lot of surface.
But have you ever been in a forest in summer? It is cool.
That is because the biochemical processes absorb this heat and turn it into wood and food.

The result is that governments are now cutting away healthy forests.
They use the wood to generate electricity, and this is called CO2 neutral.
Neutral my ass!

d) Agriculture -
Bare land, or fields of grain or wet rice fields are very different. They can have a huge influence on the temperature.

Above houses and above grain fields you can easily find hot spots of air.

Both deforestation and local agriculture can cause dramatic erosion.

e) Factories, power plants

Ever been in an industrial area with lots of heavy industry?

What about a continuous smoke in the area?

Or the cooling of a nuclear plant or the cooling of a cloud service.

f) Climate control, air-conditioning

Besides your own building's air-conditioning and heating there is climate control on greater levels.

There are experiments with cloud seeding, cloud removal, and even cooling of the air. The extend of this is under discussion, and most of it is secret.
g) Industrial accidents
They happen from time to time and regularly create environmental disasters.

h) The military
Even during peace-time there is a lot of pollution. From the machinery, transports, the weapons and the soldiers.

Narrative level 7) The CO2 is more dangerous than:

a) pesticides.
b) red tide.
c) smog / pollution.
d) nuclear waste.
e) acid rain.
f) oil slicks, fracking and cleaning.
g) water vapour.
h) fishing
i) hunting.

Narrative level 8) There are also many other bad side-effects to CO2.

See - Exposing Junk Climate Science

a) Acidity of ocean.
The acidity seems related to acid rain due to pollution, and due to agriculture.

The "bleaching of the coral" is caused by the age of the coral.
According to a specialist, they die after a certain age.

b) Hurricanes / Extreme weather.
As I stated above. The extreme weather is related to solar activity.
That is because the solar flares, which are 10-100 times bigger than earth, sometimes reach the earth itself.

c) Starving Ice-bears.
The polar bear hoax - Corbett report

Narrative 9) The west produces the most CO2.

Oh wait it is china and the third world.
(heavy industry)

QUESTIONABLE SOLUTIONS

If you still believe in CO2 being bad.. the technocratic organisations, push non-working solutions. I will keep it short..

1. CO2-credit, which allows big corps to continue regardless

2. Raise taxes

3. Nuclear energy.

4. Cut trees for energy.

5. Remove plastic straws

6. Stop eating meat

7. Geoengineering

The effect is that the real producers of CO2 will continue, while everyone else must suffer.
So, these solutions don't work!

Solutions that may work are solar and wind energy.
But they are very limited: no big industry can survive with solar and wind.

SOLUTIONS THAT ARE NOT TALKED ABOUT

IF CO2 is a problem, These solutions may actually work!

1. Plant trees.

2. Stop wars.

3. Reduce pentagon budget.

4. Stop or reduce pumping of oil, stop fracking.

5. Reduce space missions.

6. Reduce industry.

7. Reduce transport.

8. More organic style agriculture / permaculture.

THE BIG MYTH - THERE IS NO AGENDA

The CO2 narrative even got supported by big investors, including oil-companies.

They clearly wanted a piece of the pie, whatever that pie is.

Main agenda goals:
1 - the control of all energy.
2 - the establishment of a world currency linked to energy (and CO2).
3 - the establishment of a (corrupt) world government for resources.

4 - Eugenics

How and why Big Oil conquered the world.
Corbett report - general discussion

A Century Of Climate Crisis YouTube

SOURCES

1000frollyPhD
Scientists (from NASA) talking about climate.

SuspiciousObservers
Science and climate news and some documentaries.
Check out the climate forcing documentaries

Corbett Report on climate
Goes into each part of the climate science.

Related article on ZeroHedge:
Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

http://www.realclimatescience.org
The site often explains with clear evidence, how the climate people rewrite history to fit to their own believes. The site lists clear scientific frauds by just a few climate scientists.

Goes into https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
This happens often. A drama is claimed by scientists, but this does not pass review after publication. But we never see the past-publication reviews.

Take the climate quiz (with references)

Quick overview

The Sun versus CO2..
Who will win?

We are in the lowest CO2 levels since Earth’s history. A bit lower and all trees and plants will die.

With models we create a mathematical or logical representation of reality.

All models have a limitation

Example: I wanted to make a simulator for a small square on the sun. This to increase our understanding of the sun and potential problems.
I needed to model the flow of electrons, the flow of different ions, possible chemical reactions, possible nuclear reactions, possible electrical and magnetic influence, transfer and blocking of electrical and magnetic fields, induction currents, pressure and speed differences (like Stokes), gravity, ionizing radiation, heat transfers, etc.
And I wanted to use a particle system combined with a spacial system, to get the best simulation possible. So I could simulate a solar flare.

No this did not work. It is far too complex. Our simulations are not advanced enough. We are now just reaching the point that we can do water simulations with pretend-fire and pretend-foam. It may look good, but has not the accuracy to predict reality. The best sun simulators are using 2D and very simplified processes.

