Dan Cohen from Uncaptured Media brings Dr. Jonathan Couey's message to millions of viewers on the REDACTED program, asking the right questions of the new HHS Secretary
Dr Couey always walks the talk, he lost his livelihood in 2020 because he knew that there was something very wrong in the pandemic story and he refused to keep quiet. He has not made many friends along the way because he will not act in a way that does not align with his values. He can be abrasive but he is one of the very few people whose words always match his actions. I have listened to him over the past few years and he has helped me understand that what has happened to us goes beyond a fake pandemic and a virus.
Just how much of the polity around the world is a captured facade? We can passively accept evil, as if it were inevitable, or we can escape Plato's cave of illusion, and instead attend to our sacred purpose, without fear.
Us individual human beings, you and I, us free-thinking thought criminals, we must appreciate our loving relationship with people, nature, and God.
We hold 2 big miracles, each of us. One, potential for nurturing agape, and two, potential to broadcast it.
The issue with Kennedy is that he didn't find the truth himself. He learned about the vaccine issue only after a woman kept sending him information. It's not really deep in his heart to understand.
He's like an antiquated version of politicians that want good but still think in terms of the system.
But, I don't think hope is lost...
Bernie was another limited pseudo progressive.
Trump is the current pseudoprogressive.
What do they expect to give us next if they keep trying to copy the real thing?
According to @sasha_latypova, @BaileywickNews, and @LionessofJudah, RFKjr, pursuant to Operation Warp Speed, as Secretary of Health and Human Services has unilateral authority to declare a national health emergency and serve as head of state until he, as Secretary of HHS, declares the state of emergency to be over. Donald J. Trump, as POTUS47, should have declared HHS unconstitutional and dissolved same, since healthcare is not a power delegated to Congress (or any branch of the federal government) by the several States in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Look, Bobby has done a LOT of good work exposing deception, so don’t smear him just because he, as one person, cannot take down the world Zionist Cabal. Boo!
This article employs classic narrative control techniques that deserve critical examination. The selective framing is immediately evident - fixating on Kennedy's rhetorical comparisons while completely ignoring documented government pressure on tech platforms to censor content (confirmed by Zuckerberg under oath) and the systematic suppression of scientific dissent during the pandemic.
The author's attempt to transform Kennedy's criticism of figures like Peter Hotez into evidence of "tacit partnership" represents a logical inversion requiring no evidence yet poisoning the well against substantive critique. This rhetorical technique weaponizes association to discredit rather than engaging with the substance of Kennedy's documented claims about regulatory capture.
Most revealing is what's conspicuously absent: no engagement with the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, no acknowledgment that many "conspiracy theories" about pandemic governance have since been validated through FOIA requests and congressional testimony, and no recognition that institutional "fact-checking" became a mechanism for narrative enforcement rather than truth-seeking.
The article employs unnecessary technical complexity when convenient while simplifying complex issues when it serves the narrative. This pattern of selectively deploying complexity is a hallmark of institutional defense mechanisms designed to create artificial barriers to public understanding.
The timing of this piece also warrants scrutiny, as it follows a pattern where criticism intensifies against figures who challenge institutional narratives once they gain sufficient audience to threaten consensus. The coordinated language across multiple media platforms criticizing Kennedy shows striking similarities that suggest centralized messaging rather than independent analysis.
This isn't rigorous journalism - it's boundary maintenance designed to protect established power centers by attacking the messenger. What deserves scrutiny is the pattern of institutional narrative management where positions initially labeled "misinformation" are later quietly acknowledged as accurate by the very institutions that condemned them.
I respectfully disagree. 'Human Rights' was an issue long before the U.N. or even communism were invented. Highjacking of ideas and concepts in order to pervert them has been a habit of sophists throughout history. Sophism is operating on semantic traps. "Collectivism" as a label is in itself sophistry. If someone is not able to make a plain argument based on reason I am out of it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - What are the rights with which the Creator has endowed men with other than Human Rights?
"Les représentants du peuple français, constitués en Assemblée nationale, considérant que l’ignorance, l’oubli ou le mépris des droits de l’homme sont les seules causes des malheurs publics et de la corruption des gouvernements, ont résolu d’exposer, dans une déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l’homme, afin que cette déclaration, constamment présente à tous les membres du corps social, leur rappelle sans cesse leurs droits et leurs devoirs" - What are 'le droits naturels, inabliénables et sacres de l'homme' other than Human Rights?
Focus on the positive aspects of RFKjr and lend a hand in the fight against tyranny, instead of supporting the opposite. Some politics must be played if he is to stay in the position to help at all. Don’t be stupid.
People don’t like it when you topple over their “hero”. They really fight and struggle to keep believing, to maintain the pedestal rather than admit they’ve been fooled. See all the comments from your new readers who rush to defend the hero rather than accept they’ve been had.
Politicians, for the most part, are not your friends.
Robert's grandpa was in bed with criminals. His uncle and his dad were saints by comparison. Maybe that skips a generation.
That seems trivial, as I look at my own humanity.
If I were truly one of "We the People" in proper disposition, I would be as Kingly as any king. That is what a constitutional republic would expect of its People.
I cower. I hide. I'm told I am "anti-authoritarian" by well intended individuals who see that as a bad thing.
However, I have faith in humanity and faith in agape love. People, nature, and God (whatever I might call it) are all no less my responsibility than my own cross to bear.
Bearing my own cross, so to speak, I become worthy of reaching my potential of beauty, goodness, and truth. I am a human being, and human beings may choose to live above and beyond the animal kingdom. We may choose to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.
We used to know in our hearts that there is only one Author of Liberty, one Authority.
But now, trendy as it is, we seem to pray to Fact Checkers. Or worse, we sell our sense-making souls to oxymoronic asenine "Artificial Intelligence."
I am not a fan of the Kennedy clan. They are arrogant and self serving. Bobby just might deviate from the rest of the clan. If nothing else, he is smart and fairly knowledable about things medical, pharmaceutical. Kennedy as HHS sec is not perfect, but at least he is not an industry mouthpiece. We could have been afflicted with somebody much worse as HHS sec. He knows politics, which is necessary to get things done in the Swamp. Stop criticizing him and give h some support. Corey needs to learn how to function in society, to stop acting like a spoiled child.
I don't understand Kennedy not seeing the exploitation of people in Gaza for decades. I think Kennedy is sincere in upgrading the health agencies and ridding food and water of toxins. He has a lot of opposition, so I expect change to occur slowly. I don't think Jon Couey believes that viruses exist, so I can't take him seriously.
What I've read doesn't convince. I also have contracted the measles and chickenpox viruses from other children, so I personally believe in the contagion of viruses. However, I keep an open mind.
I've followed JJ Couey for the past three years, and he does accept that viruses exist. One thing that gets right up his nose—besides respiratory viruses—is when people mischaracterize his position as "no virus". He isn't that. He really isn't.
To find out what he is, I recommend reading Tessa Fights Robots's article from last year and the accompanying video of her interview with JJ. In summary, she writes:
Here’s how J.J. very elegantly resolves the “virus - no virus” argument by bringing back the complexity and the nuance
This is rather beautiful. The interview goes into detail—but here is a recap, in my own words:
Yes, there is such thing as little bits of genetic code that make cells express different things
Yes, those little bits of genetic code can try to program the cell to make copies of themselves
It so happens that modern science calls those things “viruses” while at the same time vastly misrepresenting the actual findings, and greatly downplaying the fact that we don’t know a whole lot
Naturally occurring “viruses” (in quotes, as this word is just a name for a model) aren’t very good at replication, i.e. programming host cells to make perfect copies of themselves
They can try to do that—and in the process, they would temporarily distress the equilibrium and trigger an immune response. A targeted cell would make a very limited number of good copies of the “virus” but it would also spit out a large amount of genetic noise. That process would invoke an immune response and, generally speaking, we are very capable of dealing with all this, as naturally occurring “viral” bits of genetic material floating around are a part of life.
In labs, for experiments, due to how difficult it is to make a naturally occurring virus to properly replicate, the scientists routinely use the so called “viral clones,” which is not a naturally occurring “virus” but a manufactured (“constructed”) artifact
I will check it out. However, I did hear him say, he wasn't so sure viruses did exist, but I watch so much I couldn't tell you which interview, but it was not too long ago. I have a problem with those that deny the existence of viruses refusing to read the literature on giant viruses which are easily viewed under a scope.
Thanks for your reply. I watch so much on video too, and I often misremember details. Also, people's opinions do change, and ideally should change as they learn more.
IMHO, the "no virus" position is much like the "flat Earth" position. It's being pushed as a psyop to set members of the dissident community against each other and to "blackwash" anti-mainstream narrative opinions in general by making us all look like loonies to the normies. But I am open to persuasion about such things. It's just that I haven't heard anything persuasive enough to make me abandon the idea of viruses or the roundish Earth yet.
The reality of these ideas doesn't affect our daily life directly. The Earth is what it is and the microbiome is what it is regardless of our beliefs about the situation.
However, if nobody believed in viruses, it would be a lot harder to push injections against them. And we would have to think up some creative explanations for why people develop things like Measles, Mumps, Chickenpox, Herpes and Shingles. Polio, though, is looking like mostly pesticide poisoning, so who knows?
Yes, if viruses really didn't exist then certainly no need for shots for anything. But viruses do exist, and most are not only harmless but necessary for homeostasis. Consider the benefits of marine viruses. We don't need a 'flat earth' type ideology meaning 'viruses don't exist' to bring to light the potential for harm from all shots. Personally, I don't believe in banning shots, I think we should change the formula, do proper studies, get rid of conflicts of interests and mandates, and use them when absolutely necessary. I think antibiotics in certain cases are useful and wouldn't ban them either. It means proceed with caution and use on a case-by-case basis.
I could be wrong. Some people believe vaccines should be banned altogether. I would not want to close that door. Imagine if Ebola came to town, and we had developed a safer shot than we now have, I think I might consider taking it, unless there were alternative preventatives. Also, I have witnessed the deaths of family members from HIV who did not take ART. Those anti-retroviral drugs have side effects, but they also have lowered mortality drastically. We are looking at the lesser of two evils.
Dr Couey always walks the talk, he lost his livelihood in 2020 because he knew that there was something very wrong in the pandemic story and he refused to keep quiet. He has not made many friends along the way because he will not act in a way that does not align with his values. He can be abrasive but he is one of the very few people whose words always match his actions. I have listened to him over the past few years and he has helped me understand that what has happened to us goes beyond a fake pandemic and a virus.
Agreed.
.
Question
Just how much of the polity around the world is a captured facade? We can passively accept evil, as if it were inevitable, or we can escape Plato's cave of illusion, and instead attend to our sacred purpose, without fear.
Us individual human beings, you and I, us free-thinking thought criminals, we must appreciate our loving relationship with people, nature, and God.
We hold 2 big miracles, each of us. One, potential for nurturing agape, and two, potential to broadcast it.
Peace.
.
Amen! 🙏
The issue with Kennedy is that he didn't find the truth himself. He learned about the vaccine issue only after a woman kept sending him information. It's not really deep in his heart to understand.
He's like an antiquated version of politicians that want good but still think in terms of the system.
But, I don't think hope is lost...
Bernie was another limited pseudo progressive.
Trump is the current pseudoprogressive.
What do they expect to give us next if they keep trying to copy the real thing?
According to @sasha_latypova, @BaileywickNews, and @LionessofJudah, RFKjr, pursuant to Operation Warp Speed, as Secretary of Health and Human Services has unilateral authority to declare a national health emergency and serve as head of state until he, as Secretary of HHS, declares the state of emergency to be over. Donald J. Trump, as POTUS47, should have declared HHS unconstitutional and dissolved same, since healthcare is not a power delegated to Congress (or any branch of the federal government) by the several States in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Look, Bobby has done a LOT of good work exposing deception, so don’t smear him just because he, as one person, cannot take down the world Zionist Cabal. Boo!
The Trump "assassination attempt" in Pennsylvania needs reevaluating. If Kennedy is overlooking such a fraud, then it doesn't bode well.
This article employs classic narrative control techniques that deserve critical examination. The selective framing is immediately evident - fixating on Kennedy's rhetorical comparisons while completely ignoring documented government pressure on tech platforms to censor content (confirmed by Zuckerberg under oath) and the systematic suppression of scientific dissent during the pandemic.
The author's attempt to transform Kennedy's criticism of figures like Peter Hotez into evidence of "tacit partnership" represents a logical inversion requiring no evidence yet poisoning the well against substantive critique. This rhetorical technique weaponizes association to discredit rather than engaging with the substance of Kennedy's documented claims about regulatory capture.
Most revealing is what's conspicuously absent: no engagement with the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, no acknowledgment that many "conspiracy theories" about pandemic governance have since been validated through FOIA requests and congressional testimony, and no recognition that institutional "fact-checking" became a mechanism for narrative enforcement rather than truth-seeking.
