That's ridiculous!
A reply to Dr. Meryl Nass and her attempt to turn critical thinking into a travesty
What is a CHAOS Newsletter? The Newsletter of a Chaos-Agent? That can’t be. Meryl Nass would not refer to herself as a Chaos-Agent. The title, therefore, must be pointing towards the CHAOS we still find ourselves in. To which Meryl Nass is, unfortunately, contributing, as it seems.
Why? Because she re-posted an old article of hers about “the virus” and why “viruses are real”. Her first line read:
“I think it is important for us not to fight over this, but we can of course disagree”
Well, she may be “of the opinion” - but it can’t be “thinking” which got her to that opinion on it being important for “us” not to fight. No evidence of reason. Besides: who is “us”?
Anyway. Meryl Nass went on to give her best in making her readers see what the devastating consequences of “denying the existence of a virus” would be: “We” would be “playing into the globalists’ hands…”.
Thank you, Meryl. I prefer to think for myself!
As you were softly “nudging” your readers (“Do you see…?”), here is what you seem to have been losing sight of yourself: There is no logic, and even less reason behind your argument!
No, quite to the contrary: The need for the shutting down of biowarfare-labs is not in any way contingent on the question of SARS-COV-2 being a virus or not. Why would it be of consequence? You tell me! You explain why what is developed in those labs has to be “a virus” for it to be dangerous? Or why the substances developed in those “labs” would have to be causative agents for infection (as people commonly understand the term) to be dangerous? It can be dangerous without “jumping” from an exposed person to another, and that is, simply, for the harm the substance causes to those exposed to it in ANY way! It is not necessary to ban “Gain-of-function” research (and development of applications from such “research”) only if it is a viral agent, or a virus. Those Biolabs are dangerous either way. What they produce, or can produce, is dangerous, and the means to spread these substances are in no way contingent on “a virus”. Do you see?
On the other hand, don’t you see that the way you argue plays into the hands of “the deep state”?
You are holding up the narrative of biosecurity risks by provision of “Nature”. Viruses being the main culprits (so far). However, as Dr. Couey has been pointing out repeatedly, scares have been carefully constructed around the issue of a virus, and “we” should have a natural interest to re-visit the story we have been told.
The way you seem to be “thinking” to do it just doesn’t cut it, Meryl!
We can’t allow to be forbidden to question a highly questionable narrative, simply by positing that if we dare question it, we would be “playing into the hands of the deep-state”. That’s ridiculous, Meryl!
Why don’t you join researchers such as Dr. Jonathan Couey (
, who was let go by a friend of yours for questioning another friend of yours, who continues to see an “unmet need” against what Dr. Couey challenges him to explain) or Mark Kulacz () in finding out the reasons for so many odd “coincidences” around the same people, such as Dr. Joshua Lederberg, being involved in discussing very gross ideas at the CIBA Conference in London in 1962 (a mere 15 years after the Nuremberg code was published) and going on to develop the “idea” of “biosecurity”.Hypothesizing the Higher Hypothesis
The writing of this piece has taken a much longer time than anticipated. But it had to be written at the end of this year 2024. In order to let readers know why the frequency of new articles on this platform has gone down. But also in order to give credit, where credit is due.
And it is not the end of the list of “coincidences”. Another one concerns questions around the death of Dr. Annelisa Kilbourn. Which may be connected to just the same question Dr. Couey keeps raising: RNA can not pandemic! Of all people, Dr. Kilbourn was the scientist who is said to have discovered the proof for zoonosis of Ebola from apes to humans in 2001. And shortly thereafter, Dr. Kilbourn is said to have died in a plane crash in Gabon, Africa.
Sure, planes go down, but just for this crash there is no record with the authorities in Gabon.
And, strangely enough, three other passengers who were said to have been on the plane, went unharmed. Only Dr. Kilbourn dies. Things happen. Mark Kulacz has just done another memorial show for Dr. Kilbourn, in which he said, that she died young, “making the pandemic possible — yet is unknown (or overlooked).”
Given the unprecedented consequences of said pandemic, should we not investigate such leads as to what really was found, who found it, and who was involved? As I have pointed out earlier, you friend Dr. Malone is always not very far from these key people.
A Coincidence, you think?
"A great way to hide Gene Therapy behind Vaccination"
The recent string of censorship events against Dr. Mike Yeadon in the parliaments of Germany, Croatia and England has stirred up the “Freedom Movement”. Many people became angry about those who dared to “split the movement”. Unity was what was needed most in these times of crisis. Really? I respectfully disagree. Here is why:
Dr Malone is remarkable in his ability to merge himself into all camps, he really is a chameleon and he has camouflage shifting down to a fine art. He moves about the viral and health world crossing paths with all key characters causing very few ripples then seamlessly moves into the "freedom" camp with his camouflage duly adapted to suit his environment. He and Nass are perfect collaborators who bolster each other while gently leading people down the viral trap where nothing changes and nothing is challenged, they somehow keep intact the viral and pandemic story while still looking as if they are rebelling.
Thank you for your retort to Dr Nass's staunch defense of viruses. It was coercive and far too main stream. Although, on a positive note, it drove me to unsubscribe from her newsletter..