Differences between specializations

A major part of physics is modelling a small part of reality. and avoiding this complexity. They all use very simple models (mathematically) and extend from there. Like the Schrodinger formula in Quantum mechanics is based on a statistical formula to deal with infinite possibilities in a well defined environment. And that is why it is accurate in statistical predictions, but can not tell anything about a single prediction. Nor can it say much about how the electricity flows in a radio. Or how a ball bounces on a tennis court. Even though the graphs of the different processes can look very similar, like sinus waves.

And many different departments have specialized models to deal with certain problems. They have studied those problems thoroughly. But only within a certain environment, or certain context. And all of these have to be practical.
One math joke is that Engineers are using gravity= 10 m/s2 , PI=3, sin(x)=x. Because they would not need more accuracy. Not exactly true, but in practice our models are slightly off from reality anyway. Like: If you throw a ball in the air, you can not tell how high it goes, because your throw is never the same action. Nor are the weather conditions constant, etc.

False models

Any model, has practical limitations. But also have assumptions about the conditions and environment. And the most used models in a specialized field are extremely simplified. Not because they are correct, but because the are a lot easier to use.

But if you model too little, you also create false models. And this creates false ideas of reality. Or false ideas of a situation.

With the sun I noticed that many astronomers made assumptions about magnetism, that breaks with the electromagnetism that I know. They claimed that magnetic field lines were colliding with each other, producing bursts of energy. And in our earth's physical reality this is impossible. We have radios, electric-motors and all kinds of electromagnetic machinery. We have magnetic fields colliding all the time and they just add together with no implications at all. Magnetic field lines are also abstract representations of a continuous field, and have no physical meaning.
So something is wrong here: these astronomers were using an oversimplified model, and extended it far beyond its limitations. And added field-lines as a physical concept. It is already a complex model (Magnetohydrodynamics/HMD), and can be used in certain limited context as its inventor Alfven described. But the simplifications also gives some weird outcomes, and their predictions for solar flares are 1 million times off. Most astronomers know that something is wrong and MHD is often called "magic".
Still this is the dominant theory in mainstream solar physics.

Model Lock-in

But this problem is in all fields of science. Each specialization has its own home-grown models. Models that work well in the situations that they test for. Or when the test fails, they keep them, because they preferred those models the most.

And in every specialization of science I noticed that they have locked-in their preferred models. Psychology is full with such locked-in models. Some social studies have presented imaginary models even as facts. While advancement of science has always been the change of models and their related theories.

With physics we can see in the laboratory that certain models go wrong. And that is why we have advanced so much technologically. Yet even with physics the preferred models are often mixed with additional correction-models, instead of replacing one of the locked-in models. Even if they could exist side-by-side.
But with psychology there is almost no way to verify a certain model, and the outcome can also be influenced. The same is in big medicine, where the models and outcomes of tests are influenced by the need for profits.

What happens if a test fails?

And different specializations of science have different techniques to keep their preferred models. (And I apply them to my solar flare model)
1. Misuse of Authority (You are not an astronomer).
2. Misuse of overly-critical peer-review (Your criticism will not be published).
3. Claim it is coincidence or a fail of the test (Next time will show the prediction is correct).
4. Use personal attacks on the testers or scientists (You are a flat-earther).
5. Claim it is fake. (We see no problems)
6. The situation is special. (The sun is a special place)
7. You understand it wrong, you are too stupid. (The sun can only be understood by very very smart people)
8. Cancel culture (We ban you from this subreddit - really happened)
9. Trust us "(Astronomers will soon understand more)*
10. It can not be wrong. We always used it.
11. There is no other possibility.

What I wanted was a normal open discussion with clear data and clear science. Not all these logical fallacies. Whatever model is correct, the system is clearly broken.

How can we solve this

Any model that does not match with the tests is basically broken.

What are the limitations of the model? Where are the boundaries? What precision can be expected? Do we anywhere correct the data towards the model?

Is there a huge difference between the expectations and the reality in the field?

We need backtracking by observing unbiased reality. Especially when we have better observations or better data. Does the model still make sense? Can we correct the model? Can we drop the old/worse data? Is a different model better? And most importantly: can we accept criticism?

What if all the preferred models are completely wrong? Or what if we simply do not know?

Back to Solar physics (teaser)

Video of a gigantic solar loop on the sun. It is very stable, but plasma is flowing in it. Coming up from the surface. The streams are bright, so it means that the electrons are active. One can see plasma flowing into both directions, but this plasma also rains down onto the surface. With the popular solar models (NASA magnetic sun) we can not explain any of this. And as I explained above, it breaks with basic physics.

But you can use an electrical circuit model instead.
Now we can build the circuit from the observations: The plasma flows along the electrical current, like in a plasma ball. Positive ions in the opposite direction from negative ions. Flowing electrons may brighten up certain parts. And absence of electrons makes the plasma darker (dark mode plasma). The electrical power seems to drive them with huge voltages. So we do have electrical fields on the sun, and these electrical fields can clearly exist underneath the surface. Above the surface these electrons start flowing throught the conducting plasma.
This will be a topic in a future article.

Welcome to The Science Analyst Report

Science has a huge problem: It is made of people.

People have beliefs, biases and are very bad at logical thinking.

The more a person is an expert in a certain area, the more he/she starts using certain tools and tricks that are part of that scientific area. When you often use a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And you are always eager to use the hammer.

Experts of “the science” use false logic. They bend the scientifc methods to avoid evidence, or misinerpret evidence. They are often unable to spot frauds and crimes, when it aligns with their beliefs. They are unaware of their bias, and falsely trust bad research and corrupt agencies. They are unable to work with unknowns, because they do not fit in the models. And they do not work towards a solution, because they can never admit that they may be incorrect.

In this blog I will investigate “The Science” and try to clarify the critical problems with the promoted ideas.

You will see investigations, funny memes, weird science, exposing corrupt science, solutions of scientific problems.

How to tell if something is real?

Science is supposed to tell us something about reality.
But clearly it is not. So how can we investigate?

(I will move this to different articles soon..)

1) Avoid Logical fallacies

Logical Fallacies are a way to push to a conclusion without any good logical reason.
So, if an article uses a lot of logical fallacies, the conclusion in the article is not really supported.

This is a simple list with a card system
Here is a full list on wikipedia

Logical fallacies are very common. Many people are so used to them, that they do often not even understand that they are using them.
Some examples to give an idea:
Strawman - “So you say that you hate science”
Appeal to authority - “All experts in astrology, say that astrology is important for life”
No True scotsman - “Only when you have studied it for 40 years, you are allowed to say something”
Circular argument - “It was always correct, so we do not need to check”
False cause - ”Science is improving, so science is always correct”

2) Scientific method

The scientific method is a very good tool to investigate the truth.
But you need a lot of good information to do it.

Important questions to ask:
Is there evidence?
Is there counter-evidence? Was searched for it?
Is the evidence influenced in any way?
What conditions are important?

Is the science manipulated?
Is there even the slightest possibility of statistical hacking?
Is there survivor bias or observational bias?

Is the science complete?
Can everything be understood from the conclusions?
Are there any weird unexplained coincidences?

What is the group-think or general bias in the field of research?
How well is criticism received?

What is the level of astroturfing and manipulation?
See: Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

3) Crime and fraud investigation

Usually there is a report of some crime or fraud.
Then we should investigate it as a crime with no predetermined conclusion.

a) Listen to witnesses, but also account for their bias.

b) follow the money (or career)
Who profited of the crime?
And how?
Where is the money now?

c) Traces?
Is there evidence or weapons or traces that can help us understand what happened exactly?
Can these traces be interpreted differently?

d) Motives? Emotions?
This is not about mind reading, but placing yourself in the same situation.
What do they want? And/or what do they feel?
Is there evidence for that?

e) Did the witnesses or experts lie about something important?
Is it possible that they staged some of the events or some of the evidence?
Did the crime really happen?
What do they have to win or lose in this?

f) Can everything be understood?


4) Bias

Check for biases.
See wikipedia for a full list.

What bias can one expect in the report or article? And does it show?

Were there agencies or donors or politics or beliefs involved? Does this show?

Check the bias and your own bias:

a) What do they (or you) want to be true or false? What are their (or your) feelings about it?

b) How do they (or you) react?

c) Do you come to the same conclusion, if you approach it from the opponent's side?

d) Can you understand why people can come to another conclusion without lying? If they are lying, do they appear hypnotized about the subject?

5) Trust

What people and evidence can we trust?
A lot of the information and evidence has been manipulated to push for a certain conclusion. Or it has been filtered by the bias of the person or system.

What is the evidence that is supported by all sides?
What is the zero-trust evidence? What can you see with your own eyes?

6) Unknowns

Here we can place things that we did not fully understand or don't know for certain.
Sometimes we simply don’t know what happened exactly.
Usually we only know a part of what happened of a very complex situation or system.

Most people try to represent a complex situation as simple as possible.
But experts will often try to use a known model to represent a complex or even an unknown situation.
And this may cause many experts to be more wrong about a situation than most people!

7) Solutions

Often a conclusion shows a huge problem, or even a crime.
This can give an enormous psychological pressure. But relax. If you can discover a crime, someone else can probably do that too. And maybe you are not exactly correct in your discovery, due to your own bias.

a) How important is your conclusion?
How important is it to your life?

b) Share your conclusion with interested people
Pushing your conclusion does not really work, but sharing your path towards it does.
But only if they are interested. Do you get positive feedback?
How do different people think about your idea? How can you represent yourself better?

c) How strong is your conclusion?
Do you need better evidence? How can you get it?

d) Actions?
Don't do more than you can handle. Find friends.
What are the friendly ways in which you can solve the problem that were found?
Can you joke about it?
If there is crime, how can you assist in legal ways?
How important is this to you, and how much time do you want to spend?