The article employs unnecessary technical complexity when convenient while simplifying complex issues when it serves the narrative. This pattern of selectively deploying complexity is a hallmark of institutional defense mechanisms designed to create artificial barriers to public understanding.
The timing of this piece also warrants scrutiny, as it follows a pattern where criticism intensifies against figures who challenge institutional narratives once they gain sufficient audience to threaten consensus. The coordinated language across multiple media platforms criticizing Kennedy shows striking similarities that suggest centralized messaging rather than independent analysis.
This isn't rigorous journalism - it's boundary maintenance designed to protect established power centers by attacking the messenger. What deserves scrutiny is the pattern of institutional narrative management where positions initially labeled "misinformation" are later quietly acknowledged as accurate by the very institutions that condemned them.
Human Rights is a UN/communist construct. A semantic trap that's designed to get people to want to fight to get into it.
https://rumble.com/v4x4wc2-world-collectivism-of-human-rights-vs-the-constitution-our-liberty-and-limi.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
I respectfully disagree. 'Human Rights' was an issue long before the U.N. or even communism were invented. Highjacking of ideas and concepts in order to pervert them has been a habit of sophists throughout history. Sophism is operating on semantic traps. "Collectivism" as a label is in itself sophistry. If someone is not able to make a plain argument based on reason I am out of it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - What are the rights with which the Creator has endowed men with other than Human Rights?
"Les représentants du peuple français, constitués en Assemblée nationale, considérant que l’ignorance, l’oubli ou le mépris des droits de l’homme sont les seules causes des malheurs publics et de la corruption des gouvernements, ont résolu d’exposer, dans une déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l’homme, afin que cette déclaration, constamment présente à tous les membres du corps social, leur rappelle sans cesse leurs droits et leurs devoirs" - What are 'le droits naturels, inabliénables et sacres de l'homme' other than Human Rights?
Plenty of RFK Jnr apologists on here. Tick, tock.
Focus on the positive aspects of RFKjr and lend a hand in the fight against tyranny, instead of supporting the opposite. Some politics must be played if he is to stay in the position to help at all. Don’t be stupid.
Yes, just what we all need! MORE CONFUSION! How can you trust them? HOW!?....WHO are THEY?
WHAT do they want? WHAT is the truth? WHAT is the "truth"? What is the TRUTH? WHO KNOWS?
Who cares? Who cares? Ah, that's what they want! They want a confused, apathetic population....
So, whatever you do, don't clarify and inspire! So RFKjr. hasn't yet met YOUR standards? Too bad.
I don't really care. But at least I'm not confused. I KNOW that I don't care....
People don’t like it when you topple over their “hero”. They really fight and struggle to keep believing, to maintain the pedestal rather than admit they’ve been fooled. See all the comments from your new readers who rush to defend the hero rather than accept they’ve been had.
.
To whom it may concern,
Politicians, for the most part, are not your friends.
Robert's grandpa was in bed with criminals. His uncle and his dad were saints by comparison. Maybe that skips a generation.
That seems trivial, as I look at my own humanity.
If I were truly one of "We the People" in proper disposition, I would be as Kingly as any king. That is what a constitutional republic would expect of its People.
I cower. I hide. I'm told I am "anti-authoritarian" by well intended individuals who see that as a bad thing.
However, I have faith in humanity and faith in agape love. People, nature, and God (whatever I might call it) are all no less my responsibility than my own cross to bear.
Bearing my own cross, so to speak, I become worthy of reaching my potential of beauty, goodness, and truth. I am a human being, and human beings may choose to live above and beyond the animal kingdom. We may choose to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.
We used to know in our hearts that there is only one Author of Liberty, one Authority.
But now, trendy as it is, we seem to pray to Fact Checkers. Or worse, we sell our sense-making souls to oxymoronic asenine "Artificial Intelligence."
I love you,
mark spark
.
I am not a fan of the Kennedy clan. They are arrogant and self serving. Bobby just might deviate from the rest of the clan. If nothing else, he is smart and fairly knowledable about things medical, pharmaceutical. Kennedy as HHS sec is not perfect, but at least he is not an industry mouthpiece. We could have been afflicted with somebody much worse as HHS sec. He knows politics, which is necessary to get things done in the Swamp. Stop criticizing him and give h some support. Corey needs to learn how to function in society, to stop acting like a spoiled child.
I don't understand Kennedy not seeing the exploitation of people in Gaza for decades. I think Kennedy is sincere in upgrading the health agencies and ridding food and water of toxins. He has a lot of opposition, so I expect change to occur slowly. I don't think Jon Couey believes that viruses exist, so I can't take him seriously.
Lots of evidence casts serious doubt on the existence of viruses
Transmission of something. Like the biological / electrical / other signal synchronizing periods. Perhaps.
Those kinds of ideas make more sense & feel more real to me. These days I also assume that most major ideas are either outright lies or distortions
What I've read doesn't convince. I also have contracted the measles and chickenpox viruses from other children, so I personally believe in the contagion of viruses. However, I keep an open mind.
I've followed JJ Couey for the past three years, and he does accept that viruses exist. One thing that gets right up his nose—besides respiratory viruses—is when people mischaracterize his position as "no virus". He isn't that. He really isn't.
To find out what he is, I recommend reading Tessa Fights Robots's article from last year and the accompanying video of her interview with JJ. In summary, she writes:
Here’s how J.J. very elegantly resolves the “virus - no virus” argument by bringing back the complexity and the nuance
This is rather beautiful. The interview goes into detail—but here is a recap, in my own words:
Yes, there is such thing as little bits of genetic code that make cells express different things
Yes, those little bits of genetic code can try to program the cell to make copies of themselves
It so happens that modern science calls those things “viruses” while at the same time vastly misrepresenting the actual findings, and greatly downplaying the fact that we don’t know a whole lot
Naturally occurring “viruses” (in quotes, as this word is just a name for a model) aren’t very good at replication, i.e. programming host cells to make perfect copies of themselves
They can try to do that—and in the process, they would temporarily distress the equilibrium and trigger an immune response. A targeted cell would make a very limited number of good copies of the “virus” but it would also spit out a large amount of genetic noise. That process would invoke an immune response and, generally speaking, we are very capable of dealing with all this, as naturally occurring “viral” bits of genetic material floating around are a part of life.
In labs, for experiments, due to how difficult it is to make a naturally occurring virus to properly replicate, the scientists routinely use the so called “viral clones,” which is not a naturally occurring “virus” but a manufactured (“constructed”) artifact
https://tessa.substack.com/p/jj-couey-virus-no-virus
I will check it out. However, I did hear him say, he wasn't so sure viruses did exist, but I watch so much I couldn't tell you which interview, but it was not too long ago. I have a problem with those that deny the existence of viruses refusing to read the literature on giant viruses which are easily viewed under a scope.
Thanks for your reply. I watch so much on video too, and I often misremember details. Also, people's opinions do change, and ideally should change as they learn more.
IMHO, the "no virus" position is much like the "flat Earth" position. It's being pushed as a psyop to set members of the dissident community against each other and to "blackwash" anti-mainstream narrative opinions in general by making us all look like loonies to the normies. But I am open to persuasion about such things. It's just that I haven't heard anything persuasive enough to make me abandon the idea of viruses or the roundish Earth yet.
The reality of these ideas doesn't affect our daily life directly. The Earth is what it is and the microbiome is what it is regardless of our beliefs about the situation.
However, if nobody believed in viruses, it would be a lot harder to push injections against them. And we would have to think up some creative explanations for why people develop things like Measles, Mumps, Chickenpox, Herpes and Shingles. Polio, though, is looking like mostly pesticide poisoning, so who knows?
Yes, if viruses really didn't exist then certainly no need for shots for anything. But viruses do exist, and most are not only harmless but necessary for homeostasis. Consider the benefits of marine viruses. We don't need a 'flat earth' type ideology meaning 'viruses don't exist' to bring to light the potential for harm from all shots. Personally, I don't believe in banning shots, I think we should change the formula, do proper studies, get rid of conflicts of interests and mandates, and use them when absolutely necessary. I think antibiotics in certain cases are useful and wouldn't ban them either. It means proceed with caution and use on a case-by-case basis.
Everything you write sounds sensible to me.
I could be wrong. Some people believe vaccines should be banned altogether. I would not want to close that door. Imagine if Ebola came to town, and we had developed a safer shot than we now have, I think I might consider taking it, unless there were alternative preventatives. Also, I have witnessed the deaths of family members from HIV who did not take ART. Those anti-retroviral drugs have side effects, but they also have lowered mortality drastically. We are looking at the lesser of two evils.