It's obvious that the plandemic was a depopulation agenda. And those same planners are still at it under different guises - the latest, a very in-your-face Agenda 2030 dictum. I posted it in The Great Reset thread, but it's so repugnant, I felt it warranted a post here as well:

Woke Medical Journal Says Humans Are No More Valuable Than Animals, Calls For Shift Away From Human-Centered Health Care

Individuals within scientific community have taken a decidedly woke worldview for years, from encouraging obesity to discriminating against white individuals. The Lancet becomes the latest entrant into this crusade by repeating PETA talking points and declaring them science.

Breitbart reported Monday that The Lancet published a journal encouraging “ecological equity,” meaning that all life has equal value. Their proposal, “One Health,” advocates shifting the human being from the center of medical health to one where humans are interdependent with animals, plants, and the “wider environment.”

The so-called medical journal argues that this means we must completely change our relationship with animals and proposes adopting a vegan diet as one way to accomplish this. The Lancet says without evidence this will benefit both human and animal health.

The Lancet is essentially arguing that your life has no more value than a pig. Any efforts to better your well-being must take the welfare of the pig into consideration.

Here is the full story from Breitbart:

The once-prestigious UK Lancet medical journal urges a “revolutionary shift of perspective” away from human-centered health care in favor of “ecological equity” attributing equal value to all life.

In its advocacy for “One Health,” the Lancet proposes an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems,” asserting that “the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent.”

The traditional approach to health care takes “a purely anthropocentric view — that the human being is the centre of medical attention and concern,” the Lancet declares, whereas One Health “places us in an interconnected and interdependent relationship with non-human animals and the environment.”

The revolutionary shift of perspective called for by One Health is based on the more progressive axiom that “all life is equal, and of equal concern,” the journal proposes, which means “addressing pressing health issues at the human–animal–environment interface.”

Such a shift “requires a complete change to our relationship with animals,” the Lancet asserts, which is why the journal recommends transition “from an animal-based diet to a plant-based one, which not only benefits human health, but also animal health and wellbeing.”

In its revolutionary proposal, the Lancet suggests that the life of a human being is not necessarily worth more than the life of any non-human animal.

One Health demands that we take a fundamentally different approach to the natural world, the journal contends, “one in which we are as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans.”

“In its truest sense, One Health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity,” it concludes.

This is just another example how true science has been hijacked by individuals who care more about pronouns and political correctness than your personal health. Countless preventable deaths will occur unless actual scientists and doctors retake control.
I would be 100% sure this article was trolling/satire, except for how amazing ridiculous things have gotten in the world... but nah, it's gotta be satire... unless???🤡???

They knew: why didn't the unvaccinated do more to warn us?The unvaccinated knew what we didn't. Some of them said too little. Most said nothing at all. A lot of blood is now on their hands.​

As the world struggles to come to terms with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one question that continues to surface is why the unvaccinated didn't do more to warn us about the potential dangers of being injected.
While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations -- now seeming to do more harm than good -- their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.
Even though they knew what we didn't.
Our blood is now on their hands.
Those are strong words. But the unvaccinated had access to important information about the potential side effects of vaccines. They knew about the risks of severe allergic reactions, blood clots, and other serious health complications. They knew that vaccines did not immunize us. They knew it wasn't effective, and that they can cause more harm than good.
They knew all of that, but instead of warning us, the unvaccinated chose to remain silent. They chose to look the other way and not speak out about the potential dangers of vaccines. They let millions of good folks who did the right thing (at the time) fall to death and disease, and many antivaxxers even gloated online about how their coin flip had been the right bet. The more diabolical even urged folks they disagree with to "get boosted."
It has become all too clear. The silence of the unvaccinated was a dangerous, sociopathic, and irresponsible decision that has had serious consequences for those of us who received the vaccinations.
And silence is, after all, consent.

It is time for the unvaccinated to take responsibility for their actions and to work with the rest of us to find a solution to this crisis. We cannot afford to let their selfishness and lack of action continue to harm our communities. It is time for the unvaccinated to step up and do the right thing.
The unvaccinated should by any moral measuring stick have done more to warn about the potential risks -- to help us make informed decisions about our health. And they must now ask us for our forgiveness.
And, hand to heart, we may just give it to them.
Because we are good people. We took those injections because it was the right thing to do -- until it wasn't.
I would be 100% sure this article was trolling/satire, except for how amazing ridiculous things have gotten in the world... but nah, it's gotta be satire... unless???🤡???

Commenting on this outrageous piece is not possible:

Sorry, commenting has been disabled.​

While 85% of you are wonderful people and we'd love to hear from you (feel free to reach out at or our @IQfy_twitter!), the other 25% of recent comments have tended to be the result of targeted troll storms. Abuse from this vocal minority has traumatized our moderators and caused harm to the community.

Surely they jest?! But no, I‘ve taken a look at some of their other articles, and I don’t think they are! 🤡
I would be 100% sure this article was trolling/satire, except for how amazing ridiculous things have gotten in the world... but nah, it's gotta be satire... unless???🤡???

The person who wrote that needs to go through half of half of half of what he has had to endure and suffer from the people who decided to resist and not get vaccinated.

I could not resist laughing for a while at the size of the barbarity of that article.
Sorry, commenting has been disabled.
Further down, there are updates to the comment section. This is funny....🤣....from the moderation team:

Moderation Team
Comments are open again on a trial basis. Your comment may be invisible for up to 30 minutes while under review by our brave volunteers.
Update: 20 minutes into this experiment and we have already lost one volunteer. Immediately cease using the comment form to send abuse -- try to write positive messages of solidarity instead.
Update 2: Last warning before we put this one back in the pickle jar. If you don't want pickling, behave yourself when addressing folks in the comments section, and use safe words like "heck" instead of danger words.
Wow.......this man may be the replacement for Fauci... As I watched the many clips of him speaking, his appearance became more and more disturbing. How anyone could follow this mans advise is unbelievable as he's certainly a certifiable nut. At one point I noticed 1/2 of his mustache appears to be missing maybe because its white or gray, but disconcerting. And those bow ties ... :-(. Shorter then Fauci as well. Does not bode well. Demented circus continues.

Prepare yourself, this is going to be rough.

That last bolded sentence truly struck a chord in me - we're all bearing witness to the demise of the true principles of the Founding
Fathers that served as inspiration to all who yearned for real freedom!
{Paul Craig Roberts} When my generation passes, there will be no one alive who knows what America once was.

Yes. PCR makes a point. Even like Ukraine today with the rise of neo-fascists proxy, it seems they waited for most all the old guard (many of our grandfathers - some fathers) to die, along with their memories to wither before they could spin up a new NATO(TM) war. No one left to call them out who understand the fascist, other than those today who are being surgically drowned out by technology and policies. Many people today with passed down family memories have simply forgotten, their memories revised. Slava Ukraini ("Stepan Bandera: "Heroyam Slava!" In other words, "Glory to the Heroes!"') they shout in unison, without an ounce of understanding. With covid official pharma-remediation, people are dying or being injured all around them, within their own dame families, and they can't add 2 and 2 together. If the math is pointed out, they take great offence and double down.

Feb 26, 2022:

Q: (Joe) In a session in 2009, it said, '5 years to go'. Then, in 2014, they called that Year Zero. That was around the time of the Ukraine coup. Did they mean that 2014 and what the USA did in Ukraine then up until this situation right now, is that what they meant by Year Zero in 2014?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) So then what's happening right now is directly implicated in major change, but it's going to continue. There'll be further changes, let's say...

A: Yes

Q: (L) 2014 is Year Zero of our new reality.

Before year zero it was pretty bad with the modern day mythos of 19 hijackers with box cutters dropping 3 buildings - just like that. Then WMD's were around every corner, the bailout of the bankers and tipping over to the woke in the early game - the stage was set. Post 2014, they gathered there future battle plans despite the loss of the 'Hillary' not breaking the glass ceiling - openly seen today with proceeding specifics, such as Event 2020 (out in the open nothing to hide). In 2019/2020 they manipulated the split-circuit financial markets - see October 2019 chart:


(not the exact chart, which was well explained by a financial investigator featured somewhere on the forum (can't find it) in a review of the split-circuit monetary policy transfer just prior to covid), and then pulled the covid pin and watched as the world rush headlong into medical tyranny and lunacy.

Back to the last part of Year Zero:

(Niall) In a future chronology, is it going to be 0?

(L) Yeah.

(Pierre) And the struggle for the portal is indicative of 4D STS wanting to use this portal?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Why do they want to use the portal?

A: Downloading is taking place there.

Q: (L) Downloading of what?

(Joe) Information.

(L) Do I really want to know? [laughter]

(Pierre) The naughty side of the information field is being downloaded there.

(L) So the STS bad guys download themselves via a portal into the people there?

A: Yes

This is about Ukraine and other select portals, but the information downloading seems to have reached far and wide as people can see (at least the awful hypnotizing effects produced in the last number of years). The latest session looks at this deeper, to the very leaders.

As for covid - more specifically the jabs, they are mostly all being approved for any variant they now deem necessary. The necessity may be a) future control, b) to facilitate genetic changes in the body or in specific genetic populations or otherwise general genetic hijacks, c) population reduction or all 3 combined. It certainly is not covid. It may now be a much harder sell, yet sell it or further coerce the populations they will - they have many pathocratic tools to help accomplish and they are working on more; no doubt soon to be released. They are also worried, hence Russia who is not in their lane, with a growing global population that is becoming less pliable. However their answer to that might seem to be just wreaking society incrementally; food et cetera. Like in V, people are being reminded by the PTB of how much they need them.

Lastly - related to "c" above:

(Ryu) To go back to Pierre's comment, are Covid vaccines used as ethnic weapons?

A: Can be. Docking elements included.

Q: (L) So the vaccine has things in it that are docking elements for later propagation of some kind of pathogen?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) And the targeted population is Kantekkians, i.e. true Semites, i.e. Caucasians (in the sense of peoples from the area of the Caucasus).

(L) Targeted in what way? For download, or for the ethnic-specific weapons?

(Pierre) For both. Well, the vaccine. They have a mutation that over-expresses the ACE2 protein. They're more likely to get the effects of the vaccine.

A: Yes

Out of the mass mandated campaign to vaccinate, here the C's give a nod to the specified target group. Thus, this may seem on one level to be an old old hyperdimensional war for the supremacy between light and darkness being fought out on the global battlefield of our 3d times.

WWII being "a trial run," indeed.
Does anyone remember Nurse Erin Olszewski from this thread back in 2020? I'm sure there were posts, however, at least for me, they don't come up. Here was a article and Tucker below with an interview:

Was looking to see how she and others were doing, and there is this (and Erin has a book out):

In the link you can find "Nurse’s journey in reverse chronological order"
Q: (Pierre) And the targeted population is Kantekkians, i.e. true Semites, i.e. Caucasians (in the sense of peoples from the area of the Caucasus).

(L) Targeted in what way? For download, or for the ethnic-specific weapons?

Also recall the C's said the true Semites carried the codes for functioning in 4d and they are harder to control as well. A real problem in 4d perhaps. Wanting to control humanity in 4d may be easier if this bunch isn't around ?

The last 2 C's sessions have really brought the "alien agenda" into a more tangible understanding of what, who is behind all thats happening now.

In the December session attention was brought immediately to the need for an interpreting machine which was a bit surprising in its abruptness. I think the C's thought it was important to alert us to the alien agenda working through/behind the "elite controllers" right now. This isn't something new for us but it brought it all into better focus and could be seen much more clearly. New eyes on the WEF. With that one sentence from the C's so much has come forward.

Q: (L) I think we may have a few questions here. So, let's get our questions out of the way, and ya'll be thinking about your questions and maybe you'll jump off of some of our questions. We'll see what happens. We'll just do the thing here. Artemis is not here tonight. She's not feeling well, so it's just me and Andromeda. We're gonna fumble along on our own.

A: Push to get a machine translator.

Q: (L) Um, okay we'll come back to that. Hello. Who do we have with us this evening?

A: Rilniaea of Cassiopaea and hello to all.

Q: (L) Back to what you said... Okay, who should push to get a machine translator?

A: What elite are doing in preparation. Part of AI initiative.

Q: (L) So they want AI to build a machine translator that can translate alien speech?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Where are they getting alien speech from?

A: Interactions with "aliens".
Q: (JEEP) Will Bill Gates be prevented from GMO-ing our livestock and other nefarious plans perhaps by bulk awareness of public to death/injury from Covid vax?

A: Not entirely.

Bill Gates concludes that mRNA shots aren't actually useful

Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of Covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.

In flying his private jet to attend an in person conversation with the Lowry Institute in Australia this week, the supposedly carbon conscious Gates admitted that the shots serve virtually no benefit to anyone, especially the most vulnerable population.

“We also need to fix the three problems of [mRNA] vaccines,” Gates started. “The current vaccines are not infection blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

You can find the relevant segment at 54:30

One should listen to the relevant segment to get the full context of his statement - he's not ruling them out; just they need fine tuning which should be achieved within a decade. That likely won't delay the plan to mRNA jab our livestock in the meantime. And who knows what other "nefarious plans" he might be developing with his NWO buddies. :evil:

Funny, after millions have been injured, disabled, made infertile, and killed, he has the audacity to admit the mRNA clotshots don't work as the health bureaucrats - with him as a key promoter - insisted they safely would! And that he still speaks as though he's a doctor and authority on vaccines is particularly nauseating!

I only listened to the relevant segment and a bit after - had to stop as I just can't stand to listen to this evil, lying sack of 💩!
This from this morning, I don't see it mentioned here yet so here it is.

Project Veritas video - 9 minutes 58 second with commentary at the end by Dr. R. Malone about Pfizer mutating Covid-19 virus for new vaccines via 'directed evolution' research.

Project Veritas has broken Pfizer's Gain-of-Function Research Program Wide Open.

First sentence in the Substack article by Dr Robert Malone:

"Yesterday I was asked to be a part of the Project Veritas video that exposes a Pfizer Director discusses making a "Mutating" COVID-19 virus for new vaccines via 'Directed Evolution' research. Of course, I was honored to help. The above video is the final product."

That's point number one in the undercover interview. Point number two, is stating there is a revolving door between government regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. Not a new point, but well described by the unwitting interviewee.

Could this research actually make sense for making a targeted vaccine that would 'help' (as ridiculous as that is to even contemplate their vaccines helping anyone...) and not be ongoing Pfizer criminal activity? I get 'no' to that question. But I could be wrong.

Highlights set out in the article before the transcript:

Highlights from the Video:

  • Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations - mRNA Scientific Planner: “One of the things we're exploring is like, why don't we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create -- preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we're gonna do that though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine -- no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses.”
  • Walker: “Don’t tell anyone. Promise you won’t tell anyone. The way it [the experiment] would work is that we put the virus in monkeys, and we successively cause them to keep infecting each other, and we collect serial samples from them.”
  • Walker: “You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus [COVID] that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t.”
  • Walker: “From what I’ve heard is they [Pfizer scientists] are optimizing it [COVID mutation process], but they’re going slow because everyone is very cautious -- obviously they don’t want to accelerate it too much. I think they are also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don’t want to advertise that you are figuring out future mutations.”
From ZeroHedge:

That's Science? Congress Must Probe The Rationale For COVID Mask Mandates

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives recently authorized formation of a new Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Peering into the murky Chinese origins of COVID-19, especially any connection to U.S. government funding, will be a top priority. And that’s as it should be.

Dr. Anthony Fauci will no doubt be a star witness.
The former director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases at the NIH says he would welcome an invitation to testify on his role during the pandemic. Lawmakers should note, however, that in his recent deposition in the continuing case of The State of Missouri, et al. v Joseph Biden et al in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Fauci responded to questions by saying that he could not recall… 174 times. New congressional inquiries might refresh his memory.

However, the subcommittee must concentrate more on “The Science” than on Dr. Fauci. Throughout the pandemic, federal officials who claim to represent “The Science” gave mixed messages. This left citizens eager to follow “The Science” frightened and confused.

Take, for instance, the issue of masking and mask mandates. The mixed messages had a tremendous effect on all Americans, especially schoolchildren.

On this topic, Dr. Fauci’s recent deposition was revealing. In a February 2020 email, Sylvia Burwell, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked Fauci whether she should wear a mask at the airport in her travels. He replied:
Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected, rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep [sic] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you’re going to a low-risk location.
So, Fauci expressed privately to a former colleague a strong conviction that cloth masks were ineffective. That view was broadly shared by other senior federal public health officials, including both Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Fauci’s colleague at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and former Surgeon General of the United States Jerome Adams. Indeed, in a March 2020 social media message to the public Dr. Adams warned: “Seriously, people, STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus.”

Fauci’s initial response to Burwell’s question was in accord with previous scientific research. Furthermore, in the following months, peer-reviewed literature on masking and viral infection confirmed Fauci’s initial advice. For example, a May 2020 review of the professional literature on the subject for the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, concluded “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” Also in May 2020, researchers writing in The New England Journal of Medicine observed: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” In March 2022, a British Medical Journal study on the masking of Spanish school-aged children found that cloth face masks “…were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective.”

Yet, in April 2020, the federal government’s masking advice took a 180-degree turn. The CDC recommended that all Americans wear masks, and CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield went as far as to declare in a congressional hearing that face masks would be even more effective than a (yet unavailable) Covid-19 vaccine.

The CDC recommendations were quickly translated into state and local mask mandates (sometimes, as in New York City, with stiff fines) throughout the nation. In January 2021, CDC imposed a mask mandate on persons taking public transportation, which was subsequently struck down in federal court because CDC had no statutory authority to impose such a mandate.

Here’s the mystery. Why exactly did CDC masking policy change so dramatically in that brief period between February and April 2020? Did CDC conduct its own randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of either masking or the kinds of masks that would be most efficacious? The agency should have, of course, but it did not.

Did federal officials come into possession of some groundbreaking scientific research refuting previous peer-reviewed studies that had cast doubt on the efficacy of masking?

That question came during the Nov. 23, 2022, deposition:
Attorney: “How many studies were done between February of 2020, when you emailed Ms. Burwell and told her that ‘the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material” between when you said that and April 3rd of 2020, what studies were done of the efficacy of masks... in preventing the spread of- of- Covid-19?”

Dr. Fauci: “I could find those—and get them for you, but I don’t have them in my fingertips right now.”
Later during the deposition, Fauci said that he changed his mind about masking because by April of 2020 there was no feared shortage of masks for health care workers, and the public could get them without depriving these workers the much-needed protection that masks would provide.

Dr. Fauci also said that it had become clear that the virus spread from persons who did not have symptoms, and that masking would help stop asymptomatic transmission. Finally, he asserted, “Evidence began accumulating that masks actually work in preventing acquisition and transmission.”

Under further questioning, Dr. Fauci repeated that his view on masking changed due to “new” scientific evidence., Missouri’s attorney again, therefore, pressed the question about the science behind the masking policy.
Attorney: “Were there placebo-based, randomized, double-blind studies of the efficacy of masking that were done between February and April of 2020?”

Dr. Fauci: “I don’t recall. I’d have to go back and take a close look at the literature. I don’t recall.”

Attorney: “Have you seen any studies that contradict the efficacy of masking?”

Dr. Fauci: “There were some studies early on—I don’t know the dates of them—that made the statement that masks were not effective. When those studies were subject to statistical scrutinization, they were felt to be not definitive. Subsequent to that time, there have been studies to indicate that in situations where mask wearing was compared to not mask wearing, that masks clearly have an effect.”
While lawmakers may want to trust Dr. Fauci on this point, they must verify it.

Maybe Dr. Fauci can produce those studies he did not have “at his fingertips.” Perhaps at some point between February and April of 2020 there were novel studies on the effectiveness of masks, including the advantages of the mandatory masking of schoolchildren. Conceivably, new evidence was “accumulating” that, contrary to previous studies, masking was broadly effective in preventing viral infection and transmission. Perhaps the “statistical scrutinization” of previous studies on masking did indeed reveal flaws.

Lawmakers can resolve these questions by securing the more recent scholarship that Dr. Fauci alludes to as refuting previous masking studies. It would also be edifying to know who, in fact, did the “statistical scrutinization” and if—and where—it was published.

What matters is the science, not Dr. Fauci’s memory.
For lawmakers, Fauci’s role during the pandemic is just one item on the congressional oversight agenda. As outlined in a Heritage Foundation Special Report, a dozen other areas are ripe for congressional inquiry, ranging from the debacle of diagnostic testing and flawed vaccine policies to the impact of lockdowns and school closures. The federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is, unfortunately, a target rich environment. Understandably, many members of Congress, like millions of their constituents, are angry.

But a word of caution. A scattershot, highly inflammatory process of congressional investigation will not serve the American people well. Lawmakers should not allow themselves to transform these necessary probes into tiresome “gotcha” political theater—a powerful temptation in our polarized political environment. Rather, House and Senate investigators need to target the specific rationale for each of the major federal policy recommendations over the past three years, with a view toward forging positive legislative changes that would enable the federal government to perform better when the next pandemic hits America’s shores.

Robert E. Moffit, PhD, is a Senior Fellow in Health and Welfare Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

I can only hope to see the day Fauci and the lovely Dr. Birx - and all the worthy others - get what they deserve!
Top Bottom