I’ve set the video to start just before my question comes up1For background, and why I can forgive the mispronunciation, see here. – which is also just before Couey’s confusion drives him to don his ‘thinking cap’. Despite that though he gives a good round up of the issues with the interview.
If you want the background to that confusion, skip the video back to 1:10:37 (which is when Couey starts the VSRF replay). Or start at the beginning for additional insight into some others who are also helping keep us trapped in a mythology which threatens to enslave our children forever.
“… this iatrogenic problem… probably the major cause of that brief, short-lived mortality spike in the Spring of 2020”
He probably doesn’t know Irish, so I don’t blame Mr. Sanchez for mispronouncing Oisín while asking my question. (Phonetically it sounds like “usheen” – where the ‘ush’ sound is from the word usher and ‘een’ from the word sheen).
But it was worth it to hear a leading “no virus” proponent acknowledge iatrogenic killing of people was a major factor in the Spring 2020 surge of deaths. Because, in case you hadn’t noticed, they generally don’t go there.
Yes, they’ll boldly discuss how there being “no virus” has implications for virology, for medicine, for science. But somehow they avoid the glaringly obvious implication and consequent question: if there are no viruses then it can’t have been SARS-CoV-2 that killed all those people in Spring 2020 – and if it wasn’t a new virus that killed them, then what did?
May 3rd, Jessica Hockett spoke with the Corona Investigative Committee about some of the issues with the official COVID story. Just some. For more, visit www.Woodhouse76.com
Her work leads to many questions. One in particular is gaining a foothold in my circles recently.
If New York suffered the equivalent of greater than 9/11 levels of death non-stop for approximately six weeks, there surely must be some nurses, doctors, emergency responders, undertakers and others who were traumatised by the experience of witnessing so much death or handling all those bodies.
At 21:00 on Thursday 22nd March 2018, the BBC aired Contagion: The BBC Four Pandemic – “a nationwide experiment to help plan for the next deadly flu pandemic, which could happen at any time.”1Programme outline archived here.
This ‘experiment’ made some glaring assumptions:
no one is immune to the virus
people infect each other with viruses2Yes, it’s an assumption. Repeated experiments have not conclusively proven viruses can be transmitted person-to-person. Test that yourself in your life history – ever spent time with someone who’s been diagnosed sick with a virus, been coughing and sneezing and yet not got sick yourself? Additionally there’s also the alternative view that what we describe as “viruses” are not simply external, potential invaders seeking to ‘hijack’ our cells, but might actually be something our cells already make for various purposes. Neurobiologist Jonathan Jay Couey sketched out this possibility in a recent stream.
proximity to a carrier, for X amount of time, means you will definitely (a) contract that virus and (b) pass it on
viruses retain their fidelity (do not change) as they replicate through thousands and millions of people over time oh, and…
viral transmission patterns are already understood well enough to assume that combining a mobile app and a mathematical model is a valid way to replicate and further study and learn about those patterns. 3To put it another way, how were the results of this experiment going to be assessed as valid and usefully predictive off real life?
It also presented quite a number of concepts to the public:
pandemics are inevitable
people without viral symptoms can spread a virus
spike proteins
antibodies mean immunity
super-spreaders
school closures
restricting people gathering
stay-at-home
vaccines are the only way out because antibiotics can’t treat viruses
vaccines need to be made faster
the numbers infected will be huge
more testing and surveillance always help4A logical fallacy. and are essential for public health…
The UK Government then used the data for 2020
The BBC aired the programme again on Tuesday 11th February and Saturday 14th March, 2020. Which would have been around the time the data gathered and modeled for the programme were being used to inform the UK Governments COVID response.
But, imagine if you can…
… that none of the above applied.
Seriously.
Put all those things aside.
Then ask yourself this question.
What are the chances that the very first instance of someone contracting COVID from someone else within the UK, just happened to occur in the very same town that the 2018 BBC programme had been set in: Haslemere?
Seriously.
Ask yourself…
… what are the chances?!
Because that IS what happened.
(Oddly, in contrast to such local headlines, the BBC themselves did not highlight the coincidence – despite their 2018 ‘experiment’ having been SO predictive).
Yes, it’s an assumption. Repeated experiments have not conclusively proven viruses can be transmitted person-to-person. Test that yourself in your life history – ever spent time with someone who’s been diagnosed sick with a virus, been coughing and sneezing and yet not got sick yourself? Additionally there’s also the alternative view that what we describe as “viruses” are not simply external, potential invaders seeking to ‘hijack’ our cells, but might actually be something our cells already make for various purposes. Neurobiologist Jonathan Jay Couey sketched out this possibility in a recent stream.
3
To put it another way, how were the results of this experiment going to be assessed as valid and usefully predictive off real life?
Apparently to protect some of his colleagues, the University of Guelph have kept the viral immunologist1archives out of his laboratory and office for 1,000 days now.
But he’s free to go everywhere else on campus.
(It doesn’t have to make sense. Because it’s Covid Logic.)
… is the source of that graph showing how relatively quickly that infamous Corman-Drosten PCR paper went through the Eurosurveillance peer review process.
“To assess commonality in the review and acceptance process at eurosurveillance.org, the author collected and analysed meta-data for all 1,595 publications since 01-Jan-2015…
Of the 17 types of articles published since 2015, three types occur most frequently: Rapid Communication (385), Research (312) and Surveillance (193).
The average number of days between Acceptance and Reception of Research type articles is 172 (2019) and 97 (2020).
In line with the Editorial Policy for Authors, the category ‘Rapid Communication’ publications appear to be reviewed and accepted more quickly (18 days average) than type ‘Research’ and ‘Surveillance.’
Except for this one Research article (on 22-jan-2020), no other article has ever been reviewed and accepted within a single day since 2015.
Biological realities mean RNA can’t pandemic… and he too was tricked into asking the wrong questions about the (still on-going) pandemic illusion. Central to the illusion was PCR not using ‘nested primers’ – allowing it find signals that were likely there in the background all along.
He also talks about the pain of being let go by Children’s Health Defense, the guilt he feels for not speaking out earlier about the transfections and how we need to apologise to, and seek forgiveness from the young. Because it is they who will have to live with the consequences of our compliance as ‘the edge of knowledge’ is pushed forward by those driving the fracturing of humanity.
“The evidence is there but not broadcast on the mainstream. Dr Jay Couey was the science advisor to Robert F Kennedy and the Children’s Health Defence. What we discuss here today is information that you have not heard before and the explanations from Jay are incredible. we hope you share this information and allow others to see how big the lie is that we have been sold. We can only hope it allows others to step forward and speak the truth rather than carry the burden of living the lie to protect the narrative.
To provide the best experience, Oisin.Page uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies allows processing of data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, might affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
