[Note to reader: Disregard any warning notice when you try to play this video.]

MARK M. writes from England:

First may I offer maximum props for your work – excellent, I read you several times a week!

Regarding yesterday’s post on virus isolation, here is the early December 2020 Cowan/Rappoport interview, since censored by YouTube. As I recognized it as pure gold and an inevitable target for censorship, I recorded it – just as well.

As rational beings, we can make a definitive judgement and I believe that the video supplies the means to have as much certainty as any scientist. We need to get off the fence on this.

May God bless and keep you and Our Lady watch over you.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your kind support.

That interview is worth watching again. There is a lot on this issue at Jon Rappoport’s blog.

“Loyal Reader” writes:

You willingly admit that you are “covering all your bases” on this issue, not having a medical or scientific background, I assume.

I do not believe it takes a large amount of a given type of expertise to analyze the data that is presented to the public regarding this issue.  You had pointed out in another post that the FDA report that is being used to cite the lack of isolated ‘SARS-COV-2″ was published early in 2020 and necessarily referred to the time before SARS-COV-2 was [allegedly] “isolated.”

The FDA report has been revised six times, as you note, the last being Dec 2020.  Not one of the revisions mentions that extremely important point – that the “virus” has [now] been “isolated.”  One would think that would be a cornerstone of the report itself to at least mention this presumed fact.

My questions remain: (1) if the “virus” was isolated, why don’t the vaccines simply include a weakened form of the virus?  MRNA vaccines have never been successful, and create a more hostile response in the immune systems of animals who were exposed to them when the vaccinated animals come into contact with a wild virus. All animals subject to mRNA vaccines died when confronted with the viruses they were supposed to be protected from. (2) The FDA report refers to testing protocols.  At a minimum, instead of the report continuing to document “old news,” it would be imperative that not only the report be revised to reflect the “discovery” of the virus, but the TESTING protocols themselves should be revised to sync up with the [presumed] discovery of the virus.

So the test (and report) do not reflect the alleged discovery of the virus.  The vaccine does not include a weakened form of the virus, instead uses an mRNA which will likely have detrimental effects on those who receive it.  The facts that are available point to fraud and manipulation.

Evil will always tell you what it is doing.

Laura writes:

Good points. Thank you for this information.

Please follow and like us: